Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 August 31

Miraz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing admin incorrectly interpreted the discussion as no consensus. The AFD was already showing a reasonable consensus to redirect based on policy and evidence. After a re-listing admin directly asked "if the page should be redirected instead"[1], the new comments all supported a redirect (with some leaning merge vs delete). There was a consensus to redirect the article, and the AFD should have been closed as redirect, not no consensus. Jontesta (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to Redirect, discussion was a pretty clear consensus to redirect; discussion mostly broke down to "This article meets GNG" Vs. "No it doesn't", with both sides advancing reasonable arguments for their point. As such, given the !vote was 8-4 in favour of not keeping the article, with 6 of those 8 advocating a redirect and the remaining 2 advocating deletion, it should definitely be redirected. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer. It is true that there were more editors calling to delete or redirect than to keep. It is also true that !voting is not purely numeric. Closer's comment about where to redirect is noted. The appellant can make another nomination in two months. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to redirect - there was a consensus to redirect here. I would discourage Robert McClenon's suggestion that someone re-nominate this, as it's best to strive for consensus and avoid more
  WP:BATTLEGROUND discussions. At best, the closing admin closed it prematurely, when a consensus was forming not unlike the DRV below. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse: There's good arguments made on both sides, and with four keeps, six redirects and one delete, I don't see a consensus here. It should be noted that a delete is not the same as a redirect, so I wouldn't count any delete votes the same as a redirect vote. MoonJet (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. AfD participants often remind each other, it is not a vote, so highlighting the perceived numerical advantage for the redirect position against the keep one without any context is irrelevant. And if further discussion on the talk page would supposedly lead to more battleground behavior among editors whom I presume are preoccupied with improving the contents of related articles, then I would seriously question the maturity of said participants and whether they should continue to participate in any and all contentious discussions on Wikipedia at all. Unless consensus about the purpose of AfD's change, the fact remains that AfD's are not supposed to be a one-stop solution for any and all issues about articles, especially those of an editorial nature. Closer's decision is valid and does not preclude another AfD to take place in a later time. Haleth (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no consensus closure because there wasn't consensus. The argument was basically a "this article meets GNG" vs. "this article does not meet GNG" argument, and a numerical advantage for the redirect/delete side does not trump the relative even strength in the arguments. Frank Anchor 13:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as involved. The appellant/nominator is as incorrect in the appeal as in the original nomination. The closer correctly assessed, I presume, that the redirect !votes were policy-based but not fact-based: the article as it stands now meets GNG, and more sources were brought up in the AfD that could have additionally been used. The changes during the AfD addressed every single policy-based reasons for deletion. As the closer said, a redirect discussion can be started on the talk page. Jclemens (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Closer comment I stand by my close. Not only do I not see a consensus for redirect, but I don't even see consensus on a topic to redirect it to. Star Mississippi 00:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse a classic no consensus. Good close from an experienced closer. Lightburst (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Willoughby Kipling (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore

)

Closer interpreted the discussion incorrectly when closing as no consensus; the AfD was relisted once, and after this relist a total of seven editors weighed in, all of whom advocated for the article to be redirected and advanced legitimate reasons for it to be redirected. Given this there was a clear consensus to redirect the article, and the AfD should have been closed as redirect, not no consensus. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Close as redirect: This is unequivocally a consensus to redirect. I can respect that it wasn't unanimous, but there was overwhelming support for a redirect, from editors, policy, and evidence. A redirect also pushes editors back towards the editing process to address the best way to cover topics without stand-alone notability. Jontesta (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Close as redirect, but noting that I'm
  WP:INVOLVED as I voted for redirect. There are 5 votes for keep, 9 votes for redirect (plus 1 vote for delete and 1 vote for merge), making the total keep votes 5, total merge/redirect votes 10, and delete vote 1. I'm unconvinced that the keep side has a clearly better argument, as they insist these four refs are meeting GNG, some of them (Jclemens, MoonJet) are potentially convincing despite my strong disagreement, but the rest are just assertions that it passes GNG. I'm iffy on why this was closed as no consensus, as redirect seems to have a clear numerical majority, and the arguments for redirect is at the very least as strong as the ones who voted keep. VickKiang (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and Redirect: The AFD was relisted once, as the initial discussion was split between keeping, merging, and redirecting, and the hope was that a clearer consensus between those three options would generate. This very much happened, as every one of the seven new commenters after the relist, myself included, advocated for the Redirect option. While I appreciate that Jclemens and MoonJet did respond to one of the redirect supporters, their comments did not really present any new argument that was not already presented in the initial discussion before the relist and the wave of relist arguments appeared. Closing the AFD as a No Consensus rather than as a Redirect is basically just ignoring the very clear consensus that emerged after the relist. Rorshacma (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and redirect Per Jontesta's reasoning and others. All the presented sources were pretty much shot down as trivial coverage, so I'm not sure how it would be enough to overrule numerous redirect opinions.
  WP:CIR and part of that is being able to distinguish a significant source (on the part of the !voters who are attempting to argue for notability). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Overturn to Redirect - In this case, consensus was clearly moving toward a redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per my previous argument, 9 redirects to 5 keeps seems like a rough consensus. Note that history should be preserved (
  WP:SOFTDELETE), and that the article has not been improved (which would merit a revision of the older votes). Given no improvement, just some disputed sources presented in the AfD, abiding by the numerical rough 2:1 consensus seems the right thing to do. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and redirect - As a rule of thumb, a re-list is basically like a new discussion, and every editor agreed to re-direct. Even accounting for the few keep !votes from the earlier part of the discussion, a redirect is a consensus
  WP:BATTLEGROUND. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse (as involved) four non-trivial RS means it's notable, no matter that they may, in fact, say substantially the same thing and that they all focus on one adaptation of the character. No objection to any discussion resulting in merger or redirection, but there's no policy-based justification for it to be an AfD-mandated outcome. Jclemens (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Closer comment I'm fine with this being re-closed as redirect in way fewer than seven days if consensus is clear here. I will be on and offline with the holiday weekend. I had considered closing it as redirect, but I felt that would have been erring close to to a supervote and a n/c but go finish this amongst yourselves seemed fairer read personally. For future, @Devonian Wombat: feel free to come to my Talk to discuss a close. We don't always need seven (more) days of bureaucracy. Star Mississippi 00:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Eh, NC or redirect were reasonable closes, keep may have been too. The argument comes down to sources and I felt both sides had a reasonable viewpoint though I think the sources are enough over the bar that keep had the stronger argument. endorse as I think the closer got to the outcome that best represented the discussion. Hobit (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]