Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:AEE
discussion scope
[edit]Phew. just thought I'd open this page. it looks like we can use a place to perhaps discuss various related matters which are related to this. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Thoughts on closing
[edit]My reckoning of !votes at 13:39, 22 July 2009:
- Delete: 24
- Keep: 17
- Userfy: 5
- Historical: 2
Were this an AfD, this would be a clear no consensus, therefore keep, but the non-content, process-oriented nature of WP space is often viewed as giving closers wider scope in interpreting the arguments. If I were to close it (as a non-admin, I couldn't close something so controversial), I would see it as a choice between the following:
- No consensus, keep: by the numbers, no side argued in a way that defeated the case of the others;
- Keep, mark as historical: all non-delete !votes match the number of deletes, and mark as historical can be viewed as more in keeping with all of them than delete. Perhaps also, the page should not be edited until there is an outcome on the RfC;
- Userfy against numbers: the page has not performed any meaningful project building activity since being restored to project space, so the keep rationale of promoting an important conversation is moot. Userfy to Tall Napolean, per request in MfD.
Place your bets. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- The person closing this will have to seriously take into consideration the votes themselves, in general the Delete votes are backed up by policy, where as many of the keep votes aren't. Jeni (talk)(Jenuk1985) 14:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Re consideration: quite, although when closers discount opinions in this way, they have to justify it against how policy is uncontroversially interpreted. Re policy backup: I think this was a poor XfD, myself; reminded me of the Great Userbox Debacle. — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)