- Cheese dog (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This AfD is too contentious for a NAC close. Others had commented for delete/redirect but these appear to have been overruled by the non-admin. I think it should be re-opened and allowed to finish. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The debate had run its full seven day period and was overdue for closure. Available options given that debate were "keep" and "no consensus". If I'd closed it, I would have gone with "no consensus", but "keep" was probably within closer discretion.
As for "too contentious for a NAC close", that's simply wrong. Experienced non-admins are perfectly well able to close discussions, and given the ongoing, steady decline in active sysop numbers, we need them to be able to do it. I've never been able to understand why our procedures give administrators the authority to unilaterally overturn a non-admin close, but for some bizarro reason they can. I'd be amazed if you found one who was prepared to overturn this one.—S Marshall T/C 14:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure they can close non-contentious AfDs, but this AfD wasn't uncontested, there was an argument raised by Jeremy that wasn't adequately addressed by anyone and that was essentially ignored by the closure. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Uncontested" is the wrong standard for NACs. Jeremy's argument was essentially ignored in the closure, but a close doesn't have to address every single point raised in the discussion.—S Marshall T/C 22:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see Jeremy being adequately addressed in the discussion, or "The provided sources still do not do it. These are all reviews, passing mentions or recipes taht only show that the thing exists. There is nothing in the new "References" that provide the required depth of coverage required to keep this as a stand alone article." Where is that addressed? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A single editor's concerns aren't enough to force a no-consensus close, by an admin or not pbp 18:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it can, and I can give a simple counter example that should always hold: copyvio concerns. There was a legitimate argument that was not addressed, but ignored in the NAC. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The consensus here is clearly to endorse but you seem fixated on the fact that this was a NAC. Usually when you are the lone voice arguing against consensus you need a damn better argument than a non-admin did it. Would it make you feel better if I went and got my bit back and reclosed it as keep with the same arguments because functionally you won't get a different outcome here?Spartaz Humbug! 19:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse-Keep was the obvious consensus. Who closed it is immaterial. I'd also note that a redirect and/or merge could still be done if there was a consensus on the relevant talk pages to do so.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Close looks fine. As someone complains, all we need is any admin to put their signature to it too. It should not require a DRV discussion to consider a NAC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The Delete !voters there articulated no reasonable policy basis for their opinions, so yes, this was a proper NAC in that it wasn't even within the administrator discretion zone, as I see it. Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeremy's argument for significant coverage is based on WP:GNG. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was the one who closed it and here is my rational for that:The nominator gave 2 reasons for deletion-No sources and not notable. Sources were added after the AfD was initiated, and as of notability, the nominator has not told that how does this fails the notability guidelines. His concerns were fixed, and that is what my closure was based upon. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 06:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But there were other respondents than the nominator. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The redirect/delete arguments were early in the discussion and once the article had been worked on all the votes were to keep. Based on the accepted principle of giving less weight to early votes if an article is improved I find the close perfectly understandable. If I were still an admin and closing it I can't see myself deleting or redirecting it so all good. Spartaz Humbug! 15:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Where was this [1] addressed? IRWolfie- (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The last 3 keep votes all comment favourably on the sources. This implicitly means they have assessed the sourcing and found it acceptable. Spartaz Humbug! 19:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - I detest non-admin closures but this is one of the few cases where a smidge of WP:IAR seems to be appropriate, given how absurd the initial nomination was. Its a flippin cheese dog, a fairly common fair/festival food item. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The last comment in the discussion was on 5 Aug, "Keep based on all the great work done to the article, which now has about half a dozen good references." The discussion was then silent for 5 more days without further comment until the close. There was therefore no contention - discussion had concluded after the article was improved and the finding of consensus seems quite reasonable. Warden (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
