Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UCL Faculty of Social and Historical Sciences (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 keep. no valid reason for re-nomination. WP:NAC is only an essay, and Wikipedia is not a WP:BURO is solid policy Scott Mac 17:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

UCL Faculty of Social and Historical Sciences
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Renominating because of an improper non admin closure. Shadowjams (talk) 09:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep If a close is disputed, then the appropriate process is deletion review. Immediate renomination in the hope of getting a different result is disruptive. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * DRV would be for appropriate closures. Inappropriate actions can be heard as they were. Shadowjams (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are begging the question. It is not established that the previous close was inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a policy, which you know... and you know my answer to your question. Abductive had some questions, and DGG had a long paragraph.... but again, why the dedication to keeping every permutation of every topic? Do you think that improves the encyclopedia? I don't. I'd much rather see relevant content in the articles we already have.


 * In the previous discussion, no editor supported the nominator's proposition that the article be deleted. The clear consensus was that it should be kept.  That close was therefore quite accurate and proper.  This renomination is, contrariwise, not proper, per WP:DEL which states "Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome."  That policy, by its link, indicates that editors who engage in such action may be blocked.  I therefore advise you to withdraw. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In the long run I think people who think like I do about Wikipedia have probably already lost. It will grow and grow until the currently small force that maintains its accuracy, tries to keep it free of vandalism, tries to verify facts in it, becomes inconsequential, sees no more need to do so, and moves on to more interesting things. I'm damn close to that myself. I imagine others who know how this process works are similarly inclined. I don't really know what kind of encyclopedia you envision, but I guarantee you that if what I've described is the future, it won't be one I can't care about. I don't want to see something so amazing fail, but there's a part of me that feels like it's inevitable, because of these, small cuts. Shadowjams (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't let the Colonel discourage you, Shadowjams. He is part of the minority, although an extremely vocal minority.  However, I agree with him that DRV is the correct procedure here.  The non-admin closure of the previous AfD was completely inappropriate.  The AfD only ran for 2 days, and the nominator didn't withdraw their nomination.  If this is brought to DRV, it will almost certainly be overturned and relisted.  Snotty Wong   comment 16:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that there is a long thread at AN which is currently discussing the various inappropriate non-admin closures by the user who closed the previous AfD here. Taking this to DRV would be an open and shut case.  Snotty Wong   verbalize 16:47, 18 November 2010 (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.