Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The College of Wooster Greeks (3rd nomination)

This was closed by User:Snowspinner as a no consensus, but I think we shouldn't be hasty with it. I'd like someone previously uninvolved to close this one. I've undone the closing. Friday (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Surely unilaterally unclosing shouldn't be done by an involved party either. Phil Sandifer 23:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Huh? I'm just waiting for someone uninvolved to close it.  I don't believe my actions were out of line at all.  It's not like I closed it myself.  If I had, it would have been as a merge/redirect.  But, due to my own involvement and strong opinions, I wouldn't close this one myself.  I don't think you should either, for the same reasons.  Friday (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I've not closed it before, so I did so this time.

The following comment was received after closing and was not included in the decision:


 * *keep to clarify, yes i created this article. the major source of 75% of the information originaly placed in the article is The Wooster Voice articles on Greek Week 1991 and 1992 published Sept 13, 1991 and Sept 11, 1992 and availible in libraries in Northeast Ohio, special collections at wooster, microfiche at wooster, and from the Wooster Voive itself. The research on the defunct fraternities was done using the Wooster Index yearbooks noted in the article. There is no AfD criterion by which I view this as deletable. Vanity would require me - or anyone who has ever edited the article - to actually be a part of the greek community at that school, which I am not. CastAStone 23:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * In that case, I'm still waiting for someone uninvolved to close this. Friday (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like someone uninvolved to close this. By my count it's 21 votes for Merge and/or Delete (17 for Delete, 4 for merge) and 10 votes for Keep. Those Delete and/or Merge votes represent more than the two-thirds majority suggested by Consensus. It looks to me like pretty clear consensus for merging and deleting, not keeping. For editors who voted "keep" to close an AfD debate as a "keep" when two-thirds were voting merge and/or delete strikes me as odd. Dragonfiend 06:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Counting merge votes as "delete" seems to me an odd way of counting. And were you to reopen, of course, you'd have to take CastAStone's vote back into account, which would be 21 to 11, making it a no consensus that way too. Phil Sandifer 06:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course, I didn't write anything about re-opening voting, and clearly votes should not be counted if cast on a closed AfD that clearly says "No further edits should be made to this page." And it's not at all odd to group "delete" and "merge" votes together; many of the people casting those votes clearly agree with me. "Merge/delete," wrote Titoxd. "Delete or if there is something that could be kept Merge as a part of deleting," wrote Vegaswikian. "The useful parts of this have already been merged, so I guess that makes my opinion delete," wrote Friday. Again, I'd also like someone uninvolved to look at this. Dragonfiend 07:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * So you dispute the validity of the close, but also the validity of votes cast after the close? Wow. Phil Sandifer 07:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The consensus of the deletion debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer; however, the timing of the close seems perfectly valid. For how long do you intend to count votes added to an AfD that clearly says "No further edits should be made to this page"? Dragonfiend 09:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, so you're changing your objection from who closed it (You were previously asking for someone uninvolved) to insisting that the closer did it wrong because they didn't treat merge votes as votes to delete and salt the earth? Phil Sandifer 17:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I clearly wrote in my original comment, "For editors who voted 'keep' to close an AfD debate as a 'keep' when two-thirds were voting merge and/or delete strikes me as odd." My restating that as "The consensus of the deletion debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer" was not at all a change in my position. I simply thought that rephrasing my position might help you understand it; I am sorry that it has only confused you further. Dragonfiend 17:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I have no problem with when people commented on this. I would also have no problem with leaving it open a bit longer, to see if a consensus forms. To me, it looks like opinion was changing to delete, as the delete folks had provided good reasons that the keepers didn't answer. Also, I'd lean toward counting a merge as a delete, since the mergers never said what they wanted to merge, and some of it's already in there. But, as it stands, all we've got is yet another tainted Afd.

This is getting old. If you don't like Afd, don't go around disrupting them. I don't like Afd either, but sometimes we end up using it. To me, the actions of Snowspinner and Tony Sidaway look very much like a WP:POINT. I'd like them both to ask themselves whether their involvement in this Afd was for actually the betterment of the project, or whether they were purely interesting in making sure they got their own way. Friday (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * For fuck's sake someone merge the damn thing already. That's a form of keep, so it's perfectly legit. And considering there's a very solid majority for not having a separate article here, it's the right thing to do (if we're taking votes after the closure I'll change mine to merge or delete or whatever will help any sort of consensus in thsi regard). Hell, I'd do it if it were s simple cut/paste, but the article needs work, and I haven;t got the inclination to do a big cleanup. -R. fiend 15:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Strange. I would say the same about twice unclosing an AfD because you don't like the result. Phil Sandifer 17:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

unclosed
Since there's now a couple people asking for an uninvolved party to close this, I've unclosed it. In theory, closers are supposed to be uninvolved anyway, and particularly in this case, it's not at all an unreasonable thing to ask for. Friday (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)