- Avatar: The Last Airbender media information (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avatar: The Last Airbender media information (2nd nomination) closed as delete; however, of those advocating deletion, one was turned out to be a sock account, whose opinion should be discounted, and the others were just WP:PERNOM repeats (see [1], [2], and [3]) that did not advance any real arguments for deletion. Only TenPoundHammer and the nominator offered any real deletion arguments. Other argued for a merge and redirect. Therefore, I see no reason why the article could not at least have the contribution history restored and then be redirected as a fair compromise. Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- WP:PERNOM is an essay, not a policy or guideline. It is not a basis for overturning a valid AFD. Endorse deletion. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse. Nom offers no evidence that the closure was defective in any way or did not reflect consensus, nor that the "sockpuppet" double-!voted or otherwise sullied the discussion. Deor (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC).
-
-
- No you didn't. You said that a number of delete opinions were "per nom" (not that there's anything wrong with such opinions), when in fact there wasn't a single "per nom" opinion. Deor (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I did in that there was not a "single" per X vote, but three (see [4], [5], and [6]). Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- See, here's the thing. Yes, they all endorsed an earlier comment. But then each of them cited a reason. Now, I don't think WP:PERNOM really justifies a DRV, I might make an exception if there were nothing but a nomination and a bunch of per-noms with no additional comments. But that isn't this case. --Dhartung | Talk 06:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- They all just repeated each other adding nothing new to the discussion. The nominator's main reasoning seems to be WP:USELESS (a word he uses) and the first delete opinion just agrees with the nomination and only adds an WP:ITSCRUFT. The first keep argument challenges the claim that the article duplicates material in another article by noting that it expands on this material. Then you have two arguments in a row to merge followed by a "per x". Next, you have a now banned account inaccurately suggest delete and merge, which legally would be merge and redirect without deleting if we count his opinion. The next two deletes are practically the same thing as the previous delete. And finally you have a keep arguing that the article is notable and well sourced. I see no policy rationales or even guideline rationales to delete; just repeats of what others said. So, every delete post contains some item from the Arguments to Avoid essay, whereas none of the merge or keep arguments merely repeat each other. Plus, even the first delete poster states: "There might be a couple useful facts that aren't already covered here..." Thus, in terms of weight of original arguments, it was no consensus. Removing some kind of "vote tally" as it's a discussion and not a vote, the arguments are best summarized as follows:
- Delete: Arguments are essentially if not outright WP:USELESS (word used by nominator), WP:ITSCRUFT (word used by first to say delete), and WP:PERNOM (all deletes say "as the nom points out," "as above," or "per" someone else who just repeats what someone else said; you similarly have these three say not to merge without saying why), but with an acknowledgment that there might be a couple useful facts that aren’t already covered here, which contradicts the nominations claim of "useless".
- Merge and redirect: Verifiable and useful out of universe information of a recognizable series can be salvaged in some capacity by carefully moving any remaining good information to the marketing portion of the main article and redirect per the GFDL in order to keep contributions public. None who took these stances just repeated what someone else said, but advanced something new in the discussion.
- Keep: Good, notable, well-sourced information that expands on what is already inside the main article, but change the title. Again, the two who argued to keep each offered something new to the discussion.
- Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Relist when proven sockpuppets actually affect the result of an AfD, the discussion has been contaminated and should be relisted. I have no immediate opinion on the actual article. DGG (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse The sock was unmasked days before the end of the afd and could not therefore be considered as effecting the outcome. Otherwise the close is within reasonable admin discretion in reading the discussion Spartaz Humbug! 16:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- That still doesn't address that the discussion was really a no consensus as the delete arguments did not cite policy and were variations of "I don't like it." Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Overturn. Deletion was clearly silly - the information is thorough and useful, and while pieces may be repeated elsewhere such repetition is not an inherent problem - we do not seem to have another article that duplicates this particular organization of the information. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse. Consensus seemed clear. --Kbdank71 20:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- There either was no consensus or the consensus was the middle position of merging and redirecting without deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant consensus was clear to delete. --Kbdank71 20:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- "Oh look, this isn't an argument."
- "Yes it is."
- "No it isn't. It's just contradiction."
- "No it isn't." Deor (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment: It may be worthwhile to note that the AfD was debated and the result was No Concensus (please view the top of the AfD page). The deleting administrator either did not read the result, or deleted the page contrary to what the community had discussed. Either way, according to the AfD, the page should not have been deleted. I endorse the decision of no concensus, and the article should be restored. If the article is still a good candidate for deletion, it will need to be relisted and will need to be discussed again. — OranL (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Statement is irrelevant to current discussion. — OranL (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- You're looking at the first AfD, from more than a year ago. The one we're talking about here is linked in the first words of the nom above. Deor (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I fixed the link to point to the 2nd nomination. --Kbdank71 20:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but the second AfD should have been correctly closed as no consensus as well or the middle area of merging and redirecting without deleting. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Overturn. There doesn't seem to be any real discussion going on in the AfD, just some statements of "no material to merge". It seems clear to me that there was no consensus on how to deal with this article, and so it should be restored. If someone still believes that the article qualifies for deletion, it will need to be relisted. — OranL (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse Deletion. Saying "per nomination" is perfectly acceptable; if the nomination said it all, then there's really not much to be added. Only one person actually said the article was worth keeping, and the nom indicates that there wasn't valuable information in there which wasn't elsewhere on Wikipedia, and the deleters seemed to largely agree. I think the consensus on the article's pointlessness is pretty clear. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: What I am seeing in the AfD is four people arguing for deletion, three people arguing for a merge, and one arguing for a keep. This is hardly a consensus in favor of deletion. — OranL (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion - Nothing wrong with this close. As stated, the information to be merged was already in the main article, so there's nothing to do on that front. That leaves us with deletion as the consensus. -- Kesh (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Plenty of problems with the close. If the information is merged, then we redirect without deletion. The discussion itself had no consensus. We cannot Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- The information was already in the main article. There was nothing to merge. And no matter how many times you repeat no consensus, that does not make it true. -- Kesh (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thus, there was a clear redirect without deletion location and no reason from the discussion why doing so would have been incorrect. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- ...what? I'm sorry, your sentence doesn't make grammatical sense, so I can't figure it out. Try again. -- Kesh (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- So far as I can tell, this article was originally split from the main article in this diff, June 2006, and then maintained in parallel. I've pretty well (but imperfectly) searched the history since then and no editor of the main article used an edit summary reflecting a merge from this article. I don't believe there is any GFDL history here that needs to be preserved, but if the closing admin wants to play it safe, they could place a protected redirect and then restore history underneath. Otherwise, endorse closure. GRBerry 02:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
|
