- List of nicknames used by Donald Trump (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This is one of the worst closes I've seen in recent memory. There's no policy based reason for deletion, there's an obvious GNG-based rationale for Keeping, massively demonstrated by me, there's a big majority of AfD participants opining for Keep, and we have Sandstein Supervoting No Consensus for no apparent reason other than IDONTLIKEIT, I suppose. Of course, the closer is embroiled in big, loud AE drama just now over the Current American Politics topic and maybe didn't have time to really pay attention to this one or something, so maybe he should be excused, but I'd like to ask that this bad close be overturned to Keep on the basis of the above. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 09:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin comment: I wasn't contacted about this beforehand. If I had been, I might have proposed to clarify my closure that there was clearly consensus to not delete the content, but that there was no consensus as to whether to keep the content in a separate article or to merge it elsewhere. That discussion can still be continued on the talk page. As to my personal opinion about what to do with the content, I haven't expressed any. I don't really have any, I guess, except that it's mildly amusing, and that the question of whether we should cover political minutiae at this level of detail is a legitimate one. Sandstein 10:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What, were you gonna reopen the debate to correct your error? A better question is why you felt so compelled to close this one at all if you felt unable to determine a result. Why didn't you hold it open for further opinions? After all, the last five people after my huge list of GNG-meeting sources said, "Keep." Why jump in with a "No Consensus"??? Carrite (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, looking back on the AfD, that's basically what I said in the closure already. That something meets GNG does not mean that we necessarily need a separate article for it. If that were the case we'd have an article for every one of the U.S. president's tweets, for instance. We routinely exercise editorial judgement about whether to present notable content in a separate article or whether to summarize it in a higher-level article. That's why I think that the fact that GNG is undisputedly met here does not mandate a "keep" closure. Sandstein 10:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You say "we" but actually that view is "you." Closers are supposed to interpret the debate, not to impose what they think should be a result with a supervote. Carrite (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This is not a process that starts with an XfD and then people debate if there is a discussion to be had. Nothing is lost with a procedural close and instructions to come back if there is still a dispute with the closer's close that needs community attention. Unscintillating (talk) 11:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]- Meh. I probably would have closed this as Keep, but NC isn't unreasonable. But, I really suggest this be speedy closed as pointless time-wasting. There's no practical difference between Keep and NC; spending a week arguing about it seems pointless. I don't understand the degree of rancor expressed in the nomination. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the more I think about it, the more I agree with the close, so let's call this a full endorse. There were three opinions put forth (Delete, Merge, Keep). The close eliminated the only one which requires admin involvement, and suggested people continue to hash out the other two (Merge or Keep) in a more appropriate forum, i.e. the article talk page. Having that conversation, in that forum, seems like a more productive use of people's time. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That is called a Wrong forum closure and requires moving the discussion to the appropriate forum. Closing as "No consensus" in the AfD forum imputes that AfD is the place that would have decided the difference between Merge and Keep. Or says that there is consensus to not delete, which we call "Keep", with an option to initiate a merge discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As for productive uses of time, I think you've wedged this discussion open with points that Sandstein could have made without your input. Editors here are aware of the " 'Keep' vs. 'NC' difference doesn't argue well at DRV" premise. The effect may partly be bandwagon-fallacy responses. So I still support a procedural close, to clarify the dispute, and as a preferred form of feedback to improve the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I think the keep votes were more numerous pushing this towards keep, but it is a stupid topic for an encyclopedia pushing it back towards NC. Either way this DRV isn't serving any purpose and should be closed early, this is Deletion Review - and there was no Deletion! Szzuk (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse there was substantial support for keeping, deletion and merging in that discussion, and while keeping seems to be the most numerous it wasn't by much. These positions are all justifiable and have reasonable arguments supporting them. That all suggests a no consensus closure. Hut 8.5 22:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- per Hut 8.5. There were people arguing for keeping, merger, and deletion, and all those opinions were legitimate. I'm not sure what OP is so grouchy about, but this DRV seems to be an attempt to illegitimise all opinions contrary to his own. That's not what DRV is for. Reyk YO! 10:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse--Good close.Unnecessary process wonkery with a side-aim.Winged BladesGodric 13:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Keep and No-Consensus are not materially different outcomes. Stifle (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close Probably should have been closed as keep, but there's not enough difference between keep and no consensus that we need to waste people's time here. Smartyllama (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
