Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 23

Disruptive closures
Let's not do them, okay? Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Closure of that twins discussion BLP and the twins article
Obviously, I have no intention of actually starting a revert war over a closure I'm not completely convinced is false. But why is it necessary that this be closed three days early, and why by people who already said they strongly endorse the deletion? It's a long-standing precedent that you don't close discussions you are involved in. Is there some pressing reason it must be ignored here? -Amarkov moo! 00:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is really no point in drawing out the debate. The closer's reasons were excellent, and the article is staying dead, anyway. Period.--Docg 0:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care if the debate is drawn out or not. I don't care if the article is staying dead or not. I do care that this doesn't spiral out of control like the last one did, and that means that people who commented should not be closing it, no matter how good their reasons. If someone who didn't comment would endorse the closure, I'd be perfectly happy too. -Amarkov moo! 00:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Closing a discussion you've voted in and called "trollish" and "stupid" creates in the bare minimum the appearance of bias, and I'm not sure it's permitted. He should allow someone else to close it besides himself. -N 00:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No guarantees on that. The "keep deleted" crowd hasn't provided a single logical argument yet. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP? WP:DIGNITY? Sean William 00:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No BLP issues have been shown, and there's nothing that would possibly apply in the second essay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you're just not interested in listening - you're too busy playing games to bother about the harm you're potentially doing. It is all about myopic little process wars and "look a Jeff - the champion of the cause" Just stop it. Please, please, please, knock off the stupidity. I've had enough of it. You are indeed exhausting patience now.--Docg 00:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Doc, I am interested in listening - we cannot do any harm here. There's no harm to be done. Quit with the insults and make a goddamn argument for your side. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is it that the deletionists have to constantly resort to insults? The way, the truth, and the light 00:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) You know, I first met Jeff when he recreated a page about a kid's book that had been speedily deleted. The article still fails notability in my mind, but the DRV closed as overturn and the AfD I started closed as keep. But in this agree with him. WP:BLP IS NOT A CLUEBAT. Stop wielding it as one. Yes, he is exhausting your patience. Because you advocate OUT OF PROCESS procedures and he insists on process. Try following the rules sometime. -N 01:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * *sigh* ... Why must everyone hijack the topics I bring up to what they wish to argue? -Amarkov moo! 00:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And policy. Don't forget policy.  These articles simply do not violate BLP.  If Doc is asserting as such, he's doing a poor job of it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm taking the fact that the closure has been reversed for 15 minutes now as evidence that people agree an uninvolved admin should close. If this is not the case, then discuss it. -Amarkov moo! 01:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also evidence that it doesn't need to be closed right now. Vadder 01:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This needs to be addressed in the ArbCom case currently pending. It's thoroughly asinine. If you don't like the policy, get it changed. Until then, stop making decisions that clearly go against community consensus because of personal beliefs. It looks a lot like WP:POINT. Horologium talk - contrib 01:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately they have been editing WP:BLP to conform with their views. See Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. The way, the truth, and the light 01:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You know it doesn't have to be "either/or". I both support full discussion of the issues AND the new section. The trick is not writing the new section so broadly it enshrines what these admins are trying to do in speedily deleting everything in sight. -N 02:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)