Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 29

Georgia Blizzard of 2011 – Closure endorsed. – T. Canens (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

In no way was the consensus to merge. Only 1 !vote was merge, which was the least. It should have been a no consensus close, and default to keep. CTJF83 chat 00:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also User talk:NuclearWarfare#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Blizzard of 2011. NW (Talk) 01:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist - Perhaps a merge was really the best option, but this is a textbook case of admin super!vote. There was no consensus on every outcome, with all !votes (keep,delete,merge) being really poorly argued. Putting it back in the hands of the community seems the best option now. --Cyclopia^talk 02:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- textbbok case of labelling anything other then nose counting as a supervote without reference to how we generally deal with this kind of article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tsk tsk, straw man alert. Nobody talked about nose counting except you. The discussion was poor in referring to policies/guidelines and it was split on the outcome. Therefore you cannot extract any consensus from the discussion. Relisting seems the only honest option. Closing admins should not "generally deal" in any other way than by either put into practice what the community asks them or relisting if it is unclear what the community asks. --Cyclopia^talk 15:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't disagree that some of the votes were poor quality - only one of the keep votes for example was a clean policy based rationale but labelling a close as supervote without proper cause is well... also an invalid argument. There is no doubt from the dicussion that the opinion was that this was not supported as a standalone article. Anything after that is pretty much paperwork. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Voters referred to the national storm, not specifically to Georgia, so the closer's interpretation made sense. Chick Bowen 04:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, first choice no consensus, second choice "keep, discuss merging on article's talk page". Purplebackpack89's keep recommendation is compatible with merging ("throughout the country"), but the rest of the comments aren't clear on whether they refer to the "Georgia Blizzard" of January 10 or the overall storm. January 8–13, 2011 North American blizzard is consistent with other articles in Category:Blizzards in the United States and Template:United States Blizzards. I think that redirecting and maybe merging is the correct action, but I don't see consensus for it at the AfD. Flatscan (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. "Merge" is well within the admin's discretion to give effect to (a) the consensus that a separate article is inappropriate; but (b) the fact that the less drastic option of merge hadn't been properly considered by delete !voters; and (c) the proposal to merge was quite clear and objectively sensible. I say within discretion because if I thought the keep side was weak, I might have closed it as "delete, happy to userfy" or "redirect, content's in the history if you want to use it elsewhere". Probably could have been explained in the closing statement though as will appear a little counter-intuitive to some. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Admin close was a supervote, the same thing you blasted me for. Should be a non consensus close, with a discussion on the talk page of merging. Not a merge close when one user said merge. CTJF83 12:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If this was a supervote close, I'd blast NW for it too. The lack of a closing statement may give the appearance of a supervote, but the explanation on NW's talk page clearly shows it isn't -- it's perfectly in line with WP:ATD. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm pretty sure ATD is something you do instead of nominate it for AfD. Not close against consensus. CTJF83 21:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why would you be sure of that? It is part of our deletion policy so it applies to all deletion actions. If a delete !vote doesn't explicitly or implicitly consider and reject a merge, the closing admin should not consider that !vote to be inconsistent with a merge outcome. The best explanation I've seen of it is here. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We are still getting over a thousand news results in the last week, and the event was a few weeks ago. CTJF83 13:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda endorse or overturn to delete. To my mind the article was relisted incorrectly by an admin who then voted to keep after acknowledging they were personally affected by the storm and where there was actually a consensus at the time of the relist to delete. After the relist I still saw this is a possible delete overall but closing to merge falls within the closer's discretion and fits better within out overall systems for managing data. Of the keep votes, one was a worthless reference to google hits, another delivered specific sources but failed to address the one event arguments, the relisting admin's vote was tainted and the last keep for me actually supported the merge argument by acknowledging the widespread nature of the storm. Certainly the consensus was not for a standalone article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As an admin, how about you not attack my keep vote, and AGF. Not sure how you think Google results is worthless, illogical thinking. CTJF83 21:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Screaming supervote on the back of a vague wave at notability by WP:GOGGLEHITS is assuming good faith how? I'm really astonished you are trying to defend pointing people at google as any kind of quality contribution. How about you stop being lazy and read through the google pages yourself and dig out specific sources to rely on? Typing my name into google gets over 1 million hits and none of them are me me specifically. By your arguments I should have an article on wikipedia because there are so many googlehits For an aspiring admin its deeply worrying that your contributions to deletion debates are classic WP:AADD. Also, if you want to be an admin you need to take criticism (especially the valid kind) without exploding into the kind of emotional and immature responses you displayed here. geta thicker skin and learn how to make contributions that make a difference if you want to have your votes given any weight. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh boy, more essays. I'd say I have thick skin...just expect better from admins. CTJF83 03:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's got nothing to do with AGF and everything to do with the weight that should be attached to your contribution. As was pointed out by another editor in the debate, your Ghit was a misfire. It comes up with rafts of articles about the North American snow generally (eg [1]) and articles that have nothing to do with the snow (eg [2]). So your gnews argument didn't adequately explain why the Georgia blizzard was separately notable. Pointing to gnews hits also fails to address the relevant WP:ONEEVENT point, which is that for news events, spikes in news coverage do not generally confer notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - One event is for non-adequate coverage. Calling someone's !vote "worthless" is hardly AGF. CTJF83 23:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, I mis-linked, sorry -- the relevant guideline is WP:EVENT, not WP:ONEEVENT, which explains that transient coverage is generally not enough (eg "Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance"). --Mkativerata (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Worthless = of little worth. Please explain the worth of a vote that is essentially a wave at a google number? See WP:GOGGLEHITS and WP:AADD and work out how high your contribution to the debate was on the triangle to the right. If you want to AGF how about AGF that my point may have some validity and actually improve the value of your contributions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: perfectly acceptable close considering the lack of policy-based reasoning displayed in the AfD. The comment by User:Lord Roem is basically arguing for merging the content and the comment by User:Ron Ritzman is compatable with a merge result. The rest of the comments are not backed in policy and were rightfully ignored in the close. By merging, the closing admin was Wikipedia:PRESERVEing information as per policy. -Atmoz (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. A merge is effectively a keep; as noted above, it preserves the information. Purplebackpack's keep !vote was effectively a recommendation to keep and merge, with the mention of effects in other parts of the country. Merging improved the article overall by consolidating it with effects of the storm from other regions, not just Georgia. If Ctjf83 feels that a separate article for the storm in Georgia is warranted, I think a split discussion at Talk:January 8–13, 2011 North American blizzard would be more effective. (Disclaimer: I'm the nominator from the AfD, and yet I agree with the result not being deletion.) —C.Fred (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep per C.Fred (the nominator from the AfD) and above. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Well within admin discretion. "I don't like it" isn't a reason to run to DRV. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, I think. There are two aspects to this. First, do we need to consider Ron Ritzman's relist? Contrary to Spartaz, I don't personally think so, because Ron didn't close the debate or use any admin tools. For what it's worth, I also think Ron was right in that when he found a debate he thought was unsatisfactory, he decided not to close it but to !vote instead. So setting that aside, was NW correct to interpret the final comment in the debate as the deciding one? Well, there's a RfC open at the moment about how much weight to give to "merge" recommendations, but pending the outcome of that, NW's close doesn't seem unreasonable to me.—S Marshall T/C 17:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz's position does have some weak support at WP:RELIST because it does refer to the "closer". This might suggest that if you take this action, you have to do it as a neutral party and therefore are precluded from !voting just as you can't close a discussion where you have !voted. (However, I once closed one of my own nominations as "keep" by mistake but left it closed because there were no other "delete" !votes). I think it depends on the situation. I don't see any problem in relisting a debate with no !votes and then later !voting or !voting in a discussion you relisted a week ago that has generated no further !votes. It gets tricky though when you relist a discussion that's clearly leaning one way or the other and then !vote the opposite way. This is what Spartaz claims that I did and the fact that the storm in question affected me personally didn't help much. It's definitely not one of my better AFDs. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus – there was clearly no consensus for deletion or for merging in that AFD. There was one !vote to merge (albeit unchallenged), but that could have been left to a local talk page consensus to establish the need for a merge as opposed to a closing admin here. –MuZemike 02:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The actual consensus was to delete the article; the closer made a reasonable decision to upmerge the article. Admins are supposed to be experienced users who can be trusted to make good decisions. The right decision in this case was to save any good content in this article and transfer it to the main article. Merging is a form of deletion. One article gets deleted after its content is merged with another. Can we trust our admins to make good decisions even if the majority of the bolded votes weren't Merge? SnottyWong ^converse 05:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
overturn this was a unique enough event to have a standalone article. Shaliya waya (talk) 06:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This forum is only to review the close itself, not to re-argue or continue to argue the actual AfD. "I disagree" is not a valid reason to overturn. Tarc (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No action. AFD discussions can come to one of two outcomes: delete and not-delete. All the variants on not-delete (keep, merge, redirect, and so on) can be discussed, varied, and changed between by the usual method of establishing consensus on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (merge and redirect). The last !vote "Merge with January 2011 North American blizzard which covers the same storm over a larger geographic area. — AjaxSmack 01:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)" was direct to the point, convincing, and sat there for two and a half days of silence. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No action Agree with Stifle.Bossanueva (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 January 2011[edit]