610:
stuck, incorrectly IMHO, in wondering whether the article must be solely about the building vs. solely being about the hotel as an organization (it can be about both, both aspects add to notability, is the answer). There were five Keep votes, including the last three votes (therefore the most informed ones). And a non-voting commentator expressed interest in one aspect of the article being developed, which in fact was subsequently developed, so I think it is reasonable to consider them as "leaning Keep". On the vote numbers, that is not a "Delete" outcome. About number and quality of sources in existence, note the original deletion nomination acknowledged one, some more were produced, and a decent argument was made that others exist (pre-internet). Closer disagreed about the sources, I guess, but the close was a super-vote in effect. --
769:: If there is any administrator present, could you please consider cutting through the bullshit that is denying refund, and just deliver the request. (The temporarily linked version available for review here can't be edited, it is in mainspace behind a redirect.) Yes, technically wp:REFUND is not for refunding articles which have been deleted by AFD. But in this case at least it can't hurt anything and would enable earlier resolution of this DRV, which will surely end with refund or restoration. Editors having sources apparently want to develop it and could do so right away, proving it can be done, making this DRV moot. I apologize to all that my opening this DRV too soon may be causing bureaucratic delay. (But how was I to know that more sources are supposedly available?) --
802:- On a procedural note, the closer has not edited since you posted on their talk page, so it would have been a good idea to wait a few more days before opening a review here. With regards to the close itself: Spartaz read the consensus correctly. One keep !vote argued that the Google Street View proved notability, which is not in line with policy. Another simply said "
884:
agree this DRV which I opened could/should be closed. Purpose of DRV, for me, is not at all to judge/chastise AFD closer, it is to achieve mainspace improvement (by restoration of article which I believe meets requirements yet was incorrectly deleted). If those sources don't pan out, I wish for the DRV to proceed to restore the article essentially as it is now.--
404:
1122:
As I said on the closer's TP, I would have closed this as Delete at the time as well. The Keeps weren't good enough, including probably the most nonsensical one I've ever seen suggesting that the building was notable because it could be seen on Google Street View (?!). The only one that even touched
854:
I participated in the discussion, but there's already a request to draftify the article to add sources which have not yet been identified which I support. If those sources had been identified by any one of the keep !voters (or even myself - I documented my sleuthing at the AfD) this would have turned
727:
remotely meaningful, and only one of two of them really say anything based on policies and guidelines. The three "Delete" !voters argued on the basis of sources not meeting GNG and the Google Maps street view not being policy/guideline-based.It seems here that the close was a reasonable assessment of
609:
I request overturn of decision to delete, because the article is substantial (was developed to be more substantial, with additional source(s) during the AFD itself). At least one Delete vote, out of three total counting the nominator, was well before the development happened. Another Delete voter was
310:
I just started NACs a couple of weeks ago (when this was closed) and agree I was entirely too ambitious with this one and it should have been a relist. In particular, not checking to see one of the users was a sock was quite an oversight on my part. A couple of mistakes were made here on my part that
1172:
not a very good discussion but the arguments on the Keep side were definitely weaker, and included comments which made no argument at all and comments which brought in considerations outside the notability guidelines (e.g. pictures of the subject). Assertions that sources are likely to exist do need
244:
argued why those sources were insufficient. Nothing else in the entire AfD (including the nomination statement) comes close to making any policy-based arguments either way. And, yeah, the sock should be discounted completely; socks often commit drive-by AfD voting to give the appearance of being a
1156:
Yes, the keep !votes were greater numerically, but that's not how we assess consensus. There certainly isn't consensus to keep after we dismiss arguments such as "there might be more offline sources" and "it shows up on Google
Streetview" as well as ones with no rationale like "keep and expand". No
1005:
I'm not seeing much in the way of sourcing that makes me think that references to the GNG were much more than a vague wave. A lot of the articles look like PR for the hotel. I personally think we should have articles like this and I'd have !voted to keep. And no consensus was also a reasonable
883:
If new substantial sources are available online, could links to them please be provided here? And/or more evaluation whether they add significantly? If there's some degree of consensus that these sources would suffice to justify the clear remedy (develop in Draft space and restore soon), then I
1081:
Sorry about my trumpeting that u had not replied, as it apparently came across. Also time was in slow motion for me while I am/was being raked over coals at wp:ANI, and I mistakenly thought more time had gone by, and also mistakenly thought that you were editing and had just chosen not to reply
1136:
No, I never said "the building was notable because it could be seen on Google Street View". I linked to the Google view to illustrate why it was clearly a notable building given its size and stature. Please try to actually read things properly before you post inaccurate rubbish about them. --
837:
The article was a poorly-sourced stub when it was nominated, but several editors worked diligently to improve/expand it. In the end, five editors voted "keep". Of the minority "delete" votes, one was posted before the improvements were made. My read is that this should have been closed as a
855:
out differently. You can save any article at AfD by finding decent sources, and the fact the conversation got so deep into the weeds about Google Maps and travel guides I think supports the fact no good sources were really found for this article (which was about the building, but has an
905:(I created the article and made some of the subsequent improvements and voted to keep.) The AFD was moving towards "keep" as the article expanded and was improved. An undelete is the best option, but moving the article to Draft space would also allow more time for further improvements.
1064:
The keep votes were much lower quality then the delete arguments and the outcome was therefore perfectly defensible. I don't usually comment on DRVs of my closes but there seems to be some concerns that I have been off wikipedia for two days after closing the afd. Classy.
1100:
It surely would have been quicker to check the timestamps then to type the comments. I wonder what kind of editor you actually want to be. The editor who checks their facts or the one who feels more comfortable throwing around comments without needing to check.
329:
DRV's major purpose is not to assign blame or resolve disputes, but to provide corrective input for future efforts. Don't worry, we all make mistakes, it's part of life. I don't imagine anybody would object if you backed out your close and relisted it. --
388:
What I would do pull up the AfD page history, revert back to the change right before your close, and then click the "Relist" button. You'll also need to do the same thing on the article talk page. I'd reference this DRV in various edit comments. --
1191:. To my mind, the closer has applied clear supervote here. Opinion was clearly on the side of keeping and if AfD discussion decisions slavishly followed non-existent "rules" then we wouldn't bother having the discussions at all. --
359:, The happiest outcome of a DRV is when the closer understands how they could have done things better and goes and does it. No reason to spend the next week talking about something when it's already obvious where it's going. --
159:
1040:
Draftify to remove the promotionalism . I'm usually a little cautious about historic houses that just happen to be recently converted into hotels, and where a lot of the content consists on non-encyclopedic local
374:, What's the easiest way to relist it? Tried to find a guide but am coming up short. Just start a new afd and copy over the applicable comments? Edit the existing afd? Don't want to miss any applicable markup/logs.
806:" and provided no reasoning whatsoever. These two should be discounted. What's left is one side arguing that GNG is not met and one side arguing it is met (presuming that is what Encyclopædius meant with "
147:
176:
The deletion discussion was kept as a non-admin closure, but 3 people thinking an article should be kept, excluding the blocked sock, and 2 thinking the article should be deleted is not a consensus.
944:
At question is if the sources meet the GNG. Both sides mostly throw around assertions without talking much about the sources, making those arguments hard to evaluate. Could we get a temp undelete?
168:
988:
Thanks. I see refs including 2 books and 2 websites - an external charity and the hotel's own history page (not especially unsafe for the history aspects). So maybe 3.5 sources?
859:
concern as well as an active business.) I really don't know why this needs to go to DRV if there's a clear remedy that the article can be improved in draft space and restored.
434:
BTW, if you don't have the gadget enabled that crosses out the username of blocked accounts, I highly recommend it. Not for this in particular, but for reading in general.
311:
I don't intend to repeat. That being said, I would encourage anyone who sees that I made a bad closure to come talk to me first, I would have been happy to relist this.
117:
592:
1046:
It might pass without the long quote of what a guest is presumed imaginatively to have felt about the house, and the final paragraph, which isa dvertising.
113:
70:
48:
34:
43:
260:- Although I did participate in the AfD, it was closed very shortly after the only delete vote. And only two keep votes actually had value.
574:
501:
A majority here endorses the "delete" closure, but many would also permit draftification. Any admin is therefore free to do so on request.
873:
297:
1123:
on notability policy was by Cbl62 and even that didn't go into detail. However I do suspect this building is borderline notable, so
741:
737:
232:. AfD is not about counting the bolded words, it's about evaluating arguments. I only see two arguments here that have any value;
39:
1157:
prejudice against draftifying to give folks a chance to dig up enough sources to establish notability and write a viable article. –
926:
Close was correct based on the discussion, when additional sources are added, the people working on it can move it to mainspace.
712:
The fourth just says that the article passes GNG, without pointing out which sources are being used to count towards passing GNG.
935:
601:
21:
810:"). The keep !voters have not been able to establish what independent reliable sources provide significant coverage as
993:
910:
1211:
524:
472:
97:
17:
698:
The second provided a few short sources, supported the Google Maps street view argument, said that the building
865:
641:
289:
241:
212:
989:
906:
633:
544:
211:- on a procedural note, there appears to have been no discussion with the closer. W.r.t. to the close,
1196:
1142:
1128:
645:
586:
540:
493:
194:
there was no consensus per
Natureium's analysis especially because one of the keeps was weak. Best,
1200:
1183:
1173:
some actual evidence to be convincing. No objection to draftifying if someone wants to work on it.
1164:
1161:
1146:
1131:
1105:
1091:
1069:
1057:
1033:
1019:
983:
969:
953:
939:
931:
914:
893:
878:
847:
823:
778:
755:
678:
658:
619:
513:
457:
453:
443:
439:
419:
415:
396:
383:
379:
366:
351:
347:
337:
320:
316:
302:
275:
252:
224:
203:
199:
185:
181:
86:
732:
has not edited anywhere on WP since the inquiry at their talk page was opened. There are also two
966:
860:
797:
393:
363:
334:
284:
249:
1087:
889:
774:
674:
654:
627:
615:
268:
215:
brought a strong argument against inclusion, that was not given time for due consideration. --
819:
733:
220:
1192:
1138:
1029:
1015:
979:
949:
856:
843:
342:
I'm happy to, but is it appropriate to do so since this discussion has already started?
1158:
927:
504:
449:
435:
411:
375:
356:
343:
312:
195:
177:
77:
1053:
963:
811:
626:(Request adapted from posting at multiple-person discussion at AFD closer's page, at
390:
371:
360:
331:
246:
1176:
1102:
1083:
1066:
885:
770:
746:
729:
670:
650:
611:
262:
233:
815:
237:
216:
1025:
1011:
975:
945:
839:
1048:
283:
Not the worst BADNAC I've ever seen but this should have been relisted.
922:
close, draftify (even) if REFUND declines basically per
SportingFlyer.
962:
Done. I left the redirect in place, but the history is restored. --
700:
would surely be listed on the
National Register of Historic Places
723:
Out of the five "Keep" !votes, only three of them actually say
640:. Article was deleted, later was replaced by a redirect to
695:
The first was based solely on a Google Maps street view.
665:
637:
581:
567:
559:
551:
154:
140:
132:
124:
838:consensus to "keep" or, at worst, "no consensus".
236:listed four specific sources they felt satisfied
8:
1024:I'm fine with sending it to be a draft btw.
523:The following is an archived debate of the
96:The following is an archived debate of the
486:
114:A group where we all pretend to be boomers
71:A group where we all pretend to be boomers
63:
691:: There were 5 editors who !voted "Keep":
632:Refund copy of deleted article to go to
448:Nice, I hadn't noticed that one before.
728:policy/guideline-based consensus.Note:
666:Last version of article before deletion
628:User talk:Spartaz#AFD on Wrea Head Hall
807:
803:
716:
706:
699:
702:, and compared it to other buildings.
74:– Undone and relisted by the closer.
7:
1214:of the page listed in the heading.
1082:(which would have been fine IMO).--
475:of the page listed in the heading.
28:
642:Scalby, North Yorkshire#Landmarks
648:) currently shows as a bluelink.
402:
1210:The above is an archive of the
471:The above is an archive of the
1:
1006:reading. But as it stands,
1237:
630:. Closer has not replied.
1010:without much enthusiasm.
717:Keep - meets requirements
499:No consensus to overturn.
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
1217:Please do not modify it.
1201:15:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
1189:Overturn to no consensus
1184:11:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
1147:15:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
1127:for it to be worked on.
831:Overturn to no consensus
530:Please do not modify it.
514:14:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
478:Please do not modify it.
103:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
1165:19:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
1132:23:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
1106:22:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
1092:21:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
1070:21:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
1058:16:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
1034:20:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
1020:15:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
984:15:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
970:15:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
954:14:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
940:13:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
915:12:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
894:22:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
879:08:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
848:07:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
824:07:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
779:22:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
756:07:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
679:21:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
659:07:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
620:07:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
458:01:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
444:00:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
420:01:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
397:00:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
384:00:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
367:00:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
352:23:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
338:22:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
321:19:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
303:15:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
276:15:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
253:15:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
242:User:Premeditated Chaos
225:15:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
204:15:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
186:15:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
87:06:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
638:requested at wp:REFUND
767:Fourth refund request
715:The fifth only says
705:The third only says
634:Draft:Wrea Head Hall
669:is now available.--
527:of the page above.
100:of the page above.
808:meets requirements
213:Premeditated Chaos
1224:
1223:
1129:Black Kite (talk)
1108:
1097:
1094:
990:GhostInTheMachine
925:
924:(non-participant)
907:GhostInTheMachine
836:
801:
794:
793:(I !voted delete)
751:
690:
689:(non-participant)
661:
512:
485:
484:
85:
1228:
1219:
1179:
1099:
1096:
1080:
923:
876:
868:
834:
795:
792:
754:
749:
688:
625:
604:
599:
584:
570:
562:
554:
532:
511:
509:
502:
487:
480:
410:
406:
405:
300:
292:
274:
271:
265:
171:
166:
157:
143:
135:
127:
105:
84:
82:
75:
64:
53:
33:
1236:
1235:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1215:
1212:deletion review
1177:
872:
864:
835:(I !voted keep)
804:Keep and expand
752:
745:
722:
707:Keep and expand
600:
598:
595:
591:
580:
579:
573:
566:
565:
558:
557:
550:
549:
528:
525:deletion review
505:
503:
476:
473:deletion review
403:
401:
296:
288:
269:
263:
261:
245:real user. --
167:
165:
162:
153:
152:
146:
139:
138:
131:
130:
123:
122:
101:
98:deletion review
78:
76:
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1234:
1232:
1222:
1221:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1186:
1167:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1073:
1072:
1061:
1060:
1043:
1042:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
986:
957:
956:
942:
917:
899:
898:
897:
896:
851:
850:
827:
826:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
759:
758:
748:
721:
720:
713:
710:
703:
696:
692:
682:
681:
662:
646:Wrea Head Hall
607:
606:
596:
589:
577:
571:
563:
555:
547:
541:Wrea Head Hall
535:
534:
519:
518:
517:
516:
494:Wrea Head Hall
483:
482:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
324:
323:
305:
278:
255:
227:
206:
174:
173:
163:
150:
144:
136:
128:
120:
108:
107:
92:
91:
90:
89:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1233:
1220:
1218:
1213:
1208:
1207:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1187:
1185:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1171:
1168:
1166:
1163:
1160:
1155:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1130:
1126:
1125:send to Draft
1121:
1118:
1117:
1107:
1104:
1098:
1095:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1071:
1068:
1063:
1062:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1050:
1045:
1044:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1004:
1003:
995:
991:
987:
985:
981:
977:
973:
972:
971:
968:
965:
961:
960:
959:
958:
955:
951:
947:
943:
941:
937:
933:
929:
921:
918:
916:
912:
908:
904:
901:
900:
895:
891:
887:
882:
881:
880:
877:
875:
869:
867:
862:
861:SportingFlyer
858:
853:
852:
849:
845:
841:
832:
829:
828:
825:
821:
817:
813:
809:
805:
799:
798:edit conflict
791:
788:
787:
780:
776:
772:
768:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
757:
753:
743:
739:
735:
731:
726:
718:
714:
711:
708:
704:
701:
697:
694:
693:
687:
684:
683:
680:
676:
672:
668:
667:
663:
660:
656:
652:
649:
647:
643:
639:
635:
629:
624:
623:
622:
621:
617:
613:
603:
594:
588:
583:
576:
569:
561:
553:
546:
542:
539:
538:
537:
536:
533:
531:
526:
521:
520:
515:
510:
508:
500:
496:
495:
491:
490:
489:
488:
481:
479:
474:
469:
468:
459:
455:
451:
447:
446:
445:
441:
437:
433:
421:
417:
413:
409:
400:
399:
398:
395:
392:
387:
386:
385:
381:
377:
373:
370:
369:
368:
365:
362:
358:
355:
354:
353:
349:
345:
341:
340:
339:
336:
333:
328:
327:
326:
325:
322:
318:
314:
309:
306:
304:
301:
299:
293:
291:
286:
285:SportingFlyer
282:
279:
277:
272:
266:
259:
256:
254:
251:
248:
243:
239:
235:
231:
228:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
207:
205:
201:
197:
193:
190:
189:
188:
187:
183:
179:
170:
161:
156:
149:
142:
134:
126:
119:
115:
112:
111:
110:
109:
106:
104:
99:
94:
93:
88:
83:
81:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
1216:
1209:
1188:
1175:
1174:
1169:
1153:
1124:
1119:
1047:
1007:
919:
902:
871:
863:
830:
789:
766:
724:
685:
664:
631:
608:
529:
522:
506:
498:
492:
477:
470:
407:
307:
295:
287:
280:
257:
234:User:Koridas
229:
208:
191:
175:
102:
95:
79:
69:
58:
1193:Necrothesp
1139:Necrothesp
736:requests (
730:the closer
507:Sandstein
80:Sandstein
59:8 May 2020
49:2020 May 9
35:2020 May 7
1159:dlthewave
928:Alpha3031
734:WP:REFUND
636:has been
450:Sulfurboy
436:Natureium
412:Sulfurboy
376:Sulfurboy
357:Sulfurboy
344:Sulfurboy
313:Sulfurboy
196:Barkeep49
178:Natureium
974:Thanks.
964:RoySmith
903:Overturn
857:WP:NCORP
812:required
725:anything
391:RoySmith
372:RoySmith
361:RoySmith
332:RoySmith
247:RoySmith
44:2020 May
20: |
1178:Hut 8.5
1170:Endorse
1154:Endorse
1120:Endorse
1103:Spartaz
1084:Doncram
1067:Spartaz
1041:colour.
1008:endorse
920:Endorse
886:Doncram
790:Endorse
771:Doncram
686:Endorse
671:Doncram
651:Doncram
612:Doncram
602:restore
587:article
560:history
308:Comment
169:restore
133:history
967:(talk)
816:MrClog
394:(talk)
364:(talk)
335:(talk)
281:Relist
258:Relist
250:(talk)
240:, and
230:Relist
217:MrClog
209:Relist
192:Relist
1054:talk
1026:Hobit
1012:Hobit
976:Hobit
946:Hobit
840:Cbl62
747:MarkH
744:). —
644:, so
582:watch
575:links
155:watch
148:links
52:: -->
16:<
1197:talk
1143:talk
1088:talk
1030:talk
1016:talk
994:talk
980:talk
950:talk
911:talk
890:talk
844:talk
820:talk
814:. --
775:talk
675:talk
655:talk
616:talk
568:logs
552:edit
545:talk
454:talk
440:talk
416:talk
408:Done
380:talk
348:talk
317:talk
264:Kori
238:WP:N
221:talk
200:talk
182:talk
141:logs
125:edit
118:talk
32:<
1049:DGG
593:XfD
585:) (
160:XfD
158:) (
22:Log
1199:)
1145:)
1090:)
1056:)
1032:)
1018:)
982:)
952:)
938:)
934:•
913:)
892:)
846:)
822:)
777:)
750:21
740:,
677:)
657:)
618:)
497:–
456:)
442:)
418:)
382:)
350:)
319:)
223:)
202:)
184:)
42::
1195:(
1162:☎
1141:(
1086:(
1052:(
1028:(
1014:(
996:)
992:(
978:(
948:(
936:c
932:t
930:(
909:(
888:(
874:C
870:·
866:T
842:(
833:.
818:(
800:)
796:(
773:(
742:2
738:1
719:.
709:.
673:(
653:(
614:(
605:)
597:|
590:|
578:|
572:|
564:|
556:|
548:|
543:(
452:(
438:(
414:(
378:(
346:(
315:(
298:C
294:·
290:T
273:)
270:@
267:(
219:(
198:(
180:(
172:)
164:|
151:|
145:|
137:|
129:|
121:|
116:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.