- List of roles in the British Army (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
There was a policy-based rationale for deletion but no policy-based counter-argument. It seems clear that delete was the only correct outcome in this case. The admin would not self-revert. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- (Closer note) The majority of 'keep' !votes were very deficient in their argument of policy and guidelines, and I acknowledged this in my closing comment. However, there is insufficient support for 'delete' within that debate to close as such, and to do so would be considered a supervote. It had been relisted twice, with the second relist being done by Rosguill and noting it was looking like 'no consensus' at that point. I agreed with this assessment and considering a third relist would not have been fruitful or appropriate in my administrative discretion, closed as 'no consensus' - which I feel is an accurate representation of the discussion. Daniel (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - no consensus based on policy but was really a WP:SNOW keep. When the discussion is so lopsided, it probably indicates the policy might be wrong. - Indefensible (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: Policy or the interpretation or application of policy. - Indefensible (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Could not possibly have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak endorse - I'm on the fence between endorsing the NC close or voting overturn to keep, but both are the same result for practical purposes and the delete arguments were more based in policy. In a case like this where the overwhelming consensus goes against the a policy, it shows that the policy isn't perfect, and that's fine. Per WP:5P5,
The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions . Consensus clearly shows this is one of those times. Frank Anchor 12:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as per Frank Anchor. This appears to be a case where the appellant is saying that the closer should have supervoted and ignored the consensus. The closer was taking policy into account, which is why they closed as No Consensus rather than as Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as the closer said there wasn't enough support for deletion to close as Delete, even though the Keep arguments were weaker. The Delete arguments were not "policy-based", they were based on WP:NLIST and WP:GNG, which are not policies. Furthermore while the Delete arguments were stronger there doesn't seem to have been much attempt to find more sources about the topic. I'm sure there must be plenty of sources out there discussing careers in the British military. Hut 8.5 19:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I think people are just using policy-based as a shorthand for P&G based- I don't believe anyone is actually claiming that GNG is a policy. VickKiang (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- If people mean guideline-based they should say guideline-based. The OP's position would make a lot more sense if the arguments for deletion actually were policy-based. Guidelines on the other hand are much more amenable to occasional exceptions. Hut 8.5 07:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse While some of the Keep opinions were weak, there was definitely not a consensus to Delete this article. No consensus seems appropriate. Liz Read! Talk! 00:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per Hut 8.5 and Liz. In particular the keep opinions don't argue for ignoring core policies like WP:OR or WP:V but for making an exception to the guideline WP:NLIST. Guidelines should not be applied mechanically but in accordance with consensus, and poor arguments should be down-weighted but rarely all the way to zero. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I did downweight some arguments in this debate all the way to zero - the final two comments being two notable examples. They are not arguments at all for keeping, and totally irrelevant to the debate. "Big enough to have its own page", "Warrants its own article" and similar contributions should always be weighted at 0 in my personal opinion. Daniel (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, as there certainly is not a consensus to delete, but feel free to throw a few dozen {{citation needed}} tags on all the uncited purported "roles", and take a flamethrower to whatever doesn't get sourced. BD2412 T 03:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and Keep, this was an uncharacteristically poor close from an otherwise good admin, on this occasion showing a poor understanding of the role of AfD, and of the role of administrators. The whole point of AfD is to allow editors to make a case which may be based on quite a wide and nuanced interpretation of multiple policies, including a consideration of what an encyclopaedia is here to do. The definition of Wikipedia as an online encyclopaedia is actually more "core" than any of its written policies, which are ultimately merely the mechanism by which its encyclopaeidahood is enacted. Daniel I was somewhat hurt by having my "keep" !vote casually disregarded as not based on policy, if I'm one of the two "notable" examples (the word notable was an unnecessary jibe at my competence, I thought). There are a lot of problems with closing against a very large majority of !votes with the explanation that they weren't "policy". One is that we can argue indefinitely about what "policy" actually is, wikilawyering backwards and forwards between different guidelines, distinguishing guidelines from policies from essays. The other is that ultimately, it makes it look rather as though the viewpoints of normal editors are liable to being ignored by an admin, which is contrary to the principle that when it comes to content, all editors are equal. Elemimele (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Elemimele, you seem to misunderstand - your specific contribution was not one that I largely disregarded, as it was the other two I actually quoted in full in my above comment (03:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)). I would have thought that was rather clear, but apologies if it was not. I cannot agree that they should not be largely disregarded given what they wrote (again, quoted in full above), per my above comments. But your comment certainly wasn't. Daniel (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel I apologise for taking it personally and for misunderstanding which comments were being ignored. My paragraph rant above was a bit of an emotional response that was probably over-the-top. I certainly think you were right to refuse to go for a delete, and in the end there's not much practical difference between no-consensus and keep. I don't envy anyone who tries to close AfD debates. Thank you for your prompt and kind response to allay my concerns! Elemimele (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- No problems, thanks for the further elaboration; and apologies again for any ambiguity in my notes that caused this misunderstanding! Daniel (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn to keep Yes, the keep !votes are mostly weak. But the delete !votes are just vague waves at a guideline. As far as I can tell, no one explained how that guideline applied to this discussion. And it's a guideline that says "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists". That's a pretty clear indication that lists are an area we don't have black-and-white rules for how to handle inclusion. So we largely rely on the opinions and thoughts of our editors. And here it's very clear that our editors think we should keep this. So we should. Hobit (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The keep side has a large majority, but for the most part substantially weaker than the delete one. Therefore, IMO the closer was right to override the numerical count and close as NC. VickKiang (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep, mostly per Hobit. I do see some poor keep votes that should have been excluded but I also see keep votes that make strong points that should not be excluded. What I don't see any are delete votes that were not completely addressed by those in opposition. Rigid adherence to guidelines is both contrary to the explicit nature of guidelines and also results in perverse outcomes where articles about topics that people expect to find in encyclopaedias are deleted because the real world doesn't fit the neat boxes we like to put things in and/or different countries do things differently. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. This could have been no consensus or keep. It would not be a reasonable outcome for this discussion to be closed as delete. The reason I say it could have been keep is that while I agree less weight can be given for !votes that lack in policy (and more weight to those that back up policy claims in detail), I also think if an editor in good standing takes the time to !vote, their opinion mustn't be fully discounted, due to a variety of factors like implicit policy claims that fail to drop UPPERCASE, an implied different interpretation of already mentioned policies, or a desire to IAR without explicitly stating so. No consensus is still a reasonable outcome. —siroχo 17:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
|
