- Rhodes Bantam (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Inappropriate involved closure, the closing admin closed it to enforce his/her own !keep opinion, citing the added sources (two sources, which are almost always not enough). This is an inappropriate closure because closures are for enforcing consensus, not as a supervote. The consensus was towards deletion (although it has not been fully reached yet). Esquivalience t 01:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Pinging participants of the XfD, closer, and article creators/expanders: Primefac, Mr. Guye, SwisterTwister; Ceyockey; Tuvosi, 71.160.68.156. Esquivalience t 01:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as closing admin: I was asked to explain my rationale by Esquivalience. My rationale is based on three things: a) the time at AfD had passed minimum to support closure by normal process; b) the article had been expanded and citation support added since the original nomination; c) it seemed rationale that additional supporting citations would emerge over time. If the AfD had still been in the initial review period, I would not have closed it but provided input as an editor. I often respect the "relisting for additional input" which Esquivalience invoked for this article's discussion; however the original nomination criteria were no longer "valid" given revisions to the article since original nomination. I would, therefore, suggest that if the closure is considered to be controversial that the article be nominated for deletion another time, but on the present article content rather than revisiting the original nomination criteria. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The scale of boat manufacturing (i.e. 1000+) does not provide likelihood of notability; the showing of two citations certainly requires more discussion and at least a search conducted. The discussion is a discussion, not a head-count: we do not need another AfD. If new information comes, than just further discuss; opening a new AfD only serves to prolong and sugarcoat the consensus - the !votes before the information may still be partially valid. Furthermore, involved editors or ones with an opinion (see closure statement) are not to close the AfDs in question - there was a conflict of interest (in terms of WP:INVOLVED), as it expresses an opinion on the article's suitability. Opening another AfD is thus more bureaucracy. Esquivalience t 01:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. A WP:Supervote close. The close does not reflect the discussion. Ask the closer to revert and !vote instead. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - Someone who thinks that they can be the one to add content to an article and then close the AfD citing said word done is rather unfit to be an admin. Clear Supervote. Tarc (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know that I'd call this adding content to the article. But yes, this was a bad close, and all the worse since it was unnecessary. If you're looking at an afd discussion that you disagree with, the answer is neither to relist it nor close it; you add to the discussion. If Ceyockey had written the exact same thing he did in his close at bottom of the afd instead of the top, the next admin to look at it would in all likelihood have closed it keep or non-consensus, and we wouldn't be here. —Cryptic 03:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist - Closing discussions is all about determining consensus. There was clearly no consensus at that discussion to keep the article—no "keep" argument had even been presented at the time of closure. Very clearly a supervote, as it reflects the opinion of the closer, not the content of the discussion. If the original nomination criteria are no longer valid, the correct approach would be to add that as a comment to the discussion. The only exceptions I can think of are WP:SNOW, which isn't the case, and speedy keep, which doesn't apply either. That being said, I agree that there currently isn't a solid consensus to delete either, and Esquivalience's original relisting was justified. Mz7 (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC), revised 04:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Question for Esquivalience: on what basis do you say two sources are almost always not enough? I think our usual practice is that they almost always are, if they offer substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 07:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If they are high-quality (not tabloid; garage or self-published stuff), discriminate sources, then two sources may be enough, but such assessment still needs discussion. Esquivalience t 15:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - of course, it feels wrong as fuck for someone to close a discussion as keep by expanding the article when everyone !voted delete. On the other hand, if they'd closed as delete, then reposted the new article, I'd say it's not G4 eligible, so we're at where we could've ended up, so maybe it's not so bad. But, since there's a dispute, which I can empathise with, I think relisting is the best option. IAR & NOT#BUREAU are mostly for use where noone objects, which ain't the case here. WilyD 08:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist. Consensus had not yet formed. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - there seems to be a procedural issue with this close as stated above. By the way, Esquivalience, I wasn't actually pinged (came here because of the review tag), so it might be worth re-pinging those mentioned. Primefac (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from closing admin: It sounds like some of you would like to see my privileges revoked. If you feel sufficiently strongly about this, please nominate for sysop revocation. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment about what I did to the article before closing from closing admin: Reading above, I think there is a little factual misunderstanding of what I did to the article before closing the AfD. The "citation support" that I noted was added before I did anything to the article; I cited the incorrect diff in the closure description for the AfD as it included my edits -- here is the proper diff which was actually taken into account when closing. The actions I took were copyediting in nature (citation format revision, addition of warning templates for page needed, that type of thing), or so I believed at the time, and I don't think that copyediting revisions could be construed as my being involved in the content -- but it has been quite some time since I regularly closed AfDs, so norms might have changed in the interim (i.e. the appearance of involvement might be the bar now rather than the fact, which I could respect if so). The consensus is Overturn here, which is fine of course. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ceyockey: The primary issue is that you cast a supervote. Closing an AfD should be assessing the consensus of the discussion, not closing in favour of what you think the outcome should be, whether you've not edited the article or added 100 sources. Sam Walton (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, in the good old days AFDs were closed however the admin felt at the time. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacDade Mall. And people voted every which way, so no change there. Thincat (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Vacate closure and relist - At the time of the closure there was the nomination, one delete !vote and one merge !vote. Also, the discussion had been relisted just an hour and a half prior to the closure. Under the circumstances it is procedural a too far stretch to close it as "keep". The closer is to a certain extent bound by the votes, one can not close anything as "keep" without a single keep !vote. Kraxler (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist. While there may be rare circumstances when a close like this is acceptable, this isn't such a case. Even in the rare cases where it might be acceptable, it is almost never good practice. If the closer's changes are so effective as to indisputably settle the question, the closer would be better advised to trust that the community will recognize the point. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Is it SNOWing?. It is clear after less than a day that overturn will be the overwhelming outcome. Would you agree that I could close this myself as a WP:SNOW and get the AfD relisted?. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't close anything that you may be involved in. I'll be closing this shortly. Thanks, Nakon 02:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
