Wikipedia Easy Search

David Shankbone – I believe I am uninvolved in this issue, having not been involved in any of the previous discussions, and having not been involved in any major policy positioning on whether BLPs should be a special case. Therefore, I am going to close in a manner as close to policy as the very unusual situation allows. Endorse. Question 1 - should Jake Wartenberg have closed the AfD, having been involved in editing the relevant policy? Answer: Clearly - no. Question 2 - Was there any consensus in the original AfD? Answer: Clearly - no. Question 3 - was the closer, regardless of involvement, justified in closing as No Consensus, default to delete? Answer - Yes, that was within his remit. This is a BLP, and therefore should not automatically default to Keep. The policy clearly allows for No Consensus delete in this situation, even if that is not the only option. Question 4 - Thus, is "Endorse" the correct decision at this DRV? Answer - Yes - "This page exists to correct closure errors in the deletion process" - there was no obvious closure error. The only issue that needs to be addressed here is this one. Question 5 - Is Shankbone notable? Answer: Irrelevant. I've read the original AfD a number of times, and there are good arguments on both sides (and equally, really poor arguments on both sides). Question 6 - How would you have closed the original AfD? Answer: It's obviously No Consensus. A lot of it depends on whether you consider the CJR review to push the subject across WP:N. But it's very, very marginal. More importantly that, again, is irrelevant at this DRV. Question 7 - What is the next step? Answer - clearly, the next step, should anyone wish to re-instate this article, is to have it userfied (I will do this, as will many others) and update it so that it is very clear that the subject is notable and then have it moved back into mainspace (preferably via DRV, but YMMV). Question 8 - But there is clearly a majority here to overturn this close? Answer - yes, there is, but very few of them have addressed the main issue - was there an issue whereby the closer closed the AfD incorrectly, regardless of the side issues? This is not a second AfD on the subject. There is a consensus that the closer should not have closed the AfD, but, given that he did, did he close it wrongly? The answer has to be no - if another admin had closed as he did, most of this DRV would be irrelevant. The DRV may well have still been filed, but it would be a very different one from that which we see here. Question 9 - what would be the alternatives to your close? Answer - Overturn to No Consensus, which would be followed, inevitably, by another very swift AfD, inevitably followed by more drama and further wasting of many, many, editors time and effort. For the actual path to follow with the minimum of drama, see the answer to Question 7. I don't think there is any consensus to have to go through this issue yet again. Question 10 - should this DRV be used to set precedent for future BLP "default to delete" decisions? Answer: Absolutely not - each should be weighed on its merits. Question 11 - did you take any note that the filer of the DRV was a sock? Answer: No - it would have been filed anyway. – Black Kite 23:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Note: Transcluding this discussion apparently broke the DRV main page due to its length. To view this discussion, please access Wikipedia:Deletion review/David Shankbone directly. Thanks. Tim Song (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second DRV discussion of this fiasco of an AfD (the first involved a too-early close). Before closing, the closing admin, User:Jake Wartenberg went over to the deletion policy page, Wikipedia:Deletion policy and changed a section of relevant policy so that closing admins could delete AfDs about marginally notable subjects if there was no consensus in the AfD (normally we keep when that happens in an AfD). Previously, the policy had required that the subject ask for the page to be deleted in order for the closing admin to close under these circumstances. Wartenberg had no consensus to change the policy page and hid his change under an innocuous edit summary ("rephrase") [1] He mentioned the policy provision that he had changed in his closing argument (In cases of BLPs of marginal notability we default to delete when consensus is unclear.[2]). Soon after the close, Wartenberg was asked where this policy was that he had cited [3] He replied by pointing to his edited version of the Deletion policy page. [4] Never did he point out that he was the one who had changed the page shortly before his close. And he would have been well aware that the point had been disputed during both the AfD and the first DRV. (He has said he didn't realize he'd be closing this AfD when he edited the policy page. [5]) I think this pretty much establishes that the closing was done out of process. (For his efforts, which insulted the many editors who put time and care into the AfD discussion, Wartenberg has been given a barnstar.)

I wrote up a timeline with more details, quotes and links at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/David Shankbone#Shankbone AfD closing timeline. It includes a number of editors saying there was no consensus at that AfD.

Would it have mattered anyway? One admin who said he was working on an AfD close said in the first DRV that his close would have resulted in delete. But the discussion seems to show a lack of consensus. Despite assertions by some editors, I haven't seen evidence that there's some kind of admin tradition of deleting in these kinds of circumstances. We have a policy (whether or not it's been violated in the past), and it should be followed in the most contentious AfDs. To go against policy is allowed under WP:IAR -- but not if there is a consensus lacking in an ongoing discussion, which was the case. It's a horrible precedent. The fact that Wartenberg seems to have felt he needed to change the WP:DEL policy page and that Lar seems to have felt he needed to start a discussion on the talk page for WP:DEL to retain the language of Wartenberg's change shows that the closing was against policy. Do we care about following policy, or is policy just a figleaf we use when we want to justify something that we just happen to want? Insulting editors who have done nothing wrong -- the participants in the AfD -- just makes the encyclopedia look bad, particularly with the people we should value the most, our own editors. JohnWBarber (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the outcome of the closure per my longer comment at the first DRV. (I am presumably the sysop referred to in the second sentence of John's third paragraph) However, I definitely agree that this situation could have been handled better as far as Jake editing the policy page and commenting at the first DRV before closing the AfD, and I expect that he will learn from this. And as for the whole thing with the current conversation about BLPs defaulting to delete on WT:DELPOL, that really is a different matter, and I hope that it can be handled there rather than be entwined with this AfD. NW (Talk) 00:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that was you I was referring to. Wartenberg certainly will NOT learn from this. He certainly hasn't so far. He thanked a user for giving him the barnstar and hasn't responded adequately to the storm of criticism on his talk page, on the AfD discussion page and on the WP:DEL talk page. In the AfD, one editor, Scott Mac, announced that he hoped some admin would violate policy (The rules are unenforcable, because they do not upscale to the number of problematic articles. Changing that on wikipedia is not done by legislating, it is done by setting new precedents. Deleting articles like this is exactly the way, and the only way, to change things.). [6] No, rogue behavior by admins bending rules to do what they want should be discouraged. Continuing to bend policy just encourages the bad behavior we've seen here. Was the close within process or not? Everything in this discussion should turn on that question (but of course, if editors here don't believe in following the rules anyway, I guess DRV rules won't matter either -- that's not a comment about NW). JohnWBarber (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, that is not violating policy. It's making policy. Policy here, for the most part, is descriptive. It describes what we do, not prescribes what we cannot do. ++Lar: t/c 01:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Surreptitiously editing the page under a nondescript edit summary and then citing it as justification for a close is not making policy, it's gaming the system and as such is disruptive -- you know, that thing editors do that gets them blocked in normal circumstances, or sometimes desysopped. JohnWBarber (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - What the policy page says does not matter. Let's not assume bad faith of the closing admin. Instead, focus on the issue at hand -- was the article properly deleted? I said it was because the support arguments appeared to be weak. The closing admin correctly weighed the opinions, rather than merely counting noses. Jehochman ^Talk 01:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The closing admin cited the policy passage he changed. He acted without a basis in policy. He did not have a rough consensus by any stretch of the imagination. There was wide agreement on that in the first DRV, and there has been no good argument showing that there was a rough consensus for delete. And yet it was on just that weak point that he changed the policy and cited it. Sorry, it's just a little too obvious. JohnWBarber (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Arbcom is thataway. But be careful what you wish for, I don't think you'll like the outcome. I'll give you this, the timing of the edit to the policy page to move it closer to reality might not have been the best. But the policy IS shifting. Are you, like Canute, standing in the way and telling the tide not to come in? ++Lar: t/c 01:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        As a famous group of philosophers once said: You say you want a revolution [...] But when you talk about destruction/ Don't you know that you can count me out JohnWBarber (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I hope Lar is being somehow ironic in this discussion. "telling the tide not to come in"? Give me a break. --Cyclopia ^talk 02:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I whole heartedly support, applaud and second the comments and thoughts of editor JohnWBarber. I must be misunderstanding something here, an admin single handedly made an edit/change in policy to strengthen his case for his ideology, right? Why is there even any of this nancy discussion, empeach the admin, done and done. Otherwise, I will be making some policy edits as well to suit me tomorrow. Like I am the new Director here, I decide notability, etc. Count me in to standing in front of your stupid tide along with anyone else who will do so. Although I think it's only a ripple... Turqoise127 (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and after that I'm honestly not sure what to do. I had hoped User:Jake Wartenberg would have taken the chance to respond to the numerous questions, concerns, and suggestions on his talk page before it came to this, but it looks like he has not be able or willing to do so thus far. The reasons are simple: the deletion wasn't supported by policy, it wasn't supported by consensus, and the closing administrator was clearly not uninvolved in the process. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. I don't think this venue is an appropriate place to debate the whole process that went on here, or the debate happening over deletion policy, just the outcome for this AfD. So I'm not looking at who did what, or when. In this close, the admin seems to be well within the bounds of discretion in closing as delete. NW's opinion at the earlier DRV show that the close was not outside those bounds. Kevin (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DRVs are supposed to be about whether the closing admin acted out of process or not. That's the issue. There is supposed to be no other issue, unless you've got some sourcing to add. JohnWBarber (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deciding that the correct outcome was reached by an incorrect process would not be a good outcome here. Kevin (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (edit conflict)

As DrVs are largely about process (read the top of the page) that's an interesting opinion. And as I don't think the outcome was right, not one to be overly worried about :-) Hobit (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to keep as per nom and per arguments below. I think it is worth to quote in its entirety the thorough analysis made by the previous closing admin:

Extended content

“

The result was very difficult to reach. For a large discussion like this, I will be honest and say that I count votes. However, I don't simply tot them up, see if one side has a majority, and call it that - were that the case, there is a 58-51 margin in favor of keeping, however with only 53% support by the numbers that would be no consensus. On the contrary, I count votes based on how strong the arguments are. In this discussion, the primary arguments seemed to be the following:

For deletion: "This is puffery of Shankbone/Wikinews" "Non-notable, sources only give passing mention" "Sources explicitly state he's unknown" "If he weren't a Wikipedian, he wouldn't have an article in the first place" "Tinderbox for BLP problems" "Citations are poor"
Against deletion: "Notable, sources cover him in enough detail" "The sources in question have a high enough reputation to confer notability" "He met with the President of Israel" "Notable outside of Wikimedian involvement"

These arguments, except those I'll note in a moment, I considered "valid" arguments. I also took count of the number of "invalid" arguments, these being comments that were simply "per XYZ" without adding additional information; additionally, some of the main arguments I listed above I consider to be invalid. "Tinderbox for BLP problems", for example, is not a reason to delete. Flagged revision is reputedly on its way, and in the meantime and even after that, protection can be used to stop any defamatory content from being added. What may happen is not a reason to delete. Similarly, simply stating "He met with Shimon Peres" is also invalid; that was a one-off thing and notability is not inherited nor passed off via handshake and photo shoot. That example isn't as strong, because many of these comments went on to discuss how it was well covered in sources, which is a valid argument. I also took note of "marginal" comments, which made up the grey area between valid and invalid; a "per XYZ" comment that added a small amount of personal opinion, for example, might fit here. Comments that stated simply "Delete, not notable" or "Keep, clearly notable" without providing any explanation why were marked as invalid or marginal depending on whether the user had commented previously or some other small points were made.

All this considered, my actual vote tally went as follows:

For deletion: 29 valid arguments (at least 2 of which made particularly strong points), 11 marginal, 9 invalid, and there was one argument (and the subsequent per x) that was just so off the wall I didn't know where to put it
For keeping: 46 valid arguments (at least one of which made particularly strong points), 8 marginal, 4 invalid

Counted this way, the keep arguments make up over 60% of all those considered valid, a clear majority in a situation where you have over 100 people commenting. The strong deletion arguments I reference here include the one first made by User:Kevin: "[CJR] states "[...] he's relatively unknown outside the Wiki community", so even they don't feel he is particularly notable." This, I felt, was a firm counter to the fact that the CJR coverage was very substantial; a reference claiming that someone isn't notable is unusual, however can be just as important as one supporting notability. However, User:Becksguy's analysis of the sources provided did a through job of demonstrating that there was additional substantial coverage elsewhere, and did appear to be a strong deciding factor in other comments. User:Bigtimepeace's deletion argument was also taken into account, being substantially separate from most of the rest of the discussion, and focusing more on the other aspects of keeping the article. However, as I note above, there are administrative measures that can be implemented to protect against defamation, and these points were similarly made in the discussion as well. Throughout the entire discussion, there were good counters to all arguments made, however deletion debates are based primarily on strength of argument, and in reviewing this debate it seemed clear to me that those in favor of keeping the article were making the better cases.

All of this taken into account, I feel as though there is a strong consensus here that, based on policy-related arguments including notability, neutrality, and verifiability, there is no reason to delete this article at this time, and should be kept and continually monitored for BLP violations and problems with citation. Therefore, I am closing this discussion as consensus to keep, and requesting that anyone who wishes to contest this please speak with me before going to DRV. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

”

The previous close, despite the controversy and ultimately DRV due to its improper timing (~7 hours before the week period) has been praised on the admin talk page even by editors disagreeing with the outcome, because it did a wonderful work of assessment of the situation. And the picture, which didn't change significantly when AfD was reopened and reclosed, is that of a significant majority of meaningful arguments for keeping. The closure we are debating here instead ignored the previous admin closure, handwaved BLP concerns without explaining how he did weigh, and first transformed this relatively clear keep to a no consensus, and then used this already debatable decision to default to delete, based on his own edits of the policy. This is a disgraceful dismissal of the community consensus and as an editor I feel extremly concerned that community debate has not been taken into the right consideration by admins. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: A simply beautiful red link. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The closing admin may want to note MZMcBride's comment at the previous DRV on this (and discount his comment here): Overturn: Strongly. In high-profile AFDs, there is a much stronger requirement to follow the letter of the policies. [7] JohnWBarber (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is reasonable to believe that MZMcBride (who is an admin) has a different opinion because of different circumstances. Triplestop x3 02:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Err, I filed the original AFD. My objection to the previous AFD (early) closure had to do with members of the community being unfairly disenfranchised. Jake closed the AFD at the appropriate time (though I suppose that doesn't mean we should discount the other surrounding issues that subsequently emerged). This article should not exist on Wikipedia. Count or discount my vote here, I don't particularly care—I've said my piece. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Most keep votes seem to merely state that he is notable, while more of the delete votes give actual rationales for why he is not. Given this and the BLP issues I believe the close was plausible. Triplestop x3 00:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to quote just a sentence from the previous closure: However, User:Becksguy's analysis of the sources provided did a through job of demonstrating that there was additional substantial coverage elsewhere,. There have been plenty of editors and discussions actively working to demonstrate notability, not only simply stating it. One can disagree with such arguments, but please don't give a false view of the AfD. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to count it that way, about 47% of the votes were delete. However a greater percent of keeps were one line comments. No consensus/delete seems to be reasonable Triplestop x3 01:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I have no issues with the process here. Proper close, and proper red link. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there is enough BLP garbage on this encyclopedia. Why defend this except out of a wikinavalgazing or a doctrinaire addiction to inclusionism and rule-mongering. If those wishing to retain it cannot generate a consensus for doing so, then there's no need to cry over it. A redlink here won't do any harm whatsoever. For an arguement as to why such closed as this are a good thing, see my essay Wikipedia:Borderline biographies. Enough drama, move on.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was consensus, and it was consensus to keep. It was more than 60% of reasonable arguments to keep. The admin disregarded that. That's why we're here at DRV, among other things. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a consensus there, and neither did the closing admin. I suppose we disagree about which arguments are "reasonable", but I think from the two-ing and fro-ing it is pretty obvious that we don't have any consensus here,--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus? Where? As you said, One can disagree with such arguments, but please don't give a false view of the AfD. Triplestop x3 00:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See previous admin closure, quoted in its entirety above: "Counted this way, the keep arguments make up over 60% of all those considered valid, a clear majority in a situation where you have over 100 people commenting." -see collapsed box above for full justification. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that, and I disagree with "valid", and with the count. Look, I respect that you see things differently, everyone seems to have a different opinion here, that's what I mean when I say that there is evidently no settled consensus.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a vote, remember? And looking at the merits of the comments and the BLP concerns there is clearly no consensus at best. Triplestop x3 00:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wanting to actually adhere to rules we actually are supposed to adhere to is not "rule-mongering". When editors who are not admins blatantly refuse to follow rules, they are blocked. When admins do it ... they get "endorsed" There was a time and a place to argue the merits of deletion. This is the time and place to argue the merits of the close. JohnWBarber (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not and never has been simply a matter of following rules. We don't block people for "not following rules" either. At least I hope not.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not and never has been about flouting rules. There is actually a reason why they've been written up. There is actually a reason why there's a discussion right now at the talk page of WP:DEL. There was actually an attempt by Wartenberg to change the rule. Two can play the exaggerate-the-other-side's-argument game: Wikipedia is not supposed to be about chaos. JohnWBarber (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to an uninvolved admin. Voting to revert the old close, editing a policy, then closing based on the edited policy is "conduct that might appear at first sight to violate policy." Hipocrite (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion without prejudice either for David and his excellent contributions to the project, or for Jake, the brave closer of the debate: and with my profound condolences for the inevitable execrations to come to the brave soul who closes this debate. It was a no-consensus, and as a BLP, we should default to delete. Antandrus (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus: Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. But, of course, if the rules don't matter, Mr. or Ms. Closing Admin of this DRV, you just close however you want to. JohnWBarber (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The close was definitely and badly mishandled. If necessary, it can be relisted, or we can pick a truly uninvolved admit to re-assess the current AfD. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per above endorses (happy to write out in own words if appropriate) Privatemusings (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn on process only; changing the policy and then doing the close - regardless of intent - doesn't work well. I stress I am expressing no opinion on the discussion itself as I did not comment in the AfD and I was considering closing it myself (after the first one). Not suggesting I would close if it is overturned as a result of this DRV, but if nominated, I would accept... Frank | talk 00:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The original early closer determined precisely 60% support to keep after discounting votes at his discretion. This is not steadfast. Different admins come to different conclusions. NuclearWarfare was drafting a close during the same time Hersfold was drafting his. NW and Hersfold had both taken the time to write out thoroughly detailed rationales, only NW was waiting until after the appropriate closing time to close whereas Hersfold jumped the gun by six hours and 40 minutes. So at the same point in the AFD, two different admins had come to two different conclusions. For anyone to assert that keep was the clear consensus here is stating their interpretation, not making a statement of fact. In the hours following the reopening of the AFD, additional arguments for each side came in, a particularly weighty one by Risker, so considering one admin had already come to the conclusion that the discussion was a delete, it's not a stretch to have another admin come to the same conclusion in the end. As for the specifics of the close, while not as detailed as the previous two discussed here, it hit the basic points. Even with consideration given to the citing of policy one has changed themselves, which I'm confused by, the conclusion to delete was still within admin discretion. As Doc g noted, policies change through precedent. As traditions change, policies are updated to reflect that. As more people realize the issues the project faces with BLP, the more consideration we see given to the BLP policy. No consensus is just that. No consensus to delete and no consensus to keep. Admins should have discretion to go either way depending on the circumstances in each individual case. In the cases of BLPs, that discretion is particularly important. Lara 00:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I appreciate very much Lara's argument: even if I disagree, at least it is one of the first well-explained endorses I've seen in this DRV. That said, I understand that Hersfold close may be discussed, but he made it very clear and open which his criteria were to consider and weigh !votes. I suggest you, and other people disagreeing with that close -which is, as far as I know, the most thorough analysis of that AfD, even if a bit premature and herein debated- to put down a counter-analysis of the AfD that addressess the rationales put in by Hersfold. This would help understand rationally which are the points on which we base our disagreements. About the policy, the problem is that policies should change by community consensus, not by a single admin precedent. The discussion on such policy change is ongoing and currently it doesn't show a consensus towards the "default BLP to delete" interpretation, I'd say.--Cyclopia ^talk 01:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not by one admin, but by bunches of them. Every BLP that is deleted after no consensus is one more article that demonstrates that policy is changing. This was by far not the first article closed this way and hopefully it will by far not be the last. Policy sometimes shifts abruptly, sometimes gradually. I suspect this is one of those latter times. I was content to ignore AfDs and DRVs of BLPs but I think it's time my voice was more consistently heard. Policy will shift. Or the encyclopedia will suffer for it. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. ++Lar: t/c 01:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, please, you are not the new Messiah. "It's time my voice was more consistently heard". "Policy will shift". "Lead follow or get out of the way". Please, stop this messianic nonsense. It is possible that policy will change (discussion now seems to suggest otherwise) but this is not your personal cult. --Cyclopia ^talk 01:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so foolish to think that I alone can dictate anything, much less that I am anything other than one voice. But I think you will find you may well have awoken something in more editors than just myself. Again... lead, follow, or get out of the way. Your views are very far out of the norm. Most of humanity cares more about humanity than it does about this project. ++Lar: t/c 01:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My gosh what have I stumbled upon here? You know, I may be passionate, lacking in tact, etc, etc, but at least I,m not weird... What kind of nonsense is this? Someone needs to leave the .... pipe at home. Several editors for whatever reasons wish to be deletionist and non inclusive to the max. You all cooperate in AfD's and other places pushing your POV. What has awaken is you, from sleep, and you have gotten out of bed from the wrong side obviously... Turqoise127 (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calling him "weird" and saying to leave the "pipe" at home is a pretty blatant personal attack. I agree, your comment is passionate and lacking in tact, so you may want to step away from the discussion for a bit. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering it was not a clear cut case, Cyclopedia's opinion is not that far of the norm. Plus your comment does sound really arrogant (btw, I endorse the deletion of this article). Garion96 (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admins should have discretion to go either way depending on the circumstances in each individual case. But they don't. If Jake Wertenberg had actually made a case that so many of the "Keep" !votes should be discounted and then showed how the remaining "Delete" votes were a consensus, you'd have a case. But he didn't. The discussion just did not go that way. There were too many Keep votes with good arguments and not enough Delete votes with good arguments to overwhelm them. And Deletion discussion clearly states that with no rough consensus, the AfD faults to "Keep". JohnWBarber (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were too many Keep votes with good arguments and not enough Delete votes with good arguments to overwhelm them. Your interpretation. Lara 12:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was your interpretation, too. In the first DRV after Hersfold's close at 16:34,[8] you said (17:55), "I fail to see how a strong consensus could be pulled form this discussion, much less in support of keeping," (link to the first DRV page: [9]) -- or does that mean you think there was a weak consensus? After the AfD was reopened, there were three additional Keep votes and three additional Delete votes. Other editors, some in favor of Endorse, some Overturn, stated at the first DRV that there was no consensus: Majorly (18:04), Nomoskedasticity (18:09), Abecedare (18:36), and Tim Song (18:51), and NW seemed to imply it (18:07). That's five or six editors out of 18 pointing out that there was no consensus. I don't think anyone said there was a consensus. John Wartenberg also thought there was no consensus, according to his closing statement. Many editors here also think so. So it's not just my interpretation. JohnWBarber (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was never my interpretation that the keep votes were stronger than the delete. That was yours. And I never said it was just your interpretation. Others surely agree with you while others agree with me, and yet others have a different opinion. Lara 01:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A rough estimate shows 47% to be in favor of delete and 53% in favor of keep in the end. Correct if mistaken. Triplestop x3 01:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]