- Lady (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Non policy reason given for premature close. Snowball is an essay, not policy, and when User:Ktr101 tried to close it as a non-admin snowball 2 different people complained on his talk page, one of which was voting for keep. This was undone, but the admin User:Dcoetzee then repeated the action, giving the same result. Basically, there's no reason to close a review early, it was far, far too early, and there were delete votes, and multiple people who commented, but did not vote keep. Closing AFDs early with non policy reasons is not acceptable. If everyone agreed that it was snowball fair enough, but that didn't happen. I agree that deletion is a long shot, but long shots are allowed. Fundamentally, AFD is not a vote, the principle is that a single opposite vote can carry the day, the reasons given were improper, and it's not snowball anyway, and hence it was closed totally incorrectly and unreasonably early (it had only been running about 4 days). - Wolfkeeper 04:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I'm not the project's biggest fan of snow closes but this was fair enough. To overturn this at DRV I'd have to think that (a) the close was improper; and (b) letting it run for 7 days could have lead to a different result. Neither is the case.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, there being no reasonable probability that, had the debate been allowed to run the full 7 days, the result would have been different. The policy you are looking for is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Tim Song (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the snow closure. The weight of argument was never going to be in favour of deletion, given that the nomination was based on a misunderstanding of NOTDICT.—S Marshall T/C 06:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse exactly per Tim Song. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, I endorse the state of affairs (the article being kept) because the debate was never going to go any other way. The process followed and the manner by which the debate was closed was lamentable, however. Stifle (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sympathise with Wolfkeeper, the AfD did not not meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Speedy keep and the use of SNOW "is discouraged". However, an article honestly sourced from Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition will never be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Encyclopedias make as many mistakes as we do; so that can't be a policy, even an unwritten one.- Wolfkeeper 11:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- but it is policy that we cover everything conventional encyclopedias cover--though we should use other sources also--they are a standard of what is certainly encyclopedic notability; accuracy is another matter. I know of no topic where the 11th EB is the final modern standard of scholarship, and all articles primarily based on it need to be carefully checked and rewritten--but the topics there are all of them still worth inclusion. DGG ( talk ) 16:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a big difference between covering something, and having the same topics. We don't in general have the same topics; and topics define the article layout.- Wolfkeeper 16:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is not a question of Bureaucracy, it's about admins like you guys prejudging the issue. If you judge the issue post-review, that's your role, but you don't get to do it mid-flow, and post-review you have to give a POLICY reason. He didn't do that either. That stops right here, right now. Too many AFDs in my experience are being closed improperly.- Wolfkeeper 11:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. A perfectly reasonable SNOW close. Nsk92 (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it really isn't, several people didn't get a chance to comment, as snow points out, there's a difference between a long shot and a snow.- Wolfkeeper 13:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no SNOW close. The policy is Speedy keep, and it doesn't meet that either.- Wolfkeeper 15:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SK says "WP:SNOW is a valid keep criterion for an early close, and is not subject to any of the other criteria necessary for speedy keep." ErikHaugen (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see you just added that. In any case, previously it said "SNOW may be cited for an early close, but its use is discouraged" - ie, one MAY say SNOW and close early with keep. I think the previous wording was more consistent, I think it should be reverted. ErikHaugen (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do agree with Stifle above, however, that process could have been followed better. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So at the risk of skirting WP:POINT, I'm going to remove or seriously water down 'WP:SNOW is not a valid speedy keep criterion.' from Wikipedia:Speedy_Keep, since the closing admin specifically used it, and you've done nothing to overturn it. Speak now, or I action it.- Wolfkeeper 16:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "WP:SNOW is a valid keep criterion for administrators and is not restricted by the restrictions on Speedy Keep".- Wolfkeeper 17:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If I may, I'd like to make a point. The closing of this afd, while maybe going against the letter of WP:SNOW, still falls under the aegis of WP:IAR. While you may disagree with it, the consensus thus far is that the article is valid, and that the close was good. Your zeal in improving this social experiment we call an encyclopedia is commendable, but I wonder if perhaps you might consider relaxing on this particular issue. Continuing to press things with this much ardor does not help your cause. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you should revert. Your change doesn't change anything for this particular afd - it already said one may close early for snow - and confuses snow with "speedy keep". ErikHaugen (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Endorse There was clearly not a snowball's chance in hell that the article would be deleted, and although WP:NAC would not generally permit a non-admin to use SNOW, the result of eventual Speedy Keep was strictly within policy. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy doesn't permit an admin to do it either. It specifically says that they can't do Speedy or Snow.- Wolfkeeper 18:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, right now, the deletion rules say that there is no snow keep. It's speedy keep, and there's criteria for that, which were not met here.- Wolfkeeper 18:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not aware of any rule that says "there is no snow keep". When you say "deletion rules", do you mean the deletion guidelines for administrators?—S Marshall T/C 19:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as a valid expression of WP:IAR if nothing else. Three more days of discussion would have been nothing else than a time sink. I wasn't thrilled with the original NAC as there were outstanding delete opinions, but overturning this at the point would be little more than process to satisfy process. Courcelles (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically you're in effect saying that any admin can close any AFD at any time provided the position is at a numerical disadvantage. Snow is, after all, just a count of heads, it's straight vote. But it's too easy to do vote stuffing.- Wolfkeeper 18:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I closed that because there really was no way in hell it would've been deleted. As I said before, only a sleu of socks would've likely done something to get it deleted. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Wikipedia is not and has never been a bureaucracy (see WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY), and we don't jump through hoops of pointless process for its own sake. If that's what you're here looking for, sorry but you may want to consider some other more bureaucratically-oriented website to contribute to. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- There is no possible way this deletion discussion could have ended any other way. While I would have let it run for the full seven days, there is nothing to be gained by sending this back to AfD. It would certainly be kept. Overturning this decision would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a pointless. Reyk YO! 19:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse it's an obvious snowball keep, at any rate. —fetch·comms 20:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball endorse There's no policy for this, but that doesn't matter, obviously. The DRV is ended.- Wolfkeeper 21:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's no policy for this, but that doesn't matter, obviously. This is actually a correct and un-ironic statement of the way Wikipedia works. WP:IAR is a cornerstone of Wikipedia policy. Administrators (and other editors) do what is best for the encyclopedia regardless of the exact wording or tagging of the policy pages at the moment. There are limits, essentially governed by consensus, but people are generally reluctant to overturn an action they believe to have been correct even if the process was faulty. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
