- Alumni Hall (University of Notre Dame) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I believe the closure was incorrect. By agreeing very briefly with one Redirect statement, the closer essentially disregarded all of the Keep statements without addressing them adequately, which amounted to a supervote. The closer did not take in consideration nor address WP:BUILD nor any of the arguments but forth by those voting keep (which were the majority, with 8/11 participants voting keep and agreeing it met GNG). Finally, I tried to contact the closer to challenge/dicuss their deletion, but my post on their talk page was deleted and no reasons were given, not did they defend their closure.Eccekevin (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Spartaz didn't delete your talk page enquiry, Eccekevin, but he archived it without reply, which was rude of him. The rule that says sysops need to explain their deletion decisions is set out at WP:ADMINACCT. Spartaz broke it. He shouldn't do any admin actions that he's not willing to explain. But it wouldn't be fair of me to raise false hopes, so I should say now that, while DRV might give you a better explanation and a fairer process, it's not very likely to change the outcome because I think we'll find that Spartaz' close was right on policy.—S Marshall T/C 03:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- He deleted it days after I posted it, without addressing it. He did not address any of the arguments brought by the keep voters, as outlined above, and the majority of participants agreed that it met GNG. Regardless, I'm not here to discuss the mertis but rather the way that the discussion was closed, which I beleive was wrong and should be relisted. Eccekevin (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect that the reason Spartaz did not reply was that that editor considered that the close already explained things properly, and anyway the question seemed to coincide with a decision to leave Wikipedia. Statements that look like votes in AfD discussions should be disregarded if they don't explain how Wikipedia policies/guidelines come into effect, and here it was mostly the "keep" opiners who made such comments. I wish that plain "deletes" with no evidence were treated in the same way, but that seems unlikely to happen given the unwillingness of many prolific editors at AfD to lift a finger to actually look for sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The nominator's post[1] actually referred to Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame) where Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame) (2nd nomination) was closed as keep by a different admin. Since there was no reply this may not make much difference to a process that is essentially arbitrary anyway. Thincat (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn to no consensus or keep. If I were king this would probably be a redirect. Buildings on a campus are generally not notable and I don't think this one is so far over the bar that we should have a full article on it. But A) there is a reasonable argument (using local, though independent, sources) that the GNG is met and B) that's not where the discussion got to. I think "no consensus" is about as far as this can be stretched to. From an organizational viewpoint, I'd rather see a paragraph or 2 for each of these in a single article...Hobit (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion wasn't showing on the main DRV page because AnomieBot kept removing it -- see this. Apparently the problem was caused by formatting issues. It's incredibly rare to relist deletion reviews, and I'm not sure what the process would be for it, but in this case I wonder if that might not be appropriate, so as to ensure that the community remains free to consider the matter for the requisite 168 hours.—S Marshall T/C 09:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep per the Badin Hall revised outcome, WP:ADMINACCT, the fact that what was asserted to be canvassing and accepted by the closing admin as such was at worst marginal in that it sought sources to substantiate a keep outcome but otherwise met all expectations, and that the closing admin improperly discounted a number of "sources look good" !votes after, wait for it, numerous sources had been posted in the AfD. Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Involved so not bolding any vote here but happy with the close - just because sources exist doesn't mean they demonstrate notability or even pass WP:GNG. Redirect is a good outcome. SportingFlyer T·C 12:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, it's a reasonable outcome... it's just not supported at all by the AfD in question, which is the real issue here. And I don't know that there's a rule against an XfD participant having a !vote at DRV, so feel free to do so if so inclined. Jclemens (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, and I think it is supported - the keep votes aren't very good, as the closer noted, and properly disregarded. There isn't a hard and firm rule, but I've long held a view AfD participants should make clear they participated in the AfD, especially if their DRV outlook matches the AfD, as mine does (if you participate at DRV and that doesn't match your opinion at the AfD, I'd consider that a strong DRV !vote, but endorsing an outcome you advocated for at AfD really doesn't mean much in my mind, so I don't specifically vote.) I'm participating here only to point out the existence of sources doesn't necessarily equal notability, and this shouldn't be overturned on those grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 16:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Go back, if you would, and read the discussion from top to bottom, ignoring the assertions of canvassing. At the top, there's a few redirects, but they peter out as more and more sources are added to the discussion, and it then becomes overwhelmingly keep, ending with an unbroken line of five keeps. Now, you can look at that two ways: 1) either the sources swayed people and the final !votes took those sources into account even if only one of them explicitly used the right words, or 2) ABF'ing that all the keeps were canvassed. Extending AGF is an expectation, but was not followed particularly well by one of the other participants nor was it followed by the closer, who appears to have been swayed by that one accusation, and hence assumed less good (at a minimum) faith about those who said "I wasn't canvassed." That's why I can't see any way that 'redirect' would win the day in an impartial closing. Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those later keep !votes you were referring to address the problem with the sources, though - they're all essentially "it's notable" without diving into any of the issues with the sources. I don't think it would be incorrect for a closer to discount them. SportingFlyer T·C 18:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that what is needed is much more general than just one AfD discussion. There needs to be a change of culture whereby anyone commenting in an AfD should address the sources that are in the article, provided in the discussion, or, most importantly, that they can find themselves. A first step along this way would be for anyone who is not absolutely certain about the outcome to not put the words keep or delete in front of their comments, but that would be very difficult as most editors who take part in such discussions seem to be absolutely sure of their snap decisions arrived at in a few seconds. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that exactly why we have WP:NOTAVOTE, though? Some AfDs are simple and don't require much discussion. Others, like this one, have more nuance, and require engagement to make a good contribution. SportingFlyer T·C 21:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we have WP:NOTAVOTE, but the vast majority of editors at AfD ignore it and vote without doing anything to look for sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, but WP:ATD finally seems to be taken seriously by most, if not all, AfD regulars and closing admins. That's a big, positive change from a decade ago. Maybe by 2030 we can get higher quality AfD participation? One can always dream. Jclemens (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn due to the closer going inactive means a WP:ADMINACCT failure. Let another reclose. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus'. I generally have a good deal ofskepticism about articles on university residence halls; this article, and the other similar ones for Notre Dame, are better than most, which usually focus of trivial student experiences. One argument for keep which is just plain wrongis the argument that it's a historic building. It is not, its just in an historic district. If we accepted articles on buildings just because they were located in an historic district, my absolutely undistinguished house and tens of thousands of equally undistinguished houses in the dozen or so historic districts in Brooklyn alone would be notable--what's notable is the concentration of century-old building which makes the districts distinctive, plus the 10 or 20 actually notable separately listed buildings in each district. For this article, I'm not sure how I would have !voted. I don't know if there was consensus to keep, but there was clearly not consensus to delete, and the obvious close is non-consensus. We can then discuss how to handle the other very similar articles in a consistent manner. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I love that in the US, a "century-old" building is "historic". That's awesome.—S Marshall T/C 11:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I have often noticed the difference in perspective. By this definition my house, one of the newest in the neighbourhood, would be historic. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus' as most participants found coverage adequate, others not.Djflem (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|