- Extravagance (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
There was no consensus for deletion and so WP:DGFA does not seem to have been followed. Other factors include the creation of a content fork, tryphé, during the discussion which explicitly copied material from the deleted article. Licensing considerations therefore require retention of the edit history. The closing admin seems to be away until the 15th but, in any case, indicates that objections should raised directly at DRV - see his FAQ. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No comment on the AfD itself at the moment, but I have taken the liberty of restoring Extravagance and redirecting it to Tryphé, to preserve the edit history. This discussion should continue regardless. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)The AfD participants were right to conclude that the material in question didn't constitute an encyclopaedia article, but for some reason that totally escapes me, that got turned into a "delete" outcome. I can't find any logic in that at all. It's clearly totally inappropriate for extravagance to be a redlink.
Please will the closer either (a) create a fresh soft redirect to Wiktionary, or (b) restore the history beneath a soft redirect to Wiktionary (depending on the consensus in this discussion) for the time being.—S Marshall T/C 20:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - This DRV filing is without merit, it was well within the closing admin's right to view that discussion as a delete. Making the term into a redirect is fine, though, that is always an editorial decision that can be taken up after the fact. Tarc (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- obviously the correct reading of consensus at at AfD. Reyk YO! 21:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn There was no consensus to delete it, so it should've been no consensus. One editor erased most of the original content before the article's life was at an end, after insisting it was not one of the seven deadly sins. It did have sources in it. [1] A key reason many people said keep was because it was one of the original seven deadly sins. One editor went and dismissed this, and erased sourced information from seven deadly sins as well.[2] Google Translate from Latin shows that Luxuria means EXTRAVAGANCE [3]. The deleted sources cite the Oxford dictionary. Can someone who owns one or has access to their site please confirm this information. Dream Focus 21:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-
- That was my point. If the closing administrator dismissed all the Keeps because of this one person's comments, and this person was wrong, then the results should be overturned. Does he link to any reliable sources to prove he is right? The previously established information [4] seems far more reliable. Dream Focus 07:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- weak endorse redirect w/history result I think either a redirect or no consensus was the best outcome here given that discussion. We now have a redirect, so I don't see a problem. The original close of delete was perhaps barely within admin discretion given that discussion other than the copyright issue. But with it, it's clearly not a delete. Also, if anyone can fix the article up, they have the history as a starting point. Net win as I suspect a good article can be written here. Hobit (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What copyright issue? I see no mention of that in the discussion anywhere. Dream Focus 00:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I was indeed unclear. The fact that chunks of this article were copied into another article means we need to retain the history of the "source" article to meet our licensing rules. Hobit (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support redirect, but the article could use some serious attention. It's a stub right now but I could see a LOT of room for expansion, historical references, ect. I'll take a look 65.29.47.55 (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Well within admin discretion and it looks like those arguing delete were more grounded in policy. It is unfortunate that the creation of the other article was a copy and paste job, but that can be sorted out in numerous ways (history merge followed by deletion, redirect with history intact etc) and does not need to be considered at DRV. Quantpole (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn for several reasons: 1. Close against policy, justified on the basis that "I don't think it's fixable". The view of one person that it's not fixable cannot prevail over consensus that it is. Nobody disagrees with NOT DICT. The disagreement was over the application of it this particular article, and that's not a policy question, so it's a place where one has to go by consensus. Otherwise the close is a supervote. 2. If one goes by count, there was probably no consensus. 3. If one goes by strongest argument, the argument that it could be improved is the strongest argument, since deletion is the final resort only. The opposition attempted to show that it was only a dicdef at the time, but that is not reason for deletion unless it is impossible to expand it. They did not show that. As the policy says, "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary article, and stubs are often poorly written." DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, here we go again. #1 "I don't think it's fixable" was only a part (note; a part) of the nominator's rationale, not the closing rationale. I don't know about others, but I evaluate the article up for deletion based on why I think it should be retained or tossed. As fair as I am concerned, the nomination isn't anything more special than Vote Number One. You claim that "not fixable" was the reason it was deleted is, therefore, bunk. #2 AfDs are not exercises in bean-counting. #3 The strongest argument is is simply your opinion. DRV isn't to be used to simply second-guess or "I would've closed it differently if it was me". Several !votes, including mine, saw the additions made during the AfD as puffery that didn't actually expend the article in any meaningful way. It was impossible to expand the topic beyond a simple dicdef. Tarc (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tarc, could you elucidate the sentence "I evaluate the article up for deletion based on why I think it should be retained or tossed. " Do you mean you decide on that basis when you !vote at AfD , or when you !vote here, or that you decide on that basis in closing an AfD? DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
