- template:nearest tube (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This TFD closure represents a blatant misinterpretation of consensus, using bogus arguments for deletion. Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is an essay, not a policy, the former having no force other than persuasive power, and not necessarily reflecting consensus. Even so, WP:USEFUL deals largely with AFD discussions, in which perceived utility does not justify the retention of articles violating Wikipedia's content policies. Consequently, the very essay Stifle is referencing describes a number of situations in which "usefulness" may represent valid grounds for inclusion / retention: There are some times when "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject."
There are some pages within Wikipedia which are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more, disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects for instance, so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion.
Surely, insofar as templates are intended to be useful for some purpose (which is why, indeed, CSD T3 applies to "Templates that are not employed in any useful fashion..."), a claim of utility can hardly be an invalid argument per se in a TFD discussion.
Stifle's count "of the three keep arguments..." also apparently omitted the following:*Very Important - This template, if anything, discourages pages being written as tourist guides as it does not need there to be a section on transport links necessarily. It is a quick visual aid that adds great ease of use and has great value as it enables users to quickly find out information regarding the location of a place within Greater London. It would be a great shame should it be deleted as it improves the ease at which users can access information regarding transport on wikipedia. George5210 (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I find it preposterous that, in arguing for the deletion of the template on the "strength of arguments", Stifle completely ignored an argument for retention (indeed, one which claims that the template facilitates the enforcement of Wikipedia:NOT#TRAVEL) simply because the editor placing the comment did not prepend it with a boldface "keep", although he clearly favors the retention the template. Erik9 (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse own closure as a reflection of the consensus. This DRV seems like a vexatious request because I amended the non-admin closure, as any admin is permitted to do. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure and advice Erik9 again to only close discussions which are unambiguous keeps. Garion96 (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have provided a compelling explanation of why the closure as "delete" was incorrect. To offer, as the sole justification for Stifle's closure, that I, being a non-administrator, shouldn't have previously closed the discussion, is vacuous, and bears little relationship to the matter at hand. When an XFD closure is challenged at deletion review, the closure must stand or fall on its own merits; to impugn the perceived motives of the editor bring the matter to DRV certainly does not serve as a basis to sustain an otherwise indefensible closure. Erik9 (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that you should only close unambiguous keeps but that was not the reason at all that I endorse Stifle's closure. I endorse Stifle's closure because it was better argumented and a better reading of the consensus at that discussion. Garion96 (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the administrator closing this deletion review will presumably weigh the strength of the arguments offered here just as much as you and Stifle claim to be doing with respect to the original TFD discussion, your opinion would carry considerably greater weight if you explained why you believe that Stifle's closure "was better argumented and a better reading of the consensus", rather than simply making a conclusory assertion. Ideally, it would be helpful if you could respond discursively to the argument against Stifle's closure that I presented. Erik9 (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn The delete arguments are not policy. 1/that in London it cant be done just by geocordinates--quite true for almost anywhere, but the template doesn't do it that way, the stations are inserted manually by the editor 2/that it encourage guidebook writing -- just the opposite , it presents appropriate geographic information in a good standardized way 3/that its non-encyclopedic--but the 5 pillars says specifically that wp incorporates elements of a gazetteer, & the examples at NOT are very different from this 4/the icon is not a good choice--just a question of editing. 6/ that it could be done for 100s of other cities also -- yes, and a good thing it would be, too and 7/ (which most of the deletes said, that a better more general template could be used--absolutely true, and when it is, we can retire this one. That's not an argument for deleting what we currently have because we could do it even better. Erik got the right closure--unless one threw out the delete arguments as totally without support in policy and concluded it as Keep, but an non-admin shouldn't have done that Stifle did not do it right. Its entirely the opposite of what he said, he based his decision on exactly those arguments not supported to policy, and did a rough count instead. DGG (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And the keep arguments hardly seemed policy based, why just discount or give less weight to the deletes whilst giving full value to the keeps? For a couple of your responses (2) So those commenting believe one thing and you believe something else, don't see how that weakens their argument (3) The 5 pillars may say it incorporates some elements, it doesn't say all elements, so the commenters see what those included elements should be (or how they should be included) differently to you, again I dodn't see how it weakens their argument. (6) Again your view, how does that weaken others comments. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fortunately, we need not entirely discount the arguments favoring deletion to conclude that there was no apparent consensus in either direction, so long as the arguments favoring retention are properly credited. Erik9 (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which fails to answer the question. The issue is why give less weight to the weaker delete arguments whilst giving full weight to the weaker keeps arguments. It also fails to address how the determiniation of those delete arguments being weak seems to be solely on the basis of the individual commenting having a different view on the matter and very little to do with policy as claimed. And yes I know you believe it was no consensus, you don't have to reply to every comment restating it. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As an afterthought in circumstances where the closing admin has passed judgement on the arguments in such was as those 3 points, they've found themselves here criticised for closing the debate rather than contributing to it. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why discussions in which there is no consensus are properly closed as such :) Erik9 (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which again misses the point. Admins closing discussions reading opinions and discounting them because they personally disagree with them (rather than their being a strong policy basis), is not a reading of consensus, it is the admin giving greater weight to their own point of view. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure. DRV isn't a do-over of the AfD. Stifle's evaluation of the relative weights of the arguments presented in the AfD as it played out is correct. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, since DRV is a discussion, not a vote, it would be helpful if you could explain why you believe that "Stifle's evaluation of the relative weights of the arguments presented in the AfD as it played out is correct", and if you would respond in a reasoned manner to the argument against Stifle's TFD closure that I presented above, rather than simply making a bare conclusory assertion. However, to the extent that this DRV is closed on the basis of "vote counting", I note that all three of the established contributors who have endorsed the closure have a conflict of interest: Chris Cunningham nominated the template for deletion, Stifle closed the TFD discussion, and Garion96 was previously involved in a conflict with me over non-administrative closures, for which condemns me in his !vote (see User_talk:Erik9#TFD). DGG, as the only uninvolved established editor participating in this discussion, concurred with my assessment that the closure was incorrect, and should be overturned to "no consensus". Erik9 (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't talk such utter nonsense Erik9, we had a discussion not a conflict. Besides the last time I did deleted some templates from a discussion you closed as delete. I wouldn't really have done that if I am condemming your closures would I? Garion96 (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On my talk page, you stated that "I do think it would be better though, since you are not an admin, that you don't close discussions as delete anymore" [1] "it would be better if you simply do not close discussions as delete" [2], and in this discussion "advice Erik9 again to only close discussions which are unambiguous keeps" [3]. Coincidentally, you have endorsed Stifle's TFD closure, without providing any explanation more substantive than "I endorse Stifle's closure because it was better argumented and a better reading of the consensus at that discussion" [4] (and even that only after being requested to provide some explanation of your position beyond two boldface words [5]), while simultaneously refusing to respond to either my or DGG's argument against Stifle's TFD closure, or to otherwise discursively engage in this discussion. Your motives are transparently obvious. Erik9 (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mea culpa I had some time on my hands today, and thinking this matter was closed, I converted the template to its rather wordy textual equivalent. Over some 160 articles. I was in favour of retaing the template - but had already bowed to the inevitable. Reviewing the contents of each article was a useful exercise, and pulled up some errors. It was not my intention to pre-empt the outcome of this discussion. Again, my apologies. Kbthompson (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - closing admin was entirely correct - the keep arguments offered were extremely weak. PhilKnight (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could explain why you believe that "the keep arguments offered were extremely weak" and respond to my and DGG's arguments against Stifle's TFD closure, rather than simply making a conclusory assertion, lest the pile-on of endorsements with little articulated reasoning give the impression that "the arguments in favor of Stifle's TFD closure are extremely weak". Erik9 (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An argument of 'keep per x' in the case where x has changed his or her mind and voted delete is about as weak as any argument could possibly be. Also, saying 'useful information, even on an encyclopedia' is a weak argument. However, looking at the discussion again, the view expressed by Kbthompson was entirely reasonable. However, while there was at least a single reasonable keep argument, there were several more reasonable delete arguments, so clearly the consensus was to delete. PhilKnight (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Acknowledging the general view that I have a bias towards keeping articles, I only close undisputed XfDs, or if the conclusion is delete, or otherwise against my general view for that type of article. DGG (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Per DGG. In addition, without the template the material will just end up in the articles anyways in a potentially less useable form. But that's more of an XfD argument... Hobit (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also MacGyverMagic's point #4 is something I was trying to work out myself. While articles shouldn't be travel guides, having a small part of the article (like this) which aids in travel isn't against the way WP#NOT is generally handled. As such, I think the !votes in the AfD that argue NOT#TRAVELGUIDE should have been largely discounted. Hobit (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Reasonable close. No consensus closes are risky as NACs. You took the risk and got bitten. It's fine. Protonk (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you be clear which close you are endorsing Protonk? Hobit (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to be rude but it should be self evident. I'm endorsing stifle's close (which is the one under review), that's why I noted that NAC's get overturned above. Protonk (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That was my guess, but it wasn't self-evident (to me at least). I guess I'm an idiot. Hobit (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You aren't an idiot. That wasn't my intimation at all. My comment was merely to show where I stood and also to point out that clarification should have been unnecessary. If it was necessary, I'm sorry and you should have stood your ground and said that clarification was required. If it wasn't, then there is no need to respond like that. Protonk (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral leaning to overturn and "subst:" There are several conflicting parts to this: 1) Unneeded decoration with images within text is discouraged. This appears to apply because the templates are used in the body of the article and not in templates~, but it can be handled by removing the image without applying full deletion. 2) Using templates to make something easier is entirely acceptable, but in that case they should be subst: (they should be anyway if this ends up deleted). 3) Easier or not, this template provides little additional advantages over simply writing the thing yourself. 4) Travel guides have nothing to do with this. A single sentence doesn't make an article a travel guide and the information is encyclopedic and verifiable in nature. - Mgm|(talk) 10:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. On raw vote count, I see seven "delete" to three "keep", so in the presence of reasonable arguments on both sides, and barring a deal-breaker keep argument, I think there is a reasonable consensus for deletion here. In this case, looking at the arguments made in the TFD, I find the deletion argument far more persuasive. There is very little reason to decorate the body text with London Underground roundels. The roundels may serve some point in an infobox since it may improve readability there, but situating figures elsewhere makes the text look like a scrapbook more than an encyclopedia. I am not at all opposed to mentioning the tube stations in these articles; transportation links are and always will be, a relevant issue in geography, but I see no reason to highlight this aspect in particular with small images. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
