481:
no problem with that. However, it will take more then a 1 !vote AFD to make that happen. Shii was perfectly within his rights to use that rationale but I was also within my rights to give it no weight. On the NPASR thing, in my view any AFD closed as "no consensus" due to lack of participation can be speedy renominated whether or not the closing admin says so and if Shii renominated the article after leaving my talk page I would have been cool with that. However, since we are here, there's no harm in getting some other opinions on this issue. We are always telling "keep" !voters who give weak rationales that "AFD is not a !vote" and deriding them for making
396:. That's pretty clear: the AfD generated two opinion statements, including the nominator's, neither of which were supported by any analysis of sources and neither of which were grounded in policy. We don't delete articles based on the Alexa rank, and if something was ever notable, then it's notable forever. This leaves exactly zero arguments for deletion remaining. Naturally, the article can be renominated at AfD in due course. I don't see why it should be DRV's role to enforce a relist in this case.—
379:
result does not preclude renominating. And that would be the case even if the nominator provided a valid policy-based rationale for deleting, which was not the case, which left the closer with no unambiguously valid delete supportors - as it turns out, exactly the same number as the unambiguously valid keep supporters.
177:
A non-notable article with no sources that never met the guidelines for inclusion. No arguments were presented in favor of keeping it over three weeks. The administrator closed the discussion as "no consensus" because nobody brought up his favorite guideline, but I'm not aware of any
Knowledge (XXG)
480:
I don't think that SK 1 would apply because a deletion rationale based on Alexa ranking is a rationale, just not one based on current guidelines but since our guidelines and policies are "descriptive", if enough people wanted to use Alexa rankings as an inclusion guideline for websites I would have
461:
alternatives. The best time to have closed this AfD was within 24 hours after it was made, as WP:SK#1 WP:NPASR, at which point the nominator would either have had the motivation to prepare a deletion argument, or move on. In either case, the community, including the nominator, would now be better
378:
notability." (emphasis added). Since notability is not temporary, even the delete !voter's rationale was ambiguous as to whether the subject genuinely did not meet notability guidelines. As such, with no other !votes over 3 weeks, a "no consensus" result was correct. That said, a no consensus
249:
My intention was never to insult anybody. I know that there are many who believe that a "nom + 1 delete" is a consensus but I usually leave "1 !voters" to other admins unless there are BLP issues. I closed this one the way I did for 2 reasons. 1. The article had survived a
237:" and the nominator's argument is based entierly on Alexa ranking, which is a weak argument at best. No compelling reason for deletion was offered. In addition, the fact that the AfD has already been relisted twice suggests that doing so probably will not be fruitful.
306:
more opinions areneeded,and they are better at an AfD2 than here. But, since we are talking about it here, I notice that the first argument was based primarily about comparing Alexa rank, and the second, around a mistaken concept that notability need be lasting.
374:- While the nominator notes that there were no keep !voters, there was only one !voter willing to endorse deletion, and with a weak rationale noting that it "may once have been popular" but that it "did not achieve any
360:, put this article out of its misery. Relisting isn't necessary. Unanimous delete from the participants. It was on AfD for several weeks already and nobody piped up to say why it should be kept. That silence says much.
160:
438:
A nom and a very weak non-policy-based vote don't create a consensus for much of anything. Just relist it in a few weeks and see if you get more discussion. No need for bringing it to DRV.
421:, within admin discretion. Ron Ritzman's reasoning, explained at the AfD and above, is sound. Rather than mandate a relist here, anyone may renominate – but please provide better rationales.
254:
with a "clean keep" back in 2008. (though I have to admit that through it was unanimous, the arguments weren't that strong) IMHO it takes more then one !vote to determine that
457:
Ron
Ritzman makes good points, including the mention of the previous AfD. And declining to list this as WP:NPASR is reasonable, although there has been no discussion of the
202:
a consensus of two may be a weak consensus, but it's still unanimous and calling it "no consensus" is a borderline insult two the two that did participate. Bad close.
48:
34:
251:
43:
39:
343:
plainly. NC was a reasonable close given the weak arguments, but now that it has been raised to DrV better arguments can be presented.
409:
21:
148:
524:
98:
17:
467:
169:
365:
485:
arguments so I only think it's fair that those who advocate deletion should be held to the same standard. --
490:
267:
458:
513:
494:
471:
449:
430:
413:
388:
352:
335:
318:
298:
271:
244:
221:
189:
87:
511:
463:
444:
405:
331:
83:
259:
361:
262:. I just did not see any policy based reasons put forth as to why the article should be deleted. --
118:
426:
283:- I agree entirely with Starblind. Consensus doesn't need to be overwhelmingly strong to count.
78:. The consensus below is that the "No Consensus" closure was within proper admin discretion. –
384:
230:
114:
70:
486:
263:
482:
255:
234:
508:
439:
397:
348:
327:
258:. 2. The nomination was based solely on its alexa ranking and the one delete !vote was an
79:
291:
203:
186:
422:
314:
240:
380:
182:
mention this or that specific guideline. At the very least it should be relisted.
344:
284:
183:
309:
155:
141:
133:
125:
8:
97:The following is an archived debate of the
63:
7:
527:of the page listed in the heading.
28:
523:The above is an archive of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
1:
233:'s argument is essentially "
229:-There's no consensus here.
326:Admin made correct close. —
550:
514:04:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
88:11:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
495:01:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
472:00:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
450:15:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
431:04:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
414:16:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
389:16:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
353:13:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
336:06:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
319:02:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
299:01:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
272:00:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
245:18:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
222:16:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
190:14:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
530:Please do not modify it.
104:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
178:rule that a discussion
507:, a sound closure. --
462:off than we are now.
256:consensus has changed
101:of the page above.
537:
536:
412:
541:
532:
447:
442:
404:
402:
289:
243:
219:
216:
213:
210:
172:
167:
158:
144:
136:
128:
106:
64:
53:
33:
549:
548:
544:
543:
542:
540:
539:
538:
528:
525:deletion review
464:Unscintillating
446:| communicate _
445:
440:
398:
295:
285:
238:
217:
214:
211:
208:
168:
166:
163:
154:
153:
147:
140:
139:
132:
131:
124:
123:
102:
99:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
547:
545:
535:
534:
519:
518:
517:
516:
500:
499:
498:
497:
475:
474:
452:
433:
416:
391:
369:
362:SchmuckyTheCat
355:
338:
321:
301:
293:
274:
247:
224:
204:Andrew Lenahan
175:
174:
164:
151:
145:
137:
129:
121:
109:
108:
93:
92:
91:
90:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
546:
533:
531:
526:
521:
520:
515:
512:
510:
506:
502:
501:
496:
492:
488:
484:
479:
478:
477:
476:
473:
469:
465:
460:
456:
453:
451:
448:
443:
437:
434:
432:
428:
424:
420:
417:
415:
411:
407:
403:
401:
395:
392:
390:
386:
382:
377:
373:
370:
367:
363:
359:
356:
354:
350:
346:
342:
339:
337:
333:
329:
325:
322:
320:
316:
312:
311:
305:
302:
300:
297:
296:
290:
288:
282:
278:
275:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
248:
246:
242:
236:
232:
228:
225:
223:
220:
205:
201:
197:
194:
193:
192:
191:
188:
185:
181:
171:
162:
157:
150:
143:
135:
127:
120:
116:
113:
112:
111:
110:
107:
105:
100:
95:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
529:
522:
504:
454:
435:
418:
399:
393:
375:
371:
357:
340:
323:
308:
303:
292:
286:
280:
276:
260:ATA argument
252:previous AFD
231:Salimfadhley
226:
207:
199:
195:
179:
176:
103:
96:
75:
69:
59:5 April 2012
58:
49:2012 April 6
35:2012 April 4
487:Ron Ritzman
459:WP:NOQUORUM
441:-Scottywong
264:Ron Ritzman
235:not notable
509:joe decker
400:S Marshall
328:Tom Morris
80:Eluchil404
74:– Closure
44:2012 April
423:Flatscan
241:Fyre2387
115:Mobikade
76:Endorsed
71:Mobikade
20: |
505:Endorse
455:Endorse
436:Endorse
419:Endorse
394:Endorse
381:Rlendog
376:lasting
372:Endorse
324:Endorse
227:Endorse
170:restore
134:history
483:WP:ATA
358:Delete
341:relist
304:Relist
281:relist
277:Delete
200:relist
196:Delete
187:(tock)
345:Hobit
315:talk
156:watch
149:links
52:: -->
16:<
491:talk
468:talk
427:talk
385:talk
366:talk
349:talk
332:talk
287:Reyk
268:talk
184:Shii
180:must
142:logs
126:edit
119:talk
84:talk
32:<
310:DGG
294:YO!
279:or
215:bli
198:or
161:XfD
159:) (
22:Log
493:)
470:)
429:)
387:)
351:)
334:)
317:)
270:)
239:--
218:nd
212:ar
209:St
206:-
86:)
42::
503:'
489:(
466:(
425:(
410:C
408:/
406:T
383:(
368:)
364:(
347:(
330:(
313:(
266:(
173:)
165:|
152:|
146:|
138:|
130:|
122:|
117:(
82:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.