Could you clarify your close here please. I can't work out if you read the debate or not, or simply based your close on your interpretation of 10 or so words from a policy of a few thousand and a guideline. Hiding T 18:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the entire debate. I was summarizing what I had believed to be the rough consensus based on the arguments that were presented. Sancho 19:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that as presented in your close, which simply reads As per If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. from WP:V, and all three criteria of WP:WEB.. Since the debate presents third party sources, I'm not sure I understand how you determine the 11 words from WP:V apply. I also don't see anywhere in your closing statement a reference to the debate or to a rough consensus. I can't see where or how you weighed the arguments. When I became an admin some words of advice given to me were When closing a debate that is borderline or one in which your discretion is used, a few sentences explaining why you did what you did is an effective way of making your decision stick, and demonstrating that you were, indeed, within your discretion. It also doesn't leave people wondering why you did what you did. It's both permissible, and encouraged. So I hope that helps in clearing up why I'm asking. It's all well and good pointing me to rough consensus, but I can read that, read the debate and come to a different conclusion. I want to understand on what basis you weighed one half of the debate above the other, and why you disregarded sources presented, or deemed them not to meet WP:V. Sorry to take up so much of your time on this one, Hiding T 19:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any argument that refuted the assertion of several contributors to the debate that the subject failed to meet the notability requirements of WP:WEB. Neither did I see an argument that discussed why this subject should be an exception to the guideline. The sources were blogs, a single mention in an article about Chinese goldfarmers, and the subject being a one-time guest comic in a magazine. If you look a few links further through WP:WEB, you get to WP:RS, which the sources that were provided were argued not to meet. Even the possible exception at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Examples#Popular_culture_and_fiction still says, Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. Regarding the award/runner-up argument, consensus was that the subject was a runner-up in a nomination process, not nominated for an award, and hadn't won an award (which would have satisfied WP:WEB). It seems that this is more of an issue of WP:WEB than WP:V, but the arguments against several of the sources were based on discounting their reliability, which is discussed in WP:V. Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). I feel that I rendered the rough consensus of the community appropriately. Sancho 11:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If you summarised that thinking in the close I'd have better understood your thinking. From your close summary I couldn't get any sense of weighing the debate. Sorry to have troubled you. Hiding T 16:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for asking, but would you consider amending your close there to cover this somewhat, or would you be amenable to me pasting this conversation onto the talk page of the deletion debate? Hiding T 16:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry, been a bit busy with non-Wikipedia stuff. I'll post this conversation to the talk page of the deletion discussion, and edit my summary to refer to it. Sancho 03:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]