Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 4: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:51, 4 October 2008

< October 3	Deletion review archives: 2008 October	October 5 >

4 October 2008

List of defecation postures

Shit_(sic), I can't believe I'm doing this.

I haven't read the article text, I don't even care if the article gets merged, deleted or whatever. However a conclusion of, "The result was MERGE INTO NEW ARTICLE THEN SEEK SPEEDY DELETE - Nonadmin closure by nominator user:Pharmboy" just has to be the worst sort of abuse of process. Surely a nominator can't close their proposal for deletion as such a fait accompli? That would be a mockery of the whole notion of consensus. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Short version: Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't close any discussion I was the nominator for. In this case, everyone involved was in full agreement.
Long version: Basically, the original author changed the articles into (logical) redirects, and merged all the material into Defecation posture‎. Now, this actually made sense. Instead of three articles, each focusing on an individual posture, and a separate article with a "list" of the two, you had one comprehensive article. The only problem is that the "list of" article was really not needed as a redirect, and under any circumstance, was not up to policy. The quickest and easiest way was if the original author agreed to blank and request speedy for it, which he saw the logic in and had no problem with. Once that was accomplished, there was no reason for the AFD. Basically, it was the equivelent of WITHDRAWING the AFD because the original article was speedy deleted and the others redirected. I simply put the real explanation of what happened, for the record. (ie: if I had just said "withdrawn", we wouldn't be here, but it wouldn't have been 100% honest) Both the nominator and the original author were happy with the outcome and agree with the method (see his talk page and my talk page) and no other editor has contacted either of us with a complaint. The content was saved, it was reorganized in a better fashion, and Godwin's Law was never an issue. As for this review, I understand since it was a non-admin closure by the nom, (my first closure I do believe), so I am open to any constructive criticism. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should ask Caesar's wife about this. It's not about whether this was a good action, it's about whether it's seen as a good action, as having been carried out beyond reproach. Having now read some more talk pages, I'm happy that the useful content of this has been preserved and that no-one has a substantive problem with it. However couldn't you have had some 3rd party close it? Or even note the closing comment as, "Content merged by consensus, remaining empty article can now be WP:CSD#G7" ?

My concern is that wikipedia has a problem with deletionists who would love to adopt this sort of action as a precedent to make themselves judge, jury and executioner all in one. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 * '''Short version:''' Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't close any discussion I was the nominator for. In this case, everyone involved was in full agreement.
 * '''Long version:''' Basically, the original author changed the articles into (logical) redirects, and merged all the material into [[Defecation posture‎]].  Now, this actually made sense.  Instead of three articles, each focusing on an individual posture, and a separate article with a "list" of the two, you had one comprehensive article.  The only problem is that the "list of" article was really not needed as a redirect, and under any circumstance, was not up to policy.  The quickest and easiest way was if the original author agreed to blank and request speedy for it, which he saw the logic in and had no problem with.  Once that was accomplished, there was no reason for the AFD.  Basically, it was the equivelent of WITHDRAWING the AFD because the original article was speedy deleted and the others redirected.  I simply put the '''real explanation''' of what happened, for the record. (ie: if I had just said "withdrawn", we wouldn't be here, but it wouldn't have been 100% honest)  Both the nominator and the original author were happy with the outcome and agree with the method (see his [[User_talk:NerdyNSK#List_of_defecation_postures|talk page]] and [[User_talk:Pharmboy#Deletion_review_for_List_of_defecation_postures|my talk page]]) and no other editor has contacted either of us with a complaint.  The content was saved, it was reorganized in a better fashion, and [[Godwin's Law]] was never an issue.  As for this review, I understand since it was a non-admin closure by the nom, (my first closure I do believe), so I am open to any constructive criticism.   [[User:Pharmboy|P<small><strong>HARMBOY</strong></small>]] ([[User talk:Pharmboy|<small><strong>TALK</strong></small>]]) 23:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
+: I think you should ask [[Caesar's wife]] about this. It's not about whether this was a good action, it's about whether it's ''seen'' as a good action, as having been carried out beyond reproach. Having now read some more talk pages, I'm happy that the useful content of this has been preserved and that no-one has a substantive problem with it. However couldn't you have had some 3rd party close it? Or even note the closing comment as, "Content merged by consensus, remaining empty article can now be [[WP:CSD#G7]]" ?
+: My concern is that wikipedia has a problem with deletionists who would ''love'' to adopt this sort of action as a precedent to make themselves judge, jury and executioner all in one. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 23:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)