Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 27

27 December 2010

File:SpywareProtect09block.PNG

File:SpywareProtect09block.PNG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Administrator closed discussion as keep (free), claiming that the text in the image was not subject to copyright protection because "malware is not afforded copyright protection." When I asked her to reconsider and cite authority for this, the administrator responded saying that "any person who claimed to own the copyright of this image would likely be prosecuted under laws regarding computer crimes." I am still not convinced that something along the lines of unclean hands allows us to disregard copyrights on images like this one or be compatible with CC-BY-SA. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

List of deaths related to Scientology

List of deaths related to Scientology (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Faulty close. Clearly no consensus. Add to this closing admin's lack of rationale for the decision. meco (talk) 08:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn. Unacceptable explanation that insults the participants. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse. Neither consensus nor no consensus can overrule Wikipedia policy, and the existing article was an unacceptable coatrack. This close was completely correct. The numbers added up to no consensus, but the arguments added up to delete. We don't make these decisions on numbers. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• A general comment on the idea that "consensus cannot overrule policy": this makes no sense, because what we do is determining how policies apply to a case. And that determination is made by consensus, as assessed by the closer. Consensus can be wrong: a later consensus may determine that policy directed another outcome, but it doesn't mean that the consensus overruled policy, it means that the consensus missapplied policy. A closer may also have missassessed consensus. AFD determines the applicability of deletion policies to articles. DRV is generally construed to determine if the consensus was correctly assessed, not if the consensus was correct in the first place (ie, it's not AFD bis), although it remains a grey area. (I'm not taking any position in the present debate.) Cenarium (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• If the arguments did add up to delete, then the closer should have explained why. And so should you, Heimstern, if you're endorsing, because "the arguments added up to delete" is, by itself, just a statement of opinion.—S Marshall T/C 10:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• I already have, mm goi. NPOV is the reason. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• NPOV is a reason to rewrite, or to rename. What's missing is the reason to delete.—S Marshall T/C 14:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn No solid consensus appears in the AfD discussion, and no reason was given for interpreting the narrow consensus for "keep" as "delete" instead. This is not the place, moreover, to now assert a policy-based reason for a closure which did not invoke the policy at all. We can not here use ESP to state that a reason was used which was not stated. Nor do I find WP:COATRACK to be labeled as "policy" - last I checked it was still an "essay." Has it been promoted? This is an "essay-based" deletion argument? And concerns raised by some are matters for discussion at the article talk page, not here. Collect (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn - There is not even one policy- or guideline-based delete argument in the whole discussion, except for NPOV concerns. However NPOV is an issue of content and it is dealt within editorial consensus while editing the article: we don't delete articles because they're NPOV, we fix them. So this is not an AfD concern. That deaths related to Scientology exist is not a POV, is what sources present in the article said. Apart from that, the most cogent arguments brought called WP:COATRACK (an essay, even if a widely quoted one, which is highly debatable and prone to misuse, e.g. see here, where it basically reduces any criticism section to coat-racking) and then WP:WEASEL (a concern which I agree with, but that is a style issue that is entirely unrelated to deletion, per deletion policy). --Cyclopia^talk 12:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC) - clarified --Cyclopia^talk 14:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• This is the most baldly untrue thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and I've no idea whether to charge ignorance or dishonesty. There are many delete args with policy. Since when is NPOV not policy? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) You are right: NPOV has also been called into question. But this doesn't change the point: NPOV is a content/editorial issue, not a deletion issue, so it's again a moot argument in a deletion discussion. If an article about Barack Obama is biased, we intervene to make it neutral, we don't simply erase it. Read WP:ATD. So, thank you for your personal attacks and merry holidays. --Cyclopia^talk 13:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, funny comment style from someone who wrote editors often fail to deliver so much as a modicum of respect for the opinions of others concerning how issues should be resolved. Disagreement is fine, but the rude dismissals we see so often are contrary to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia.. Cheers. --Cyclopia^talk 13:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are the one who broadly dismissed every single supporter of deletion as not based in policy, Cyclopia, so I'm afraid I think those words of mine apply to you at least as much if not more than to me. (Mind you, that essay of mine's ancient now.) The problem with your argument about deletion and NPOV is that the very nature of the article is POV, at least in the opinion of those supporting deletion. Under those circumstances, fixing is not an option and NPOV is not at all a moot argument. There you go. I do regret my initial reaction to this argument, though. Got angry that I was being accused of non-policy compliant arguments and got in a bit of a huff. Should have stayed away from that, that much is clear. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry and thanks for clarifying. I will clarify my comment above to reflect your observations. --Cyclopia^talk 14:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse per Heimstern. --JN466 13:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn Closed as "result is delete" when there is no clear consensus. As Par Cyclopia there were many different arguments and neither side had a clear policy on there side within a deletion discussion. More explanation was necessary and not given.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse was a clear attack piece with BLP implications. "Related to" was a weasel way around "caused by" -- since deleted redirects to this page like Scientology kills made the reason for the list's existence clearer still. Inclusion was purely arbitrary, and there are BLP issues at play.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • In other words, there are fundamental WP:NPOV problems with the article, not merely the kind that can be fixed by editing, correct? Cyclopia makes a comparison to Barack Obama above. The difference is that it is possible to write a neutral article on Barack Obama, whereas the delete votes made a compelling argument that it was impossible to do so with this article, something that the keep voters could not refute (note that even after John lilburne made his comment, no one increased the number of entries on the list; in fact, the list shrunk). So Endorse.

    In addition, a troutslap to meco for not discussing the closure at all with LFaraone first, and a troutslap to the rest of us for discussing the closure anyway. NW (Talk) 16:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

    • Comment I reject your troutslap, because the closure wasn't done because of a superior argument regarding WP:NPOV, it was done because "result was delete". that is what we are discussing and it is a serious problem with the closure because of reasons that are already apparent. Everyone is speculating on the reasons why, and no actual closure is available regarding this issue. Until we hear from the closing admin a more detailed reason on why they closed it, we are just going to rehash every argument that has already been discussed. THIS is why it is imperative, especially on AFD's that generate such a diverse range of policy arguments, that the closing admin MAKES IT PERFECTLY CLEAR why the AFD was closed in such and such a way. If anything, the diversity of opinions in both the AFD and this discussion makes it really REALLY apparent that there is no consensus regarding this issue.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • You fail to address the procedural circumstances which should always be front and center at a deletion review. You are making arguments that belong at the AfD discussion. As such, your vote should be summarily disregarded. __meco (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn - When a discussion is not lopsided heavily towards the keep or delete side, closing the discussion with no explanation is usually unhelpful. If there was some particular reason why the closer thought that the reasoning to delete was more sound than the reasoning to keep, then he/she should have let us know what that reason was. Reading through the discussion, I see equally valid arguments for deleting and keeping, although many of the delete arguments do focus on issues which can be solved with editing. I would have closed this as no consensus or keep. SnottyWong ^yak 18:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• overturn When there's no clear consensus and there's no overrding policy issue we close as no consensus. Closing no-consensus as keep or delete should only occur if there are strong policy reasons to do so. They don't exist here so result should be no consensus, defaults to keep. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn This a classic "no consensus", with both arguments and numbers pretty evenly distributed on both sides. There was no consensus for deletion and the absence of an explanation from the closing administrator as to why the article should be deleted where reasonable policy-based arguments were made for retention only complicates the issue further. Alansohn (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn There were legitimate arguments on both sides, and the closing statement inadequately explained the admin's decision. Edge3 (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse There simple was no viable list there to preserve. It started out as a COATRACK and as the days went by the list withered away until there were just 4 items left. In two of the remaining items the cause was that someone who ought to have been in a psychiatric hospital killing someone. Those sort of cases happen every year or so in the UK due to Social Services not acting fast enough, or mental health patients being released back into the community to early, but we don't make a list of List of People killed by Social workers as a result. John lilburne (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• As several before you in this discussion you too seem to believe that a DRV is an extension of the AfD. It isn't. Your arguments belong in an AfD. We're here now to discuss whether the closing admin made a correct call based on the AfD discussion, not to bring up arguments for keeping or deleting the page. __meco (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment As the closing administrator, I'm rather surprised that this was taken to DRV, as the guidelines indicate it's preferable to resolve the issue through a discussion with the administrator beforehand. Anyway, specific to this article, based on a reading of the arguments and references to policy presented, it was clear that there was a rough consensus for deleting the article. I should have explained more; I'm not opposed to having the article recreated, but in its current form all the examples provided had tenuous connections to Scientology. We might as well have a List of deaths related to Catholicism of all people who were related to / were themselves members of the Catholic Church. I apologize for not elaborating more in the closing, I just would have appreciated it if those nominating this to DRV had thought to engage in a discussion first. LFaraone 01:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

List of African supercentenarians and List of South American supercentenarians

List of African supercentenarians (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

List of South American supercentenarians (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

note: I'm not that good with Wiki-formatting; someone who is good at it, please fix. Thanks.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African supercentenarians

The above AFD was closed with an incorrect assumption:

The result was delete. At "vote count" we have 5 delete vs. 3 keep (in a "normal" case with reasonable arguments on both sides this is borderlining on rough consensus), but what is compelling in this particular case is a lack of reliable sourcing for the list. It was well argued that the main source for the list, GRG, was not a reliable. The only keep voter who, to his credit, mentioned sources at all was Thecheesykid, but even he did not consider the reliability of the source. The arguments that this seems to be a regular almanac entry, and that the material is better in list form than individual articles seem rather irrelevant unless the sourcing issue is addressed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There are several problems with this AFD. I will start with the most-obvious:

1. "It was well argued that the main source for the list, GRG, was not a reliable."

This is FICTION! The GRG has been recognized by major sources, such as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Tokyo Times, USA Today, etc.

For example, check out this article here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-12-26-oldest-man-christmas_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Note the listing of the Gerontology Research Group, along with Guinness World Records.

Thus, the above conclusion is wrong on two counts:

A. It fails to consider the availability of reliable sources B. It passes judgment on the reliability of outside sources, even though reliability of the GRG is also established by other notable outside sources. I doubt any of you would argue against USA Today or the Wall Street Journal being non-notable.

2. If this were the only issue. Sadly, it is not. JJBulten has indicated a plot to delete all articles on supercentenarians sourced to "scientific" sources, because he believes they conflict with his belief that humans can live to 969 because the Bible says that Methuselah lived to 969. Aside from the fact that many Christians argue that Biblical longevity is not comparable to longevity today, what is at issue here is not JJ's belief but whether Wikipedia follows correct Wikipedia policies, such as WP:V and WP:NOR, which mean that mainstream, reliable outside sources should establish or disestablish notability, not one's personal agenda.

3. JJBulten has argued, online, even on Wikipedia!, that he plans to delete articles such as this first, and then argue that the List of European supercentenarians is biased because there are no articles on "minorities." Talk about incredulity! So JJ targeted minority articles first, because they were easier to delete, then he plans to hypocritically argue that the European articles are biased?

4. Can anyone seriously argue that geographic organization by continent is a bad idea?Ryoung122 03:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• We need a better way of organising our material about centenarians and supercentenarians. This AfD, which is still in progress, is highly relevant. I think we need lists of centenarians and supercentenarians, but lists of what kind? Alphabetical seems better than by continent.—S Marshall T/C 03:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Marshall, you raise an interesting issue. I think, however, that a distinction must be made between "centenarians" and "supercentenarians," in particular, for a few reasons I state below:

A. Most centenarian articles are on persons who were already notable, but for whom great age conferred additional notability (such as Sir Moses Montefiore, 1784-1885). Most supercentenarian articles are on persons who are notable for great age only.

B. The USA, for example, has about 96,000 centenarians but only about 50-70 supercentenarians. Only about 1 in 1000 (if that) centenarians are 110+ at any one time. Thus, supercentenarians are several orders of magnitude rarer, and their age verification becomes paramount to both scientific and general public (Guinness Book) acceptance as "recordholders". Since age verification is tied to the system of recordkeeping in a given nation, it makes sense to organize cases by nation (much like a football team article will have a list of all the players on the team, by team). In this case, the "team" is the "national" team. As for continent-wide inquiry, it must be admitted that most of the cases come from Europe and North America, Japan and Australia. That said, it is incorrect to assume that validated cases cannot come from Africa or South America. Examples of verified cases from Colombia, Ecuador, or Cape Verde can help encourage a wider appreciation that, where-ever systems of recordkeeping are in good order, all humans live to the same ages (about 110-115, maximum, very rarely above that). A lot of this should be thought of as less of Wiki policy and more of reflecting outside sources. Consider, for example, that the field of longevity research into supercentenarians has had to battle myths of localized longevity, or the idea that certain groups of people live longer in certain areas. Thus, there is a stated need to show that, in fact, geography has relatively little bearing on maximum life span. Some have claimed that "mountain air" and "clean water" are responsible for people living to 140+ in places like Vilcabamba...ideas like that have been debunked. Instead, we find that genetics, not region, is paramount. Mitoyo Kawate survived the atomic bombing of Hiroshima to live to 114. Tase Matsunaga lived to 114 in the biggest metro area in the world, Tokyo.

If we take a look at the continent-wide records:

Europe: 122 (Jeanne Calment, 1997) North America: 119 (Sarah Knauss, 1999) South America: 116 (Maria Capovilla, 2006) Asia: 116 (Tane Ikai, 2005) Africa: 114 (Anne Primout, 2005) Australia: 114 (Christina Cock, 2002)

We find that there is a base minimum (114). Without Jeanne Calment, the outlier, Europe's record would be 115. Without Sarah Knauss, North America's record would be 117

I think Wikipedia needs to do a little more qualitative assessment here.Ryoung122 22:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Tase Matsunaga

Tase Matsunaga (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The administrator who closed this (and similar) AFD's on supercentenarian articles (see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asa Takii) Sandstein, listed a rationale for deletion that is contrary to the evidence presented in the AFD discussion. 1. Self-published sources: did Tase Matsunaga publish her own sources? Certainly not. She was covered in reliable, cited, outside sources. Therefore, the rationale for the AFD decision was incorrect. It should also be noted that this article was part of a massive 9-article "deletion" attack by JJBulten, who has confessed online to targeting supercentenarian articles for deletion, with an agenda. To call someone out for lying and cabalism, when those accusations are proven and sourced to online sources, is not "inappropriate conduct." A referee throwing a flag for a foul being committed is not the committer of the foul. Thus, this and similar articles need a second go-through. 2. Tase Matsunaga was Japan's oldest person and her final age (114 years 191 days) is higher than any verified supercentenarian currently living. Notability is not temporary; this is not a "one event." There were reports, for example, of her gaining the title, then reports of dying. That's two events, at a minimum. Thus, the second rationale for deletion is also incorrect. A third reason: JJBulten violated Wiki policies and decorum on AFD, including mass-spamming, mass-nomination of articles, voting for his own self, and recruiting/canvassing to get "votes." The article itself lasted for years and years. Does notability suddenly evaporate, like current events passing? I think not. A fourth reason: JJBulten has accused articles on supercentenarians of being biased in favor of Europeans, but this is after he targeted for deletion articles such as List of African supercentenarians, List of South American supercentenarians, and then supercentenarians from Japan. Thus, this person had nominated this article in bad faith, and got this through the process as if it were a 'vote'. It is not. Thus, the process needs to be reviewed. -- Ryoung122 02:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Deletion Endorsed - as correctly pointed out, at any given time on Earth, there is an oldest living person. As soon as they're dead, there's another oldest living person. While the other points may be valid ones, the deletion on this, in my opinion, is correct. BarkingFish 02:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment:

1. Did you know that the average world's oldest person keeps the title for 1.12 years? That's a lot more rare than, for example, a baseball player.

2. Yet, we have articles on ball players who had only 1 major-league at-bat, ever, and by default they are "notable". 3. The rationale behind the deletion was incorrect.

4. Another option, to merge to List of Japanese supercentenarians, was not considered. '

5. Notability for extreme age alone can be established by outside sources, not one's personal opinion of whether persons are notable by age.

6. Japan, with 127+ million persons, tracks 100% of their citizens and "confers" the title of "Oldest Person in Japan", thus establishing outside-source notability.

Ryoung122 02:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Replies: 1: Yes

2: Again, Yes. They may only have had one ML bat, but if they're covered in major sporting press, they're notable

3: I can't comment on that

4: Or that.

5: As I said, once they're dead, they're not the oldest person alive anymore.

6: See 5.

BarkingFish 18:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia "notability" has nothing to do with "fame, importance, or popularity" - the very things you keep arguing. Read over WP:GNG. Notice how none of it focuses on "fame, importance, or popularity"? You need to be using WP:GNG to support your Wikipedia notability position, not your personal view of what non-Wikipedia notability might mean. Your significant interest in the topic, significant lack of ability to add content to Wikipedia based on Wikipedia guidelines and policy, and your inability to refrain from accusatorial tone posts may cause others to endorse the deletion of a problem article that otherwise would be kept as meeting WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus/weak keep - The nominator and delete position requiring sources in the article's text is not based in policy or even a guideline. WP:GNG welcomes "ton of sources are available, in that her death was widely and internationally reported" and the deletion position that relied on and then disparaged her "fame, importance, or popularity" as a basis of notability was not based in policy or even a guideline. As for the last deletion position, the nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or do not exist and the status of articles on other similar topics has no necessary bearing on a particular article. See generally Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Individual_merit. Admittedly, the keep positions were weak as they relied on her "fame, importance, or popularity" as a basis of notability, which is not based on policy or even a guideline. In the end, using AfD to prod improvement of a topic that meets policy is not the way to go and following through by deleting the article for failure of anyone to improve the article is punative, not administrative. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The closing administrator got it right. Nothing on the page established notability. In this whole bunch of AfD's (you can see a comprehensive table of noms and results on the WOP WikiProject talk page) I tried to source what I could (Theirs, Farris-Muse, Koyama). But the opponents of deletion of Matsunaga made no effort to do so and I could not. It's not enough to insist there are sources. They must be provided (and preferably cited), so notability can be verified. Here, none were. David in DC (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Expand

Template:Expand (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The administrator who closed this TFD has obviously put a lot of thought into their close, but the simple fact is that the !votes on it are pretty much a dead heat, I don't see how this can be a delete close when it is clearly a No Consensus. They've already stated that the deletes are between 65 and 68, keeps at 67 - that is not a delete close. No way. I ask for this Deletion to be overturned forthwith, it is not valid to close in this manner when votes are this tight. BarkingFish 00:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy close The template is still in the process of being deleted. Too soon. (Also, I thought we went with consensus, not vote counting?) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The closing admin went with a head count and counting votes, so I go by what the admin did when they shut it. BarkingFish 00:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin who couldn't care less about the template, I'd have closed it no consensus, especially given its TFD history of non-consensus and overturned deletions. --slakr^\ talk / 00:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

... and the fact that it's being deleted en masse is not a valid rationale for quashing a drv, in my opinion. --slakr^\ talk / 00:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I still think that going by the reasoning behind each vote instead of vote-count — which is what we should be doing, and what BarkingFish clearly forgot — there's a consensus to delete. As the closing admin pointed out, the "delete" arguments were getting challenged less than the "keep" ones. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand that for a while you've wanted this thing gone, but the last DRV, which covered the exact same situation, was only half a year ago. --slakr^\ talk / 01:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note [1] ongoing in bulk by User:TenPoundHammer after "speedy" comment above. --Tothwolf (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse closure - Well thought out closure. Garion96 (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse close (having not participated in original discussion) – XFD closes, like AFD, are not mere vote counts. Weight of arguments matters and the closer is correct to try and assess those as well however difficult it may be.

  (Every article can be expanded and improved. Requesting more or better information gets added is the expected condition of all articles, so noting this is true of a given article is a bit pointless unless it's made very clear why. Most of the important cases already have specific templates (limited geographic coverage, omitted significant POV's, etc)). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• No word in bold from me yet because I need time to consider this, but I wanted to give pointers to where we've seen this at DRV twice before, here (delete closure overturned) and here (no consensus closure endorsed).—S Marshall T/C 02:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse close - I'm also uninvolved with the original discussion. I read through the all the comments and made a rough tally of the !votes. Although there may have been 65-68 keeps and 67 deletes, when I counted !votes based on the merit of the argument presented, the outcome was different. I threw out any !votes that had no rationale behind them, I threw out !votes that were basically arguing that {{expand section}} is useful, and I threw out any other votes that had other faulty reasoning (i.e. "delete because it's overused"). I recognize that this probably opened the whole thing up to a lot of bias from me, but I also considered !votes saying that it encouraged new users to edit or let users know that Wikipedia is not complete. I feel like a) the majority of readers are aware of the fact that they can edit and that it is not complete, and b) if users do need to be encouraged and/or notified of this, the expand template is not the way to go. Anyway, after going through, I've come to believe that there is a very rough consensus for delete. It is still divided, but it seems to me that, more or less, the consensus is either for deletion or for a major overhaul of the expand tag. I wonder if this overhaul wouldn't be facilitated by deletion and then starting anew anyway. Anyway, we need to go with Wikipedia:Deletion process#Consensus's rule of carefully considering, dissecting, and eventually synthesizing each side's argument, and not simply counting heads. I think if this is done, a more clear consensus to delete can be found. Addendum: Also, per S Marshall's reasoning below. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 02:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, GorillaWarfare. You think it would be easier to delete the template, creating an 18000 job queue, then making a new one and creating a new queue to replace it where it was taken from, than simply leaving it where it is and working on it live? That seems like an awful lot of hassle for a small template. Fix it, don't fry it. BarkingFish 02:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

With so many of the articles tagged with this template, it's nearly impossible to understand what the original tagger intended to have expanded. I feel like removing it completely and starting anew would be easier, yes. But I also think this point is not pivotal to my argument. If it's completely overhauled without an actual deletion, to me that's more or less accomplishing the same goal through different methods. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 02:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well I've had that one explained to me, via IRC. Apparently it was originally created for Wikipedia:Requests for Expansion which died a couple of years ago. It is still, however, used within resources such as Twinkle, as part of the combined {{articleissues}} template. It seems silly to waste time removing it, then rebuilding it. I would be happy if this could be overturned to at least halt deletion, so someone (even me) could fix it with an alternative. BarkingFish 02:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• After scratching my head for a while, I'm going to endorse this. It was a bold close, and it would be easy to find for "overturn to no consensus", but with this I think we need to prioritise the needs of our readers and newer editors over the wishes of maintenance taggers. Taggers are just going to have to get used to using templates that identify exactly what they think needs expanding.—S Marshall T/C 02:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Which means that some essential tools for the Maintenance Taggers, like myself, are going to have to undergo a major rewrite. Things like Twinkle simply don't carry the option to enter exact information on what you think needs doing to expand the article, simply that it needs expanding. What you're supposed to do is tag with {{expand}} and then post on the talk page of the article what you think is wrong with it. That is going to slow a hell of a lot of maintenance down and make our job harder, but yeah, forget about the people that make sure others understand what needs doing, do what the readers want. (Sarcasm) :) BarkingFish 02:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that makes things harder for you. Maybe some changes to Twinkle would help?—S Marshall T/C 02:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they would actually. But it's a case of getting Twinkle's creator to rewrite the scripts, and it would mean then we could use Expand, maybe with an extra section like other templates do, for example: {{expand|reason=Not enough info on blah, blah, etc, this section needs to be clarified}} and so on... It would mean there being an alternative to {{expand}} if this was to happen, or the template being left alone and requiring a reason for it to actually work. BarkingFish 02:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think it's accepted that Sjakalle's close has created work for the people who maintain automated editing tools. We need solutions so that maintenance taggers can continue to contribute to the encyclopaedia as effectively as before.—S Marshall T/C 02:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Also noting it doesn't really change anything. Even if a better template existed today, we'd still have to delete most current {{expand}}ed tags simply because there's usually no way to fill in a description of whatever the tagger felt was missing, or even to tell if it's been resolved since tagging. So best overall delete all, then if we get an {{expand|reason=...}} then start afresh with that. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The support for a reason was already there, but undocumented. Try {{Expand|article|Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet}}. --Tothwolf (talk) 09:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn as No Consensus. On !votes, this was a clear No Consensus. Many of the Keep arguments (in an admittedly WP:TLDR discussion) were ignored in the closure, of which the role the template can play in inviting readers to become editors is just one example. On the arguments, this was a clear Keep, but make substantial efforts to address concerns over misuse (particularly over unnecessary application to stubs, and too little use of the reason parameter). See eg AN thoughts on what can be done. To the list of possibilities we could add changing Twinkle to require a reason be given (or at least, a very clear "are you sure?" warning if it's omitted). Rd232 ^talk 02:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn to no-consensus. There really does appear to be no consensus about this template. My reading of the discussion would lead me to a different conclusion to the closer. People appear to be putting forward plausible reasons for keeping the template, and it is widely used. That there appears to be some division about this template suggests further discussion may be of some value. SilkTork *^YES! 03:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I would welcome further discussion, maybe including some of the people who would need to work with whatever came out from it, like the script writer of Twinkle, and page patrollers for example - yes, readers are affected, and I appreciate the issue it raises, so I would be happy if we could get the finer points ironed firmly out, then decide on how to fix it before we eventually dispose of this one - deleting it while having nothing to replace it serves precisely zero purpose. BarkingFish 03:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

We've discussed it at great length and in enormous depth, at a total of (I think) four TfDs, one of which was subject to an RFC, and including this one, three DRVs. At some point someone's got to make a decision.—S Marshall T/C 03:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus It was almost evenly split between keep/delete, and there was not significant discussion regarding alternatives to deletion (i.e. changing the template). There were valid arguments for using the template in different ways than currently just slapping it on random pages, but we have yet to examine these. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse judging by the weight of the opinions. Many keep !votes were with no explanation or invalid arguments. There was misunderstanding about the future of {{Expand section}} too which the closing admin made clear. Perfect close. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn to no-consensus as DRV is for consideration of whether or not the decision was a fair representation of the discussion, I don't think there was a consensus for deletion, and the default position is to keep. We're not here (DRV) to discuss whether it is right or wrong to delete the template, but only to judge whether the evaluation of consensus was correct; therefore - regardless of my opinion about the template itself - I have to recommend overturning the decision. I do appreciate the efforts of the closing admin to explain their rationale, but I feel that their opinions would have been better within the discussion, not as a closing reason, because it offered too much in the way of opinion instead of merely stating the facts and findings of the discussion itself. I fully accept that the template can be misused, and might be improved, but I simply do not see a consensus to delete it. I think that we're trying to discuss overall article tagging policy in the wrong place. Chzz  ►  03:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• I'll prepare a list of the keep arguments to prove that most of them were invalid. TfDs aren't a majority vote -- Magioladitis (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • After preliminary cleanup, they are 16,125 transclusions of the template. I removed it from all stubs and I fixed many referring to sections. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse: simple !vote counting on an XfD generating as many comments as this is clearly not conducive to good decision making. The closing Admin therefore summarised the arguments, and analysed their strength, in making the close. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Give up -- this is another failed proposal...with no consensus, closed based on a head count. If you want to try changing the way {{expand}} is used or phase it out, go ahead, but TfD won't do much. Mono (talk) 05:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse the deletion close - I am uninvolved with the original discussion and close. Such a well thought out XfC close is rare, but befitting a 130+ iVote discussion that established a policy RFC on how we convey the message that an article needs expansion. That close met every requirement in Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Consensus - careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of each side's arguments. From the close: "[M]ost maintenance tags point to a specific policy or guideline concern" and "request that an article contain more information is not one founded in any policy." "The tag nominated on this TFD is general it asks for an expansion of the article but is vague on detail." Among other issues, this has lead to a "specific concern over the template is its misuse." "The stub-templates can fill the role of this template." Since these were points raised in the discussion and not adequately rebutted, the closer did not interpret the debate incorrectly. In addition, there was no showing in the TfD, either measured or otherwise, that this template in fact has resulted expansion sufficient enough to improve articles. The TfD closer was correct to find "the arguments against the template to be lopsidedly stronger." I endorse the deletion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse. I was in favor of keeping the template. But a final decision had to be made, and I will respect it, especially if the alternative is more repetative TfDs, RfCs and DelRevs. It took a gutsy, bold admin to interpret consensus in such a close race and come to a final conclusion based on the arguments. I trust the closing admin to judge the matter and I believe he did so fairly and adequately in this case. Even though I may not like it, I will accept it, as a display of faith in our system of decision-making. -- œ^™ 09:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus and a {{trout}} for both User:Sjakkalle and User:Mono. There is no way to close such as disjointed discussion as anything other than no consensus. The last two TfDs [2] [3] and last two DRVs [4] [5] should have made it even more clear for Sjakkalle that it would not be possible to close this any other way.

  In addition, the TfD discussion was unfortunately inappropriately influenced by the non-neutral language User:Mono used for an RFC tag on the TfD "The {{expand}} template is up for deletion, again, as obsolete." [6] While it would normally be perfectly acceptable to add a neutral worded RFC tag to the TfD of such a widely used template, the non-neutral language was inappropriate and violates WP:CANVAS#Campaigning. Such language gives the impression to the larger community that the template is "obsolete", which while that may be the opinion of Mono, is not a view shared by everyone. It is clear from the timestamps and wording of the later !votes that Mono's addition of the RFC tag did in fact inappropriately influence the TfD. (See also: [7] [8])

  While {{Expand}} can be used for non-article pages by defining the first unnamed parameter (|1=), the entire TfD discussion seems to have focused strictly on article usage. This included a lot of mistaken arguments that {{Expand}} was redundant to stub templates (we also do not use stub templates for non-articles), and I think this comment from User:Grutness probably refutes the "redundancy" fallacy better than anything I could write here.

  Based on discussion from the talk page and TfD, I did quite a lot of work on this template in the sandbox, including properly implementing {{Expand|section}} and adding support for a hidden tracking category should a reason or talk page section not be provided. That work along with more discussion on the talk page should help alleviate some of the other concerns raised during the TfD. --Tothwolf (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn to No Consensus. As much as I abhor this template the closing admin did what simply should not be done when closing XfDs: they went beyond looking at the discussion and weighed in their opinion on which position was the better one, which then became the closing result. I especially would cite the analysis of the validity of the five examples provided by one participant. That analysis should have been part of the TfD discussion, not of the closing rationale. __meco (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn to "No consensus. For multiple reasons:
  • First, the closing admin completely ignored that a non-neutral RFC-tag was placed on the discussion by Mono (talk · contribs)[9] which most likely had a canvassing effect on the TFD. They also did not mention the notification sent by a IP editor to multiple people, including myself, although they used a neutral message, which is okay in WP:CANVASS. Still, multiple people mentioned it, so it should have been considered.
  • Second, as Meco points out above, Sjakkalle violated one of the most important rules in closing a XFD: He cast a super-!vote. The closing admin's job is not to review the arguments someone else made but to judge what consensus is about those arguments. What they personally think about those arguments is irrelevant and if they let their personal opinion influence the close, as Sjakkalle obviously did here, they become involved and thus are disqualified from making a call on the discussion.
  • Third, he weighted concerns of misuse as against the template, which directly contradicts WP:TFD: "If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion." Also, in allowing such a close to stand, we would create a dangerous precedent, i.e. that one just has to misuse a template often enough in order to have it deleted. That's not the spirit of our policies: If someone misuses rollback, we warn them and if they continue, we remove their rights. If someone misuses Twinkle, he is warned and, again, restricted from using it, if they continue. There is nothing in the policies and guidelines that says that misuse of a tool should result in removal of the tool and there is no reason to treat this template differently than any other tool or template.
  • Fourth, he ignored a number of keep-!votes that provided specific solutions for concerns of misuse, in violation of the spirit of WP:PRESERVE (if we can fix it, we should keep it).
  • Fifth, a large number of delete-!votes were based on misunderstandings of how the template should be applied. !votes like "use stub tags instead" have been rebutted time and time again by pointing out that the stub system is not meant for those articles where this template is meant to be placed. Yet there was no mention why such incorrect !votes should be considered "lopsidedly stronger". The same applies to !votes like "states the obvious" which were rebutted as well but still were counted towards a "delete" close. Not to mention arguments like "eyesore" and "we don't want readers to think this is not completed". One !voter even argued that getting readers involved in editing as a goal of this template would be a bad idea!
  • Sixth, he claims that people have ignored that {{expand|section}} and {{expand section}} are not the same but he himself ignored that {{expand|section}} creates a smaller tag that many people find superior to {{expand section}} and which would still be deleted with this template, despite no argument being made in favor of deleting it.
  • Seventh, the closing admin ignored that a TFD can be closed as "keep but change" which would be a result that satisfied both those who feel the template is too general and misused and those who want to keep it. A number of people !voting delete, such as Conti (talk · contribs) and Joy (talk · contribs), agreed that the template can be kept, if the way it works is altered. Such !votes cannot be counted as "pure" "delete"-!votes, especially when people (including myself) showed examples of how it could be changed.

As such, I think the close, while brave, is faulty and should not have been made in this way. Clearly, there was no consensus for deletion, although there probably was one for changing the template. Changing does not require deletion though. Regards SoWhy 09:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• • • Well argued and convincing, and should be conclusive. Unfortunately the brave-but-faulty close requires an even braver admin to overturn the close, in the face of a likely attempt to rerun the TFD. Rd232 ^talk 10:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I have answered some of the comments on my close on my talkpage, and people may want to look at that. I make it a point never to endorse my own actions, but I would like to respond to the points made by SoWhy:
        1. The RFC tag was not as well worded as it should have been, and "obsolesence" was not the central issue. However, I believe people who participate in the debate are capable of independent thinking, and there was no indication that the message had gone out to a cherry-picked group of people who were likely to vote "delete".
        2. The second point concerning whether I supervoted is always bound to be a hot-button issue. On the one hand, the "head count" is an aspect which enters into the evaluation of whether there is consensus or not, but the WP:DPR page tells us that "Consensus is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of each side's arguments, and should not be calculated solely by the balance of votes." This consideration, dissection, and synthesis of arguments will to some degree be influenced by the closer's interpretations and opinions, and cause disagreement. I don't think I cast a "supervote" here, because my opinion was formed from reading the arguments, and not preconceptions I had over the template before I closed it.
        3. The third point concerns the misuse concern, but I think the interpretation of what I wrote is exaggerated. My comment on this in the rationale was: "It has been legitimately pointed out the abuse of a tag does not justify a template's deletion per se, but the concern remains valid if it is a template which lends itself to this kind of abuse." In other words, the problem is not that the tag was being misused, but that the tag was so easy to misuse due to its vagueness. Certainly, this close should not be used as precedent to delete all tags which can be misused by the clueless.
        4. I did not ignore the proposed solutions, per the penultimate sentence of my rationale: "Some of the concerns mentioned could be addressed by a different template (for example, a template a required parameter to specify what with the article needs expanding), but that would be a different template from the one being discussed here."
        5. I acknowledge that there were some poor arguments on the "delete" side as well, but I am not among those who make a tally of "good votes" and "bad votes", before counting up the "good", while ignoring the "bad". Instead, I look for the strongest arguments on both sides of the debate, and it is in this respect that the "delete" side came out on top.
        6. I am a bit unsure what SoWhy refers to in point 6, because the template's documentation says: "{{Expand|section}} produces the same result as {{Expand section}}."
        7. See my response to point 4.
      • Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Sorry about #6, my bad. I remembered the time when one of the tags produced a large banner in a section and I did not realize it has been changed so that one mirrors the other. Regards SoWhy 22:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You mentioned my alternative solution as an non-clear delete vote, and one that detracts from Sjakkalle's closure. The point of my argument was not simply to cast a vote, because a discussion is not just a straightforward poll, but to examine what can be done. The point of this argument seems to be to enumerate a number of legalistic, procedural ways to object to that otherwise a reasonable and lucid delete-closure. Yet, in the same sense, I'm discontent with how that closure disregarded my argument as if it dealt with a different template than the one discussed - that's a bureaucratic distinction. A template is defined most simply by its current content, but also by its overall purpose and all the nuances of its contribution to all the articles it is applied to. When we have {{expand}} placed in thousands of places in articles right now, that placement has become an asset that shouldn't be ignored. The delete option says "it's best to tell a bot to just get rid of all of those placements en masse". The keep option says "it's best to keep everything as is". But no option examines is it perhaps most worthwhile to facilitate for something else to be placed in there, and how exactly? If the discussion doesn't really answer that question, even though we all realize that it's a valid one, then we should reform the discussion in a way that does, otherwise we'll just keep spinning in circles. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Seeing Rd232's comment below, I think I should clarify that I don't actually object particularly to the deletion. Nothing particularly bad will happen if we just delete the current flawed template, maybe some duplication of effort after people re-tag some articles with another more appropriate tag. I just had to voice my discontent with all these matters of process. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

So on point 4, you didn't ignore the proposed solutions, you dismissed them out of hand in a totally flawed manner (see Joy's point above). An appropriate close would have been "no consensus to delete, but strong consensus to explore how to improve the template's usage, and no prejudice to renominating if after some time this proves unsuccessful". I would urge you to overturn yourself, because on the WP:PRESERVE issue your decision was completely flawed in the face of the range of possible options. Rd232 ^talk 18:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse Deleting this template improves the encyclopedia. Thincat (talk) 10:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • DRV is not a re-TFD. Whether you think the deletion is beneficial is irrelevant for the question whether there was consensus for it. Regards SoWhy 11:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Let's see: From those who said we have to keep this template:
  • 13 because is better than stub. There are non-stubs that need expansion
  • 3 per WP:NOTAGAIN
  • 6 just said keep
  • 5 per someone else with no further explanation
  • 2 "the fact that there are many articles that need expansion is no reason to delete the template"
  • 6 "template is addressed to viewers"
  • 1 "nom gave in in invalid argument"
  • 5 "it's useful" no further explanation or "as useful as any other template"
  • 3 because is better than expand section for more than 1 sections or for pages needing a general expansion
  • 5 because it's useful for general use when editor can't find a better template
  • 2 because it's useful for general use and talk page can be used to explain further
  • 3 because it can be used to sections (1 of them changed to "merge")
  • 1 because "1 million pages need expansion"
  • 4 because not all pages needs to be expanded and this tag shows us which need to
  • 6 because it helps find priorities
  • 1 weak because sometimes it works
  • 1 because it can be modified to explain further what is needed to be done -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Some things before deleting: We have to get sure that we replace Expand with {{Expand section}} inside sections. I am now running a bot to remove expand from stubs. Let's see how many page are left. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn (no consensus) That was not a consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse the decision. The closer was thorough and accurately summarised the debate. Also, this is not a re-TFD, so let's not treat it a such, eh? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse Tough close, but a good call. Although I opined a "keep" I see that most of my objections to deletion were rebutted quite well by other editors and the closing rationale. ThemFromSpace 14:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse Closing rationale is well thought through and convincing. Closer has dissected weight of arguments accurately IMO. –Moondyne 15:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse Although wholly unexpected, the closing rationale was excellent in its summary of the closing admin's interpretation of the weight of the various points in the debate, and I cannot find fault with the reasoning provided. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 15:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see some responses to SoWhy's comments from people making this sort of Endorse comment. Rd232 ^talk 15:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't know if mine was "this sort of Endorse comment", but my response to it is in the collapse box below.—S Marshall T/C 16:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I can gladly expand on this, and to SoWhy's comments specifically. 1 - I never knew there was a biased tag on the debate. I came to the debate from a notice at WP:CENT which stated "TfD on the future of the expand tag". Seems completely neutral to me. 2 - I find the "super-vote" accusation unfounded based on the clear explanation in the close. 3 - Weighting concerns and measuring them against policy is the closing admin's job and WP does not stand on precedent - consensus can change. 4 - Keep votes offing the alternative of using {{expand|section}} were exactly equal to delete votes saying to use the {{expand section}} tag instead. They pretty much cancel each other out in terms of strength of argument. 7 - Keep but change votes are moot due to the existence of another tag that already provides the functionality that would be achieved by the change - see point 6. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 16:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

S Marshall's assessment of SoWhy's comments

First point: ... the closing admin completely ignored that a non-neutral RFC-tag... It's a fair point that the tag wasn't 100% neutral, and that certain editors were canvassed by an IP address. Fortunately, there was so much participation in that TfD, on both sides, that I think we can be sure that all the relevant arguments on both sides were raised and discussed. Provided that's happened, I think there's a reasonable basis for a close. Second point: ...Sjakkalle violated one of the most important rules in closing a XFD: He cast a super-!vote. Any close in which the closer weighs one argument as stronger than another inevitably leaves the closer vulnerable to a charge of super-voting, but weighing arguments is exactly what we expect closers to do. There's a fine, and blurry, line between the closer's thoughts about the relative weight of the arguments and the closer's personal opinion. The only evidence we can have about whether that line was crossed is the closing statement, and in this case we're fortunate to have a very detailed one. I don't see any evidence in Sjakkalle's close of a super-!vote. Third point (part 1): ...he weighted concerns of misuse as against the template, which directly contradicts WP:TFD: This is true, and represents a genuine error in the close. We should ask ourselves whether that error is sufficient to overturn all the other factors. Third point (part 2): ...Also, in allowing such a close to stand, we would create a dangerous precedent, i.e. that one just has to misuse a template often enough in order to have it deleted. This is not such a good point. The slippery slope argument is a kind of informal fallacy, and Wikipedia disregards precedent in any case. Fourth, he ignored a number of keep-!votes that provided specific solutions for concerns of misuse, in violation of the spirit of WP:PRESERVE (if we can fix it, we should keep it)... WP:PRESERVE says "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't." (It then goes on to suggest that WP:PRESERVE relates to not removing text from articles.) In fact, I think that where {{expand}} interacts with WP:PRESERVE is in the latter's use of the word "flag": the template is there to identify problems with other people's text. Since WP:PRESERVE says to flag "problems", I think we may assume that the clearer and more specific the tag, the greater is the extent to which it complies with the policy. Fifth, a large number of delete-!votes were based on misunderstandings of how the template should be applied. That's true in itself but it doesn't lead to an overturn. The fact that some of the delete-!votes weren't very intelligent doesn't detract from the weight to be given to the others. I imagine that Sjakkalle disregarded a substantial number of !votes in that TfD, on both sides. Sixth, he claims that people have ignored that {{expand|section}} and {{expand section}} are not the same but he himself ignored that {{expand|section}} creates a smaller tag that many people find superior to {{expand section}} and which would still be deleted with this template, despite no argument being made in favor of deleting it. I don't see the size of the tag as centrally important to this matter, but even if it was, it's not necessary to overturn the close in order to alter the tag size. Seventh, the closing admin ignored that a TFD can be closed as "keep but change" which would be a result that satisfied both those who feel the template is too general and misused and those who want to keep it. A number of people !voting delete, such as Conti (talk · contribs) and Joy (talk · contribs), agreed that the template can be kept, if the way it works is altered. This is true. Sjakkalle came to a decision, not a compromise. That's why I described it as "a bold close" above, but it doesn't make it wrong.

Arbitrary section break (page getting too large)

• Endorse. I didn't participate in the TFD but i'm aware of the discussion and have been for a year or two. I used to be a deleter, started using it and became a keeper and now i'm back to a deleter. My rationale is that this is a crap templete and until we get rid of it a better more appropriate one won't be created to take its place. Closing admin had it pretty much right. Szzuk (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • You fail to address the procedural aspects of the close which must be the focus of a deletion review. You basically state that you side with the close because it happened to land on your favored decision. I too want to see this template gone, however, the next time a closing admin crosses the border between XfD participant and closing admin the result may be against you. Are you then going to call for an overturn at the DRV? __meco (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as delete. Admin who closed this carefully considered the sides and the arguments involved instead of merely counting votes one per one. When so many people show up to vote without giving any rationale, and when there is rationale offered that deviates from Wikipedia policies, that is the correct thing to do. DreamGuy (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • But the closing admin went beyond looking at the discussion and weighed in their opinion on which position was the better one, which then became the closing result. I especially would cite the analysis of the validity of the five examples provided by one participant. That analysis should have been part of the TfD discussion, not of the closing rationale. __meco (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse I voted "keep" in this debate, but I can see now that the "delete" side provided more compelling arguments for deletion. The closing admin was very thorough in his or her analysis of the debate, addressing every major issue that was discussed. More importantly, we do not count votes. See WP:DEMOCRACY and WP:POLL. Furthermore, we must remember that the closing admin acknowledged the possibility of creating a new template to address the flaws mentioned in the TFD: "Some of the concerns mentioned could be addressed by a different template (for example, a template a required parameter to specify what with the article needs expanding), but that would be a different template from the one being discussed here." Edge3 (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • "Some of the concerns mentioned could be addressed by a different template (for example, a template a required parameter to specify what with the article needs expanding), but that would be a different template from the one being discussed here." - is Exhibit A for the close being faulty (see SoWhy's point 4). There is zero reason why making a parameter mandatory is possible in a new template but not an existing one. Rd232 ^talk 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
    • The closing admin was only providing an example of a different template. We could easily disregard his or her advice and just change the wording; if I understand the policies correctly, that wouldn't be a violation of the TFD decision. Edge3 (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment <redacted entirely> - Apologies to Sjakalle, I had indeed gotten confused over S Marshall's comments about them casting a super !vote. BarkingFish 18:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any !vote by Sjakkale in the body text; I think you're confusing some comments about Sjakkale's close being too much like a !voting opinion instead of a summary? Rd232 ^talk 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Question Did anyone ever address the argument that the {{expand}} template could be used to point out that a non-stub article as a whole needs expansion, with specific suggestions for improvement posted on the talk page? I know that this isn't supposed to be a repeat of the TFD, but if this argument wasn't adequately addressed in the closing comments, I would like to see how much weight it carried against the arguments for deletion. Edge3 (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I did, very early on in the discussion.[10] I don't think anyone commented on it though. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
    • A number of people arguing "keep" did so and I don't think that point has been considered in the close at all. Regards SoWhy 22:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn very clearly a no consensus, and deleting is controversial. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn as no consensus - Per Meco, the closing admin espoused a point of view instead of gauging consensus. I didn't want the template to be deleted. But if it must be deleted, then I'd want it to be deleted because there was clear consensus to do so, not because an admin was playing court justice. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse - Closing admin accurately analyzed the arguments for consensus. As the number of !voters increases, the relevance of head-counting decreases proportionally. There are very few deletion discussions on which 100+ editors are going to agree in an overwhelming majority. We have to get away from the notion that there can be no consensus when too many people contribute to a discussion. There can be consensus, but you won't find it by counting heads. And anyway, if you liked using {{Expand}} so much, why not just use {{Incomplete}} instead? SnottyWong ^talk 22:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I'm fully aware that we work on consensus, not votes, but I felt that I needed to point out an error in the closer's maths. I agree there were 65-68 deletes, but there were actually 70 keeps, not 67, comprised as follows (just in case somebody doubts my math):
  • 59 Keep (includes 3 x Keep.)
  • 5 Strong Keep
  • 1 Weak keep
  • 1 Keep and speedy close
  • 1 Conditional keep (changed from a straight Delete.
  • 3 others (1 each "Keep per Tothwolf", "Keep, and piss off with your whinging", "Keep but modify slightly")
  • 70 - Total --AussieLegend (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Mine was the keep and speedy close, as I was hoping we could all avoid this drama. Magioladitis' "summary" above of the various keep !votes completely ignores the majority of what I brought up in the TfD discussion and only focuses on WP:NOTAGAIN, which seems counter to WP:NOTAVOTE. I think the "conditional keep" and a number of other arguments made by those who !voted delete are also addressed with some of the code currently in the sandbox. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• You seem to be obsessed with head-counting. Ok, the closing admin counted 67 keeps, you counted 70. Who cares? What does it matter? You might want to take a look at WP:CONSENSUS. SnottyWong ^squeal 00:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse - As Snottywong said, the larger a discussion gets, the more likely it is to tend toward a 50-50 split based on headcount. The closer did a good job of actually weighing the arguments along with the numbers. As Magioladitis pointed out, many of the keep arguments were very weak, and in a few cases, non-existent. Mr.Z-man 22:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • It's probably not appropriate to make such comment here, given that you voted to delete in the original discussion.[11] --AussieLegend (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
    • So did plenty of other people here. Given that you voted to keep it, its probably not appropriate for you to making such comments here. Mr.Z-man 23:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
      • The difference is that I clearly identified what I wrote as simply a comment, not as overturn, since the neutrality of a vote that supports your position at the AfD can be questioned. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I don't think there is any rule or convention where AfD !voters are discouraged from contributing bolded !votes at the DRV for the article. You're assuming that people can't separate their opinions on whether the template should be deleted from their opinions on whether the close was correct. In some cases, that may be true, but in many cases it is not, and no one should be discouraged from contributing in discussions. If that were the rule, then no one who participated in the AfD should be able to bring the article to DRV, because their neutrality could be questioned. SnottyWong ^gab 00:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)