Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Courier (comics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi Jerry,

You closed the AfD as no consensus [1]. I believe your decision is not the obvious one. Could you please explain your decision? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, and thanks for giving me the opportunity to discuss this before going to DELREV. I do make every attempt to be fair and impartial in my closing decisions. What I saw was one editor state that the article was needing to be deleted, one editor agreed with them, and one editor stated that the article should be merged, citing objections to the criteria raised by the nom. Two other editors then added a merge/redirect, but one of them suggested the reason was that the subject was not notable.
So it was a very close call. If all of the merge !votes were counted with equal weight, then the decision would have been merge/redirect, which is a form of keep. Any editor may merge content and redirect one article page to another. But I decided to provide a little less weight to one of the merge/redirect !votes, because his reasoning seemed more akin with a delete vote. So I declared it no concensus. I really don't see what the matter is, though, because no concensus is also a keep, and in no way prevents any editor from merging and redirecting. Basically the one thing that was clear to me was that delete was not the proper outcome, and I had to split hairs to decide exactly which name to give my keep decision. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 21:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jerry,

I guess that it was my !vote that seemed akin to a delete vote. I disagree. I reasoned that the article definitely fails WP:N. However, as per WP:N, albeit in the fine print, when an article fails WP:N, merging to a broader topic is preferable to deletion.

I’d have reasoned that the consensus was for a mandate to merge because all votes were for either delete or merge, with the delete !votes challenged.

Agreed, this is no big deal, and that a merge option is free to proceed. Thanks for the explanation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I voted delete, and I always think that a redirect is a reasonable path even when I've voted delete. Nothing needs to make information go away ... just the independent article.Kww (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC) I saw this as merge and redirect, that seemed to be the consensus of all those involved, the debate seemed to indicate that all participants would have been happy with that particular outcome. Closing is not so much a head count as reading through the debate, drawing on policy and guidance and seeing where the consensus lies. Hiding T 13:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not really sure if you are saying you endorse my deletion or oppose it. I seem to be able to read your comment either way. Here is a different version that I pasted in reply to your question on my talk page:
JERRY talk contribs 22:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Just curious as to your thinking behind your close in this debate. Hiding T 12:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. Keep, no concensus, and merge are all mostly the same outcome, in that the article history does not need to be deleted, just somebody might have to edit the article to push some content over to another article and make a redirect or stubbify the original. These actions do not require an AFD at all, and when an AFD that originally started as a delete effort ends this way it is really just a way of saying "no, we are not going to delete it". So it is usually not very important to agonize over distinguishing between them, especially if the !vote level was low, especially after a relist, and there was a dead-even split decision about it. The only real thing to worry about is whether to delete or not. On that line, I offer the following:
  • SatyrTN suggested deletion, noting that the article Fails WP:N and WP:FICTION.
  • Hiding T (you) said that there was a suitable merge candidate out there, which is an objection to delete.
  • Kww said Delete. Non-notable, no real-world information, which is an objection to merge.
  • BOZ said Merge and Redirect into Gambit (comics)
  • SmokeyJoe said Merge and Redirect into Gambit (comics). but then he made a comment that the content was not notable, which is really a delete vote.
So I counted 2 deletes, 2 merges, and one delete disguised as a merge/ merge disguised as a delete. I determined that there was not enough concensus to delete the article, and that a "no concensus" close would allow editors to merge and redirect as they see fit. I realize that I could have as easily clsoed as Merge/Redirect, and this may have seemed more proper... but as I explained at the top, this is really the same outcome, a default keep. So since you first suggested it, I would encourage you to do so, as this is in perfect keeping with my closing. JERRY talk contribs 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You read a merge comment as being a delete comment? Hmm. I disagree, but you're right, we're in the best position on a contested deletion debate, everyone pretty much agrees. It's just easier to get a merge through if we can point to a declared consensus somewhere. Hiding T 22:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Ahhhh.... I was hesitant to suggest what you are stating above. But now that the cat is out of the bag.... AFD is quite often misused as a venue to expedite the development of articles. A great place for developing concensus on article content issues is the article talkpage. A special process exists to assist with that, you can read about it at WP:RFC. Using AFD as a strongarm bypass to collaboration is gaming the process, and is to be discouraged. AFD is for one thing only: considering the DELETION of articles, not for giving the development of articles which have a content dispute urgency to meet a deadline to achieve concensus. JERRY talk contribs 02:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  • It's not misuse of afd, not unless there's been a seachange in the last couple of months. AFD, and before it VFD always allowed users to comment on whether to delete, redirect, merge or keep, and each outcome was a valid outcome for an admin to declare consensus for. When an article is nominated for deletion but most participants believe it should be merged, no-one is gaming the system, and suggesting anyone is is a serious breach of good faith. I think now I understand your close. You were playing politics. AFD is for examning the merits of the article, and the close should reflect the consensus found within the debate. Not declaring a merge result in the face of a consensus to do so and instead pointing participants to open a merge discussion is to my mind instruction creep and perhaps making a point. Still no harm done. Hiding T 16:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Regardless, the article has been redirected to Gambit (comics) anyway, so I suppose the point is moot (unless Delete was the desired outcome). 207.229.140.148 (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)