Endorse Well attended discussion (for a CfD), policy-based reasoning, only the appellant disagreed with the outcome. I don't see how that could have been closed any other way, and specifically endorse this as a valid NAC. I'm sorry the outcome wasn't the way you would have liked Nayyn. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - This was a valid close, and the most appropriate close. The argument that the appellant sort of gives is more applicable to this appeal than to the CFD. WP:JUSTAPOLICY or WP:JUSTA mean that an editor made a vague wave at a policy, but this is a vague wave at an essay on arguments to avoid. Also, this is not CFD round 2, but being one of the highest honors is not the same as being a defining characteristic. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, while citing essays that summarize a position can be useful shorthand, citing an essay (like this one) just by one of its many shortcuts (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill-advised, for the reasons explained above.
Endorse. WP:OCAWARD is the relevant guideline in this case. There was no need for the Delete !voters to add prose to what already was a coherent, if terse, argument. Owen×☎20:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. WP:ATA is WP:JUSTANESSAY and many "arguments to avoid" according to this nice and optimistic essay are quite far from being discountable when understood in the context of a whole actual discussion. And that essay fails to provide nuance in that respect, generalizing certain typical forms of expression as "unconvincing", "infirm" etc. But DRV is not primarily concerned with whether the arguments were "convincing": The arguments are analyzed for what they truly are, not as how they are likely to convince and whether the comments that carry them have a satisfying form. An argument packaged in a comment that is not convincing can be identical to the argument contained in a comment that is convincing. DRV is a post-mortem. In this post-mortem, stronger literature is needed than an optimistic essay. These WP:JUSTAPOLICY comments must be accepted as contributive to a consensus. The comments invoke a relevant guideline and are okay. There was a consensus.—Alalch E.22:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.