Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Philip Sandifer

message: I don't know about the appropriateness of me reverting Tony, as I was involved in the debate, but then he voted on it too, so it's inappropriateness all round, it seems.
I see Splash has also reverted, so I'm going ahead and restarting this debate. It is meant to last for five days, and I see no harm in allowing that to take place. The debate is not at all vitriolic; quite the reverse, in fact, which I'm glad to see. I think we should only close it early if Phil requests it and no one objects. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seemed like a very odd way to close, particularly given that no action approaching a merge (or even a removal of the AfD tag!) was even undertaken. -Splashtalk 00:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for reverting Splash.  I had thought it was vandalism at first then realized who he was. I do think that AfD's should last their full length of given time. --Strothra 00:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: All the discussion is included, Crum. We just reverted Tony's premature closure of it. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *Sorry, my mistake. That will teach me not to watch a hockey game while wiki-ing :P Crum375 00:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Reverting my close was absolutely appropriate.  I have no problem with that.  My early close was based on a perception that everything had been said that needed to be said, and a good, slow, deliberate decision-making process (on this talk page) would be preferable to the continuation of a deletion discussion.  If a brief, five-day debate is preferred, that is all right too. --Tony Sidaway 01:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony, there's certainly some value in allowing the entire community to express their views.  This is an interesting AfD, with much good and on-going discussion. As for the closure as "merge", it was rather strange, since in the past you've tended to close as "keep" any articles that have under 80% delete votes, which would include this article. Jayjg (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope that isn't true. Having an 80% requirement for successful deletion votes is insane. I hope that is never true for any admin who deals with votes. the requirement should be a simple majority (though it tends to be an unfair 60-70%, though I understand it is not just a direct vote which counts) Bwithh 02:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether 80% is insane or not, it's brought about because of the belief that if there's any substantial doubt about the deletion of the article, it should be kept (a long-standing belief on Wikipedia, long before I started here). Maybe things will change, I don't know, but I'm not about to go against process and close AfDs as Delete if it's much less than 80% (although I can and have applied discretion to borderline cases). --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's depressing. It's like there's a rule that Wikipedia must tailspin into entropy. Bwithh 21:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Have a look at User:Dragons_flight/AFD_summary and some of the discussion on its talk page.  While 80% is a clear cut-off, things in the 50-80% range are a judgement call.  Someone did an analysis of it a while ago, but I can't seem to remember who/where it was.  Guettarda 15:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's the analysis - WP:AFD100 Guettarda 15:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reopening

message: In your summary, Splash.
Oh well. Gnewf 23:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't know why you didn't address my point