Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of slang names for poker hands (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Speedy Close and moved over to WP:DRV. Being a little bold here. That User:2005 disagrees with the closure reason is, according to the DRV page, enough to warrant a move over there. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 20:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

List of slang names for poker hands
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Previously nominated. Closing admin ignored strong consensus for deletion, and inappropriately editorialized an advocacy position counter to the consensus. Wikipedia is NOT and slang or idiom guide... still. 2005 21:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary, or guide. --Haemo 22:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep until transwikied - WilyD's explanation given at the original AFD and at the talk page of the original nominator is valid. The closure was made one day ago; another AFD is far too hasty.  Λυδ α cιτγ  22:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WilyD's action was plainly inappropriate. Closing admins should not make a decsion based on their own feelings, especially in the face of a strong consensus, and blatantly clear policy.  Transwikiing it is fine, but irrelevant to the fact that the article should be deleted.  The closing was both inapropriate and just plain unhelpful. And to call it "hasty" to get inappropriate action corrected is just silly.  2005 22:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "their own feelings", but WilyD closed as no consensus because he felt that most of the "delete" votes assumed that the article could and would be transwikied, which it hasn't been. Why not just go about transwikiing it instead of bothering with another deletion debate?  Λυδ α cιτγ  23:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't make things up. It helps no one.  Nothing whatsoever was said about transwikiing in the closing so don't say it did.  Instead the closing admin did inappropriate editorialzing of "it's clear to me that there's no community vision for what should happen to this article, yet widespread agreement that it has some value".  While the admin's views on community vision are irrelevant, no one can seriously dispute the strong consensus was to delete.  Transwiking is a different issue.  the article violates policy and needs to be deleted according to normal afd procedures. 2005 00:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not an editorial, that's an evaluation of consensus. In any event, there was certainly not any kind of consensus for deletion -  transwiki'ing was probably closest, although it didn't have a clear consensus.  I've already suggested to the nominator he could get a consensus for a transwiki at the page, transwiki it, then speedy it under CSD:A5.  However, if you feel I did something wrong, WP:DRV is the appropriate forum for that.  Cheers, Wily D  02:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The consensus was clear, and your editorial opionion not welcome. make your comments in the AFd, not in closing when ignoring the clear consensus that the article should be removed.  Transwikiing is irrelevant to that.  You talk page comments seem to even betray that you didn't read the comments before closing, but that also is irrelevant.  The article violates policy, and NO ONE has argued differently.  It should be deleted, not tediiously wikilawyered. 2005 05:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure I didn't offer any editorial opinion - nor did I have any comments to offer.   The claimed consensus for delete simply didn't exist if you read the comments.  That a transwiki consensus might exist is not the same as a transwiki consensus was demonstrated - the first is true, I believe the second wasn't (although it may have been close).  Transwiki = Keep+edit.  In the non-existent world of "Keep/Delete" there was actually a clear consensus to keep - one which you supported. Ragging on me for closing the AfD based on the discussion rather than the !votes isn't productive or worthwhile.  Cheers, Wily D  11:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

*Delete per WP is not a dictionary. This is a list of words are their meaning, which clearly violates WP:NOT Corpx 01:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC) I'll abstain from voting because I dont want to set a precedent for such quick renominations. At least wait a month or so unless policy or the contents of the article have changed Corpx 05:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- Bduke 23:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy close. If the decision is questionable, this needs to go to Deletion Review.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 00:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Shouldn't this be at WP:DRV instead? (Rhetorical) Cheers, Wily D 00:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and close - this is inappropriate. While there is no formal requirement that a certain amount of time pass following a no consensus close, it is bad form to renominate the following day. If you disagree with the close and there is a policy reason behind your disagreement, try to work it out with the closing admin and then take it to WP:DRV if you still disagree. However, if this ends up at DRV I'm likely to support the closing admin's close. Otto4711 00:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Otto4711's suggestion for a Speedy keep and close. --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm also opposed to the re-nomination after such a short time, but barring any restrictions to do so, I cant base my opposition on any policy or guideline Corpx 02:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You can certainly base opposition to the re-nomination on common sense. Does there really need to be a formal policy in place saying that re-nominating articles a day after an AFD closes is bad form for common sense to tell you that such a re-nomination is bad form? Do you really want, by acquiescing to this nomination, to give any credence to the notion that if you don't like the outcome of an AFD you should re-nominate the article again the next day? You've seen enough AFDs where people bitch about articles being re-nominated a month or three months or a year after an AFD, do you really want to see closed AFDs coming back over and over and over every week? The nominator has an outlet for questioning the outcome of the AFD. It's deletion review. Otto4711 04:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Common sense says an article should be deleted via the appropriate process when it 1) violates policy and 2) has no one saying it does not violate policy. Talking about deletion review is wikilawyer nonsense.  Wikipedia is not a slang guide.  That is black and white policy.  The best interest of the encyclopedia are served by following policy, and proper procedure, which is why this article is up for deletion again.  Save the wikilawyering for some other time. 2005 05:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close and take to WP:DRV. This isn't the correct forum. Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Looking at the original AFD, while there may have been a slight majority, it does not look like a consensus per WP:CONSENSUS. I think the admin acted correctly in this case. I don't have a problem with the re-list, but let's assume good faith. ~ Infrangible 02:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong fold (delete). It's in black and white. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a slang dictionary. Clarityfiend 02:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * speedy close and take to WP:DRV per Otto; Le Grand Roi; Flyguy; one cannot chain nominate articles until s/he gets a result s/he wants. Carlossuarez46 18:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - contrary to the nomination, there was, indeed, no "strong consensus for deletion". In fact, it was specifically closed as "no consensus", and frankly, I can see why.  My !vote stands, and I'm tempted to be bold and close this as I schlep it over to DRV.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 20:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.