Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Marcus Bachmann

As the close approaches, questionable keeps for the closing admin to consider.

Tarc (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the close approaches, questionable deletes for the closing admin to consider.
SilverserenC 03:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that the nominator doesn't have a legitimate policy based rationale for deletion? Now, I'm not asking if you agree with it, but if you call out every "per nom" vote as questionable then you're really questioning the nominators rationale. It is perfectly valid to say that someone else has already made the same argument you are making. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that "reasonable counter-arguments" have been raised in the discussion in regards to the nomination, so a "per nom" vote is not really a support for anything, as the users voting per nom are not addressing the counter-arguments that have been raised against the nominator's argument. SilverserenC 03:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not every user can be expected to address every counter-argument and forcing them too only favours the rabid partisans on the particular issue over the general editors. Favouring the partisans, in turn, turns the discussion into... ..what it has. Personally I see the WP:PERNOM and WP:ITSNOTABLE votes as part of the concensus. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider them valid to some extent. *shrugs* I only wanted to point out that the same sort of Arguments not to make in deletion discussions applies to the delete voters as well. SilverserenC 03:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The keepers cited are full of "hottie" , "seems to be notable", and so on, i.e. demonstrably dismissible. Seren's are based on a conservative (lol irony) interpretation of the Article Squad's wiki-philosophy regarding article retention, i.e. personal opinion and not policy/guideline-based. Amusingly enough, I had initially had seren's entry in my list, but gave him the benefit of the doubt and removed it, as it was somewhat expanded from a typical "argument to avoid". Remixing my intro sentence was rather petty btw, but not all that unexpected. Tarc (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beginning the thread was "rather petty". --David Shankbone 04:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought creating this section was petty. The closing moderator can gauge consensus on their own, they don't need users involved in the debate trying to tell them what to throw out. SilverserenC 06:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what is your purpose in adding to it? Kevin (talk) 06:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To show that the same thing could be applied to the delete voters and it wasn't just keep voters making arguments to avoid. If Tarc had shown issues with both types of comments, both keep and delete voters, that would have been fine, it would have been a prompting for all voters in the AfD to actually use a policy based reason in their vote. But the use of just Keep voters shows that it was merely done to try to influence the closing admin. SilverserenC 09:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I comment "per nom" is that I have nothing further to add and the nominator has stated what I feel. I do try to add more if necessary. While I rarely get involved in XFD debates, I am aware that closers focus primarily on arguments made and that "what he said" comments likely will not have as much weight as an original argument. Still, I hope that closers do note the "per nom" comments and realize that others do agree with the nominator's argument so that he/she really heeds the nominator's statement. On another note, while I am not really perturbed, I do wish that when my name is mentioned that someone would notify me. This is not the first time I've discovered my name mentioned in a debate with no notification. Thanks. Ripberger (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In an AfD debate, even if you agree with what the nominator stated, it's still better to reiterate the nominator's argument than to make a WP:PERNOM argument. The issue with per nom is that, if the debate in the AfD has disproven part of the nominator's statement, then it is confusing to what a per nom is referring to. If it is referring to the disproven part, then such a vote should be ignored. But it's impossible to know what they mean if someone just says per nom or per any other use in the debate. It should just be common practice that, if you're going to say per nom, also include a sentence or two explaining the exact parts of the nominator's argument that you agreed with. If I wanted to, I could also cite WP:VAGUEWAVE with your comment, because just saying "BLP concerns" means absolutely nothing. You need to specifically explain what you mean when you're going to make a vote. SilverserenC 09:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So I should repeat the nominator's statement instead of just saying "I agree with the nominator's argument?" That seems unnecessary and excessive, but I will try to remember that in future discussions. I do not believe that Wikipedia is capable of hosting BLP articles with its current structure. Given the BLP subject of this AFD is attached to a current political candidate, I truly doubt that a neutral BLP article can be made with the present political climate. I did not think that argument could be made in an AFD, so I did not add that. Ripberger (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just chiming in to note that my opinion is based off our BLP policy, and not the ATA essay. Also, there are many times when AfD can and should be used in place of cleanup, such as cases where the article is fundamentally flawed and would need a complete rewrite (instead of citations or wikification) to become acceptable. This is the norm with spammy pages (csdG11), for example. ThemFromSpace 12:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]