Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 10: Difference between revisions
(BOT) New discussion page: 2021 June 10. Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/DRVClerk |
Necrothesp (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~ --> |
Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~ --> |
||
====[[:Christian Saunders]]==== |
|||
:{{DRV links|Christian Saunders|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Saunders|article=}} |
|||
The nomination argument was {{tq|Gets some mentions, but not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG.}} Five editors participated in the discussion. Two !voted delete. Three !voted keep, two of whom said there ''was'' enough coverage to pass [[WP:GNG]]. The closer, however, went with "delete", with the comment {{tq|The "keep" opinions are weaker because they do not address the sourcing problems.}} But they did. It is an ''opinion'' that sourcing is not sufficient; it is an ''opinion'' that it is. There was no reason to give less weight to the arguments of the keep !voters, who were in the majority, given they had addressed the concerns of the nominator (and did not agree with them). With all due respect to the closer, this appears to be a supervote. It should have been a no consensus at worst, a keep at best. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 10:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 10:50, 10 June 2021
10 June 2021
Christian Saunders
The nomination argument was Gets some mentions, but not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG.
Five editors participated in the discussion. Two !voted delete. Three !voted keep, two of whom said there was enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. The closer, however, went with "delete", with the comment The "keep" opinions are weaker because they do not address the sourcing problems.
But they did. It is an opinion that sourcing is not sufficient; it is an opinion that it is. There was no reason to give less weight to the arguments of the keep !voters, who were in the majority, given they had addressed the concerns of the nominator (and did not agree with them). With all due respect to the closer, this appears to be a supervote. It should have been a no consensus at worst, a keep at best. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)