Category talk:Non-author author pages

Results of proposed deletion and comments

• User:Pathoschild had originally nominated for deletion, on February 10, 2007.
• The results of Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2007/04#Author_pages_for_organizations was "no consensus", as determined by User:BirgitteSB, who had also voted "delete" within that self-same discussion.
• At the close, there were 6 Keeps, two of which were phrased as: "Keep and make more." There were also 3 Deletes, four if you count the nominator.

Smee 21:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

• I must admit, in my opinion it seems a bit odd for this 6 Keeps, some of which voiced as "Keep and make more" and 3 Deletes, four if you count the nominator, as "no consensus". Seems like the majority said Keep, leaning towards Keep all and make more.
• It also seems odd that the discussion was closed by an involved editor that had commented as "delete". This seems a bit unfair to the process.

Smee 21:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

60% support is not consensus, particularly where most users who voted in favour are not active in the Wikisource community; Wikisource is not a parliamentary democracy where the opinion of a small majority overrule consensus. Your edits to the category page seem to be arguments in favour of creating more despite a lack of consensus, as opposed to a neutral tracking category description. The involvement of the closing administrator is not relevant, considering that they (fairly) closed against their own opinion. If you disagree with the outcome, please start a new discussion; do not attack administrators or attempt to insert bias into category descriptions.

Furthermore, I don't see why you're so concerned about the category. This category simply tracks them for later discussion, it does not imply that they should be kept or deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:48:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if it seemed as if I was "attacking" anyone. I was simply trying to report the facts. Please forgive me if this was misconstrued. Smee 22:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Please note that I had left a comment a week prior to closing asking for a more detailed explanation of how people would like handle such pages with an example of an organization with a long history. After a week of no responses on a 2-month old nomination I closed it as no consensus. When closing I requested that anyone unhappy with my closing feel free to simply reopen the discussion. Every admin I recognized as someone who closes deletion discussions had commented in the discussion, as well as every editor who regularly comments on deletion discussions. If you were unhappy with my actions, I would have really appreciated it if you discussed it with me personally (or else simply reverted them as I suggested). I just happened to stumble on this conversation by accident today and was not previously aware of it. Although I have strong opinions on many issues, I have no interest in seeing them put into practice without the community being fully behind them. I would hope everyone here feels the same way.

No consensus is a common close for discussions on Wikisource. Historically we have not forced decisions on issues people cannot agree on. In the past issues fron how to codify acceptable languages to naming conventions for authors have been closed as no consensus. In these past cases people continue to make new contributions as they see fit without pressing the issue by altering existing content or starting additional projects for what they wished everyone had agreed on. Everyone simply acts with mutual respect keeping in mind that the issue is unsettled. Hopefully future new information or new perspectives on these issues will create the consensus which is currently lacking. My personal attitude is that there is plenty of work to be done here where there is consensus on how to handle it. However if you wish to press forward and try and build a consensus on this issue, I suggest you develop your ideal author page for what you want to see adopted and invite discussion on the Scriptorium. I don't think further discussion of either the general theory nor the existing pages which were nominated for deletion will produce any movement on the issue (which is ultimately why I closed the thread).--BirgitteSB 14:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this thoughtful explanation, and again, I apologize if any offense was taken by anyone. Please understand that none was meant. Smee 17:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

After polite explanations from User:BirgitteSB and User:Pathoschild, I have been assured that this was handled appropriately. I'm going to take this category off of my watchlist, but please let me know if anything further develops with this. Thank you both again for being so kind, polite and understanding regarding the confusion. Smee 06:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC).