On 5/7/06, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Phil Boswell wrote:
On 5/4/06, Jimmy Wales wrote:
THEN, some admin comes along and says, gee, the vote is 27-3 to delete, but frankly, this bridge guy knows what he is talking about, so I am going to close it with a keep.
Please provide links to AfD discussions which contain reasonable arguments like those suggested which are not then countered by piled-on "nn, delete" entries; even better would be a "nn, delete" replaced with a "keep" as a result of listening to reason. I would like to sooth my tortured soul with
It's old now, but I'm proud of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Shooting_Fish
First, it doesn't surprise me that finding a case is so difficult. This case, however, doesn't really fit here as an example:
- They changed the content significantly, essentially an article about a different subject now with only some loose ties.
- The admin decision was still based on the majority vote.
I'd be interested in a case where the content didn't have to undergo any extreme changes and the admins action was opposite of the majority. It doesn't have to be 27-3, but a 15-5 would still be an odd case.~~~~Pro-Lick
This decision is on Deletion Review for a 14-4 decision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_Apri...
Peter