WikiCup 2016: Game On!
We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.
We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Rhys etc From Hawes
Hi. I was wondering if you could comment a little more on your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy Hannah (3rd nomination) as no consensus. From reviewing the !votes on the page, I don't see a single "keep" vote that refers to an actual Wikipedia policy whose interpretation might justify keeping the article. All of them simply claim that they feel, subjectively, that the subject of the article is notable. Given the massive problems regarding sockpuppetry, off-wiki canvassing, and walled gardens in regard to longevity articles (a brief taste of which can found at the relevant Arbcom case), would it not have been better to relist the article so that more outside voices could participate? If consensus is that interpretations of actual policies lean towards keeping, then I am fine with it, but the "she's old and therefore notable" argument has no basis in policy and has been rejected on multiple occasions by consensus (see the large number of similar articles that have been deleted, redirected, and merged over the last few months). Canadian Paul 18:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- I declined to relist that one because it wasn't going anywhere near a consensus and I wasn't prepared to simply kick the can another week down the road for some other admin to deal with. As for the arguments; a lot of the "Keep" arguments were fairly weak but there is no reading of that discussion that leads to a "Delete" consensus, I'm sorry. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC).
Deletion review for Lucy Hannah
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lucy Hannah. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Canadian Paul 18:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I know the conversation devolved towards the end, but was hoping you could elaborate on how no-consensus was reached. Eight people suggested that it should not be kept in its current form (including the nominator) and three were for keeping (including the main author, someone with the user name Murderbydeletion and a now indeffed user). I know it is not a vote and you may well be correct in your decision, but you provided no rational for a no-consensus close. Can you have another look at this please. AIRcorn (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Aircorn. This close deserves far more explanation than a simple sentence, particularly when there seems to have been clear consensus for, if not straight deletion, merging/redirecting/something other than keep. I've never taken an AFD close to DRV, but I'm seriously considering it here, without some very strong rationale for this no consensus close. By strength of argument, this didn't even seem a particularly close decision. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 06:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion was heading towards a clear consensus, if it hadn't already reached it, that some content be moved to history of cricket and a redirect put in place. Even user:GnGn, who subsequently disrupted the discussion with his personal attacks, initially agreed to this course of action Py0alb (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'd add my query to this as well - something I've never felt the need to do before. I opted to not place a direct vote on the AfD on the understanding that it's the comments that matter. I can understand it is a difficult close and that there have now been at least two contentious cricket AfD in recent weeks which have gotten a little out of hand and that the nature of the discussion may have been too rambling to come to a conclusion, but I'm a little surprised that it's not a merge/redirect. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've opened a discussion regarding a possible merge of the Major cricket article to History of cricket - see the discussion I've started at Talk:Major cricket. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've responded on the talk page regarding the question of merging. As for the close itself, there was a lot of competing proposals and it was complicated by some rather ugly digressions and personal attacks. It would be next to impossible to pull any sort of coherent agreement out of that. If you wish I'll revert the close and let someone else have a crack at closing it, but I think that the discussion on the talk page of the article is probably the way forward at the moment. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC).
- My only issue is that if a no consensus verdict is reached, that when user:blackjack returns to the site, he will simply undo all the changes and reinstate the page and the whole debate will start over again. There may not have been a consensus to delete outright, but there was definitely a consensus to redirect Py0alb (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Lankiveil, are you the author (photographer) of this photo? If so, would you mind adding authorship details to the file description page so we have source info for it? Cheers, FASTILY 10:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your support
|Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award|
|Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)|