646:
inappropriate was...umm...inappropriate on my side I guess. Anyway what actually happened was that I went through the list of old AfDs, saw this and was looking closely at this, when it was closed. I found evidence of undisclosed paid editing in the article and was in the process of confirming when I noticed the closure. I immediately informed the closer at that time, though I didn't mention the part about paid editing as I was still confirming it. I just didn't expect a defensive response. Anyway, I'm OK if the NPASR is added to the close result on the AfD instead of a relist. --
196:, this was a good candidate for relisting as few editors had participated and more robust votes would have been welcome. When closing a discussion, the merits of the !votes have to be looked into - it is not simply a matter of counting keep votes. I believe this was not done in this case. I personally do not understand what was the hurry to close it in 7 days when there has been less participation. I requested the closer to relist but my request was denied (see discussion
497:
level of discussion and only a one-week run, relisting would have been wise, and a "no consensus" close may have been more accurate. But all three editors are in good standing and made facially-valid arguments, and only the nominator advanced an argument for deletion, so I can't say the close was unreasonable.
410:
vote otherwise. No reason to think there had been any canvassing or bad faith behaviour that might lead to any of the !votes being disregarded. The full 168 hours had elapsed, so the idea that the close was "premature" holds no water. I would also have endorsed "no consensus" in view of
Rebbing's doubts.
709:
as I would've actually commented as I planned to the entire time before it was closed, the sources are cited but, looking at the article, finds nothing else and the coverage is all still expected for such a new fashion company. There's no inherited notability from any attention given or connections.
568:
reasonable close, though relist or even NC might also have been reasonable outcomes given the relatively limited nature of the !keep votes. As an aside, I am a bit worried that the closer is being a bit too defensive wrt his closes. Remember that people disagreeing with an action you took is not a
594:
wasn't what you really like to see. The goal is to end up with the right decision, not to strictly enforce policy and deadlines. I don't honestly know what I would have done in that situation, but it's very easy to sit here in my armchair and do some monday-morning quarterbacking. And, if I were
416:
Arun Kumar Singh to consider granting
Lemongirl942's request voluntarily. Lemongirl942's approach on your talk page was perfectly civil and respectful and a relist does you no harm. In your place, I would have agreed to it. It's still possible for you to change your mind and agree, and I commend
409:
this fairly unexceptionable close. One deletion nomination followed by three well-reasoned, policy-based "keep" !votes. Rebbing's intervention is interesting. It certainly should not be read as a "keep", but it's hard to read a "delete" into it when the user says they were looking for reasons to
525:
would also have been fine and I don't mind if that is what happens now. Generally, I'm nervous of closers being pressurised into changing their close (but asking them for advice or a fuller explanation can be appropriate). However, in this case I don't think the request for relisting was expressed
303:
Participating in the AfD does not have anything to do with the merits of closing. And I could not participate because it was closed minutes before - at the time when I was looking at the sources. I still feel this was a premature closure. AfD is about discussing notability and shutting down such a
496:
The three votes are sparse on analysis. Megalibrarygirl simply states that the article passes GNG. Hmlarson offered little more: as my comment highlighted, her argument was premised in part on an impermissible basis (inherited notability); also, she was the article's AFC sponsor. With such a low
440:
My initial hesitation was purely personal: my read was that the subject clearly failed GNG, but I wanted a valid reason to vote "keep" as I was impressed with the company—girl power, blah blah blah. When I came back to cast my reluctant "delete," I gave the article another look. Between the ABC
645:
I will make it clear that I am simply asking for a relist and not overturning the decision to a delete. I understand that 168 hours had passed and the closer was entitled to close it. My description of "premature" was more about allowing a bit more discussion. And yes, describing the close as
586:. I agree that the original close was fine. It's true that none of the keep arguments actually cited any sources, and sources is what it's all about. Relisting this on that basis would have been reasonable, but calling it a keep and closing it was reasonable too. But, I'm also with
200:). The closer has not answered my question about how it was a "clear keep" but has said "I dont see how will the outcome of the AfD change just because of your vote". I am requesting an overturning of the premature non-admin closure and relisting the article for more participation. --
664:
As a purely practical suggestion (and orthogonal to the rest of this discussion), if you're doing some research on an AfD that's already at risk for turning into a pumpkin, it might be a good idea to drop a note saying,
284:
the AfD is reopened, then you are welcome to discuss the deletion there. On my talkpage, I answered your simple request of reopening the AfD - the answer was, no I wont as I simply dont see any case. Trust this
447:(Once I've spent the time to form an opinion, I typically vote, even if my vote has to go against my preferences or what I think is best for the project. See, for example, the explanation of my vote at
669:. If I were going to close an AfD, and saw such a note, with a very recent timestamp (say, less than an hour old), I would honor the request. I hope other admins would do the same. There's a
192:
was not answered and this was closed without even relisting once. I was looking for sources and was about to vote when I saw this was closed (I guess it missed it by 15 minutes or so). Per
569:
personal attack, nor do you need to defend each action. What you want out of a DRV isn't an endorsement, but rather the right outcome even if that's different than the action you took.
78:
Most contributors endorse the closure as such, because they don't consider the assessment of consensus to be in error, but they believe that more discussion would have been merited. –
445:
review, and the handful of (likely-sponsored) mentions elsewhere, I felt it was a close call, at least when I turned my head sideways and squinted just right, so I chose to abstain.
547:(Had the nom perhaps discussed it with the !voters then I could perhaps understand but as no discussion really took place the best thing to do would've been to close as Keep). –
163:
673:
that serves this purpose for closes that take a long time. I've used that on occasion. I don't know if there's a similar template for participants in the debate. --
272:
were vague. Forget the so called "vague votes", you did not even participate in the AfD. The AfD was closed following the NAC process of 168 hours and all votes were
599:
would have added their argument to delete, and with that in place, relisting this would be a no-brainer. And, since we're not about enforcing strict deadlines, a
448:
34:
48:
479:
the close. I can see how individuals would want more comments on the discussion. That said, I can't see any other outcome besides Keep for that article.
280:. As far as answering your "questions" are concerned, lets be clear that the deletion discussion needs to take place on the AfD page and not elsewhere.
43:
620:
was a bit over the top. It was open for more than seven days, so it certainly wasn't premature. And the close was perfectly reasonable. Slapping an
151:
39:
369:
DRV???? Its as stupid as I start a AfD discussion and then vote on it also. You filed the DRV, now wait for others to give their opinion.
603:
seems like the right thing to do here. In the alternative, I would encourage the closer to amend their closing statement to include
430:
172:
21:
739:
101:
17:
484:
189:
723:
697:
651:
392:
349:
309:
248:
205:
121:
185:
269:
232:
526:
unreasonably. FWIW, the close was not premature and I'll support the closer's decision to suggest DRV.
728:
701:
680:
655:
635:
578:
560:
535:
512:
488:
468:
434:
396:
382:
353:
336:
313:
298:
252:
209:
90:
480:
426:
265:
228:
117:
70:
711:
240:
455:. I am strongly opposed to reinterpreting the guidelines on an ad hoc basic to suit my politics.)
193:
693:
677:
632:
591:
376:
330:
292:
604:
647:
608:
596:
531:
506:
462:
388:
362:
345:
305:
244:
201:
277:
670:
625:
499:
I second S Marshall's suggestion that the closer voluntarily rescind his close and relist.
574:
418:
548:
236:
81:
674:
629:
544:
371:
325:
287:
261:
220:
181:
527:
501:
457:
224:
184:. The discussion had very less participation, 2 of the !votes were essentially
587:
570:
592:
User_talk:AKS.9955#Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion.2FSweat_Cosmetics
216:
616:
All that being said, I think the nomination statement calling this a
595:
to do that, I would say that had this been closed 20 minutes later,
344:
AfD and let more editors participate. The closure was premature. --
387:
Specifying relist rather than overturn as is generally assumed. --
667:
I'm actively working on this, please don't close immediately
180:
This was a premature and inappropriate non-admin closure by
197:
158:
144:
136:
128:
260:. It is your assumption that two votes between
235:from AfD. Other experienced non-admin closers
618:premature and inappropriate non-admin closure
8:
100:The following is an archived debate of the
63:
543:- I probably would've closed the same as
188:, a query to one of the keep votes about
611:could just nominate it for a fresh look.
628:people don't like is getting old. --
590:, that the post-close conversation at
304:discussion early serves no purpose. --
412:But, now that I've endorsed, I would
7:
742:of the page listed in the heading.
28:
692:Mr. Singh did the right thing.
738:The above is an archive of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
1:
765:
513:18:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
489:18:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
469:18:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
435:16:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
397:15:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
383:14:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
354:13:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
337:10:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
323:as per my comments above.
314:13:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
299:09:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
253:09:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
210:09:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
745:Please do not modify it.
729:16:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
702:03:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
681:00:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
656:16:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
636:22:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
579:18:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
561:17:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
536:09:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
365:, why are you voting on
107:Please do not modify it.
91:12:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
40:Deletion review archives
276:, turning this more to
417:this outcome to you.—
584:Endorse, but relist
104:of the page above.
752:
751:
609:User:Lemongirl942
597:User:Lemongirl942
433:
373:Arun Kumar SINGH
327:Arun Kumar SINGH
289:Arun Kumar SINGH
89:
756:
747:
726:
721:
671:Template:Closing
558:
553:
511:
509:
504:
467:
465:
460:
425:
423:
379:
374:
333:
328:
295:
290:
270:Northamerica1000
233:Northamerica1000
175:
170:
161:
147:
139:
131:
109:
88:
86:
79:
64:
53:
33:
764:
763:
759:
758:
757:
755:
754:
753:
743:
740:deletion review
724:
712:
624:label on every
554:
549:
507:
502:
500:
481:Megalibrarygirl
463:
458:
456:
419:
377:
372:
331:
326:
293:
288:
266:Megalibrarygirl
229:Megalibrarygirl
190:WP:NOTINHERITED
171:
169:
166:
157:
156:
150:
143:
142:
135:
134:
127:
126:
118:Sweat Cosmetics
105:
102:deletion review
82:
80:
71:Sweat Cosmetics
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
762:
760:
750:
749:
734:
733:
732:
731:
704:
686:
685:
684:
683:
659:
658:
639:
638:
613:
612:
581:
563:
538:
516:
491:
474:
473:
472:
441:coverage, the
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
339:
318:
317:
316:
255:
241:SwisterTwister
178:
177:
167:
154:
148:
140:
132:
124:
112:
111:
96:
95:
94:
93:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
761:
748:
746:
741:
736:
735:
730:
727:
722:
719:
715:
708:
705:
703:
699:
695:
694:Capt. Milokan
691:
688:
687:
682:
679:
676:
672:
668:
663:
662:
661:
660:
657:
653:
649:
644:
641:
640:
637:
634:
631:
627:
623:
622:inappropriate
619:
615:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
593:
589:
585:
582:
580:
576:
572:
567:
564:
562:
559:
557:
552:
546:
542:
539:
537:
533:
529:
524:
520:
517:
515:
514:
510:
505:
495:
494:Weak endorse.
492:
490:
486:
482:
478:
475:
471:
470:
466:
461:
454:
452:
444:
439:
438:
437:
436:
432:
428:
424:
422:
415:
408:
404:
398:
394:
390:
386:
385:
384:
381:
380:
375:
368:
364:
360:
357:
356:
355:
351:
347:
343:
340:
338:
335:
334:
329:
322:
319:
315:
311:
307:
302:
301:
300:
297:
296:
291:
283:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
256:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
213:
212:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
191:
187:
183:
174:
165:
160:
153:
146:
138:
130:
123:
119:
116:
115:
114:
113:
110:
108:
103:
98:
97:
92:
87:
85:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
744:
737:
717:
713:
706:
689:
666:
648:Lemongirl942
642:
621:
617:
607:, and then
600:
583:
565:
555:
550:
540:
522:
518:
498:
493:
476:
450:
446:
442:
420:
413:
411:
406:
389:Lemongirl942
370:
366:
363:Lemongirl942
358:
346:Lemongirl942
341:
324:
320:
306:Lemongirl942
286:
281:
273:
257:
245:Lemongirl942
202:Lemongirl942
186:WP:VAGUEWAVE
179:
106:
99:
83:
75:
69:
59:30 June 2016
58:
35:2016 June 29
49:2016 July 1
451:Jenna Fife
421:S Marshall
84:Sandstein
521:though a
285:explains.
237:Davey2010
194:WP:RELIST
76:Relisted.
44:2016 June
675:RoySmith
630:RoySmith
605:WP:NPASR
545:AKS.9955
367:your own
262:Hmlarson
221:Hmlarson
215:Pinging
182:AKS.9955
20: |
690:Endorse
643:Comment
566:Endorse
541:Endorse
528:Thincat
519:Endorse
477:Endorse
443:InStyle
407:endorse
378:(Talk)
359:Comment
332:(Talk)
321:Endorse
294:(Talk)
258:Comment
225:Rebbing
173:restore
137:history
720:wister
716:wister
707:Relist
678:(talk)
633:(talk)
626:WP:NAC
601:relist
523:relist
414:advise
342:Relist
268:&
588:Hobit
571:Hobit
551:Davey
159:watch
152:links
52:: -->
16:<
725:talk
698:talk
652:talk
575:talk
556:2010
532:talk
503:Rebb
485:talk
459:Rebb
449:the
393:talk
350:talk
310:talk
278:SNOW
274:keep
249:talk
243:. --
206:talk
198:here
145:logs
129:edit
122:talk
32:<
508:ing
464:ing
453:AfD
217:DGG
164:XfD
162:) (
22:Log
700:)
654:)
577:)
534:)
487:)
405:I
395:)
361::
352:)
312:)
282:IF
264:,
251:)
239:,
231:,
227:,
223:,
219:,
208:)
74:–
42::
718:T
714:S
696:(
650:(
573:(
530:(
483:(
431:C
429:/
427:T
391:(
348:(
308:(
247:(
204:(
176:)
168:|
155:|
149:|
141:|
133:|
125:|
120:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.