User talk:Optakeover/Archive/2018/January
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Optakeover. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Relist
Please read WP:RELISTBIAS.This is a case of softdelete whilst this ought to be deleted.Thanks:)Winged BladesGodric 13:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Winged Blades of Godric: With all due respect, but with the minimal number of votes in both examples, I can't see how we can apply RELISTBIAS just yet, considering there has not been many voices supporting either keeping or deleting. There has to be consensus. Nevertheless, with relist hopefully these quoted articles would gain more attention. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 14:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Please read WP:RELIST more carefully. AfDs do not need to reach a consensus. If there has been sufficient participation and no consensus has been reached, they should be closed as "no consensus". We only relist when there has been insufficient participation. This and this are both improper relists. I also agree with Godric that the two AfDs above should have been closed as soft delete and delete respectively. Per Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Deletion discussions, please consider leaving these closes to administrators. Thanks. – Joe (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Joe Roe: I have already messaged you on your talk page for clarification of Marie-Lucie Tarpent. However, in all the other discussions you mentioned and quoted, the reason why I felt relisting was necessary was simply because the discussion was controversial and consensus was not clear, either with low participation and countering !votes were made, or in extensive discussion where both sides were able to argue for passing or failure of policy based on their reasons given. Based on this, I held that more discussion was required for clearer consensus. This is my reason. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 16:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Let me make it absolutely clear I have already read WP:RELISTBIAS but the reasons I have stated still stand. However upon reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogeshwar Surender Dev Mahadev I will go ahead and revert the relist on that one. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 16:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)X2--Replied on Joe's t/p.Winged BladesGodric 16:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- I understand your logic but that is not the procedure. We don't keep AfDs open indefinitely until a consensus is reached, for a variety of reasons. If the 7-day period is elapsed, and enough people have participated, the AfD should be closed, regardless of whether consensus is reached. WP:RELISTBIAS is an argument that NAC can sometimes be flawed, and you are free to take that as you wish, but WP:RELIST is a guideline that states clearly that discussions should only be relisted when there is insufficient participation. Neither of the discussions I linked (and have reverted you on) had insufficient participation. – Joe (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your messages. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 16:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Let me make it absolutely clear I have already read WP:RELISTBIAS but the reasons I have stated still stand. However upon reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogeshwar Surender Dev Mahadev I will go ahead and revert the relist on that one. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 16:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Joe Roe: I have already messaged you on your talk page for clarification of Marie-Lucie Tarpent. However, in all the other discussions you mentioned and quoted, the reason why I felt relisting was necessary was simply because the discussion was controversial and consensus was not clear, either with low participation and countering !votes were made, or in extensive discussion where both sides were able to argue for passing or failure of policy based on their reasons given. Based on this, I held that more discussion was required for clearer consensus. This is my reason. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 16:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Please read WP:RELIST more carefully. AfDs do not need to reach a consensus. If there has been sufficient participation and no consensus has been reached, they should be closed as "no consensus". We only relist when there has been insufficient participation. This and this are both improper relists. I also agree with Godric that the two AfDs above should have been closed as soft delete and delete respectively. Per Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Deletion discussions, please consider leaving these closes to administrators. Thanks. – Joe (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)