Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 June 24: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→[[Dismal's Paradox]]: closing moribund debate |
→[[Okashina_Okashi]]: closing moribund debate |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===June 24 2006=== |
===June 24 2006=== |
||
====[[Okashina_Okashi]]==== |
|||
This was originally listed on 18 June and generated considerable discussion. [[User:TigerShark|TigerShark]] closed it as "Keep, No Consensus" - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Okashina_Okashi&diff=prev&oldid=60468645] but then, apparently after being asked to review that by [[User:Dragonfiend|Dragonfiend]], ([[User_talk:TigerShark#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FOkashina_Okashi]]) relisted it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Okashina_Okashi&diff=next&oldid=60468645] |
|||
I believe the relist was inappropriate and unnecessary, and (even in view of the possible meatpuppetry (Note that I was the person that added the {{tl|afdnewbies}} box...) that may have been occurring) there was sufficient discussion by seasoned editors at the time of close to justify a "Keep - No consensus". I ask that the relist be overturned, the discussion closed, and the article marked as "Keep - No consensus" '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]'''[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 21:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''' As Lar correctly states, I initially closed this as "no consensus" but another editor asked me to review it, primarily regarding verifiability concerns. Having reviewed it, I felt that the best course of action was to relist it to enable further discussion on the matter. You can read the full discussion regarding the relisting on [[User talk:TigerShark|my talk page]]. I am not sure that a listing here is the best course of action, as no final decision has been made on the article. I think that if a closing admin decides to reverse their own decision and relist, then the resulting discussion should be allowed to run its course (there have been several new comments since the relist). Cheers [[User:TigerShark|TigerShark]] 22:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''' I was going to ask for a review of the original closing of the article due to [[Meatpuppetry]] and the fact that the article contained several "keep because I like it" comments. Barring a relist or re-opening I was going to wait an appropriate amount of time and re-list it. <br>I've also since listed the site at Japan-related deletions (where anime-related deletions are aggregated) to help try to gain more consensus. I ask that AfD stay open and that all opinions after the re-list be taken into consideration. In any-case this is an article extensively written by the creator of the fictional subject which it describes and it had clear notability issues. --[[User:Kunzite|Kunzite]] 23:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**I just wanted to say that I believe that "no consensus" decision would have been correct, regardless of the meatpuppet and "because I like it" comments (these were taken into account [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Okashina_Okashi&diff=60468645&oldid=60401846]). The only reason that I relisted it was with regard to specific concerns that verifiability had not been fully considered. Cheers [[User:TigerShark|TigerShark]] 23:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
* Relisting harms nothing and seems to be working in this case. As a voluntary change by the closing admin, I don't think DRV has any strong standing to challenge that decision. No consensus usually works out to "give the article the benefit of doubt for a little while but relist sometime in the future". The difference between that and "relist immediately" is very small. In this case, I might have opened a new nomination and provided a link to the prior discussion but only in order to provide a clean discussion space. '''Endorse relisting'''. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 23:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*I agree with Rossami. I understand folks not wanting to see multiple bites of the apple, but an AfD that is considerably polluted by outside vote busing may need a re-run. This one seems to be particularly gnarled, especially with new information indicting it coming to light. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 00:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*I '''endorse relisting''' when no consensus is reached and support this administrator who has acted in a transparent manner in this AfD. [[User:Ifnord|Ifnord]] 14:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||