User talk:Sue Rangell/Archives/Wednesday 23rd of January 2013 02:17:50 AM
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sue Rangell. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The AfD is not a simple head count. And even if it was, a 3-2 !vote is hardly a consensus!! Kevin Dawson is a fully professional player signed to a professional team, that pretty much automatically makes him notable. If you disagree, it's easy enough to put the article up for AfD again, but you and I both know that a full pro has a WP:SNOW chance of having the article deleted. I considered a "no consensus" close (Which defaults to keep anyway), but in the end wikipedia policy pretty much dictates a Keep. --Sue Rangell✍ ✉04:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Nope, playing as a professional makes you notable via WP:NFOOTBALL - not simply being registered to a team. There is a history of poor/wrong NACs - please do not perform a NAC again. If you do I'll consider seeking a topic ban. GiantSnowman10:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Even if it's deleted, the article will be reborn as soon as he plays, so a "keep" or "no consnensus" just saves everyone a lot of time and energy. --Sue Rangell✍ ✉19:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I was surprised by this closure too. Especially given that what Giant Snowman describes above was spelled out in the AfD. I wasn't going to say anything here because all closures are judgment calls and I am almost always fine in accept the call that's made, but I wanted to suggest that in the future you should try to always leave an explanation along with the closure if there is any question about your decision. In this closure the result is the only thing you presented without any explanation and it came in the face of multiple policy-based delete !votes. At the very least an explanatory comment would educate those who you believe had !voted against policy or under a false understanding of policy. -Thibbs (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I know, I'm not questioning your capacity to make good judgments on AfDs. I'm just saying that in general an explanation comment or two would be helpful on non-blatantly-obvious closes like this one. It would probably lead to fewer complaints on your talk page. You're free take my advice or not. -Thibbs (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey my congratulations to you on that! it just goes to show what a little hard work can do! Obviously i should never have used the word "Snow" when it comes to the Snowman, right? I'm glad you got your article deleted afterall. You did a great job improving Wikipedia, happy editing! --Sue Rangell✍ ✉19:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean there. I don't do "crummy attitude"...unless you are kidding? I dunno. Sometimes the written word doesn't translate too well. I thought that saying "you did a good job" would have drawn an opposite sort of comment. Closing discussions is WP:NOBIGDEAL, so I'm genuinely happy that you got the result you were looking for. That's from the heart. be well. --Sue Rangell✍ ✉19:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
No, your attitude is extremely crummy. Giving me faux congratulations because I nominated an article for deletion and the community agreed with me?! GiantSnowman19:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, I am very sorry you feel that way. This discussion, if it continues, will have to continue on your own talk page now. --Sue Rangell✍ ✉19:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The RFC for TAFI is nearing it's conclusion, and it's time to hammer out the details over at the project's talk page. There are several details of the project that would do well with wider input and participation, such as the article nomination and selection process, the amount and type of articles displayed, the implementation on the main page and other things. I would like to invite you to comment there if you continue to be interested in TAFI's development. --NickPenguin(contribs)02:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey... thank you (belatedly) for the Christmas greetings. i'm just curious as to why you picked me, i cant recall us coming across each other before. Either way I appreciate the thanks! Bleaney (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
We are now arguing over this rather than the content. While process is less important than content, I think we all have better things to do and if we haven't, than shame on us. I'm voiding the close and relisting, not because it was intrinsically wrong but because its stupid for us to spend 7 days arguing about it.Sounds like it was a waste of everyone's time. --Sue Rangell✍ ✉18:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Adelayo-some-girls.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf.☼08:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Done
File copyright problem with File:Tombstone of William Hahn.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Tombstone of William Hahn.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.
I have only looked at this for about two minutes, but the article seems like it can stand alone it's own merits. Perhaps a bit of a rewrite/facelift might be in order. I also think that the references could be beefed up a bit, perhaps borrowing from Media_bias any references that may apply. I am off to an appointment at the moment, and will review this in more detail when I return. --Sue Rangell✍ ✉22:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey again, Sue Rangell. I don't know if you have noticed, but we have voted in several AFDs in the past :) Well, back on topic, I'm here because I've seen several users and administrators challenge your non-administrative closes of deletion discussions. I'd have to give you the next advice: be extremely careful when performing NACs; community doesn't like non-admins making controversial closures, and I am the living proof of what can happen when you don't realize this at time. I closed several discussion that caused controversy, the issue when to AN/I, and now (under several circumstances that involved my personal acceptance of the situation) I am restricted from making non-admin closures. I don't want you to fall like I did, and that's why I'm here, talking to you right now. The help at AFD is appreciated, but sometimes it can shoot you in the foot if you don't walk carefully. I hope this advice helps you in the future. Regards :) — ΛΧΣ2105:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I really appreciate it! I tend to tread very lightly when it comes to my closures. You'll find that they are generally snow keeps, or old AfDs that are in a hopeless state. You are right, there does seem to be a bias against NACs, and it is something that I am very careful about (To the point where I have already debated the closure in my head several times before closing. I have already had one snow close re-opened because some editor was looking to give me grief over a separate issue, only to have an admin come along later and close it as a snow keep. So I am very aware of this. VERY. I am sorry about what happened to you. I don't know what the situation was, but you seem like a very good wikipedian. Be well. --Sue Rangell✍ ✉05:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
My recommendation would be to stop making NAC closes unless the discussion has only one type of votes (e. g. all keep, or all merge, or all redirect). AFDs with multiple types of votes should be left to administrators. — ΛΧΣ2102:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
It's not a bad recommendation considering the fact that no matter how an AfD gets closed, SOMEBODY is bound to be angry about it. My closes follow WP:NACD to the letter, and those 3 that have been reverted have all been eventually closed pretty much the original way I closed them, which says that they probably should not have been reverted. --Sue Rangell✍ ✉02:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah. I'm not saying you did something bad, but if more than one user comes and challenges your NACs, that tells you that something is happening. Usually, what happens is that community is not completely happy with your closes, and the next step is to evaluate why. The main reaso is that, as I said above, people is very reluctant to accept a close with different types of votes of the closer is not an admin. — ΛΧΣ2103:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi there Sue. I came here to let you know that I reverted your clousure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Jeffrey (3rd nomination), given that you have self voted in the AfD (I know you closed it as keep and voted delete, but I still find it inappropiate), besides it's a too close discussion for a NAC. I also want to let you know that I feel the same way about your recent controversial NAC as Hahc21 above, I appreciate your work with AfD's in general, but you should stop with those NAC so that you don't get the same topic-ban. Mentoz86 (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
You are free to do as you like, but I'm pretty sure that only admins can revert closes like that. Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by an administrator. I know a lot of non-admins are doing it, but as you can see, it's still against the rules. Be well.--Sue Rangell✍ ✉04:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Please remember that non-admins can only close deletion discussions when the result is completely and absolutely non-controversial. Your talk page is a trail of warnings about bad closes, and I'm here to tell you that your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversy of the Born This Way Ball (2nd nomination) was well outside the bounds of an appropriate non-admin close. Your judgement on appropriate NACs is obviously not where it needs to be, so I'm going to ask that you stop performing them.—Kww(talk) 06:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I have to very humbly and politely disagree, since the article was eventually closed by an admin the same way I closed it. --Sue Rangell✍ ✉01:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
You are also in over your head closing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/North_American_Allied_Fight_Series. Your explanation for Antonio Mckee deserving to be deleted was "not notable." Says you? Your explanation for The deletion of Kyle Watson' is more specific yet equally vague "Delete - not notable. Fails WP:NMMA, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:BLP". Sue, I really don't think you are doing as good a job as you could be doing at these afds. You really don't seem to contribute to the discussion. You seem to pull your keep or delete vote out of thin air. At least in regards to mma. Would you mind maybe staying away from mma afd's if you aren't going to bother to use google as a minimum? If you are using google, perhaps adding the "fighters name inquestion" like I did in the search engine so that it finds a more specific match. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I left a comment on your page awhile ago in regards to your extremely generic afd's votes. I would like to remind you that it is not a vote, and simply citing every policy and guideline in the book, despite the instruction to at least person a routine search beforehand, and saying the subject is not notable. Do you think you could try a little harder? I feel like you aren't making an effort to make an informed decision at these afd's. Thanks. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Please, there was nothing at all biased about the closure (as much as you may wish it to be). The article needs needed to be merged per Wikipedia policy and consensus. I am sure that when now that the article is finally closed, the result will be was...suprise, suprise...Merge. It doesn't mean that everyone is was conspiring against you, it just means that the article needs needed to be merged. Be well. --Sue Rangell✍ ✉01:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
If you take a look at the Afd you will see that I also !voted merge. I just think that someone closing a discussion that they have an opinion on is inappropriate. Till08:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Even if the opinion matches the consensus? That's ridiculous. What you are accusing me of simply isn't true, as is plainly seen here as well as here. I know that there is a lot of hunting going on at the moment. But the facts, if you take a moment to actually look at them, bore out what I say. Be well. --Sue Rangell✍ ✉19:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I can't help but notice you didn't provide a closing rationale for your decision to keep the article. WP:NACD should be limited to clear and uncontroversial discussion, and I don't think that was the case here.
WP:LISTN requires for the topic of lists to be significantly covered by independent sources as a group. The content added after the nomination doesn't point out, at least in my opinion, to any significant coverage of the topic as a whole/as a group, it only being limited to the mere name-dropping of a few of the entries in external plot-summaries. No real-world coverage (not even on the group) that I can see, only in-universe information. The list does not even meet WP:NOTPLOT.
With the nomination and 2 delete !votes that are well-argumented and policy-based (+ 1 "chop up, merge and transwiki" if we count it), I think there was enough room for someone to chose delete. In any case, the low participation in the discussion doesn't make 4 (IMO) weak keeps an overwhelming, clear and uncontroversial consensus over 2 solid deletes (+ the nomination) to allow for an NAC on "keep" without any rationale. That's why I think you should consider withdrawing your close.
Please note that I'm not coming here only because you're not an admin, I have no personal issue with you since I would have written the same request, had an admin made a similar close. But that NAC is definitely weakening an already shaky outcome.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Note: I'm moving the comment from the top of your page (the "official" NAC complaint thread) to here because it apparently didn't catch your attention.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much. You might notice that I closed the article as a keep, so i am not sure why you brought it up at deletion review, as it wasn't deleted... and I appreciate the good advice. --Sue Rangell✍ ✉00:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
