- Category:Recipients of the Order pro Merito Melitensi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Consensus was in favour of keeping the category, not deleting it (by 6 to 4 votes). In any case, it should not have been closed by a non-admin, per the rule about close calls for non-admin closures. Baronnet (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC) -->[reply]
- @Baronnet, due to the large backlog at CfD, I close most of the discussions there.
The discussion is not a vote; the keep arguments were weak (e.g. it has a lot of pages), whereas the delete arguments were more policy based (WP:OCAWARD, non-defining). — Qwerfjkltalk 15:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Sorry, nominator, but I'm afraid that any fool can see through this.—S Marshall T/C 16:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse consensus isn't determined purely by vote count, the strength of arguments presented is also very important. Here the arguments for deletion are reasonable and are based in a guidline (WP:OCAWARD / WP:NONDEFINING) while the arguments for keeping are weak. Certainly arguments like the fact it's a real award, it is often confused with other awards, we have categories for recipients of some other awards and that the category exists in other languages don't do anything to refute the arguments for deletion. The only attempt to refute the claim that it's a non-defining award was to say that "it indicates an acknowledged involvement in the works of a centuries-old charitable organization", but that doesn't indicate that it's a defining award at all. And if you're concerned about it being closed by a non-admin, I'm an admin and I think that was the right close. Hut 8.5 17:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for this reply, which is more respectful than the previous one by S. Marshall ("any fool"), and explains the decision more clearly. Then the deletion of all of the following categories, which are no more defining than this one, will have to be considered: Category:Recipients of orders of merit. Baronnet (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Baronnet, feel free to nominate them yourself. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Category:Chevaliers of the Order of Merit (Ukraine) and the 23 others have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Baronnet (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse largely per Hut 8.5. While I generally do not support NACs when the outcome is moderately in doubt, the endorsement of an administrator can validate a questionable NAC in my opinion. In addition, appellant is also not doing themselves any favors by arguing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is not a valid argument in deletion discussions, let alone at deletion review. Frank Anchor 18:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether a close was a NAC is virtually always a red herring. What matters is whether the close was right: if it was right, then we should endorse. I'd endorse an IP editor close if it was right. And if it was wrong then we should overturn, irrespective of the closer's status. I'd say "overturn" to anyone, Jimbo Wales, sitting Arbcom members, no matter what, if I thought it was wrong (unless they were basing their decision on private evidence, in which case DRV is the wrong venue anyway). The only time the NAC aspect matters is if a NAC is so blatantly wrong that a sysop's willing to unilaterally overturn it on their own authority: not unheard-of, but it does happen.—S Marshall T/C 22:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Not a vote. The delete side had policy based arguments. On the NAC bit, being a NAC is no reason to overturn. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 23:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. CfD (like several other XfDs) is much more tolerant of non-admin closures than AfD due to the lack of closing administrators, so I don't think there's a BADNAC issue here (as there might be if this were an AfD). I agree with Hut 8.5 that the closure was correct on the merits. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse WP:OCAWARD is the clear editing guideline. @Qwerfjkl: has kept CFD functional by closing most nominations and I'd favor making them an admin, if they were interested. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per Extraordinary Writ. —Alalch E. 19:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
|
