- Bosnia and Herzegovina–Malta relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
- see my note at the bottom: I have no objection if anyone wants to close & relist, separately or together. DGG (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that User:DGG wrongfully speedy closed this discussion of ten bilateral international relations articles. Eight editors (including myself) had voted that all the articles be deleted as they were not notable, one editor had voted that all but one article be deleted (also on notability grounds), and there were no comments about the scope of the nomination. Despite this, DGG closed the discussion on procedural grounds, stating that the notability of the articles was likely to be different. This argument is basically a vote to break up the AfD (which is a common vote in bulk nominations like this, and as such needs to be weighed against the views of other editors) and it appears to be an abuse of procedure to use this as grounds to close the nomination (not to mention an assumption that all the other nine editors who had commented in the AfD were acting inappropriately). Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a technical close, in order to split the AfD, on the basis that previous similar nominations had also been split, and that in such cases a few of the articles were sometimes kept. I made no statement at all about whether the articles should or should not be kept, individually. My view is that anyone can make such a split if they act in good faith. I do not see on what basis a nominator can insist that the separate articles be kept together--I see no basis whatsoever in policy or reason for requiring this if anyone disagrees. I see it essentially like Prod: one objection is sufficient. the bias should be against both summary judgement and combined process. Nor do i see on what basis this appeal was taken--does the nom. think they are more likely to get deleted if they are kept together? It's just as logical to guess that one good one might keep bad ones from being properly deleted. It has nothing to do with my own opinions on the merits--based on previous articles of this sort, where if I !vote at all I usually !vote delete, i expect i shall probably !vote to delete most or possibly all of them--if they get renominated & nobody takes the trouble to improve them. I notice nobody has bothered to do either, so far. I said nothing at all about the other people who commented, and any assumptions about this are those of the person who brought this appeal. I don't judge things on the basis of who does them. I try not to look at the names, just the material at hand. DGG (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and reopen, with all !votes cast to date still counting. I hope this was a minor aberration on the part of DGG, who is usually very reliable and fair. Renominating individually would correctly be placed as a !vote. The closure was altogether inappropriate bearing in mind the existing !votes.
For future reference, it's usual (not to mention more courteous) to notify the closing administrator of your disagreement and give an opportunity to reverse the decision before making a listing here. It also usually obviates the need for a five-day discussion period. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Stifle, I was certainly notified, and given a full opportunity to change my mind, and I declined to do so. I continue to uphold the principle that joint nominations can be split at anyone's asking. As someone mentioned commending another perhaps unexpected decision of mine, i tend to go by principle. Seems basically fairer. I consider that by no means an aberration., but a way of preventing rush to judgment--especially considering that all the votes were pile-ons in the first 15 hours, & they were not unanimous. DGG (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's see if you still think that way once my bot has created 10,000 articles on town twinnings. Perhaps I will start with a few manual ones to figure out the basic structure, beginning with Town twinning between Lorsch and Zwevegem. Or should I post the suggestion on 4chan instead of using a bot? The potential disruption caused by these silly articles is enormous, but only if people go out of their way to defend them. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or for even better amusement value and an n3 explosion instead of merely n2, how about International conferences where Cape Verde, Liechtenstein and Palau met? --Hans Adler (talk) 08:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Threats of WP:POINT don't tend to go over well here. I remind you to respect the opinions of other ediors and behave in line with WP:CIVIL. If someone went forward with something like your suggestion above, it would be dealt with then and there. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You should have your sarcasm sensors checked, I think they are malfunctioning. I thought it was obvious that I am not threatening, but trying to make DGG aware that we must draw the line somewhere, and that the articles under discussion are an excellent opportunity to do so. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At the rate these articles are still, currently being created, Hans Adler is not the one who should be accused of trying to make a point. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't follow you. I agree that mass-creations of such non-notable articles is close to a POINT violation, and that the articles created by Hilary T probably shouldn't exist. But her recent creations aren't of the extremely obscure type we are dealing with here, they come at a rate of only one per day, and they are referenced. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Every single of these articles lacked, and still lacks:
- Sourcing
- Information establishing notability
- Claims of notability
- A realistic chance that there will be enough editors watching the article so that it is properly maintained, defended against vandalism etc.
- Information that cannot be placed into an article about the foreign relations of Malta
- Information that cannot be more easily recovered from the original source of the articles, once it is identified, for the purpose of adding it to an article about the foreign relations of Malta
- Significant edit history
- Sufficient concentration by the article creator to prevent errors, and subsequent copy edits:
- A general problem with our deletion process is that the effort involved in deleting an article with little potential that should never have been created in the first place is often out of proportion with the effort that went into its creation. This is OK for individually created articles, but not for mass-productions like what we are facing here. I think nominating these articles in bunches of 10 strongly related ones is a very moderate approach. What we really need is a process for mass-deleting such articles without prejudice.
- Why bother? One problem is, if we leave these articles lying around, we are effectively encouraging other well-intended editors to create more articles of this kind. Creating an article such as this provides instant gratification: It looks good, much better than the average stub, even has graphics etc. The initial return on investment is much higher than for creating a small number of proper articles with the same content. But 2–5 minutes, say, work by a clueless editor should not be allowed to take more than a man-hour by experienced wikipedians to clean up. Under normal situations this would have been handled by a prod, but unfortunately an editor is insisting that all inter-country relations are automatically notable and removing such prods, and an admin is helping and encouraging this editor.
- Relevant background information: both the population and the size of Malta are only roughly half those of Leeds. No wonder that it has only 23 embassies worldwide, see Foreign relations of Malta. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unequivocal Endorse. Joint AfDs are generally a bad idea as whether pages will be percieved to have varying degrees of notability/verifiability by other people cannot be known to the nominator. This is demonstrated by the very first comment "Delete all except Finland–Malta relations.". As soon as anyone in a discussion objects the the group deletion suggestion or !votes differently for different articles it should be split. Whether we should have an process that requires the closer to create the individual AfDs is a different matter. If you think these articles should go, list them for deletion and then delete them. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - it is not possible to have ten seperate discussions overtop of one another. Bilateral relations in general are being kept, deleted and no consensus'd with equal regularity, and these articles are not identical in notability. Obviously as the person who requested it be closed so we could have a discussion rather than cut off the possibility of one, I'm biased, but that hardly leaves me alone. WilyD 12:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Mass nominations are appropriate in some instances, such as when someone has mass-produced variations on the same theme. With few exceptions, the "nation x and nation y relations" articles are cranked out using a fairly simple format, with a few sentences and a couple of colorful flags. Many of us feel that creating one stub after another is disruptive to Wikipedia. My feeling is that an administrator to decide, on his own, that each article must be nominated separately, is an endorsement of that type of disruption. DGG is well-known as an inclusionist; there's nothing wrong with that if he wishes to be one of many participants in a debate. On many occasions, he has made arguments persuasive enough that people changed their minds about deleting an article. There is something wrong with an administrator being an inclusionist or a deletionist, however. In return for the greater power that an administator has, he or she must take a neutral stance, limiting the rulings to policy rather than preference. Mandsford (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mandsfield, my motive is not that I am trying to keep these articles. far from it. I have said that when they are renominated, i will almost certainly !vote to delete all or almost all of them if they are not much improved. I would not close a debate on the individual articles, because I have a generally deletionist view of them. I only close if it is either a/technical b/obvious or c/against my own usual position. I could fairly close in favor of my usual position when there is a clear majority for it & its not a subject I am particularly involved in, but I so far have avoided doing so. I consider this an instance of a/technnical. Nothing i did prevents in any way the deletion of the articles. DGG (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, with all respect, I also agree with Mandsford that your well-known 'inclusionist' position means that there's at least a perception that you allowed your personal opinion to intervene here. While I think that this closure was done in good faith, in the interests of ensuring that administrative processes are seen to be impartial I would respectfully suggest that you not close AfDs in these circumstances again (eg, when there's a very clear consensus that the articles should be deleted and the group nomination is in line with other recent nominations of these articles which continued until the end of the usual five day period before a decision was made). In my view it would have been better for you to have posted a comment that the nomination be split and/or asked another admin to do this via WP:AN. Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was unaware that your actions were as a result of a request at AN/I by WilyD. The fact that there was an ongoing discussion with no consensus on the appropriate response to that request further strengthens my view that you should not have closed this discussion. Nick-D (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn all of the articles have almost the exact same structure and all of the votes except for one wanted them all deleted. If we renominate them separately, we would be unnecessarily clogging the AfD boards with more discussions, only to result in the same outcome (delete). Tavix | Talk 13:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse-There's absolutely nothing stopping the person who brought this DRV, or anyone else, from re-opening another AFD for the individual articles. The close simply says that they should be re-nominated seperately and considered on an individual basis, which makes a lot more sense. This DRV just seems a waste of time. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and reopen - the discussion (which, admittedly, I initiated) was proceeding with a clear conclusion ahead and no confusion expressed by any participants. True, mass nominations should generally be avoided, but discussing each of these separately would almost certainly yield no different result. Plus, it's not that hard to investigate notability for ten articles over five days. - Biruitorul Talk 14:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and reopen. The nominator was quite careful to bundle a group of articles that were equally poorly fleshed out and had the same issues of non-notability. There was not one dissent against the bundling except for one minor point of one article, the content of which was shown to have been presented in another article. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse -- Multiple {{afd}} are a mistake for several reasons, including, (1) unfortunately, they have a tendency to trigger a kind of lynch mob mentality -- they are not unlike the bonds based on toxic mortgages that brought down the stock-market; (2) it places an unfair burden on those who want to defend the articles, when some of the article are, in fact, notable -- but for different reasons. Marshalling the time to improve a single article is a burden... Geo Swan (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn An extraordinary lapse from a normally scrupulous admin. There is no policy requirement to list related articles individually. If editors participating in the AfD had felt this was required they would have so expressed themselves. As it was, there was clear consensus and DGG's actions look suspiciously like the imposition of personal preference varnished unconvincingly with a false appeal to procedure. Eusebeus (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- again, my current person preference is to delete them. DGG (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse There is absolutely nothing stopping the individual relisting of each of these article. DGG acted by closing these on the technical reason that if even one person objects to a mass AFD that they should be listed separately. Again should the nom or anyone, for that matter, desire to relist the articles, more power to them. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment None of the nine editors who had participated in the AfD had objected to the group nomination. Moreover, I don't believe that there is a policy that a single objection is enough to force a group nomination to be split, though I'm happy to be proven wrong if you can point me to the relevant section of the deletion policy and related guidance for editors. Nick-D (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the first comment was "Delete all except" which could be interpreted, and obviously DGG did interpret, as being opposition to the group nomination. It seems to reason that if there is even one !vote in favour of keeping a mass AFD it would be best to renominate them separately so they can be discussed on their individual merits rather than as a group (where more people are likely to judge the later in a mass AFD by the notability of the first.) If you feel so strongly that these articles should be deleted then renominate them at AFD, what is the difference between having them go through AFD as a group and having them go through as individual articles? TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User:DitzyNizzy supported the deletion of all the other articles on notability grounds, which strongly indicates that they saw nothing wrong with the group nomination. The benefit of group nominations of similar articles like this one is that they save everyone's time (as there's only one nomination to be created, commented on and closed) and allow for a centralised discussion of articles on a similar topic which have similar problems. Nick-D (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I find that a very thin justification for closure. If each delete vote counts 10 times (1 vote x 10 articles nominated), 89 of 90 votes were for deletion. And in the one keep case I provided a pretty convincing counter-argument, to which DitzyNizzy had about four days left to respond if she so wished (before the abrupt closure); plus, no other editor voted to keep Malta-Finland, even after seeing her objection. - Biruitorul Talk 03:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Slightly off topic but... What do you do with an article like Bosnia_and_Herzegovina–Serbia_relations? That one is extremely notable as a topic considering recent history, but the actual article is just as cookie-cutter as the rest. I don't know whether that's an argument for taking these all one by one (hoping that some are salvagable) or just nuking the bunch. 128.103.197.57 (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reopen AfD At a stage where ten different users have looked at ten different articles, researched ten different topics and all come to broadly the same conclusion (seven out of nine commenting editors specifically saying that all the articles should be deleted) there would seem to be a good chance of a consensus being found. Guest9999 (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Sorry, DGG, but when you're closing, implement the consensus. If you don't agree with the consensus, vote, don't close.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and reopen clarified 02:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC), close unsupported by discussion at the AfD. I support reasonable admin discretion, but it is not correct for a disputed AN/I request to overrule the nearly-unanimous discussion. Flatscan (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination was discriminate: 10 articles, all related to Malta, and excluding, e.g., Italy–Malta relations, which was later nominated individually.
- DitzyNizzy's recommendation excluded Finland–Malta relations, which may be justification for a separate nomination for that article. It was expressed cautiously, addressed, and not supported by later comments.
- The AN/I request was not appropriate for a non-urgent objection that was not mentioned at the AfD. I see a number of detailed and reasoned rationales for group deletion, but only an assertion that bundling is not correct for
similar Country A–Country B relations clarified 02:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC) articles.
- Flatscan (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The editors participating in the AFD were also not notified of the AN/I request (which is generally regarded as bad practice) and it wasn't cited as being the reason the discussion was closed - this is the first I've seen of it. Nick-D (talk) 05:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - consensus was overwhelming to delete all of the articles listed. PhilKnight (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn clear consensus in the other direction, and a group action was the only way to at least slow down the serial creation of unsourced stub, content forks (per [1]).Bali ultimate (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would the perception that people are cheating, by bundling AFD's together in a way that overwhelms anyone's capacity to look for sources, slow me down, instead of spurring me to greater efforts to redress this injustice? Hilary T (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, maybe reopen for more comments (disclaimer: I have created a similar AfD myself) The ongoing consensus was to delete all, as others have already commented. DGG could have left out the only article that had been defended as notable. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the damned if you do and damned if you don't conundrum again - whether these should have been nominated en masse or separately. Rather than the drama here, why hasn't anyone bothered to nominate them separately? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder at that also--with respect to all these articles of this sort, the effort made to make totally inadequate articles and the effort to delete them, if channelled instead into making a few good articles, or even looking for references before nominating, would have been much more useful. When carefully checked, it seems to turn out that a significant fraction of such articles can be improved, though I rather doubt these will be among them. The parties involved seem to be engaged in a circle game of some sort. I understand the frustration with them and the desire to be rid of the problem in the quickest way possible--the people writing them are totally refusing to concentrate the efforts in a more useful way.
- Frankly,I thought I was doing an uncontroversial technical close, without any effect on the actual keeping or deletion of the articles, and I was quite surprised to run into these objections. The reason I didn't discuss it first was that I couldn't see why anyone would object seriously to doing it one at a time. My imagination was obviously at fault there. I am also puzzled that people don't see i was not trying to place my own judgment on the articles--I have no bias towards them, as shown by my having !voted to delete individual ones more than to keep. I continue to think I am right that unbundling should be done at any bona fide request to avoid the impression of unfairness. Possibly people dont agree in general, or possibly people think that this should be an exception. I cannot really tell which from the discussion.
- At this point, I have no objection if anyone wants to simply revert my close and continue the discussion--a meta discussion of this sort is really even more useless than nominating en bloc without prior checking for sources. DGG (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I'm quite happy not to bundle future nominations of bilateral relations (certainly not in bundles of 10), but as this one had already gotten quite far with 8.9 of 9 votes being for deletion, I figure why not continue? Also, there's really nothing very "dramatic" about this discussion - there's been no shouting, no incivility, it's all been rather orderly. - Biruitorul Talk 06:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm that sounds like progress. Now if you could just think about googling for sources before you nominate and not nominating articles so fast that you overwhelm WilyD's ability to find sources, perhaps we can all get along. Hilary T (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the way you should go about it. Creating articles of obviously dubious notability without doing the googling yourself is lazy and impolite. That's something we expect from beginners, but not from the kind of editors who participate in AfD discussions. You know that you are causing lengthy discussions when you create such an article that doesn't even try to establish its notability. This is not an online game; some people are here to write an encyclopedia. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which articles have I created that don't even try to establish their notability? Hilary T (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have created some that may have a chance of surviving AfD, but certainly not the following:
- We have no specific guidelines for country relations, but we do for some other specific cases, e.g. WP:ORG for organisations. Have a look at that: We need significant, non-trivial coverage by third-party sources. An in-depth article on a company website doesn't help. Stocks of a company being traded by a major stock exchange isn't sufficient for the company to be notable. The notability criteria ensure that we can build a little article based on third-party reliable sources. Existence of embassies, heads of state or foreign ministers visiting each other, payment of development aid or trade are about as exciting as a company buying its supplies from another, or the number of its employees. This information is interesting when it's in articles on the two states, where you can compare it with other, similar information. ("An embassy in Nepal but not in Venezuela? How strange!") But it's completely unilluminating and boring, and when I say boring I mean stamp-collecting boring, when presented in isolation. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hans, turns out there are some good references for Vietnam-Mongolia, , and a good geopolitical reason why there ought to be expected-hint:what neighbor do they have in common? DGG (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- You are right, and my long response was obviously too brief. It was in the context of leaving the work of finding sufficient claims of notability to others. I should have said "... chance of surviving AfD based on the claims to notability currently present, ...". The article does not mention China. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:INTERESTING and don't tell me again that I'm not trying. Hilary T (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My main argument was that they have no chance of surviving AfD because there is nothing that elevates these international relations pairings relative to the other 40,000 or so. And I really don't understand why you are so focused on creating a specific type of non-maintainable articles (non-maintainable because they will never be watchlisted by enough editors), instead of on inclusion of the information in places where it can be presented economically and with no opposition. Once the noteworthy material about the Egypt–Kazakhstan relations becomes too much for keeping it in Foreign relations of Egypt or Foreign relations of Kazakhstan, there will be virtually no opposition to putting it in an extra article. But why do you feel a need to create these uniform illustrated stubs just in case someone wants to turn them into articles in three years' time or so? --Hans Adler (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think duplication is the most economical way to present information. Hilary T (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fully endorse what Hans said, and let me also refer you to WP:TPA (which all our articles should strive to become - indeed, every article should have the potential to become a featured article, which many of these patently lack). You'll note how many points this type of stub fails. It does not fill a gap, the notable information already being covered (in general) at "Diplomatic missions of..." articles. There is no clear description, because there is no lead, as there are no sections (too short). It does not branch in - no one links to these things and so they remain in isolation. It does explore all aspects of the subject, but as those aspects are so tiny, the information can be far better covered elsewhere. It's certainly not of an appropriate length and does not reflect expert knowledge. It is by no means well-documented or engaging. See how very far from perfect these are?
- And also, parroting WP:INTERESTING isn't that illuminating. True, today's FA, Riven, is of zero interest to me, but at least it's, you know, an article, and I recognise some may find it interesting. But "gee, Egypt and Kazakhstan have relations, and the president of one met with the president of the other once!" is so uninteresting, and so far from being an article, that that is strong grounds for elimination (especially as the relations part can be covered elsewhere). - Biruitorul Talk 17:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Biruitorul I am well aware that your criteria for inclusion are nothing to do with WP:N you don't need to remind me. Hilary T (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When reasoned discussion is met only with sniping, that reflects poorly on the sniper. - Biruitorul Talk 18:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And I know how much you like ad hominem "arguments". Hilary T (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I don't engage in ad hominem arguments; it's beneath me. I appeal to policy: far more refreshing. - Biruitorul Talk 18:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you not remember following me around with a SPA tag? And do you also not remember what you wrote at 18:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC) ? Hilary T (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At that point, there was reason to suspect you were an SPA; no longer. And yeah, a one-line snipe that itself contained an ad hominem is hardly an adequate reply to a dozen sentences that didn't. But enough: this sterile discussion is getting us nowhere. - Biruitorul Talk 19:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will point out that Egypt–Kazakhstan relations is back at AfD, and due to improvements (sources) likely to be kept. It seems there is a somewhat significant relationship there. But doing them one at a time they each get looked at and notability can be established (or not). Hobit (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the time, yes. But a week for 10 Malta-X articles is plenty of time to find that none has any notability. - Biruitorul Talk 18:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's really easy to get caught up in the "delete them all" (or even the "keep them all" mentality. I'd suggest an experiment. Let's have each of these go up one at a time and see if anyone finds sources enough to keep any of them. If so, we've got evidence that grouping them is unwise. I expect one of the 10 will be kept in that case (or more) while these were all on the track to deletion. Hobit (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. I agree that the closer is correct to favor individual nominations in most cases in which notability is likely to be different. However, in this case, the AfD had progressed significantly, with several users opining and none problems feared had manifested. In the absence of any actual problem, the speedy close was inappropriate, particularly when the onus was then placed on the nominator to recreate the AfD for articles that several other editors all ready had suggested for deletion. I suspect that for some it creates an unwarranted appearance of arbitrariness that is unhelpful. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist. What Xymmax said. If the nomination of multiple articles in the same AfD were inappropriate, instructions for so nominating wouldn't be included at WP:AFD. Deor (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Group noms should be avoided where the notability (or other reason for deletion) of each topic isn't reliant on the same thing. Otherwise you get a train wreck or individual articles getting lumped in as a group to which they don't belong. Hobit (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved my comments down so as not to be in the middle of another discussion. Change to relist or overturn per S Marshall. As he, and others, have pointed out, the right way to handle this was to comment, not close. Listing these all together was the wrong thing, but there was no way to read that discussion in the way it was closed. Hobit (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK let anyone who likes, close this and relist, separately or together, I have no objections. I continue to think I was right, and I though it so trivial as to be obvious, but , as I said, enough people seems to disagree that it was obvious. DGG (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
