- Embassy of Tanzania, Stockholm (talk
|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The discussion resulted in one merge (i.e. keep) !vote and one comment leaning towards keep. Despite the complete absence of support for deletion, the closing admin declared consensus to delete this page and five related pages. I asked the admin to reconsider on his or her talk page. The admin declined to reverse the decision, explaining that "I had a bit of trouble seeing just what, exactly, was merge-able." This statement, and the admin's other disputed closes, seem to indicate a misunderstanding of his or her role in the AfD process. Pburka (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- ...orrrr, you coulda just gone for uncontroversial undeletion like I suggested and endorsed, but needless bureaucracy works, too, if that's your thing. Commenters should note that, again, as I said on my talk page, I had trouble seeing how the content could be merged, no changes to meet WP:V/WP:N were made to the article despite that final comment on the AfD, and I was more than happy with it being undeleted due to WP:QUORUM issues. Relisting a clearly stale AfD didn't seem appropriate, however. As for my role in the AfD process, I should note that all of my closes are coming from heavily-backlogged WP:OLD AfDs, several of which are tough or DRV-ripe closes. Cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 03:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Overturn Nobody agreed with the proposal and so there was no consensus to delete. Per the emphatic guidance of WP:DGFA, "When in doubt, don't delete." Andrew (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Overturn although this hardly needs to be said. The consensus was not delete. Also, the closer seems to seriously misunderstand WP:UNDELETE (which can't be used after AFD deletion). This type of close is very unhelpful. Thincat (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Not to wikilawyer, but WP:UNDELETE: "or in 'articles for deletion' debates with little or no participation other than the nominator," and WP:QUORUM (part of WP:DELPRO): "If a nomination has received no comments...(or few in the case of AfDs), the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment...[which includes]...closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal." I'm just saying I genuinely believe that my actions were in-line with policy as I understand it, but I've done a
{{TempUndelete}} on Embassy of Tanzania, Stockholm to help show why I had difficulty seeing the content to merge, given the merge target, but had and still have obviously no problem with just flat out undeleting it (as I said before). --slakr\ talk / 12:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- So do you have a problem with changing the delete to soft delete? Unscintillating (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, if anybody would simply read what I've said numerous times both here and on my talk page that's exactly what was intended. No worries; you're not alone: apparently nobody else did, either, which is sort of ironic given both the situation, the venue, and the allegations being made. --slakr\ talk / 10:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Overturn I created this article(s) as a stub and believe that it can be expanded in the future. Ali Fazal (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Relist. Insufficient debate to form a consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I have recently tried to resolve a similar situation with slakr on his talk page and was treated dismissively. I have reviewed slakr's AfD history using Snottywong's tools. I see no record that slakr participates in AfDs. There is a concern here that he is force-closing AfDs when he should be adding !votes. Unscintillating (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Overturn to speedy keep NPASR I notified slakr on 28 February that for "a WP:NOQUORUM...a hard delete was an incorrect closure", so he can't say he wasn't aware of how to interpret the guideline. WP:NOQUORUM limits deletions to soft delete, which are the equivalent of WP:PROD. Unscintillating (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- I am amending my bolded summary based on review of the AfD nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- I see no evidence whatsoever of a consensus to delete in that discussion. In the absence of a community consensus, Slakr has exercised his own judgment. I'm sure this was done in perfectly good faith, but at DRV we use the word "supervote" to refer to that outcome.
The community is generally very sensitive to use of the "delete" tool. Sysops are entrusted with the power to delete, on condition that it's used only in certain rigidly-defined circumstances:- either in accordance with one of the criteria for speedy deletion, or when there's been an expired PROD, or where there's a community consensus to delete. I'm afraid that none of those conditions obtained, so DRV doesn't really have any discretion in the matter. We've pretty much got to overturn. In my view the correct close would have been "no consensus to delete".—S Marshall T/C 12:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Overturn and relist. No consensus to delete present, although one might develop if given enough time. ✄ (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Overturn and relist, you can't say there's consensus to do a thing when nobody actually agrees to do that thing! Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC).
- Overturn. Reasonable admin discretion here could cover "keep", "no consensus" or "merge". Closing the AfD backlogs is no excuse for a close that doesn't reflect the discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Overturn, close not indicidative of actual discussion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
|
