Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Animal Protection Party

Delete !vote causes keep outcome?
I don't have any strong opinion on the outcome of this debate, but I don't see how this warrants a keep outcome. We have three !votes for keep, one of which was questionable, and two !votes for delete including the nominator. Furthermore, I don't see the logic in relisting a debate, adding a single delete !vote, and acting like this sways it to keep. Anyone else feel the same? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Your first sentence seems to me to contain an inherent contradiction, but let that pass. You have said that there were three !votes to keep and two to delete, so if it was a straight vote, the result is keep. (Actually, there were four to keep and three to delete, but never mind.) But the key issue is that AfD is most definitely not a voting process. To quote from Articles for deletion: "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself. Thus, you should not attempt to structure the AfD process like a vote." So we must assume that the weight of arguments (not quantity) is decisive. Emeraude (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * But there is no explanation for why the weight of arguments comes down on the side of keep. When an admin has previously relisted a debate in order to get consensus one way or the other, I don't see what the logic is in one new contributor adding a delete !vote, one contributor who had already !voted keep responding to that, and then deciding there is now a consensus to keep. If someone had made a good new argument in favour of keep, maybe, but there is no explanation as to why that is the case here. If there is a reason, fair enough, but expecting everyone to assume there was a reason on the weight of arguments without saying what it was ins't good enough. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest you contact the closer for an explanation. I do agree that it is normal, though not inevitable or even compulsory, that a reason should be given. Emeraude (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)