Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Calvary Christian High School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] After-closing comment

The following comment was added after the discussion was closed

The result of the debate was Delete. While it's nice that Tony Sidaway personally thinks this article should be kept, his views on this are irrelevant in deciding whether it should be kept. There were five delete votes and five that wanted it to be deleted and sent to BJAODN, and only two keep votes. Voting to send to BJAODN has never meant that the article should be kept in its current form, although it has also never made a judgement on whether it should return in a future decent article. I see no reason to change this practice now (and at the very least not on the unilateral word of Tony), and as such I'm deleting the article per the VFD consensus and according appropriate protest on WP:ANI. Ambi 13:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

There are two schools of thought on consensus when closing VfDs. One school of thought is that votes should be divided up into broad groups (delete, keep, etc), with for instance merge counting as keep unless otherwise indicated, and that the group with the largest number of votes should be sought to see if a consensus can be found. The other is that each vote is separate and consensus is only found if people explicitly say "delete", "merge", or "keep" vote, otherwise there is no consensus. As a closer I adopt the latter view because it more accurately reflects the tenor of discussion. In that view this discussiona arrived at no consensus. Ambi is correct to state that voting for BJAODN has never meant that the article should be kept in its current form, and I addressed this explicitly in my closing comments, saying that any copyright violations should be dealt with in the appropriate place and the article should probably be relisted if there is no serious attempt to write a sensible article within 28 days. Ambi has speedied the article after a close in which there was no consensus to delete. As closer I am therefore restoring it. BJAODN is an ambiguous vote, and I do not think it would be fair for me to second guess the meaning of such votes when each voter could quite easily say, if it was his intention, that the article itself must be deleted.

On a point of detail, it's incorrect to say that I "personally [think] this article should be kept." Inasmuch as I have an opinion, it was expressed outside the discussion where I said it was a joke article and would probably be deleted. However there were not enough delete votes to support this when I closed.

I specialize in late closings--the ones that others tend not to touch--and they do tend to be controversial, so I'm not too surprised to find controversy here. However it is wrong to delete an article without consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

BJAODN is not an ambiguous vote. It has always been, and will always be, a vote to delete. You do not get to discount votes because they are not wikilawyers and do not see the need to spell out the blatantly obvious. I'll let this one slip because you've taken the time to rewrite it as a stub, but if you persist in overriding people's votes, I'll ask that the arbitration committee steps in. If Cecropia pulled a stunt like this on WP:RFA, he'd be de-bureaucratted in twenty seconds. Ambi 01:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to differ here. I'm sorry but I have never understood BJAODN to be anything other than a flippant comment on content. A vote to delete is a vote in which a person clearly expresses his wish that an article should be deleted, and this did not happen anything like near enough to establish a consensus here.

I've done the best I can with a split vote. The article is still open to be listed very shortly if there is no improvement. It is simply incorrect to claim that I have overridden people's votes; on the contrary by refraining from deleting I have taken all opinions into account. Your comments here are very close to being inflammatory but it's not the first time a VfD closer has had to face that kind of behavior. I'm perfectly happy, as we should all be, to subject my actions to the arbitration committee at any time, and I'm confident that I've done the right thing by Wikipedia. It isn't the closer's duty to conjure a consensus to delete where he can find none. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

BJAODN quite plainly means Delete from the article space and move there: because it does not belong in article space. There just isn't ambiguity here.. especially not in the context of a vote where people are saying things like "BJAODN! will accomodate it... the article space will not. Garrett". ; clearly this meant that it was an understood delete (by that person and all BJAODNs that followed, at least). I agree that BJAODN inherently includes an implication about the content; however, content is the very thing for which articles are nominated for Vfd, and it is understood that bad jokes are deleted; if the article would be rewritten, that can always be done in the future, because the Vfd applies to the content being deleted (not necessarily any brand new future article that might be written for a subject). A concensus of Delete does not bind editors from following the redlinks and later writing a good article --Mysidia 05:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I have always voted BJAODN as meaning "This content is inappropriate as an encyclopedia article, and should be deleted. However, it has sufficient redeeming humorous value that a copy should be saved on the current WP:BJAODN subpage." To the best of my knowlege, this is the standard meaning of such a vote. --Carnildo 07:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Please feel free to copy material from the article history to BJAODN. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)