- New Zealand – Pakistan relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Should have been closed as no consensus, default to keep. Although there were more votes for delete citing the article as "trivia" just before the close, AFD is not a vote and no Wikipedia policy violation was cited by the delete votes. Trivia is a subjective concept, Wikipedia relies on notability and verifiability and the article meets those two pillars. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Overturn deletion This should have been closed as no consensus or keep. There were independent reliable sources detailing the existence of a bilateral tax treaty. Editors subjectively claimed that the treaty was minor or trivial despite the independent sourcing. There were plenty of other sources showing the existence of economic and military links.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, should have been closed as "no consensus". Reliable sources were found and added to the article, so the subject is most likely notable. I'm not sure why we're holding these bilateral relations to higher standards than other articles. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The quality of the comments was uneven, particularly on the delete side, but I saw a couple of unrebutted references to WP:NOT, which most certainly is a policy argument. I think that against that backdrop, the "trivia" comments assume some force. Given that overall sense, and allowing for their numerical superiority, the closer was well within bounds closing this as delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. By strict vote counting, consensus is clearly delete (14D to 7K). Examining the actual arguments a little closer, the first two keep votes should be discounted: The first "Well written, verifiable and notable", is simply an assertion of notability without evidence or reference to policy, a classic WP:ATA. Whether the article is well written or the information verifiable is irrelevant to AfD. The second appeals to WP:ITSUSEFUL and also addresses verifiability but WP:V is not the same as WP:notability. If you ignore those two, then the consensus for deletion is even stronger. Yilloslime TC 03:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus This really was not the right closing, because there was potential, and the closer should have seen it. Saying "trivia" = IDONTLIKEIT, and should be ignored DGG (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Overturn→No Consensus The page was far from reaching a consensus for either opinion. Both "keep" and "delete" sides presented good (valid) arguments, but neither did much to refute the others'. ~ Amory (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from closing admin - yep, overturn to no consensus. In the script I use, "no consensus" is right next to "delete" - I must have clicked the wrong one. Had the nominator bothered to discuss this with me first before wasting everyone's time at DRV, I'd have fixed the problem myself. If we can agree not to continue this discussion, I'll do so Fritzpoll (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close as admin error and allow Fritzpoll to restore.
Then, of course, it'll come straight back to DRV, as so many of these articles do, because the other side will want Fritzpoll to be overturned. I'm still convinced that the "consensus", such as it is, on each of these articles has little to do with the individual article's merits, and stand by all my earlier comments on similar articles.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted, right closure even if unintentional. Yilloslime's analysis is excellent and I have nothing to add to it. Stifle (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Endorse a debate that has 14 arguments for deletion against 7 for retention (a 2-1 ratio). If weight of numbers in community discussions, on matters over which people might disagree (is this notable or not), are not to be considered at all you will undermine the whole afd process. I would not in a million years think of challenging an afd result in the other direction with these kinds of numbers against it.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Addendum: If i understand the closing admin, he accidentally pushed the wrong button and intended to hit "no consensus." While i think "delete" would have been the right decision here, i accept that "no consensus" on the drift of this debate was close to our range of tolerance. Really, i still think "no consensus" is a poor outcome here, but since that was fritz' intent, and we don't know if anyone would have brought it to DRV on that basis, overturn to fritz original reasoning with no prejudice against future afd's in a few months or whatever.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But doesn't WP:N mean that we believe things are notable if there is appropriate sourcing. I didn't see any real arguments that it doesn't meet WP:N, rather that the sources were "trivia" or that the relationship was not-notable by some definition other than sources. I know you have an issue when folks argue that something is notable even when WP:N isn't met, I think it's only fair to expect things to be kept when WP:N is met. Certainly it should be hard to claim "consensus" in such a case even with a 2:1 ratio in favor. Hobit (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to NC I'd urge this either way as there certainly isn't consensus for deletion. The article met all relevant guidelines and policies from what I can tell. But given that the closing admin made an error and meant to close it that way it seems clear what to do. Hobit (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hypothetical question: Assuming all the keep and delete votes of an AfD were backed by equally valid arguments, so that gauging consensus could be reduced simply vote counting (an impossible situation, but the sake of argument....), at what kind of vote ratio would you consider the minimum for declaring that there was a consensus. 2/3, 70%, 80%? Yilloslime TC 17:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a really tricky question which I'll dodge as I don't feel that it's the case here. We need a reason to delete, and as this article seems to meet all relevant policies/guidelines I'd be loath to see it deleted as "IAR" unless there was a very strong consensous to do so. I feel that the arguments to delete an article which meets our guidelines and policies need to be very strong indeed in order to delete and I don't see that here. Hobit (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus. While the strength or arguments here would possibly be to outright "keep," I can understand a "no consensus" close based on divided agreement. Just because some think something is "non-notable" to them, does not mean it is not notable to others. Plus, the nomination actually provides evidence that supports keeping the article. To be right out and open, I have myself sometimes looked up these bilateral relations articles for those that seem more obscure just to see what if any kind of relations the countries have had so, even someone saying "friendly but slight" is a legitimate answer to a research question, and after an encyclopedia is intended as a reference guide. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Discussion was more than clear on whether or not this article measured up. --BlueSquadronRaven 06:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - Consensus on the page was for deletion. Eusebeus (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse It was without a doubt the hand of God that guided Fritzpoll's hand to check "delete" when he closed the debate. Clearly no one ever showed in the debate that significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources of the subject of the article existed and it was clearly pointed out that the article was a work of WP:SYNTHESIS of assorted factoids. Drawn Some (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - pointing out that the article was indeed composed of trivia dug up by Richard Arthur Norton was a compelling deletion rationale - at some level, trivia is trivia, and even he must know that. Moreover, that the trivia failed WP:N was repeatedly cited by "delete" voters. This is nothing but a tedious attempt at overturning consensus by stealth. - Biruitorul Talk 04:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - No Consensus - I just didn't see a clear consensus to delete this. Many of the delete voters simply called it "trivia" without substantial reasoning to back up such a claim on relations between two large nations and those should have been ignored.--Oakshade (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The closure was correct. Edison (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse even if it was by accident. The "keep" arguments are quite vague; only one source was given, a primary source. The "delete" arguments have asserted that reliable, third-party sources do not exist. In such instances, the burden of proof is on the "keep" side to produce those sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I have considered the supposed "accidential" closure. but considering the weight of arguments, delete is supported. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|