Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Philip Sandifer

Reopening
I don't know about the appropriateness of me reverting Tony, as I was involved in the debate, but then he voted on it too, so it's inappropriateness all round, it seems.

I see Splash has also reverted, so I'm going ahead and restarting this debate. It is meant to last for five days, and I see no harm in allowing that to take place. The debate is not at all vitriolic; quite the reverse, in fact, which I'm glad to see. I think we should only close it early if Phil requests it and no one objects. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It seemed like a very odd way to close, particularly given that no action approaching a merge (or even a removal of the AfD tag!) was even undertaken. -Splash talk 00:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for reverting Splash. I had thought it was vandalism at first then realized who he was. I do think that AfD's should last their full length of given time. --Strothra 00:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think this is very inappropriate. First, I think that admins who vote should not close, revert or otherwise use their admin powers on a given AfD. Also, if re-opened, it should include a paste of all previous discussion. Crum375 00:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There's not a reason to close early here. None. It's not a speedy candidate on either side. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * All the discussion is included, Crum. We just reverted Tony's premature closure of it. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. That will teach me not to watch a hockey game while wiki-ing :P Crum375 00:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Reverting my close was absolutely appropriate. I have no problem with that.  My early close was based on a perception that everything had been said that needed to be said, and a good, slow, deliberate decision-making process (on this talk page) would be preferable to the continuation of a deletion discussion.  If a brief, five-day debate is preferred, that is all right too. --Tony Sidaway 01:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Tony, there's certainly some value in allowing the entire community to express their views. This is an interesting AfD, with much good and on-going discussion. As for the closure as "merge", it was rather strange, since in the past you've tended to close as "keep" any articles that have under 80% delete votes, which would include this article. Jayjg (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope that isn't true. Having an 80% requirement for successful deletion votes is insane. I hope that is never true for any admin who deals with votes. the requirement should be a simple majority (though it tends to be an unfair 60-70%, though I understand it is not just a direct vote which counts) Bwithh 02:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether 80% is insane or not, it's brought about because of the belief that if there's any substantial doubt about the deletion of the article, it should be kept (a long-standing belief on Wikipedia, long before I started here). Maybe things will change, I don't know, but I'm not about to go against process and close AfDs as Delete if it's much less than 80% (although I can and have applied discretion to borderline cases). --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's depressing. It's like there's a rule that Wikipedia must tailspin into entropy. Bwithh 21:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Have a look at User:Dragons_flight/AFD_summary and some of the discussion on its talk page. While 80% is a clear cut-off, things in the 50-80% range are a judgement call.  Someone did an analysis of it a while ago, but I can't seem to remember who/where it was.  Guettarda 15:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's the analysis - WP:AFD100 Guettarda 15:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't know why you didn't address my point
In your summary, Splash.

Oh well. Gnewf 23:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)