- Windows 9 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
WP:NAC was inappropriate in this case. While a pretty strong supermajority did support keeping, there were other options on the table besides deletion, such as retargeting. Keeping and retargeting are not mutually exclusive outcomes, and some (not all) of the keep !votes might also support retargeting. The closer explicitly noted ignoring some !votes entirely; that is not a judgment call non-admins are supposed to make. Given the length and complexity of this discussion, I feel closure by an admin would be more appropriate. NYKevin 23:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse redirect. Whilst I agree it probably should have been dealt with by an admin, my opinion is that the decision was correct. Despite there being other options such as retargeting, the majority of 'keeps' were in favour of a straight redirect. The redirect with hatnote at the top of Windows 10 is the right solution in my eyes. If I hadn't been involved in the discussion then I would have closed it in the same way myself. FF2010 10:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep article and argument should be speedily closed. This was already discussed here and it was voted to be kept not even a week ago: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 30#Windows 9. Pointless opening of this topic again. srsrox BlahBlahBlah... 15:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is Deletion Review, not Redirects for Discussion, and the page you linked is the RfD that this DRV is reviewing. We're here to determine whether the closure of the RfD was appropriate (rather than, directly, whether the redirect should be kept); in other words, the outcome of the RfD is not binding here, as the purpose of DRV is to determine whether it was correct. If XfD outcomes were binding on DRV, then we'd have to speedy-endorse every single closure brought here, which would not be in the best interests of Wikipedia. (Or in other words, if this issue is going to be brought up, here is the right place to do it.) --ais523 08:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Endorse - An overwhelming majority of the participants were in favor of the outcome. Many participants did explicitly state that they think the redirect should remain pointing to Windows 10, and there is no reason to believe a significant number of people would instead be in favor of retargeting. Retargeting is a common outcome of RFD discussions, and anyone not suggesting that position can reasonably be assumed to not want the redirect retargeted. I do believe the closer was wrong to discount votes that said things like "it is useful" and "likely to be searched by thousands of people", since those are valid reasons for keeping a redirect (the closer was erroneously applying the criteria that should be used at AFD to RFD, when the RFD criteria are different). However, the discussion was still closed with the correct outcome, so discounting those votes didn't matter in the end. Calathan (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the redirect as is. The technicality of the closure being done by the wrong person with the wrong stated rationale doesn't invalidate the clear consensus it reflected: that a redirect to Windows 10 was useful, logical, and addressed the fact that yes, it was widely called "Windows 9" (both inside and outside Microsoft) before it was branded as "Windows 10". Reopening the question just to get another consideration of the (very weakly supported) suggestion to retarget to Windows 9x is unconstructive. -20:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- There's no reason at all why you had to be an admin to close that debate. We should certainly overturn closes when they're wrong. We should not be overturning closes because the closer lacks some irrelevant technical tools. That's intolerably bureaucratic and wasteful.—S Marshall T/C 21:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse – Hi. Beating the dead horse benefits no one; this forum must only be used when there are good grounds for overturning the verdict, not changing the closing person alone. Furthermore, the closure was more than appropriate. Per WP:NAC, non-admins can also close discussions. Per WP:SNOW, they can close it ahead of the usual allotted seven days. The closing verdict properly argues that all other avenues of closure lack both consensus and validity. Also per WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS and WP:NOTDEMO, consensus is not decided by head counting but by the strength of the arguments made and the supporting policies if any. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse a quality NAC close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the plainly accurate and appropriate NAC close. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the consensus was clear.--76.65.42.142 (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Non-adminship should be no big deal. The close was well-reasoned (probably better than many admin closes are), and although not explained perfectly, it would clearly have been inappropriate to close the RfD any other way. Non-admins are discouraged from closing XfDs as "delete" because it doesn't save anyone any work (an administrator will have to recheck the close and delete the page), but apart from that, there's no reason why they shouldn't help maintain XfD. (Also, it'd be crazy if non-admins are supposed to assign different standards to closes than admins, because then whether a page gets deleted or not would depend on who happened to close it. WP:NAC suggests that closing a page as a non-admin is a bad idea if the way in which WP:VOTE is applied could affect the actual outcome, but that hasn't happened here, no matter what you do with the potentially dubious !votes.) --ais523 07:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Endorse but WP:TROUT both the original closer and the nominator here. Both "it is useful" and "likely to be searched by thousands of people" are explicitly noted as valid reasons to keep a redirect at WP:R#KEEP (and the former is noted at the very link the closer provided in that case, WP:USEFUL, as well - one might wonder if this user bothered to actually read that page at all). The nomination here is a clear example of WP:GAMING, however, as consensus was overwhelmingly to keep the redirect yet this nomination was made almost immediately after that close. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
