Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnoburb (3rd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. no valid reason for re-nomination. WP:NAC is only an essay, while WP:BURO is solid policy. You want to change policy, don't do it by pointy AfDs. Scott Mac 17:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnoburb

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Renominating because of an improper non admin closure. Shadowjams (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why was closure improper after much circular discussion and quite past the 7 days? I don't see a different outcome.DocOfSoc (talk) 10:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note that WP:NAC is only an essay and not a guideline or policy. How does one violate an essay with no rules?DocOfSoc (talk) 11

09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the place to argue policy... but your note about NAC is instructive... indeed NACs aren't part of policy... non admins, within strict policy, should never be closing AfD discussions. Shadowjams (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me the policy. I don't see you on the admin list, so there seems to be a double self-defeating standard here. And the quality of the close has nothing to do with the status of the closer. There is no other consideration - certainly not imaginary caste-system rules. Not trying to be snarky Shadow, I really want to know, especially since I and everyone else will just repeat what was said before in the second nomination. This all seems to be a HUGE Waste of time to prove non-existent point. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, I'm not making friends pursuing this argument, which I'd note garnered a very appropriate WP:ANI discussion... You want the admin standards it's at WP:ADMIN, apparently I've found some old wiki editors that disagree with me. I'm amazed that a non admin can make a clearly out of policy decisions about an AfD (more than one actually), and then when that article's relisted, another non admin (actually a delisted admin) can remove it and be backed up by another current admin. This isn't how this process works, and if it is then... I'll strongly consider retirement. Shadowjams (talk) 12:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't consider retirement, but this is the way things work. If we had people popping up and re-opening deletion listings over every quibble, we'd have little time for anything else. You've just relisted an article here that was kept after well over two weeks of discussion in which no consensus to delete was found. Hopefully you'll stop contesting perfectly good deletion closes and the problems will end. --TS 12:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.