- List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_Podiums (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The deletion discussion was closed prematurely. Few arguments had been given which were primarily based on misinterpreted Wikipedia guidelines and one on a grammar issue, which isn't even justification for deletion. The closing user didn't provide any reasoning for the final decision. I raised the issue on the closing user's talk page but there was no response. Tvx1 (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. As far as I can see, the discussion was closed late (after 8 days), not prematurely. --Randykitty (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The closing administrator's last edit was on 28 March. I can't imagine any way to justify this closing, but then that is why it is helpful to find out what the closing admin has to say. Unscintillating (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I in the twilight zone? The AfD was closed after 7+ days, as it's supposed to be. Three editors expressed their opinion that it should be deleted. One editor made an obtuse argument criticizing the basis of the other editors' votes, but also made it clear that they were not making a "keep" vote. Zero editors expressed an opinion that it should be kept. There is no other way that this AfD could have possibly been closed. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 07:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - the discussion ran the full seven days, there were two delete opinions plus the nominator, and one who disagreed but wrote: "Did I vote "keep" here? No I didn't". This could not have been closed any other way. JohnCD (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AFD's are not about number of votes but about the presented arguments. I have clearly proven in the AFD that the presented arguments were in fact unjustified and therefore there was no founded argument for either keep or delete and the correct action would have been to relist it. Tvx1 (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator clearly expressed a valid argument that the article was a content fork, and that the information in the article already exists elsewhere. I interpreted the other two delete votes as a "per nominator" type of vote (I took the grammar comment by Lugnuts to be a joke, since that is very obviously not a reason to delete an article, and I know he is an experienced editor who would know that). Your argument referencing WP:OTHERSTUFF was a complete misinterpretation of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Your argument referencing WP:RELAR was not convincing and was refuted by Falcadore, and you made it clear that you weren't making an implicit "keep" vote with your comments. So, I would strongly disagree with you that you had "clearly proven in the AFD that the presented arguments were in fact unjustified". ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 17:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I sometimes don't put in a !vote that can be summarised by a word in bold. When I do that, I expect closers (and other debate participants too, but particularly closers) to read and understand what I say. The fact that nobody said "keep" in bold is true, but it's also snout-counting. What it has to be weighed against is the fact that during that discussion Tvx1 comprehensively destroyed all the arguments for deletion. That was an AfD without a conclusion, and should be treated accordingly.—S Marshall T/C 17:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly disagree that Tvx1 "comprehensively destroyed" anything at all. See my comments above. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 17:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason why I disagree with your analysis is that although the AfD nominator was right that this is a content fork, content forking is often best dealt with by redirecting or merging, so citing CFORK as a reason for deletion is often a non sequitur. The reference to RELAR seemed quite apposite to me, and I don't see on what basis you describe it as "not convincing".—S Marshall T/C 23:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Your contention that CFORK is "often a non sequitur" is interesting, I can't find any guideline or policy to say an admin should apply less weight to an argument based on CFORK, and you can be pretty certain in a debate where no one mentions merging or redirects the closing admin would be vilified for closing the debate as such. Or perhaps one for you to add to WP:ATA? Except of course I've read your opinion on that essay many times. Given you seem here to be expressing a new argument regarding how to deal with CFORK and expressing disagreement with the admin concerning RELAR (not something I personally could evaluate without seeing the articles in question), I don't see how that converts to your declared "fact" that the arguments were comprehensively destroyed, it just seems to be a new line of xFD argument. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 06:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- CFORK shouldn't necessarily receive less weight. It's an excellent argument for removing the current content. But generally the best thing to do with content forks is to redirect or merge rather than delete outright, so CFORK is usually a weak reason for actually turning that title into a redlink. You're right to say nobody mentioned merging or redirecting, which is why I said that was a debate without a conclusion. There were no decent arguments remaining.—S Marshall T/C 16:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So you mean it's only something people aren't allowed to say in a deletion discussion if they don't also opine to merge or redirect? Again finding no policy or guideline to this effect, how you can claim "comprehensive destruction" based on an argument not presented, and seems to amount to little more than S Marshall's ATA of CFORK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.216.5 (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly I wish to make it clear that I was the original nominator. If I should not comment on that basis then feel free to ignore.
- Far from destroyed, it seems to me that Tvx1 was guessing. Quite apart from the borderline personal nature of the objection, citing OTHERSTUFF demonstrated an obvious lack of familiarity with the policy. CFORK clearly applies and I object to the nature in which the original objection was placed, in which the nomination was criticised without actually objecting to the nomination. The fact that Tvx1 refused to make his/her opinion clear contributed to the deletion as no objection to the deletion was placed and in fact has still not been placed. He/she is objecting to the closure and to an impression that the policies were misinterpreted. It seems to me that the misinterpretation was Tvx1's. --Falcadore (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Obvious content fork and that was the point of the nomination. I would have closed the same except I would have discarded the delete vote based on grammar. I'd like a better consensus before reaching for the TNT. I think a very selective merge would also have been an option but since that wasn't really raised in the discussion it would have been a stonking supervote to go any other way then delete. Spartaz Humbug! 08:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a relist would have been better given the discussion and I'd have done that--the grammar comment just threw the discussion off. But it's within admin discretion even with throwing out the grammar !vote--the implied CFORK issue just didn't get discussed. So I'd prefer SW just relist at this point. But I see no basis for DRV claiming this needs to be relisted--the CFORK issue looks real and the OTHERSTUFF counter-argument didn't address the issue (unneeded duplication of material) in any real way. I just suspect there is a counter argument and would like to hear it (I can't make it--I know nothing about racing or how these articles are different). Hobit (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. The goal of AfD is to reach community consensus, and I don't think that was done here. In addition to the nominator, we've got 1 person arguing delete based on grammar; that should be disregarded completely. We've got another person arguing delete based on "per nom", which doesn't really add anything to the discussion. And then we've got some rambling discussion about OTHERSTUFF, which I've read several times and I still can't figure out if anybody is arguing for any particular outcome. So, no problem with a "premature" close, at least from the counting days point of view, but certainly no consensus reached yet, so extending the discussion time seems like the right course of action. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Updating my comment above: that came out sounding harsher than I intended. I don't think the closing admin was wrong, or operating outside of the limits of administrative discretion. But, it was right there on the limits, and in my opinion, a relisting for another week would have been a better option. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
