Template:Infoshops – Overturn to No Consensus -- RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Infoshops (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) I’d like to put the deletion of Template: Infoshops to a review. I’ve already spoken to the closer and to be clear I voted keep. Here’s what I’d like reviewed: I was confused by the decision to delete since in the discussion there were three Keeps, three Deletes and a Weak Delete which said "but I don't see anything problematic with keeping them either" so I would have expected a decision of no consensus. The closer referred to “a majority calling for deletion” and I don’t see that. I do understand the decision to close is not based on a headcount but then if that is given as the justification I find it rather odd. The debate centred around criteria 3 and 5 of the navbox guidelines and I see no consensus there. I also think there were procedural errors: Firstly the discussion was opened on July 27 by a user who didn’t follow the usual courtesy of notifying contributors to the template. Secondly and more importantly, after one week (the customary time period for discussion), the discussion had two keeps and one delete. It was then relisted on 4 August 2019. After over a week had gone by and with no further comments made I asked for the discussion to be closed by someone, instead it was relisted again on 13 August 2019. That seems controversial to me since the usual timespan for a discussion is seven days. The first relister then later added a brief Delete note on 19 August 2019 which I think is improper behaviour, if they wanted to cast a vote they should have stayed away from relisting/closing (as I did). So I also find that controversial, although on reflection perhaps since it was over two weeks since they had relisted they had simply forgotten their previous action. Also in this time period someone on the Infoshops talkpage stated some things pointing towards keep perhaps not realising the discussion was ongoing. The discussion then stood for over a month longer (!) before being closed as Delete. Thirdly on 30 August 2019, a user actually bothered for the first time to give a detailed justification for deletion, over a month after the discussion was opened. If I had seen that I would have given an equally detailed response since it broadened the scope of the discussion. I would still be happy to provide that although I’m not sure how relevant it is now, certainly the closer wasn’t interested. So I want to review this deletion on two grounds as per WP:DRVPURPOSE, namely consensus incorrectly interpreted and procedural errors, stated above. To be clear I’d like the decision to be overturned, then I can work on improving the template. Thanks for any answer. Mujinga (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC) Mujinga (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to No Consensus - I don't have an issue with the second Relist, which was a reasonable action when there was no consensus. However, there was still no consensus when it was closed. A slight numerical majority is not a consensus, and there was no strong policy reason why the Delete arguments were better. This should be overturned to No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Two relists is normal (see WP:RELIST) and in fact the second relist was a given since no additional discussion happened after the first. But I agree, there's no consensus here. Two of the five deletes were based on an argument the closer even noted was weak ("redundant to categories"). The participants were pretty much evenly split on the policy question, i.e. does the template meet the navbox criteria. Overturn to no consensus. – Joe (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to No Consensus - I agree with Robert and Joe that there was no clear consensus or overwhelming policy-based argument on display at the time of closing. — Scott • talk 13:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Comment as closer I don't routinely close TFDs, but nobody else seemed willing to close this one, it was very overdue. I closed it as I saw it, with a slight majority and the stronger policy-based arguments in favour of deletion. No objections to an overturn, if that's the consensus opinion here. Fish+Karate 13:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to No Consensus - Still no consensus found whether to keep or deleted. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Template:Infoshops – Overturn to No Consensus -- RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I’d like to put the deletion of Template: Infoshops to a review. I’ve already spoken to the closer and to be clear I voted keep.

Here’s what I’d like reviewed:

I was confused by the decision to delete since in the discussion there were three Keeps, three Deletes and a Weak Delete which said "but I don't see anything problematic with keeping them either" so I would have expected a decision of no consensus. The closer referred to “a majority calling for deletion” and I don’t see that. I do understand the decision to close is not based on a headcount but then if that is given as the justification I find it rather odd. The debate centred around criteria 3 and 5 of the navbox guidelines and I see no consensus there.

I also think there were procedural errors:

Firstly the discussion was opened on July 27 by a user who didn’t follow the usual courtesy of notifying contributors to the template.

Secondly and more importantly, after one week (the customary time period for discussion), the discussion had two keeps and one delete. It was then relisted on 4 August 2019. After over a week had gone by and with no further comments made I asked for the discussion to be closed by someone, instead it was relisted again on 13 August 2019. That seems controversial to me since the usual timespan for a discussion is seven days. The first relister then later added a brief Delete note on 19 August 2019 which I think is improper behaviour, if they wanted to cast a vote they should have stayed away from relisting/closing (as I did). So I also find that controversial, although on reflection perhaps since it was over two weeks since they had relisted they had simply forgotten their previous action. Also in this time period someone on the Infoshops talkpage stated some things pointing towards keep perhaps not realising the discussion was ongoing. The discussion then stood for over a month longer (!) before being closed as Delete.

Thirdly on 30 August 2019, a user actually bothered for the first time to give a detailed justification for deletion, over a month after the discussion was opened. If I had seen that I would have given an equally detailed response since it broadened the scope of the discussion. I would still be happy to provide that although I’m not sure how relevant it is now, certainly the closer wasn’t interested.

So I want to review this deletion on two grounds as per WP:DRVPURPOSE, namely consensus incorrectly interpreted and procedural errors, stated above. To be clear I’d like the decision to be overturned, then I can work on improving the template. Thanks for any answer. Mujinga (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC) Mujinga (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to No Consensus - I don't have an issue with the second Relist, which was a reasonable action when there was no consensus. However, there was still no consensus when it was closed. A slight numerical majority is not a consensus, and there was no strong policy reason why the Delete arguments were better. This should be overturned to No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two relists is normal (see WP:RELIST) and in fact the second relist was a given since no additional discussion happened after the first. But I agree, there's no consensus here. Two of the five deletes were based on an argument the closer even noted was weak ("redundant to categories"). The participants were pretty much evenly split on the policy question, i.e. does the template meet the navbox criteria. Overturn to no consensus. – Joe (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to No Consensus - I agree with Robert and Joe that there was no clear consensus or overwhelming policy-based argument on display at the time of closing. — Scott • talk 13:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as closer I don't routinely close TFDs, but nobody else seemed willing to close this one, it was very overdue. I closed it as I saw it, with a slight majority and the stronger policy-based arguments in favour of deletion. No objections to an overturn, if that's the consensus opinion here. Fish+Karate 13:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to No Consensus - Still no consensus found whether to keep or deleted. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.