- Colombia–Croatia relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Discussion with 6 delete and 4 keep !votes closed as keep. Delete voters addressed the complete lack of notability, keep voters did not even deny this and made only an invalid procedural argument that was ignored in many other AfDs. Closer ignored request to review for 33 hours, then went on wikibreak. [1] [2] Some background for evaluating the procedural argument: WP:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations, WT:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force#Moved from main page: can AfD's be suspended. Hans Adler (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete per the expressed consensus at the AFD. The closure was based on an inappropriate motive. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, there is no sense in waiting for the outcome of a centralized discussion, which may or may not close with a consensus, and giving blanket approval to articles concerning it in the meantime. (I see plenty of opportunities to circumvent proper process in that too.) There was a consensus to delete at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete - With respect to the closing admin, the closure was inaccurate in my opinion. The arguments from the delete side were far stronger than those from the keep side; additionally, the keep "votes" failed to address the notability issue. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there's plenty of trouts to go around here. First, the person or persons that is/are creating these X/Y relations articles. Second. The people who nominate the articles for deletion right away instead of giving the centralized discussion a chance to take place. Third, the people whose vote in the AFD consisted of "give the discussion time to take place" and "what's the harm?" instead of actually improving the article to the point where it might be acceptable. And fourth, the closer who listened to that argument instead going with the consensus. So, while I'm as sick of seeing these X/Y relations AFD's as I am of seeing the articles, the consensus here was delete, and it should've been followed. So its with great annoyance to most of those involved that I say Overturn and delete. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Endorse: A solid decision for a number of reasons. At the time of the closure there were signs of the central discussion producing agreement on stub like articles being moved to umbrella pages – so by waiting for that to materialise much useful information could be saved. Secondly, as we've demonstrated time and time again many of these stubs can be considerably expanded, with reliable secondary sources available that explore the relationship in depth. In the opinion of many of us bilateral relations are inherently notable due to their bearing on international trade, world peace, prospects for international cooperation etc etc. While we'd certainly prefer to address each article on its merits, with approximately 10 new articles nominated each day there simply isnt time - looking for sources on these relationships is time consuming as the best sources are sometimes not in English , and many hits from searches are about trivia. Valuable articles would be inevitably lost! A brave admin decision to go against the popularist , superficially sensible but on serious inspection flawed view (given the high rate of noms) that we ought to be trying to save these articles by addressing each individual case !). FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete per Juliancolton.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn that some guideline or policy might come into force at some unknown time in the future that would encourage the retention of unsourced content of no demonstrated notability seems a poor reason to close an AFD as keep. We still have notability and verification guidelines that are quite servicable and have the added benefit of actually existing (as opposed to some theoretical future guideline or policy). And those quidelines tell us that notability needs to be established via multiple nontrivial mentions in reliable sources about the subject, in this specific case, for this relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion as closing admin. After reading the central discussion, it appeared as though deleting the article would provide no benefit, and keeping it undeleted would help the discussion. FeydHuxable summs up the reason for deletion. But it appears that this will be deleted anyway, so might as well do it anyway. Xclamation point 17:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And on an additional note, the wikibreak was not to avoid scrutiny. My trip has been planned for months now, and I put it on last night in the event that I would not have access to a computer before I leave. So please don't accuse me of trying to avoid scrutiny. Xclamation point 17:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand your !vote. Do you mean "overturn and delete" or "endorse [keep]"? I didn't want to accuse you, but I felt I needed to explain per WP:DP#Deletion review why I asked for a review before there was even a dialogue between us. Looking at some other cases here I am no longer sure that's true, and perhaps my frustration came through stronger than it should have. Sorry for that. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I am about to request a temporary suspension of all AFD's and merges for bilateral relations. I want to wait for the result of the discussion. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete, just in case it wasn't clear from my nomination. A suspension of AfDs for utterly non-notable cruft makes no sense unless there is also a moratorium on its creation. This article was created by Plumoyr, a sockpuppet of banned user Groubani. The only other edits were a categorisation, a hyphen->ndash correction, and various tags. At the AfD (and here) nobody even claimed that the topic comes close to notability. A theoretical bilateral relations guideline in the future may have something to say about borderline cases, but it won't magically make all 20,000 such articles notable, just like it won't make United Kingdom – United States relations deletable. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse close No consensus probably would have made more sense given what happened but there's no compelling reason to delete here. There's no strong policy justification for overturning. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete. The delete arguments overpowered the keep arguments. There have been a great many efforts to create notability guidelines in the past which dragged on for weeks or months before they were ended as failures to achieve consensus. This one does not look any more likely to achieve consensus than the efforst for religious congregations, schools, news items, or shopping malls, so there is no good rationale for not letting the AFDs proceed. The compiled AFD results would be important input data to any guideline should one eventually emerge, as reflecting the actual consensus of the Wikipedia community. Edison (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete - just because the specific notability guideline isn't finalized, that doesn't automatically imply that articles can't be deleted, especially if they fail the general notability guideline. PhilKnight (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse They should all have been closed this way, except the ones that had enough sourcing to be obvious keeps. The continued nomination of these articles is an attempt to pre-empt a proper centralized policy discussion. correct practice is that such a centralized discussions should cause a moratorium on specific instances. Seems obvious to me. what else are they for? DGG (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A moratorium even for obvious cases would give an incentive for one side (the one which includes Hilary T, who is now banned for threatening sneaky revenge vandalism via accounts created from open proxies) to prolong the process, and for the other side (the one that is nominating articles with potential because of their current state) to derail it. I don't think that would be wise. --Hans Adler (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why you're assuming that the editors nominating these articles are acting in bad faith. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not assuming bad faith for anyone other than the editor who is making vandalism threads. However, the large number of non-notable articles (see User:Pixelface/AFDs bilateral relations) and the fact that some feel obliged to defend them in good faith have led others to nominate many of them. As we all really want to write and improve articles instead of further putting massive effort into this discussion, errors of judgement such as the nomination of German-Libyan relations are bound to happen and are then taken by the other side as proof of bad faith. We need to get out of this spiral, but not by a one-sided moratorium. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Striking the irrelevant part of my message. From the indentation it's clear that Nick-D was replying to DGG. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist only two editors had asked that the nomination be suspended and they were greatly outnumbered by the editors who thought that the article should be deleted or kept. There's no consensus on anything in the centralised discussion and it appears unlikely that there ever will be and there is no policy that I'm aware of that requires that AfDs be suspended if there are related discussions ongoing anyway. Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete The article clearly fails all notability guidelines and policies, and the "keep" was an incorrect act. There is no sign that any acts on any other issues will result in having all the trivial articles retained, nor do I even find people arguing that on the page in question (BRTF), thus using it as an excuse to keep all the artcles in incorrect. Collect (talk) 10:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete The article itself was merely boilerplate, and three out of four of the 'keep' votes were bureaucratic waffle unsupported by any applicable reasoning: closing as keep was clearly wrong. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete Custom is that consensus at AfD, in line with policy, governs the deletion of articles, not centralized discussions and guidelines elsewhere -- which may inform, but not decide, the discussion at AfD. This is a good custom, and one that we should keep, since it allows us to take the pulse of the consensus on a regular basis, and not force editors interested only in one article into controversial centralized discussions. In this case, the consensus at the AfD was to delete, and so we should. If consensus at the AfD had been to wait for the result of the centralized discussion, only then should we have done that. RayTalk 16:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete, because the closer interpreted the results incorrectly. None of the "keep" voters addressed the article on the merits, which is what AfD is for. All "delete" voters did so; thus, the result clearly was in favour of deletion. - Biruitorul Talk 20:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist There was no overwhelming consensus to delete in the AfD that was ignored by the closing editor. While I think the close was flawed, the article is better relisted to allow for a consensus rather than railroaded to deletion here at DRV. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If no firm consensus forms the first time, all the same people will likely return to round 2, thus leading to a similar result. IMO, anyway. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse and wait for results of RfC. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not aware of a relevant RfC. Which one do you have in mind? --Hans Adler (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and Delete Consensus on this article's AfD discussion was quite clear. Waiting on any other outcome at any other discussion is not grounds for ignoring the arguments made within existing policy and guidelines. --BlueSquadronRaven 20:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks DGG, lets all work together to merge these. Ikip (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete: "there's an open CENT about this topic" is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Otherwise, we'd have millions of articles about one-shot fictional characters kept just because FICT was on CENT. Sceptre (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and reclose, maybe the centralised discussion will yield results, maybe it won't; looking at it I can't see much progress thus far. In any case individual AfD discussions like this should probably only help in the formation of a descriptive guideline. Guest9999 (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In which case I'd think we should relist and let those who argued for a deferal to the centralized discussion weigh in on the merits of this particular article. Hobit (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why any user who effectively thinks that individual discussions are a waste of time because of the ongoing centralised discussion would be inclined to contribute further to one before the final outcome of the centralised discussion. Guest9999 (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because they were hoping to avoid the one-by-one AfD if possible but will evaluate each as they come if they must? That was my assumption/hope. Hobit (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse No reason to rush, let's wait for the centralized discussion to get to this. Hobit (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments should address the AfD at hand, not some discussion that has no official status and may never reach a firm conclusion. - Biruitorul Talk 02:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very well, let me be more clear. I feel that the !votes in the AfD to defer to the generalized discussion took were good and proper and should not be discounted. If no firm conclusion comes of that discussion in the next 3-4 weeks, relisting at AfD would be a good option. I believe it is a formal RfC, which has as much "official status" as pretty much anything else. And the chance to avoid all these AfDs is worth the cost of some of these sitting around for a few weeks. Hobit (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
