- Canada–Tonga relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This was closed by a non-admin and was a contentious one that clearly falls outside the boundary of appropriate closures for a non-admin. this non-admin even it came to close to delete but does not appear to give good enough reason why it falls short. the discussion failed to yield substantial evidence of indepth coverage of this topic. LibStar (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and re-close. Interesting one. If S Marshall was an administrator I would't argue with the close at all. S Marshall is a deletion expert who should be given the administrative tools to make closes like this. The project would be better for it. If it weren't for his personal decision not to be an administrator, S Marshall would be one. So why should it make a difference in this case? Shouldn't we allow S Marshall to act as a quasi-admin and trust him to carry out contentious closes? The answer is that it isn't about trust or ability. The answer is that S Marshall could not have touched this AfD if he was minded to close as delete. That's because he doesn't have the deletion tool. Allowing non-admins to close "no consensus" AfDs creates a bias towards no consensus - it expands the pool of possible contentious AfD closers to include persons who cannot close as "delete". Each-way AfDs should only be closed by editors who actually have the technical ability to decide each-way. Only administrators fall into that category. And this was very much an each-way AfD: S Marshall said the AfD came "very close to a delete finding". There is no compelling reason to start loosening WP:NAC (which while an essay is treated de facto as being much more substantial than an essay - witness the number of non-admins who have been pilloried for inappropriate closes). AfD is the least admin-backlogged area of the project. As for this AfD, "no consensus" is within discretion. So is delete: in my view the keep side is very weak (although of course I would say that - I !voted delete). I'm still waiting an explanation from DGG about his "per the sources" keep !vote, apparently made in less than a minute (per his contribs log) despite there being some real and complex questions about sources on the cards at the time. Having said all of the above, if there is a widely held view by uninvolved admins here that no consensus was the correct close, my "overturn" !vote should be ignored on the grounds of putting outcome ahead of process. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse since realistically, there was no consensus to delete. So wbhat's the problem?╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 09:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Though well-meaning, in effect the close prevented the likely and proper outcome; deletion. The closer nearly admits that the keep arguments would not withstand the correct application of policy and guideline. Abductive (reasoning) 23:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mkativerata's right that it's interesting. :) This tests the water on WP:NAC, and in the interests of full disclosure I should also point out that the most recent four edits to WP:NAC were by, er, me. In November. In other words, I'm closing in accordance with an essay that reads exactly how I want it to read.
If I'd actually come back to the keyboard in time to notice this close was being challenged, I'd have followed my usual practice (which is to drop a note on the Administrators' Noticeboard asking an uninvolved admin to consider the matter and re-close if appropriate). But since it's gone to DRV now, let's let it run. I obviously endorse my own close, and my position is that the nominator is factually wrong, in that I think my closing statement is not just perfectly clear, but it actually explains the policy-based reasons in much more detail than usual. Mkativerata's point is fatally undermined by his clear statement that if I had been an administrator he would not have questioned it, so in my response I need only note that that is what he says. And Abductive should say why policy leads to deletion in that case before his !vote has any substance.—S Marshall T/C 00:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic of Canadian–Tongan relations has no secondary sources, and the paltry primary sources that were provided had to be stitched together using pure original research thread. By way of a contrasting example, the Chinese–Tongan relationship has many secondary sources in books; [1], [2], [3], and [4]. Abductive (reasoning) 01:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ... which is an argument that the subject isn't notable. Is deletion the only way to deal with something that's not notable?—S Marshall T/C 07:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Is deletion the only way to deal with something that's not notable?" It is if none of the contents of the article aren't sufficiently noteworthy that merging them into the target articles would not be giving them WP:UNDUE weight. Information that is arguably trivial in the context of 'Canada–Tonga relations' is just that much more trivial in the context of the Foreign relations of Canada or the Foreign relations of Tonga. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The fallacy there is the attempt to apply WP:N to individual data points. Notability applies to subjects and topics. It doesn't apply to each individual fact or source in an article.—S Marshall T/C 10:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I did not "attempt to apply WP:N to individual data points", there is no fallacy here. I said "noteworthy" not "notable" to emphasise this point. Most articles on the foreign relations of a country do not list trivial items like individual Prime Ministerial visits, individual extradition treaties, individual missionaries, etc (unless of course there was a prominent event linked to them), as they are not worthy of noting in the article (i.e. "aren't sufficiently noteworthy"). "...merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." (WP:NOT) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the AfD you said, "delete, or in extremis, merge". You're using more of the emphatic declarative in this subsequent discussion than you did in the debate I closed, Hrafn. In my close I was careful to acknowledge that yours (along with Mkativerata's) was among the arguments I found strongest. But I didn't see the "merge" argument as having been refuted by what you said, not least because you did acknowledge it as a possible outcome.—S Marshall T/C 11:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but (i) that was given before the article was loaded up with trivia & (ii) "merge" was stated as "in extremis" -- i.e. as a very distant second to deletion. Whilst I did not explicitly disavow or rebut merging with my latter comments, my later statement that new additions were "all sorts of superficial and tangential information" should surely be read as indicating scepticism towards their suitability for merging. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @ "fatally undermined": you're missing the point. The point isn't that the close was within administrative discretion, it is that as a non-admin it was the only close available to you within that discretion. Contentious discussions shouldn't be closed by editors who only have the ability to close it one way. "Delete" would also have been within discretion. Since you couldn't have exercised that option, you shouldn't have closed it. Note I didn't say I agreed with the close, only that it was within discretion. I might have closed it as delete, but I would have endorsed this close had it been made by an admin. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-admin closing a debate always means that you have to look at it and know that "delete" is not an appropriate outcome before pulling the trigger with a close.—S Marshall T/C 07:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I totally agree with the comment above. LibStar (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn I'm reading this discussion as a full delete; to the point that if I had seen this on the log and not at DRV, I would have reverted the close summarily and deleted the article. So many of the keep !votes were just vague waves at sources. This was not in any way suitable as an NAC, if for no other reason than the significant surgery that needs to be done on the history per RD1 to expunge copyright violations. Courcelles 03:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse This was either a NC or perhaps a delete. Given I believe the closer deeply understands our deletion policies, I'm not too worried about the NAC. As an admin closure, NC would have been a reasonable closure, so I'll endorse this close. Hobit (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Certainly not a candidate for NAC, especially when the closer is one of the usual combatants in this genre of AfDs. Sheesh. Yilloslime TC 05:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not "a usual combatant" in this genre of AfDs. Yes, I've expressed an opinion about them before, but who hasn't? As for "not a candidate for NAC", do you believe that administrators have a monopoly on judging consensus? I assure you, the wisdom of Solomon isn't one of the tools that comes with passing an RFA. ;)—S Marshall T/C 07:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete, consensus for deletion after discounting a few keeps. I disagree strongly with closers citing WP:ATD to tip decisions away from deletion. WT:Deletion guidelines for administrators/Archive 1#Deletion is to be a last resort (2009) may be a relevant discussion. I also disagree with the NAC, but it doesn't affect my recommendation. Flatscan (talk) 05:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn: (i) not a legitimate WP:NAC candidate (not "beyond doubt a clear keep") (ii) Courcelles' "So many of the keep !votes were just vague waves at sources" demonstrates that an argument could be made for closing this as a 'delete'. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, as to (i) that's a selective reading of what the consensus version of WP:NAC says, and as to (ii), I think everyone agrees that an argument could be made for closing this as "delete". The question is whether that argument is correct.—S Marshall T/C 10:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (i) No, it is NOT "a selective reading of what the consensus version of WP:NAC says." It is the unequivocal statement of WP:NAC#AfD: "experienced non-admins in good standing may consider closing a discussion on that page which is beyond doubt a clear keep", WP:NAC#Appropriate closures: "Clear keep outcomes after a full listing period (stated in the instructions to each XfD, this is usually seven days), absent any contentious debate among participants" & WP:NAC#Pitfalls to avoid: "Extra care should be taken if a closure may be controversial or not clearly unambiguous. With the understanding that the closure may be reversed, non-admins should generally avoid closing such discussions." None of which suggests that non-admin closure of non-beyond-doubt/contentious/ambiguous AfDs is endorsed. (ii) My point was: if there's a reasonable chance that an Admin may interpret the result of an AfD as 'delete' (as there seems to have been) then it is appropriate to leave the decision to an Admin. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's see what users who didn't !vote in the debate have to say about it, Hrafn. At the moment, every user who has appeared at this DRV who !voted "delete" in the debate has !voted to overturn, which is perfectly normal at DRV. The only user who !voted "keep" in the debate and who subsequently came here has !voted to endorse, which is also quite normal. We've only had one opinion from someone uninvolved: Hobit (who endorsed). If there's any significant support for "overturn" that comes from uninvolved parties, then I'll revert myself and let one of the anointed few with the mystic power of judging consensus re-close; but that's not the situation as of this moment.—S Marshall T/C 11:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (i) If you don't want me to respond, then don't misrepresent my comments. (ii) Neither Flatscan nor Courcelles participated in the AfD, and both have !voted to overturn. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, that's accurate about Flatscan and Courcelles. In the circumstances, I've vacated my close and will post on the AN for an uninvolved admin to reclose. :)—S Marshall T/C 12:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
