Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:10, 27 October 2009

26 October 2009

Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood

Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This debate was very long (134KB) and very controversial, yet it was closed with no rationale whatsoever. My personal vote in the end was "undecided", so I would have been fine with any decision. However I, and I think many others, were looking forward to a closing rationale that showed evidence of a thought process proportional to this debate. I would have liked to see a careful weighing of all sides, along with, hopefully, a wise and well thought-out conclusion. Rather than completely overturned, I'd like this closing to simply be "undone", so that another admin can perform the closing of this debate with the proper thought and consideration. Equazcion (talk) 16:02, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC)

• The closer might have provided a rationale, if you had given them more than one hour and 9 minutes after the first talk page message on this subject. Just saying... Tim Song (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The lack of a rationale to begin with is suspect in itself to me. I don't want rationale cooked up just because people complained. I'd like a closing by someone who saw the need for rationale in the first place, on their own. Equazcion (talk) 16:09, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse the close was a reasonable interpretation of consensus - a closing rationale whilst preferable is not required. Guest9999 (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Isn't it the closing administrator's responsibility to evaluate the arguments advanced in the discussion? Isn't it their responsibility to discount the bad arguments, those that violate or misinterpret our policies? Practically every single participant who voiced a "delete" argument in the {{afd}} called upon the authority of WP:Coatrack as if it were a policy. But coatrack is not a policy, it is just an essay. And every single one of those contributors misinterpreted the essay's recommendation with regard to when it is appropriate to delete an article based on a coatrack concern. Geo Swan (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse—even if you ignore the overwhelming majority of keep vs. delete !votes (over 75%), even looking at the arguments, there is clear consensus to delete. Several of the proponents of keeping the article assumed that its problem was bad sourcing, and did a good job looking for sources. However, if one reads the delete rationales, they were not about a lack of sources—but about inherent POV and the article being a coatrack. I haven't read 100% of the discussion, but from what I read, there can be no question as to the properness of the closure. —Ynhockey 16:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - Entirely reasonable decision. The lack of a rationale could have been fixed by speaking with the closing admin. –Juliancolton |  16:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse seemed reasonable given the majority of deletion votes, and clear consensus opinion to delete...Modernist (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• The result was indeed delete, so I endorse the closure, but a closing rationale would in that particular instance have been helpful.—S Marshall /_Cont 17:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - Indeed, deletion could have been declared per WP:SNOW much sooner. A strong and thoughtful consensus emerged virtually from the start. Equazcion consistently ignored everyone's reasons, prolonging the process without ever engaging other people's reasons. This request was predictable. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • ...as was this endorsement; Slrubenstein was arguably the most vocal supporter of deletion. To him and the rest of the people endorsing the deletion itself, I'd like to remind everyone that I don't necessarily have a problem with a delete decision, but with this particular closing, for the reasons I stated in my nomination. Equazcion (talk) 17:42, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. Closed properly, and reflected consensus. ShamWow (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure reprsented consensus, that is all that is necessary. -- Avi (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - To clarify my reason for bringing this to DRV, I'd like clarification, from an uninvoled administrator, on which policies apply to this article and why. I think that's an important part of closing a discussion as long and controversial as this one was. I myself was torn in the end on how policy applied here, especially when the POV fork argument was introduced, and would like to know how that policy, or other policies might apply to this article. My rethought neutral vote can be seen easily near the top of the AfD, and expresses my concerns. I think it's important that that matter be settled in terms of similar future incidents. The ambiguous closing doesn't address the underlying questions brought up in this debate. Equazcion (talk) 18:01, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn -- several of the "endorse" opinions above state that "delete" was a reasonable interpretation of the consensus of the discussion. But isn't it the responsibility of the closing administrator to discount counter-policy arguments. Among the first dozen opinions expressed on the {{afd}} all of them claim the authority of the WP:coatrack essay. First, WP:Coatrack is not a wikipedia policy or guideline. So calling upon its authority as if it were a policy was a mistake on the part of those participants. And, I am afraid I regard it as a mistake on the part of the closing administrator to have failed to call them on it. I think even if he or she had concluded the other arguments in favor of deletion were telling, they should have explicitly reminded the errant contributors that they should not call upon the authority of essays as if they were official policies. Second, even if, for the sake of argument, we were going to treat WP:Coatrack as if it had the force of policy -- it does not recommend deletion as the first solution to articles that trigger coatrack concerns. It first recommends rewriting the passages that trigger the coatrack concern, or explaining one's concern on the talk page. It recommends a nomination for deletion only as a last resort, only when good faith attempts at discussion fail. So, every contributor who voiced a "delete" opinion based solely on coatrack should have had their opinion discounted as not compliant with policy. Once the invalid arguments it is the closing administrator's responsibility to discount are thrown out it seems to me a "no consensus" closure looks like the appropriate choice. FWIW this closure is a very strong argument for administrators to be expected to "show their work", and explain the reasoning behind their closures, and state which arguments they discounted, when reaching their conclusion. Geo Swan (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. The close was reasonable. I find the just-an-essay argument exceedingly weak. Tim Song (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but I didn't say it "was just an essay". I said it was an essay that was innappropriately being called upon as if it had the authority of an official policy. And I pointed out that every single person who called upon it mis-interpreted its recommendation as to when it was appropriate to delete an article. Geo Swan (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you mean by calling the closure "reasonable" that you agree with the closing admin's decision? I don't think that is what the contributor who initiated this DRV is looking for. I think they are looking to see that an {{afd}} of this article is closed in a policy compliant manner. Should the article stay or be deleted? At this point only administrators and those who initially participated in the {{afd}} can have an informed decision on that. I am neither. While some DRV devolve into a re-do, a rehashing of the arguments in the {{afd}} I don't think that is appropriate here. I would like to see this discussion be about whether the closing administrator properly followed our rules in doing so, without regard to whether any of us think article should go, or stay. Geo Swan (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • As far as I can see only Noleander (talk · contribs) claimed that coatrack is policy. And he's arguing to keep. It is entirely proper to rely upon an essay; and in a deletion discussion, the implicit argument in the invocation would be that the alternatives are unavailable and that this is a irremediable coatrack.

      I find no error in the closing admin's reading of the consensus and am uncertain what exactly you were asking about in your second paragraph. Tim Song (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse an entirely orderly close. Frankly the DRV rationale offered by the nominator is bizarre. Crafty (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • But would the consensus had been for delete if the administrator had evaluated whether the arguments advanced complied with policy and discounted those that did not comply with policy? I don't think do. Geo Swan (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Complied with policy? What you really mean is "complied with your interpretation of policy. Crafty (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Those who called upon the authority of WP:Coatrack as if it were a policy all ignored the advice in its section on "What_to_do_about_coatracks": "An appropriate response to a coatrack article is to be bold and trim off excessive biased content while adding more balanced content cited from reliable sources. In extreme cases, when notability is borderline, and there is little chance the article can be salvaged, deletion of the entire article may be appropriate." Anyone who calls upon our actual policies and guidelines, or an essay, in a deletion discussion, has an obligation to faithfully represent what those documents say. Are you really arguing that there is an ambiguity in the advice in this essay about when it is appropriate to advocate deletion? Unfortunately it has become routine to call upon the authority of the coatrack essay, (1) as if it were a policy; and (2) while totally ignoring its advice on when deletion is appropriate. We don't accept WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:ILIKEIT as valid arguments in {{afd}}s. That is what these claims to the authority of a non-existent coatrack policy have become -- instances of the argument WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Geo Swan (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse I might well have voted to keep if I had voted, but the consensus was for deletion. I agree that the numerous alternative proposals are viable and I am sure that a recreated article with a more neutral name and better sourcing might well have a place on Misplaced Pages. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse The article had an inbuilt bias that made it unencyclopedic. That does not stop other writers from creating encyclopedic articles but it is better to start from scratch. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Topics don't have biases. It is only a presentation of a topic that can be biased, or neutral. The topic of the article was controversial. In my experience there is no topic so controversial that a neutrally written article can't be written about it, with enough effort, and if they are good WP:RS. That this article could have become an anti-semitic polemic -- if our policies were ignored, and that it might have posed a temptation to bigots to try to insert editorializing would be a very bad reason to delete. OK, I just checked the google cached version of the article. I don't think there is any doubt that the article cited plenty of WP:RS. Did it cite, paraphrase, quote those WP:RS in a biased way? If someone thought so the appropriate place to raise that concern would be on the article's talk page, not in an {{afd}} or {{drv}}. Geo Swan (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, even though I was for "keep", because no other outcome is possible from this AfD, which has a clear consensus for deletion. But the closing admin really should have written a proper rationale when closing such a long discussion.  Sandstein  21:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn. All the more often I am running into admins who simply feel they can do what they want. This is an all-too-frequently occurring event (check my contribs history) and MUST be put a stop to. Admins MUST offer a well reasoned rationale, MUST interpret community opinion correctly. This is not a dictatorship. What do I do to make other editors realize this? How do we address this? I am always open for suggestions...Turqoise127 (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• What happened to WP:AGF? As an uninvolved admin, I endorse Coffee's decision to delete the article because consensus was very, very clear. We can't just assume admins are going rogue because we disagree with their actions. –Juliancolton |  21:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse What can I say, I read the article and it seems like there was a consensus to delete. Most people just didn't buy the keep argument that the sources were sufficient to overcome the related coatrack/POV fork/original research issues. Personally I probably would have wanted to keep the article, but DRV is about whether the close was good or not, with respect to consensus and policy. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Overturn censorship of wikipedia with no well reason gived at close. it seem real reason for delete might be wp:idontlikeit Ani medjool (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC).

• Comment - The reason I didn't provide a rational is that in my opinion it didn't require one. When an XFD is closed as delete it is automatically thought to infer that the admin saw that the consensus was to delete. It doesn't mean that they didn't look over the debate and equally weigh the issues, it in fact states the opposite, it shows, quite clearly, that I thought that the delete opinions were stronger and were the greater consensus. I see no reason to have to leave a huge paragraph of my idea of what is clearly already shown by itself in the AFD, it's not my opinion that matters anyway. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. To those who say we should just ask the closer for their rationale, notice that Coffee has not yet given a rationale here or on his talk page beyond asserting that the closure was obvious. We cannot even infer from the rationale you gave that you thought that there was consensus to delete; with the information given in your close your decision might well be arbitrary or according to your own preference. No reference to policies or guidelines was made, no reference to the merits of the arguments, no assessment at all. How can we distinguish your decision from a head-count or a coin toss? If we are happy with such a lack of explanation then surely someone could write a bot to do closes in this manner, it'd certainly make more time for admins to do something useful. Fences&Windows 23:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I like the fact that you seem able to ignore the fact, here, of what I said in my original reply to you on my talk page. I, quite clearly in fact, stated that I thought the consensus was to delete, and per the regular closes at AFD, when an administrator closes an XFD like this it means that they thought the consensus was to delete. It's not like I left a link to WP:IAR, or something that said that I didn't think that I was closing per the consensus, but you still seem to want to view this the way you want to view it. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 07:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. Consensus, particularly around policy, was clear. Jayjg 23:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Essentially accurate reading of consensus. I thought the article deserved to be kept, and the article that was actually deleted was very different from the one that was nominated, but there's no question the keepers were on the minority side of considered opinion on the subject. Ray 23:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. Although including a rationale would have been wise given the extent of the discussion, it is not mandatory (at least not yet). The close accurately reflects the consensus of the discussion, so I see no good reason to re-open it. --RL0919 (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse: Trying to force out a rationale using DRV seems like an pretty unseemly tactic to me. I don't think simply because there was a lot of debate means that the conclusion is non-obvious. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse per explanation of User:Coffee above and on his talk page . The AfD was fairly clear-cut, despite User:Equazcion's past and present misgivings. Mathsci (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse The pro-deletion editors represented a clear majority, despite the vocal efforts of a few people who opposed deletion. The editors who advocated keeping the article had backed down somewhat by the time the discussion closed, suggesting that a consensus was emerging in favor of "delete." Even so, consensus does not mean absolute consensus or else very little would get done. Having said this, I agree that the admin who deleted the article should probably have presented his own argument for a WP policy rationale. Although I am skeptical that WP:Coatrack is binding, I am also convinced there were bona fide WP policies to cite when deleting the article. --AFriedman (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment from the AfD Nominator I never thought that I would be doing this, but here I am, about to make a statement about a deletion review of an article I nominated for deletion. But...here goes! If this had been any other AfD, after seeing the changes that were made in the article, I probably would have withdrawn my nomination. However, because it was so notable, (131kbs) I didn't because I wanted to see how it played out. As I have watched the conversation as it unfolded, I became more and more concerned about the tone that the AfD began to have, specifically on the part of some of those who voted delete. If you go back to my original nomination, I said nothing about coatrack, or any such nonsense. My original nomination was based on the fact that it was a cobbled-together grouping of things taken from other articles, and read like a high school paper (and a bad one at that!) It underwent some significant changes and became the beginnings of an article that I believed was worthy of inclusion, and as I said earlier, if this had been any other AfD, I probably would have withdrawn the nomination and this would all be a moot point. I have wrestled with this for the last couple days now, and as much as I risk being given a label that I don't like, I feel like I need to point out some things from the AfD. Without choosing to make comments about any one editor in particular, I feel very strongly that there was a small minority of people who responded to the AfD who chose to make the AfD about racism, their particular feelings about the subject, and their own offense taken...instead of about the article. As I said to someone else, I feel like the AfD got "hijacked" by a minority of pro-Jewish users who managed to push their personal views ahead of everyone else, and argued the AfD from a personal point of view instead of from a policy point of view. I will not go so far as to make accusations of meat-socking or wiki-canvassing, but I do feel that because of its very nature, it attracted a very vocal minority who then went on to make accusations about another user's personal beliefs that were unfounded and addressed, at least to my satisfaction, by the user in a very polite and civil way. Because of this, I am voting to Overturn, not because of the lack of rationale, but because the AfD may not have represented the majority opinion. Frmatt (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Transparency Note In the interests of transparency, I will state that I have spoken off-wiki with one user about this, and asked another user for advice, but the second user did not respond. The user that I spoke with voted Endorse and the user who hasn't responded voted for Overturn Frmatt (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Good points, Frmatt--but despite the vocality of both sides, I still think the majority supported delete. I just want to let people know that I have redirected "Controversies..." to "Antisemitic canard" and "Jews and Hollywood" to "American Jews." I'd like to know if others think these pages should have been redirected elsewhere, and I'm also open to discussing which additional content should be added to which related articles. --AFriedman (talk) 03:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• (e/c)And that (or something like it) was the compromise that I thought were were moving towards, which is why I was a little unhappy with a full delete, instead of one of the compromises that was proposed in the AfD. Frmatt (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse close. There were some reasonable arguments on the keep side, but the rough consensus (by "vote count" about 75%) was in favor of deletion. Some rationale from the closer would be nice, but this is not required. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse close. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Why shouldn't rationale be required? I'd argue that in a controversial case like this it should be. I feel like I'm being told to accept the result of some closed-room proceeding, and being told to feel guilty about wanting to know what happened; "Trust us, we weighed everything fairly. No, we don't need to prove it. Accept it, and don't complain; You wouldn't want us to think you're accusing us of something." It's been suggested that complaining about this closing's lack of rationale is tantamount to assuming bad faith, but it's really not necessarily that. "Assume good faith" means to assume good intentions. To assume competency as well is just a recent colloquial definition, and it's not part of policy. Even if you happen to agree with this particular decision and therefore don't care about the absence of rationale, imagine a different scenario, where you might even be (god-forbid) in a minority position. Wouldn't you want an open disclosure of the thought process that led to a decision like this? Equazcion (talk) 15:59, 27 Oct 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - Consensus seemed pretty clear in this, a rationale would have been nice but isn't required by any policy, so the closing admin can't be held responsible at DRV for not providing one. My suggestion would be to suggest a policy change requiring a rationale for closing a discussion x length/x amount of participants/x amount of differing views or whatever standard you can come up with if you don't want to risk a closure such as this one again. VegaDark (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Just for reference, there is a proposal on this subject being discussed right now. --RL0919 (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Jewish inventors

Category:Jewish inventors (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Absolutely no consensus existed for the elimination of this category in the discussion (or the previous discussion) and thus the closing represents the sort of abuse on the part of closing admins that has become endemic to our project. By evidence of the discussion, the category needs to be recreated immediately and the closing admin censured for such abuse. Further, we have had several years worth of the targeting for elimination of Jewish-related categories, of which this is the most recent example. No matter what the actual discussion says, some closing admins have allowed their personal view to insist and act at all costs to see that Jewish-related cats are eliminated, despite the fact that discussion did not support such elimination. Badagnani (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The opinions were very divided. The decision of the closing editor was listify. Indeed we now have List of Jewish inventors. I myself was inclined towards a keep, mostly because I suspected pointy behavior in the nomination of that specific nominator. I would still be slightly in favor of having this category, as I think history and sources prove its relevance. Apart from that I think that in view of the widely diverging opinions the wisest course of action would have been "If in doubt, don't delete", as stated in this very discussion. I would like to add, on a personal note, that I do not envy the editor who closed this discussion, and I think his closing comment shows he made his decision judiciously and sincerely. At the same time we can not close our eyes to the fact that around the time of that nomination we saw several pointy nominations in relation with Jewish categories Even on Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Heritage (which lies at the basis of the nomination) one specific editor, who since has left Misplaced Pages, was engaged in tendentious editing. Debresser (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Badagnani, why did you wait over 4 months before bringing this to DRV? Jayjg 23:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• First, I had no idea this category was yet again brought up for deletion, because it was not properly advertised in the proper places (such as WPETHNIC), until it was entirely depopulated a day or two ago, something we've become quite used to in regard to Jewish-related categories over the past few years. Badagnani (talk) 05:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• overturn to no consensus I don't see any consensus in that discussion. I would like to complement the closer on the very clear closing statement however. Hobit (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• As so often with CfD, we have a closure in flagrant disregard of the discussion that preceded it. Overturn to no consensus.—S Marshall /_Cont 15:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn as no consensus I'm becoming more and more baffled as to how admins put their thumbs (and feet) on the scale to tip consensus in their preferred direction, but this CfD, for all its discussion, did not reach a consensus to delete. As a general rule, we desperately need closing admins who can recognize when there is no consensus and close on that basis, rather than trying to cast a supervote to justify their personal preferences and biases, rather than the reasoned votes cast by actual participants. Alansohn (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn no consensus I second the opinions of other participants and am happy I am not the only one noticing the all-powerful attitude of many admins (see my comment at DelRev article above this one). Being a fairly recent editor, I am not in the know of how to address this, but is the adminship process flawed? Does just anyone become admin after many contribs? Do we need more stringent admin rules? What gives? Turqoise127 (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• I frankly can not see how this close is connected to the debate, even under the rather expansive theory of admin discretion I'm subscribing to. Overturn to no consensus. Tim Song (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. Some of the "delete" arguments were irrelevant as well. For example "Being an inventor is not limited to any particular race, religion, nationality or ethnicity" could be used to argue for the deletion of "Irish inventors", "American inventors", and so on as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus, as there was none. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. The closing admin's arguments were good ones, but they do not reflect the discussion. It should have been a !vote instead of a closing statement. --RL0919 (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Karla foxnews.jpg

File:Karla foxnews.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

There was no consensus for deletion. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. The argument that the image was required to show that LaVey had appeared on Fox News was invalidated by the addition of a reference. Once that was done the closure seems entirely appropriate. Kevin (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn - Despite the above comment, the evidence (the discussion itself) clearly shows that there was no consensus for deletion. We must all, even admins, uphold our own community's standards regarding discussions and abide by them rather than making up our own conclusions based on the personal preference of the closing admin. Badagnani (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm a very strong proponent of that view, but non-free media rules are pretty clear here and we don't just count !votes, we weigh them against policy and guidelines. Once the only basis for keeping the picture was removed (by supplying a reference that did the same thing) there was no solid !vote to keep that had a leg to stand on. Hobit (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse (my own deletion) As Kevin says above, the only argument for keeping the image was that it was being used to illustrate an event for which no other references could be found, while the arguments for deletion included the (very strong) argument that it is an unfree image being used not to discuss the network or television show, and only loosely being used to discuss the person's appearance on television. In fact, since it was in the upper-right of the article, it was being used more for identification of the subject than commentary on her television appearance, which is not allowed under our non-free content policies. Once the text reference was found, that reason for keeping was no longer a strong argument. Deletion discussions are not simply votes, the arguments must be weighed and examined through the lens of policy. That's what I did. kmccoy (talk) 09:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - What's the problem? You said you needed this image as a reference, now that another reference has been found the image clearly fails wp:nfcc. Which is not negotiable. Garion96 (talk) 10:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse though closer should have provided a closing statement in this case. Policy arguments for deletion here are very strong (though I largely disagree with said policies). Hobit (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  The statement was in the deletion log. Sorry that wasn't made clear. kmccoy (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks, I'd not noticed that. I'd encourage you to have it in the closing statement too in the future. Hobit (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse, per Hobit, with whose view I absolutely concur in all respects.—S Marshall /_Cont 15:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. Close was consistent with policy. Tim Song (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. None of the criteria in WP:NFCC were met. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, closure reflected policy correctly. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

WorkTime

WorkTime (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Optimising Software used in several articles, with many references Rirunmot 01:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: malformed AfD link fixed. Misplaced {{DRVNote}} removed. Tim Song (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. The discussion could not have been closed any other way. Tim Song (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - Accurate interpretation of consensus at that discussion. –Juliancolton |  02:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment:i.e #8,316 downloads in this independent site: and an independent source: Rirunmot 02:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• DRV isn't AfD round 2. You had ample time to present your argument during the deletion discussion. –Juliancolton |  02:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• There was one good reference found in the AfD. One more and I'd say we'd meet WP:N. So endorse but encourage interested parties to rewrite when another solid reliable source shows up. Hobit (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Hadn't notice the early close. Given the drama associated with a 6 hour early close just recently early closures may not be wise. That said, this closure couldn't go any other way. So a minnow tossed a Cirt with a suggestion that waiting 168 hours in the future would be wise. Hobit (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. The close is clearly in line with the discussion outcome. Kevin (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Am I right in thinking Cirt closed that somewhat early?—S Marshall /_Cont 15:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • 13 hours and 35 minutes early, I believe. Not convinced that the early close affected the outcome, though. Tim Song (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I do see that point, and I have some sympathy with it, but I'm not thrilled with the idea of a close 13 hours early being endorsed here. I feel that sends entirely the wrong message to AfD closers.

      If Cirt had been an hour or two early, I think I would've overlooked it, but I believe I must take the view that 13 hours early is clear error. Procedural overturn and relist.—S Marshall /_Cont 15:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

      • No sense dragging out an AfD with no chance of coming out "keep". That's what WP:SNOW was written to cover. Powers 17:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
      • It is clear error, but it is also harmless error. Tim Song (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm not convinced three responses is sufficient to invoke WP:SNOW.—S Marshall /_Cont 21:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
          • To close after a day of debate? Absolutely not; to close after ~93% of debate time has elapsed? I think that's okay. Tim Song (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. Early closure does not appear to have adversely affected the debate, but strongly discourage early closures in future. Process is important. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Now it is clear (consensus: Endorse) . How to do to start a review based on the newly found sources?

Rirunmot 12:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Write a sourced draft of the article in your userspace (eg here: User:Rirunmot/WorkTime). When you have finished writing the draft including the sources, bring it back here for discussion (i.e. open a new DRV), but please don't do this until you have a draft you feel confident with.—S Marshall /_Cont 14:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus, defaulting to keep. Jake should not have been the one to close this, given his vote on the previous DRV. If that wasn't enough, his unilateral change to the policy page while this was ongoing makes it even more shady. I'm willing to accept that Jake did it in good faith, but he should not have been the closer, and should have discussed the change before making it. The Wordsmith 17:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You are not commenting on the right DRV, I believe. Tim Song (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    • You're right, I'm not sure how that got there. The Wordsmith 18:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)