- List of Pokémon (461–480) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The discussion was closed prematurely in less than a day rather than 7 days. The reason given was snow but the discussion was not unanimous and the majority opinion had made little reference to policy or the merits of the article in question. The closer's rationale was discussed at his talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As closer, I think that 14 keeps, 1 delete (in addition to the nominator), and 1 merge make for a pretty obvious close. The notability of lists arguments were not particularly compelling on the delete side, especially given the WP:POKEMON history that Wikipedia has been through in the past. I declined to reopen because I see no reasonable way the outcome can be anything other than keep. Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. There was not a snowball's chance in hell of that article being deleted based on the discussion that was unfolding there. This was a perfectly valid snow close; even though I rather agree with the nomination myself! Wide consensus at the moment seems to hold that covering Pokemon in batches is the way to go... and that consensus seems to have been strongly upheld there. ~ mazca talk 09:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mazca puts it well. I mean, to someone who doesn't know the history of the Wikipedia Pokéwars, that was an incomprehensible response to a perfectly reasonable nomination; but in the context of all the previous issues and discussions and, well, drama that we've had about those bloody stupid Pokémon, and in view of the long, hard struggle we had to reach the (rather silly) compromise currently in force, it was pretty clear the compromise was going to prevail.
So, while I think Colonel Warden is undoubtedly right and the number of Pokémon-related articles should drastically be reduced, I think in this case the mountain won't come to Mohammed and we have to endorse the snow closure.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse', reasonable close, proper use of WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse – this is EXACTLY how the snowball clause, a direct application of the ignore all rules policy, is supposed to be used. I don't know what point this user is trying to make with the AFD and this DRV, but I don't like it. The AFD is done, stop dwelling on it and move on to more fruitful, productive venues. MuZemike 13:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I the only one wondering what is going on with an arch inclusionist (the worthy Col Warden) nominating something for deletion only for it to be defended by an arch deletionist accompanied by his hammers and otters? Oh and I doubt very much this was going to lead to deletion so snow was probably appropriate although the drama from letting it run would undoubtedly have been amusing. Spartaz Humbug! 14:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In my case, there's a simple explanation: I've just started using a browser which supports Twinkle. When done manually, nominating articles for deletion is quite a chore and so I've preferred to use my wikitime more productively. Now that such actions are easy, you will find me taking them more. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Curiously, I have almost simultaneously started doing so for an analogous reason. The Col. & I are only inclusionists for articles that we think should be reasonably included, and there are a great many here that should not. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I notice that there is much fuss at ANI and elsewhere about another recent snow close by the same administrator. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is also tending to favor my acitions, actually. The actions are independent, but the reasoning behind them is quite consistent: when there's no longer a chance of another outcome, the debate is over and should be closed appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Continued discussion could not rationally have been expected to lead to a "delete" outcome, but might have led to much time-wasting and unnecessary acrimony. No nonroutine substantive issues involved. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Whether we agree with the Keep or Delete votes, we've got to agree that the page pretty much defined a WP:SNOW close. It doesn't need to be unanimous, just that there's no way it was going to get deleted. It can be renominated at a (much) later date after things have been altered to see if consensus changed, but I absolutely agree with Jclemens' close. The irony, of course, is that this very discussion is itself a candidate for a snowclose. And, FWIW, pestering the closing admin on unrelated matters is counterproductive. Shameless self-plug - called it! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 18:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure. Not strictly within defined limits, but there really was no way this page would have been deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Proper application of WP:SNOW. --Smashvilletalk 19:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist for full 7 days. (or let another admin do the snowball close). For closure is not clearly impartial, quite possibly related to other Jclemens activities such as this comment, which seems to me to indirectly or directly undermine another admins view that "Also, please keep in mind, you can't wikilawyer your way out of heeding the policy against personal attacks.". --Firefly322 (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but... what? I have no idea how my conversations with Hrafn bear on this. I've never edited a Pokemon article in my life, nor has he, to the best of my knowledge. Jclemens (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I certainly endorse the result, but in this circumstance it would have been much better to wait the full time. For one thing, it would have avoided this entire discussion. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You know I respect your opinion greatly, DGG, but on this one, I differ a bit. Allowing a pointlessly lopsided process to continue is a WP:BURO violation, albeit a passive one--that is, the admin who sees a process where the consensus is obvious, and fails to close it because some editors may protest on process grounds, tacitly accepts the value of process over outcome. I am of the opinion that the community has been too tolerant of process for process' sake, and not BOLD enough to just shut down pointless discussions. To that end, I'm willing to endure the scrutiny that follows such closes. The day I make a SNOW call the community doesn't back me up on is the day I stop, however, since my intent is to demonstrate the appropriateness (and survivability) of BOLDness in such circumstances to other admins, not create extra work or drama. Needless to say, I have no intention to ever SNOW any truly undecided outcome, just the ones that should be, but haven't yet been. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I endorsed you, Jclemens, because you were right, but I would just like to ask you to take DGG's words to heart there and allow them to influence your future closes a bit. The result was never in doubt, but I do think the snow closure was perhaps a bit overenthusiastic; it's a mistake to terminate discussion prematurely.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse outcome, with reservations. The extensive previous Pokémon discussions, the compromise status quo implemented by multiple lists, and the Blastoise merger dispute preceding the nomination all sway my opinion towards keep and endorse, but none apply to the other contested AfD. Flatscan (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse a proper application of WP:SNOW. There was no chance the AfD would end other than in a keep. Letting it run wouldn't have killed anyone, but closing it did no harm. Cool3 (talk) 04:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Reasonable snow close. this is the grand paradox of the snow close: if we wait until it would be wholly uncontroversial to make the close (distinct from keeping/deleting the article), it isn't a snow close and so therefore loses all value, but if we close a debate early we run the risk of generating complaints about the close rather than the outcome--something the snow close is specifically designed to avoid. I think we can and should be adult enough to handle that inherent set of contradictions and when we grow too process bound to do so, wikipedia will be a less fun place to edit. Protonk (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. This is just a puddle of water by now, well on it's way to becoming steam. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 23:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
