Improper non-admin closure per WP:NACD "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." This AfD is full of non-policy based keep rationales as a result of improper canvassing, a fact which Valoem gave no indication that he considered. Given the timeline of his edits (including closing another AfD just 11 minutes before), and given that the length of the AfD, it is hard to believe that Valoem had enough time to examine the votes and conclude about which made actual arguments based on policy as well as take into account the proven WP:MEATPUPPET issue in that AfD (stealth canvassing and vote stacking). ―Padenton|✉01:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Padenton I believe you are violating assume good faith here, possibly from a previous disagreement. I am not an administrator so a DRV is not necessary you can simply revert it if you'd like I told you so on my talk page. There was a clear lack of consensus, if any admin see any glaring issues with the close a revert is more than welcome. Valoemtalkcontrib01:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I participated in the discussion so I won't revert this myself, but I think a revert is probably best here. This was a contentious discussion and looks like a close call, and as such I think an admin should close it, preferably with a well-explained rationale. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪01:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Valoem:WP:NACD "Participants, including participating administrators, should not reopen non-admin closures. If this happens, any editor other than the closer may restore the closure with an appropriate notice as per WP:TPO. Notice of the restoration should be posted at WP:RFPP." and thus we are here. ―Padenton|✉01:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a note in the close, I am curios to see my knowledge of AfD closings. Most of the my closes here seem standard, little discussion opened over three weeks. These are the general outcomes I see in these situations. Nim (programming language) is particular maybe a bit more bold, but it does not appear to fall under WP:BADNAC. There was little discussion since the 12th of April with the last comment on the 14th of April I could not see a consensus to delete, thus falling under no consensus. If I am wrong here I will be more careful moving forward. My hope is that these closes are seen is standard Valoemtalkcontrib01:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Padenton:, I have reverted the contested close, I would be surprised the see a different outcome. Hopefully, my judgment was correct. No need for the DRV you can withdraw it if you'd like. Valoemtalkcontrib02:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) About your note - I'm not sure where you got the Australian source from, as I didn't see it linked in the AfD. But it's talking about the wrong Nimrod - the "Nimrod" mentioned in the Australian article (whatever it is) was started in 1970, but the programming language that is the subject of the AfD was invented in 2008. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪02:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing that, issues have been corrected based on a news google search. The AfD has gone stall, I am not see any consensus, and it would appear to be the right close, I am interested to see how an admin would close this. Valoemtalkcontrib02:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Were there any other sources in the article prior to its deletion? The first two are quite widely sold in the UK and I'd be surprised if there weren't some other mentions of them in official documents or even just the media. Testem (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, the deleted articles were full of unreferenced content, speculation, original research, etc. and that's why they were deleted. I don't think having a single scientific publication (which may be unrelated to the specific content that was deleted) addresses the problems with the deleted content. These chemical compounds can be listed at designer drug and/or List of benzodiazepines (some already are), but it doesn't look like there is much to say about them at this point with a single mention in the scientific literature, so standalone articles don't appear to be appropriate. If someone thinks there is sufficient reliable sources to support an article about these compounds, using the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process is probably the way to go. ChemNerd (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They shouldn't have been deleted for those reasons. Failing WP:NOR is grounds to fix the article, not to delete it. The reason they should have been deleted because there were insufficient sources at the time to write a policy-compliant article. (Does this seem like splitting hairs? I think it's worth saying. It's important, at Deletion Review, that we're clear on the circumstances in which articles should and should not be deleted.)
Now we have one source, which is insufficient for standalone articles as you and Stifle both rightly say, but it would justify a redirect.—S MarshallT/C09:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
