Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:54, 25 November 2009

24 November 2009

List of lists related to William Shakespeare

List of lists related to William Shakespeare (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

At issue here are two questions:

1) In what circumstances, and on what grounds, can a local consensus at an AfD overrule a global consensus in the form of a guideline? — Cirt's closure supports the view that the local consensus at the AfD should prevail over the guideline, which was in this case WP:CLN, and I will not deny that this is an arguable case. But I think that if the guideline at issue was WP:N, it would have been enforced.

2) To what extent, if any, were the earlier contributions to this AfD refuted by the later ones? — Cirt's closure supports the view that the earlier contributions were not substantially refuted in later discussion, and I am curious to see whether DRV participants will agree.

I want to say that I usually agree with Cirt's closures, and for such a prolific closer we see relatively little of him here; I raise this DRV in a spirit of respect for his many excellent closes.—S Marshall /_Cont 17:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse closure One of the keeps attacked the straw man of notability for lists, which was not actually raised by the deletes. DGG et al argued that such lists serve a useful navigational purpose, while the deletes by and large argued that this sort of thing is better off as a category. S. Marshall pointed out that the two need not conflict with each other, but that isn't how I read the opposes - I think they were expressing an intuitive concern that the list format was inappropriate for something like this, for whatever (unspoken) reason. On logic, I'd give the argument to DGG, but I don't think his argument was such a clear invalidation of the expressed opinions of previous editors that those opinions could be disregarded. If it had come earlier, the discussion might ahve gone differently, but as it is, I think Cirt accurately summarized the impressions of editors in the discussion. Ray 17:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• I do not think the notability for lists argument is clearly a straw man, since the nominator did state that "Lists on WP are not a notable subject." That said, I think there is one argument for deletion that was not sufficiently rebutted - that the list is unnecessary because of the navigation template which already contains the content. Accordingly, endorse. Tim Song (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, closure correctly reflected consensus, and consensus was indeed correct. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Phineas Taylor Barnum

Category:Phineas Taylor Barnum (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

One vote was cast to delete in what was a name change proposal. I can see why we don't characterize actors by their producers, if they made 200 movies, they could have 200 categories. But those that worked for Barnum are NOT overcategorized. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm recusing from !voting on CFDs at the moment in an attempt to drop the stick and back away from the dead horse, but without actually !voting, I'm not sure in what sense the outcome reflected the discussion.—S Marshall /_Cont 11:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• The nom in that discussion actually supported deletion in a later comment. There are thus two deletes and one rename. I do not see the close as unreasonable, and so it has to be endorsed. That said, the debate was somewhat inadequate - there was no extensive discussion of the proposal to delete. My understanding is that this is the way with most CFDs. I think relisting is likely unnecessary; but if others find it appropriate I will not oppose. Tim Song (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn Too many truly notable figures fit into the category (Tom Thumb, etc.) for it to have been so readily deleted. BTW, "Phineas T. Barnum" is also common -- he is the only "showman" to have his bust on a US coin - and for reasons not associated with the circus at all. Collect (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse per Tim Song. And per the "they could have 200 categories" argument. Any article that has 200 categories has too many, period. Relist if desired. --Kbdank71 20:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse (original nominator). Essentially, it was 2–0 in favour of deletion. Two other users commented but did not opine on deletion vs. retention. The discussion was open for 12 days. {{Barnum}} was created, which I think accomplishes the same thing in a more sensible way, since we don't usually categorize people "by people". Good Ol’factory 04:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

We have nav boxes, lists and categories. Having one doesn't negate having the others. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No, but users are permitted to choose to keep one type and delete another type. That's what has happened here. Of course there is no automatic rule that "aving one doesn't negate having the others", but that's why there are discussions on these issues. Good Ol’factory 04:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn Two votes to rename one (or maybe two) to delete just does not equal a consensus of deletion. The closing admin's failure to provide a clear and concise justification for why consensus was blatantly ignored only adds a nail to this coffin. That we have admins who still believe the knowingly false position that the existence of a template is a valid argument for deletion of a category only shows how utterly dysfunctional CfD truly is. Alansohn (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Claudia Costa

Claudia Costa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I voted on this AfD and stated "weak keep" as a joke. This is irresponsible and I assume full responsibility for my bad judgement. The only other vote on there was a "delete". We never established the notability of this article (because it simply is not there). This article should have been deleted. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn to Delete Sources here are not reliable, this young lady is simply not notable. I made the mistake of voting weak keep as a joke that was apparently not understood. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Moved to correct location; closing admin notified. Tim Song (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment from closing admin. To be perfectly honest, I didn't give the "keep" vote much weight, since it didn't address the main concern. That said, however, after three weeks of being listed there was only one "real" vote, which hardly constitutes consensus. Relisting for a third time, while technically reasonable I suppose, wouldn't have been very practical. I think it would be better to wait a few weeks and re-nominate it with a fresh discussion, –Juliancolton |  02:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, then. I find no clear error in the close; given Juliancolton's explanation, I do not think the irregularity (one of the nom's own making, I might add, so arguably clean hands apply) materially affected the outcome. Tim Song (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Juliancolton's close. That said, can somebody WP:IAR this and delete it like it was an expired prod? If after multiple relistings nobody genuinely believed the article should've been kept, I think that's sufficient to delete. Per WP:BURO, I don't see a need to go through another listing at AFD, where the backlog and quality of discussion is under enough pressure as it is. Ray 05:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Nobody cared enough to delete it, basically.—S Marshall /_Cont 09:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• endorse- close was within admin discretion. For future reference- this is why you don't try sarcasm over the internet folks. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - close was appropriate exercise of discretion. I commented early without !voting, as there are some claims to notability made in article. WildHorses hasn't put up that picture he promised yet though.--Milowent (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse; closure accurately reflected the apparent consensus, or lack thereof. If you want to put joke !votes on AFDs, either mark them accordingly or make them where they won't have an influence. Liberty to renominate immediately or at editors' discretion. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)