Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 January 28

WP:NACD ("Deletion-related closes may only be reopened by the closer themselves; by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning; or by consensus at deletion review", emphasis in original) means that it should have been an administrator that did this, considering the circumstances I personally support the action. For the avoidance of doubt should anyone wish to dispute Iffy's actions, I am happy to underwrite the action as an uninvolved administrator. Daniel (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Discussion was closed by the non-admin user Vecihi91 as keep just after one day run. Although the number of votes are keep but my concern is, the closing of AfD as a non-admin and as well as before the time. @Sportsfan_1234 (talk), please leave your input here for this closing. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment courtesy ping of
WP:CANVASSing by the nominator. Frank Anchor 17:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

WP:NACD. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Discussion was closed by the nominator as speedy keep as they had withdrawn their nomination, however there had already been one delete !vote (mine) so the discussion should have been left to run its course. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrawn because there were 2 Keep votes, and it had completed it's 7 Days. I am now out of it, very less number of editor are really interested in the discussions. Rest is upon you. I also withdrawn Vinod Adani's AfD. I'm really very sad after these 2 bad incidents that i took it to Discussion and others are not even Participating well. Thanks --- Misterrrrr (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

if there are incivility/harassment issues, then kindly report to admins. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vacate close and allow an administrator to close it or relist (if relisted, the nominating comment should be stricken). AFD ran its full seven days and in my opinion there is more policy-based reasoning to keep than delete. However, it is not the place for the nominator to close their own AFD when there are other delete votes standing. Frank Anchor 17:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Closer (non-admin) !voted the same way in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruel Redinger, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stan Robb, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Babcock, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marv Smith, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Comer (American football), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie Flattery, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ja'Quan McMillian. Closed after less than four hours, he was voted Second-team all-pro by Collyer's Eye, I'd like to see what others have to say on this before the nomination closes. I'm not opposed to keeping but the discussion seemed cut a bit short. That's his only real claim to notability so far. Also now that there's no NFL NSPORTS guidelines anymore, so he has to have had SIGCOV, which is still lacking. Therapyisgood (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OP made no effort to discuss this with me before bringing it here. He also reverted without discussion a talk page note from another editor. I stand by my close. If it gets overturned, you can expect a wave of keep !votes from editors who understand how notability works.

LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Endorse several policy-based arguments were made for keep (establishing notability and citing
WP:SNOW keep myself in the next day or so, but another user closed it ahead of me. Frank Anchor 11:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Endorse the Keep close. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Ridiculous. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to relist The AfD was closed less than four hours after nomination after three !votes despite the subject having not been shown to pass any inclusion criteria. There are no sources of
WP:IAR. With all that in mind, I find it highly premature to close the AfD by an editor heavily involved in similar AfD's after such a short time. Alvaldi (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Funny how it's such a big deal to close an AfD after four hours when it was clearly headed toward a keep result, but the OP can
LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Overturn to relist per Alvaldi's concerns. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Void NAC and trout those who think otherwise We don't let NACs IAR close things early, we don't let reasonably involved anyone (admin or NAC) close AfD discussions, and SNOW has historically required at least 6+ unanimous rejections of the rationale over at least 24 hours. This close is so not appropriate that it calls the policy understanding anyone here suggesting that it is appropriate into question. Jclemens (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to what you may think, this was not an involved close and I resent the insinuation. Maybe my close was ill-advised, but I completely reject your implied assertion that I was formally out-of-order in any way, shape, or form. Furthermore, I've been editing off-and-on (mostly on) for over a decade, and I don't believe I've ever heard anything about a specific numerical requirement for a speedy close. If y'all want to reopen it, whatever. Be my guest. But I hope you haven't forgotten that we are supposed to be building an encyclopedia rather than looking for loopholes that allow you to dismantle what we already have.
LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
One of the things about doing NACs is that you are held to every expectation of INVOLVED as an admin is, and that includes Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. (emphasis mine). A spot check of the appellant's assertions about your !votes in specific similar discussions substantiates them. This is not a new expectation. In the ~5 years I spent as an admin, 08-13, I deleted about 20,000 pages, precisely because I am a curationist, which many find indistinguishable from an inclusionist. Jclemens (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose your interpretation verges on reasonableness at least in some respects, and I see little point in dragging this out further. I've had enough bricks thrown at me for one day. I have vacated my close and reopened the AfD.
LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Note from original closer: I have vacated my close.
LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Chance Odolena Voda – Speedy undeleted with original deleting administrator's expressed blessing. Daniel (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

)

Years-old redirects should not be speedy deleted per G6, but instead brought to RfD if they are thought to be incorrect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No objection I haven't had a chance to review, but it makes sense at first glance. It seems to be a good faith request. I completed the speedy but got caught up at work and haven't had time to re-review.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.