- National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Clearly inappropriate closure. Closed after 3 days instead of the normal seven as keep even though 11 people voted delete, 8 people voted keep, with 2 of those being conflicted editors of the page and 1 acting as a pseudo meatpuppet. Closer's statements are factually inaccurate and show a lack of actually reading the page. Closer has a bad habit of closing pages 4 days before they are to be closed and should be desysopped. This should be a speedy unclose and restoration of the standard AfD, but people are edit warring when it was rightfully reopened. They should be blocked for edit warring and disruption as with the closer as there was no evidence that this was a mistake and the rationale shows that this was purposefully done. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist - An AfD as contentious as this (split pretty evenly) shouldn't be closed early. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 01:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 11 to 8 is not split evenly - 58% delete as is, 65% delete when the two editors from the page are removed, and 69% when the joint vote is counted properly. The 58% is appropriate delete consensus. The 65 and 69 percent are a strong delete consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy relist - Given that there was no need for an early closure, the AfD should normally (IMO) be reopened. However, new information has come to light about the subject since the AfD began, so the article should be relisted so that everyone can start fresh with the new information. NW (Talk) 02:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite - it was known about the other articles from the very beginning. The second comment, by Viper, describes them. The article had other sources by the time others voted. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see; thank you for noting this. I agree with JC below though; there was no reason to close this debate early, and so I believe that the AfD should be reopened/relisted (really, either is fine to me). NW (Talk) 02:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note from closing admin I believe my only mistake may have been closing the debate early--granted, there were more deletes than keeps, but my thinking was that the sourcing had been improved enough that the main problem expressed in the deletion rationale had been addressed. I had no stake whatsoever in this article--in fact, I only saw this when I moseyed over to AfD today. However, I have no objection to reopening the debate. Blueboy96 02:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have a habit of closing pages like this too early. The Sam Blacketer close is another egregious example. Furthermore, your rationale is completely flawed. As pointed out, the other sources were added by the second comment, and were already dismissed as being unreliable, used to talk about original research that was off topic, or were merely stating a few sentences of facts and not enough to warrant a whole page. Furthermore, BLP applied regardless, and "sourcing" isn't good enough for BLP. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist - Agree that there was no compelling reason for closing the discussion early, but I can understand the motives behind Blueboy's decision. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why bother? If one thing is evident from the comments so far, it is that this will only end in a no consensus close, no matter how badly it fails WP:NOTNEWS. Process for the sake of process will only add even more drama in this case. Resolute 04:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it were closed 24 hours early, I'd agree with you, but three days is hardly enough time for consensus to form on such a contentious topic. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy relist - No reason this should have been closed earlier than the normal 7 day period. Note: When I got back to my computer this evening, I created a thread on ANI about the closure of this AfD, not knowing this deletion review had been created. My apologies, I was unaware. Killiondude (talk) 04:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the article If I'm reading this right, wikipedia defended its alleged right to lift these images, which by doing so could harm the art gallery. Yet wikipedians go ballistic about "excessive" use of team logos, which can only help those teams by giving them free advertising. It is this schizoid approach to images that's the issue here, more than just this article - which needs to be kept rather than being hidden. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|