- Constitution Party of Alabama (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The closing admin overtly ignored the entire deletion discussion and inserted his own opinion, pleading WP:IAR. There is no possible reading of the lengthy discussion that could result in a consensus anything resembling "merge all articles", with the majority of responders leaving thought-out comments that at least a significant number surpassed notability guidelines. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I read the consensus that way. At most, to me, a few articles deserve to remain un-merged, not a "significant number". That is just how I read the consensus. CombatWombat42 (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the close, it is a good solution for a bunch of very weak articles that were not going to be straight deleted. Was the close a WP:supervote, demanding rejection at DRV? I don't think it was, the close seems to reflect a reasonable call of "rough consensus". However, it is a big call affecting a lot of articles, and there was specific case objections. There was no consensus to delete. I suggest that the situation should be considered a weak consensus to merge, with details to be discussed at Talk:Constitution_Party_(United_States). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (Disclaimer: I am the original nom for the AfD. So add or subtract what you will from the weight given to my opinion.) The argument employed by the appellant seems to be based on a couple of questionable propositions. First that the AfD discussion was a democratic process. And secondly the implication that there was some deliberate malice in the Admin's decision. The outcome of an AfD discussion is based only in part on the weight of opinion one way or another. Much more important is the cogency of the arguments. In this respect, I think the closer got it right. And his very thoughtful short essay only reinforces that view. There were a lot of divergent, and at times heated opinions expressed in this discussion. But with everything said, a judgment needed to be made based on the arguments laid out. And I concur with that judgment with one exception. I see no need for an appeal to WP:IAR. As to the implication of some sort of malicious intent, I saw that thrown around a bit in the discussion, including some directed at myself. I see absolutely no evidence to support such a suspicion. His conclusions seem to represent well one side of a disputed AfD. As long as his conclusion was based on the belief that the arguments from that side were more compelling, I think he has done his job. I will close with the following quote from a notice put at the top of the disputed AfD discussion. "If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. " -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The administrator action of RoySmith was to not delete the articles, in accordance with the discussion (which looks like a no consensus). The merge decision is done through regular editorial discretion. Looking at the articles, most of the content is basically a repeat of the national platform and a repeat of the same national candidates, over and over again for each state. There is very little substantial in the articles to distinguish one state chapter from another. So on the whole, RoySmith's decision to call this a "merge" based on a sound argument is more than reasonable, it seems like the correct decision. If a state chapter does develop a life of its own to stick out among the others, it can always be split out again. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Modify (though it was a good effort at closing)
- (A) Disclaimer, below I !voted "Merge most, keep a couple";
- (B) I was on the receiving end of non-civil and non-AGF remarks from the appellant DroversWife which I chose to ignore but am sad to see such remarks form the basis of his appeal. His assertions that the closing admin "overtly ignored the entire deletion discussion" might merit sanctions if this subject were already under DS. Even though DS doesn't apply (yet) such remarks are not the sort of strong reasoning that is supposed to guide the closing or delRev process.
- (C) Modify this way In 2010 the Colorado party came in #2 in the race for governor, an easy factoid to overlook in the original AFD. Once one focuses on Colorado a reasonable reaction is "Omg, that's huge!" I can't fathom why that chapter shouldn't have an article of its own. I also can't think of a reasoning-based way to draw the line between that chapter and most others who had ballot access but didn't do nearly so well. So in sum, I think any state that had ballot access and fronted candidates should be kept, but all general stuff about the party should be reduced to two sentences saying "The (state chapter name) is the (state) affiliate of the Constitution Party (USA). It's platform reflects the major points of the national party." Then list ballot access and electoral history and anything else that is special. Such text would purge the redundancy while keeping the state-specific stuff, which admittedly in many states in minor. But remember that a candidate who gets just 1/100th of 1% can still break a tie between the major parties, which makes the fact they were in the race at all determinative. Treat other US third parties (greens, libertarians, whoever else comes along) the same way.
- NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Colorado and several other state articles were not included in the nom as I concluded they had a reasonable claim to notability independent of the national party. This was not a shotgun nomination. I looked at all of the state party articles and only nominated those that I felt had no reasonable claim to independent notability.-Ad Orientem (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I entirely agree with Sjakkalle.—S Marshall T/C 10:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per Sjakkalle I note that Lexington62, who has an obvious COI as he is editing on behalf of one of the state parties[1] has removed the AfD templates from some articleswith the edit summary "There is/was clearly NO CONTROLLING AUTHORITY to any of it and it appeared to have a political agenda since neither any of the Libertarian or Green Party state pages were similarly attacked". The claim of bias needs to be rejected, I don't think anyone has been working from that pov. Dougweller (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Also agreed with Sjakkalle. Any admin who was going to close that was going to have to make a judgement call which was destined to be appealed to DR, but RoySmith's decision seemed to be professional, well-explained, and based on Wikipedia's overall goals of providing useful content. --Aristeo (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm going through the process of changing the AfD tags on all these articles to AfD-merge to's. It will be up to the merger to decide which are worth keeping, I guess. 6an6sh6 21:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for taking care of that. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just doing my (self-appointed) job. 6an6sh6 21:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
