| Revision as of 23:34, 22 November 2006 editChriscf (talk | contribs)5,611 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:50, 25 November 2006 edit undoXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing (no consensus closure endorsed)Next edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| ===16 November 2006=== | ===16 November 2006=== | ||
| ====]==== | |||
| :Per ] | |||
| This article was kept as no consensus at a recent AfD. I have no idea how such a conclusion could have been made other than by mere vote counting. The expressed purpose of the "AfD is not a vote" mentality is that participants should ''give a rationale'' why the article should be kept or deleted. Comments expressed as votes, with no rationale given, are not counted, since AfD is not about counting who showed up. ''Ad hominem'' arguments that do not address the merit of the article in question fall into this category, especially if the AfD is not unanimous. Of the 10 keep comments, very few—acording to my estimation two (JYolkowski and Silensor who claim the sources are sufficient)—gave any argument why the article should be kept. Others claim that it meets policy like ] or ] without citing why, or that the nomination was made in bad faith, which is a red herring, since it made a clear argument and had plenty of support from good faith editors. I'm not interested in entering the school debate, I'm more interested in this nomination because of the closure technique; I think it was a bad call.. Comments that provide no rationale should not be counted. '''Overturn'''. ]·] 22:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse closure'''. My reasons for keeping were rather explicit I thought, regardless of whether or not it was nominated by a sockpuppet. This is just venue shopping. ] 22:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **No one has called your response into question. What does this have to do with the merit the closure decision? It was the mass of other votes without rationale that makes a "no consensus" decision a bad call. ]·] 00:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse closure''' so basically any troll can come in... list something for AFD purely out of spite and we have to take it as a valid listing?!?!?!!??! The article as it stands meets our WP:SCHOOL guidelines, passes our WP:Verifiability guidelines, and is one of the better school stubs. All the delete arguments can be summed up as "per reasons of the afd lister" whereas the majority of keep votes had valid rationales (granted mine wasnt one of them). Overturning this afd result is basically a support vote for the "keep throwing shit at afd until its deleted" camp. ]] <span style="font-size:130%; background:yellow; border:1px solid black;">☢</span> 22:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **"the majority of keep votes had valid rationales"— can you give six such keep comments, then? This is meant to be nothing more than a support for reasoned rationale, which were not provided, not a deletion camp. ]·] 00:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse closure'''. I will note that there were an awful lot of "per nom" votes in there based on the verifiability standard, which was quite easily dealt with by the keep voters, and a keep result would have also been logical. --] <small>]</small> 22:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse closure''' Shorter deletion discussion: "Doesn't meet ]. Yes it does. No doesn't. Does too. Nope. Yes. No. Yup." etc. I don't see how this could be closed otherwise. ~ ] 23:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment:''' despite claims above, ] is neither a policy nor a guideline. ]|] 23:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] is irrelevant here. Thsi is an article which has been expanded beyond the usual pathetic stub, and sources appear to exist which rasie it above the generic. I would have advocated merging to the community, but I see no compelling reason to overturn this close. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 00:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Overturn and delete'''. Only a few of the keep arguments addressed the article itself - the rest discredited the nominator for being a sockpuppet (which was probably the case, but the AFD was deemed valid). As for guidelines, ] is not a guideline, but ] is. No evidence of notability was presented, and the article is simply a summary of a report that all schools in the UK get (which does not make them notable), and just because an article is not a stub does not mean that it is automatically worthy of inclusion. --]] 00:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)</s> | |||
| *'''Endorse closure'''. My personal preference would be to merge most of the smaller school-type articles, but this one was moderately decent and I would've opted to keep it had I the opportunity to weigh into the discussion. Having reviewed this particular debate, it is pretty evident that there was no clear consensus to delete, and some fair arguments for retention. Everyone knows that ] isn't a fully ratified guideline, but its a starting point in the right direction. ] 04:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **This listing is to consider the wisdom of the closure, which seems to have been performed as vote-counting. It has nothing to do with the actual reasons for deletion, as this is not supposed to be a re-fighting of the AfD. ]·] 09:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Can we compromise and '''merge''' it? The article isn't that long and is mostly statistics. (]) 10:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Actually, that's probably a better idea than just deleting it outright, since there is mergeable content. '''Overturn and merge'''. --]] 14:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***A reminder that keep in an AFD does not prevent a merge. No consensus even less so. There is no reason to overturn and merge, just go merge if that is the right solution. ] 02:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse closure''' per Alkivar and badlydrawnjeff. ] 10:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Endorse closure'''. I agree that this was a borderline call, and I'm not even sure myself whether I would have said "keep" or "merge" if I had been a participant in the AfD. But, the point of the debate here at Deletion Review isn't whether or not the article should be kept, but whether, based on the results of the discussion, that the admin made the proper call. For myself, after having read all of the comments, and factored in that the AfD was an obvious bad-faith nomination by a sockpuppet, I agree with the determination of "No consensus, defaulting to keep". --] 19:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Endorse Closure''' per Badlydrawnjeff, but I think a merge would be a good idea. ] 21:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' Seems well within admin discretion per Elonka. The article's claims of notability are at best weak, though. Would support a merge, unless somebody could expand it further. ] 01:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' No evidence of abuse of discretion by closer. I wish I had faith that this closer used discretion and did more than count the !votes, but with no explanation of reasoning; I can't be sure they did. ] 04:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse closure'''-would've happily voted delete on AfD myself, but this is not a revisit of AfD. Closing admin's determination of no consensus was clearly correct. ] 08:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * This was a textbook ''no consensus'' outcome. After weighing out the arguments presented by all parties I found that no consensus had come about and closed it as such, and stand behind that decision. Merging is a solution I continually advocate discussing when it seems appropriate to do so, and does not require a xFD or DRV to follow. ] 00:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Endorse closure'''. However, per nom, I regretfully admit that I did not cite good reasons for voting keep, although I had already provided reasons in the previous two AfDs. I'll fix that now; here is what I should have written: | |||
| :<blockquote>schools, including Ashtree, are notable because, and to the extent that, they are a core institution of a permanent human community (and human communities are always notable). Further, this article has been extensively sourced with ], which removes any substantive basis for deletion. </blockquote> | |||
| :I'm really not sure why this article is such a target. I would be happy to see it merged (intact) to a more general article, since the immediate potential for expansion is limited. But that is no more a matter for DRV than it is for AfD. -- ] 21:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Endorse close'''. Sometimes I wonder if people see DRV as a forum for making little speeches or venting after an article close they disagree with despite the blazingly obvious consensus or lack of consensus of a given debate. ] complains about the close and states that "''I have no idea how such a conclusion could have been made other than by mere vote counting''". Well, the best way to get an idea would have been to request clarification from the closing administrator. That approach wasn't followed and instead here we are at the DRV soapbox looking at the close of a sock-puppet repeat nom. Cutting to the chase, this was not a sterling debate, but the "delete per noms" and "keep per fill in the blanks" cancel each other out and the result unsurprisingly is the typical non consensus that is more the rule than the exception with school articles. Hence, the close seems entirely correct at every level. --] 22:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ** People would stop "soapboxing" (as you suggest it is), if the keepers would actually cite some policy, instead of citing ], ] or ] as the basis for their recommendations. In this case, the delete arguments were weak (this article is marginally better than most, though still verging on being a list of facts), however the arguments for keeping had no grounding in this or any other reality. But, given the weakness of the delete argument, '''endorse'''. Do bear in mind in future that consensus can not and must not override the ] ] ]. ] <small></small> 22:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***I won't cite an essay like ] as a diversion here, which would be completely misplaced and off-topic, but I am intrigued by your "rejected proposals" wiki-link to ]. Has that proposed guideline already been rejected, perhaps via the schoolcrufter brigade's deep and subtle use of WP:IAR?--] 22:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ****It would have more to do with their refusal to engage in constructive dialogue, probably (as the "oppose on principle" responses to the straw poll show). Both sides feel that it does not go far enough in their direction, but their inability to compromise is not for detailed discussion at DRv. ] <small></small> 23:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***While you are certainly right that brigading schoolcrufters and constructive dialogue are like peas in a pod, I don't know what point you are trying to make regarding the only recent straw poll on the subject, where the oppose responses were all on the basis of "too inclusive". . However, bravo on boldly tagging it yourself as rejected without any attempt at dialogue . Perhaps you would now like to do the same with ] --] 23:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ****What part of the inability of the two sides to compromise being "not for detailed discussion at DRv" is causing the problem here? ] <small></small> 23:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ====]==== | ====]==== | ||
Revision as of 16:50, 25 November 2006
| < November 15 | November 17 > |
|---|
- Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)
16 November 2006
Yesterdog
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Yesterdog
- Yesterdog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lack of concensus
Those that voted "keep" weren't particularly good with the markup, but it was still a 5 against 4 vote. Notable with those voting "keep" is that by and large they weren't regular editors, however they all cited living in the region. As a semi-regular editor and someone who lived in Western Michigan for several years (though not for the last 5) I would tend to agree that the place is a regional icon. Quoting from GRNow:
- It seems as if every city has that one signature spot where locals insist must be visited before leaving town. For Grand Rapids, that place is Yesterdog. Located in the artsy urban neighborhood of Eastown, the inspiration for 'Dog Years' in the American Pie movies has been slinging up hot dogs for thirty years.
Such sums things up well. It's probably only restaurant in the circa 1 million Grand Rapids metro area that I'd make this claim for. Scott.wheeler 13:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse closure This was a completely valid deletion. Everyone who !voted delete was an established user, and all but one of the keep !voters were anonymous IPs. Being the inspiration for a restaurant in a movie (or series of movies) does not create nor confirm notability. Hell, the cafe at my college was the inspiration for "Central Perk" on Friends, and you don't see me writing an article about it. There was no valid reason to keep the article, which is why almost all of the regular WP editors moved to delete it. -- Kicking222 14:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete. Without any implied criticism of the closing, it was a perfectly fine closing. It is perfectly valid to ignore comments by anons without evidence, and it is not the obligation of a closing admin to personally research each and every article. That said, the article itself should be restored, as it does seem notable. The anons had valid points, they just didn't know how to document them. Google hits are mostly anonymous blogs, but not quite: the rest are still a slew, and mention with reverence. Here: Blog, but from Washington Post editor; High school paper in Wyoming; Northwest Airlines vacation guide calls it "famous"; Grand Rapids TV; Aquinas College "welcome to students" PDF calls it "iconic"; MetroTimes Detroit calls it "a city institution" AnonEMouse 15:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- No vote. I probably would have voted "Keep" on this, but it does look like the AFD was valid. Perhaps it can be merged somewhere? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Really? Actually on reinspecting it the count was 4 to 4 since the nominator explicitly disclaimed a preference. Granted, 3 of the 4 keep votes were anonymous, but they don't seem sock-puppet-ish. Scott.wheeler 18:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion If it were a particularly good article about a barely notable place I'd say ok to restore, but this is a crappy article about a barely notable place. Intro, menu, opening hours (!), and a quickshot picture of hotdogs ready to be served. No notability even asserted. Besides, it's already covered in the Grands Rapids section in Wikitravel, where it probably belongs. No prejudice against a well-written new article though. ~ trialsanderrors 00:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion Closure seems fine. I really really really hope that someone creates a WikiDining soon (maybe as a branch of WikiTravel) so that the fun new trend in creating articles for specific reviewed-but-unencyclopedic restaurants, fast food shacks, and street food vendors can be shipped off to their nice new home away from Misplaced Pages. TAt the moment, this is higher on my wishlist than even someone creating WikiList (where people can create obscure lists to their heart's content) Bwithh 06:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)