repair malformed DRV enry |
Star Mississippi (talk | contribs) →Caroline Tran: endorse |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:{{DRV links|Caroline Tran|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Tran|article=}} |
:{{DRV links|Caroline Tran|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Tran|article=}} |
||
afds are not popularity contests, they are not headcounts. they are based on the strength of policy based arguments. Yes the headcount here is very clearly on the delete side but a small local call does override long term wider policies. The first three delete comments here were based on the fact that this was an unreferenced blp. Once references were provided these three become moot. they are no longer valid and closers should dismiss them. After sources were provided we saw two delete comments. The first was a boilerplate comment from Tim the made a vague wave at wp:sirs which is a policy related to companies which is clearly irrelevant here. The next from Bearian was a vague wave at common outcomes where common outcomes do not actually mention nationally broadcast radio hosts. Neither is a valid policy based call for deletion and neither make any relevant comments on the sources provided. Since no one was made a relevant counter to the presentation of relevant sources claiming GNG pass there is no way this should have been closed delete. Uncomfortable based on headcount then relist asking for discussion of sources or close no consensus. Instead we have a close based on guessing what the previous voters may have thought if they had come back for another look [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OwenX&diff=prev&oldid=1224064439]]. Sorry but afds are not decided on what someone might have had in mind but did not say. They are not decided by guesses by closers. Lets actually look at evidence provided during discussions instead of ignoring the fundamental idea of af'''D'''s were the D stands for discussion not for dismissing sources without analysis. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Duffbeerforme|Duffbeerforme]] ([[User talk:Duffbeerforme#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Duffbeerforme|contribs]]) t12:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)</small> |
afds are not popularity contests, they are not headcounts. they are based on the strength of policy based arguments. Yes the headcount here is very clearly on the delete side but a small local call does override long term wider policies. The first three delete comments here were based on the fact that this was an unreferenced blp. Once references were provided these three become moot. they are no longer valid and closers should dismiss them. After sources were provided we saw two delete comments. The first was a boilerplate comment from Tim the made a vague wave at wp:sirs which is a policy related to companies which is clearly irrelevant here. The next from Bearian was a vague wave at common outcomes where common outcomes do not actually mention nationally broadcast radio hosts. Neither is a valid policy based call for deletion and neither make any relevant comments on the sources provided. Since no one was made a relevant counter to the presentation of relevant sources claiming GNG pass there is no way this should have been closed delete. Uncomfortable based on headcount then relist asking for discussion of sources or close no consensus. Instead we have a close based on guessing what the previous voters may have thought if they had come back for another look [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OwenX&diff=prev&oldid=1224064439]]. Sorry but afds are not decided on what someone might have had in mind but did not say. They are not decided by guesses by closers. Lets actually look at evidence provided during discussions instead of ignoring the fundamental idea of af'''D'''s were the D stands for discussion not for dismissing sources without analysis. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Duffbeerforme|Duffbeerforme]] ([[User talk:Duffbeerforme#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Duffbeerforme|contribs]]) t12:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)</small> |
||
*'''Endorse close''' per essentially [[User_talk:OwenX#Caroline_Tran_afd]]. The earlier comments don't become moot just because Duff declares them so. Editors could have returned to revise them following Duff's !vote, but they didn't. If you think you have a case, request the draft and improve it with the sources. It wouldn't be a G4 and you could bring it back to mainspace [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 16:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:31, 24 May 2024
24 May 2024
Caroline Tran
afds are not popularity contests, they are not headcounts. they are based on the strength of policy based arguments. Yes the headcount here is very clearly on the delete side but a small local call does override long term wider policies. The first three delete comments here were based on the fact that this was an unreferenced blp. Once references were provided these three become moot. they are no longer valid and closers should dismiss them. After sources were provided we saw two delete comments. The first was a boilerplate comment from Tim the made a vague wave at wp:sirs which is a policy related to companies which is clearly irrelevant here. The next from Bearian was a vague wave at common outcomes where common outcomes do not actually mention nationally broadcast radio hosts. Neither is a valid policy based call for deletion and neither make any relevant comments on the sources provided. Since no one was made a relevant counter to the presentation of relevant sources claiming GNG pass there is no way this should have been closed delete. Uncomfortable based on headcount then relist asking for discussion of sources or close no consensus. Instead we have a close based on guessing what the previous voters may have thought if they had come back for another look [[1]]. Sorry but afds are not decided on what someone might have had in mind but did not say. They are not decided by guesses by closers. Lets actually look at evidence provided during discussions instead of ignoring the fundamental idea of afDs were the D stands for discussion not for dismissing sources without analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duffbeerforme (talk • contribs) t12:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse close per essentially User_talk:OwenX#Caroline_Tran_afd. The earlier comments don't become moot just because Duff declares them so. Editors could have returned to revise them following Duff's !vote, but they didn't. If you think you have a case, request the draft and improve it with the sources. It wouldn't be a G4 and you could bring it back to mainspace Star Mississippi 16:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)