- Paul Heitz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This was closed by a non-admin as a Redirect against the unanimous consensus of all other parties (save for the article creator himself), and without any analysis as to why he did so. I might have taken the question to the closer's talk page, were it not for the caution at the top of his talk page: "If you're here to throw hissy fits over the closures of any deletion discussion, either drop the stick and accept the consensus or take them to the deletion review. The closures I've done are well-thought and therefore final, whether you like it or not. So, ain't nobody got time to argue with anyone over this matter." To my mind, a non-admin who closes in defiance of consensus, declines to set forth his analysis as to why, and refuses to discuss his reasoning has little to no business making non-admin closes, but that's a separate issue. In any event, this illegitimate closure should be reversed, and the article promptly and properly deleted. Ravenswing 21:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any particular reason why you oppose a redirect, Ravenswing? WP:ATD is policy, and there was no reason given in the AfD why a redirect wouldn't be appropriate. (I'm not too impressed by the closer's unwillingness to listen to good-faith feedback, but, as you note, that's not a matter for us to deal with.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- ATD is policy, but it also doesn't really apply; there is nothing in ATD mandating redirects; and frankly I don't think it's a likely search term. Neither did anyone else there save for Lugnuts, and it's not as if people commenting on Lugnuts post-NOLY sub-stubs generally are avoiding redirect as an option; I've advocated for it myself when I feel that there's enough of a claim to notability to believe that there's a credible chance sourcing might appear in the future. Ravenswing 00:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fair. The best option here would probably be to relist: Lugnuts's suggestion to redirect came right at the end of the seven-day period, and it seems that there are reasonable arguments against it that haven't yet been aired. The closer, who has already been told "to be more conservative with WP:NAC", probably needs to be taken to ANI: it's a bedrock expectation that closers be willing to respond to legitimate concerns. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've no objection to User:Superastig being taken to ANI, if this is indeed a habit of his + his seriously uncivil talk page (and I've found other such controversies, such as [1]), but I do note from his talk page archive that he's sometimes solicited to make non-admin closes at AfD. I wouldn't be secure -- yet -- about him being sanctioned, but perhaps a warning at ANI, combined with a strong reminder that his talk page is a valid and proper venue for questioning his actions, would serve. Ravenswing 04:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- “ he's sometimes solicited to make non-admin closes at AfD”? What?!
- Privately soliciting one’s choice of closure is not ok. If you have been solicited, you are WP:INVOLVED. The solicitor should be warned, and anyone who closes discussions on private solicitation should be severely chastised. If a close is waiting and someone wants it closed, use WP:ANRFC. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a technically correct but substantially erroneous statement. WP:ATD references WP:EDIT as it's "main page", which includes WP:PRESERVE, which does include redirection as one of many alternatives preferable to deleting content. Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I've never come across the AfD closer before, and therefore not aware of their past track-record in closing AfDs. But if there is indeed an ongoing issue with this, then warnings/ANI may be needed. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete- re-establishing a redirect afterwards is a matter for editorial discretion. But consensus at the AfD was clear. Reyk YO! 22:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean, the close isn't wrong, is it? Lugnuts' !vote has all four feet on the bedrock of policy and he links directly to the policy paragraph that supports what he says. In my view the real problem here is the notice at the top of the closer's talk page which says "if you want to talk to me about my close, fuck off." Non-admin closers of deletion discussions are subject to WP:ADMINACCT and policy requires them to engage courteously and collegially with enquirers.—S Marshall T/C 22:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn WP:BADNAC. This closer is not an experienced respected closer, but has a history of bad closes, and they are not suitable to make such bold closes. WP:Supervote. This is not to say that “redirect” is unreasonable, the subject has a table entry there, but neither was it the flow of the discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Way too much in this DRV is AfD business. The question is whether it was closed right. It wasn’t. So overturn. Then, let an uninvolved admin reclose, when it is time to close. DRV should not be prescribing a close when there is a strong case that the AfD discussion wasn’t finished. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete - or alternatively, relist. There is clearly no consensus to redirect, and if the closer believed that redirecting was the correct decision then they should have !voted, rather than supervoted. Further, the closer should not be closing anything while they are unwilling to discuss said closures. BilledMammal (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to Relist - By stating in advance that they are not willing to discuss their closes, and not providing an analysis, the closer has stated in advance that they should not be doing closes. This is a content forum, and we do not address the conduct issues, but the appellant does have a reason to go to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse WP:ATD is policy, and the redirect was un-disputed, either previously ("delete and do not redirect") or subsequently. I would have preferred a relist, to allow delete !voters to consider the redirect, but fundamentally since V is met, a "delete and do not redirect" is not obviously policy-based. NAC is one outstanding issue, and so I do suggest this be re-closed (as redirect) by an admin. Jclemens (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per WP:ATD. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse there is very little difference between Delete and Redirect here, both of them constitute a decision that we shouldn't have an article about the subject. Deletion wouldn't even preclude a redirect being created later and given that the article was an extremely short stub there's nothing to merge. Although only one person !voted Redirect, nobody else objected to redirection or offered an argument against it, so closing as Redirect was reasonable, and the title is clearly an appropriate search term. I'm a bit surprised so many people are objecting to it. Hut 8.5 11:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody else supported a redirect. I'm a bit surprised at the implication that you think it's necessary for everyone who voted otherwise at AfD to personally register objections to a contrary vote -- especially one posted several days after every other -- in order to verify that they still hold to their positions. Ravenswing 17:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- In most situations that's reasonable, but in a typical AfD Delete and Redirect aren't contrary votes. Both achieve the same outcome of getting rid of the content. They aren't even mutually exclusive, there would be nothing stopping someone from redirecting the title if it was deleted. There might be a difference in the outcome if someone wanted to merge the content after redirecting, but there wasn't anything worth merging here anyway. I don't see anything in this case to suggest it was any different from the norm. Relisting the AfD just to discuss whether a redirect is a good idea strikes me as a waste of time. Hut 8.5 18:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
-
- It's not exactly rare to have an AfD where opinion is split between Delete and Redirect but where the Delete side don't offer any explicit reason not to redirect or oppose redirecting. Closers should be able to close such things as Redirect even if they aren't in the majority, which won't be the case if we keep overturning them here. But yes if this is closed as "Overturn to delete" then I'm tempted to redirect the thing anyway as it makes a reasonable redirect. Hut 8.5 10:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. The suggestion to relist was in line with policy, but there was no consensus for that option and given how late in the discussion it was suggested there was no opportunity for the editors who had already opined to share their views on the matter. I would never expect someone to say "Delete and do not redirect" in an AfD if there has been no suggestion of redirecting made anywhere in the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly object to the closer's comments on his talk page. If they aren't willing to deal with concerns about their closes, they shouldn't be closing. But that said, I
endorse this close per Hut 8.5. Hobit (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think redirect was a reasonable close, but relisting would have been a better one. It's what we should generally do when a novel argument gets introduced at the end of an AfD. Hobit (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete It obviously sets a bad precedent if anybody can drive by, throw in a quick two-word vote of no substance but that just so happens to contain the initials "ATD", and have that override a clear consensus of other editors in favor of a different outcome. ATD is not a policy that prohibits deletion, and on that grounds alone it follows that it is not in any closer's discretion to impose his own preferred outcome on basis of it. How similar "redirect" is to "delete" is nugatory: all but one editors wished to delete the content, and there was no reason to ignore their cocnerns. Avilich (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- None of them expressed a reason why a redirect wouldn't be acceptable. If they had, that would be one thing. But they didn't. Now they also didn't really have a big chance to do so after the redirect !vote. But at most this should be a relist so the redirect could be discussed. Can you articulate a reason why a redirect is wrong or bad from a policy/guideline viewpoint? I don't think any such reason exists, but my !vote is based on no one providing a reason to believe a redirect is somehow bad or wrong. Hobit (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- A reason for deletion is automatically an argument against any alternatives to deletion, and failure to provide an ATD is not a reason for preventing a deletion from taking place. A redirect is too trivial on its own to justify an AfD discussion being extended for another entire week. What was being discussed was the article and its content, and all the participants -- including Lugnuts -- reached basically the same conclusion: that a standalone article should not exist. A delete outcome does not stop anybody from creating a redirect without the edit history, and whoever wants to dispute its usefulness can discuss it at WP:RFD -- but this here is "Articles for deletion", and the consensus in this discussion was clearly to delete the content. Avilich (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- A reason for deletion that precludes or argues against reasonable alternatives to deletion is an argument against any such alternatives. An argument from silence is not sustainable; that leads to things like Sandstein's closes against numerical consensus just because one side of a debate didn't mention an argument he preferred. Jclemens (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you're misunderstanding DRV, Hobit, and I suggest you reread WP:DRVPURPOSE. It is not to relitigate the decision -- indeed, this is explicitly a "do NOT" at DRV -- nor to second-guess the original voters, but to determine whether or not the consensus in the original discussion was properly reflected in the close. I believe it was not. I'm not sure from where you get the idea that the four editors advocating deletion were compelled to address the POV of the one who didn't (several days after the fact) before their views could be properly taken into account, but this curious notion is unsupported by any guideline or policy. Ravenswing 01:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've got to say, I'm finding both of you (Ravenswing and Avilich) to be more than a bit frustrating. So let's try again. Ravenswing, are you claiming your !vote in the AfD was specifically against a redirect? If so, could you explain what policy or guideline is that basis of that part of your !vote? If neither of you have such an argument, then why do you feel those !voting did? These are !votes for a reason (rather than votes)--strength of argument can carry the day. I tend to believe in "numeric consensus" more than most and am a big fan of IAR. But here those in the numeric consensus didn't address redirecting and, as far as I know, there is no guideline or policy that would be against a redirect here. So yes, the close was correct. This isn't nose counting. Hobit (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- And what I am finding frustrating is that you do not seem to get that your question is irrelevant to this DRV. Obviously I did not explicitly stipulate in the AfD that I was opposed to a redirect. Nor was I required to do so. Nor am I required to do so now. Nor is relitigating the AfD a proper subject for DRV. If you just plain disagree, and think that relitigating AfDs are proper subjects for DRV, take it up on the appropriate talk page. But as it stands, it's improper to take a close to DRV because you disagree with the closer's position. You do so because you believe the close was improperly done. The time for registering your opinion as to whether the article should be kept, deleted or redirected was during the span of the AfD. It is not now. Ravenswing 06:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." There is a policy-based argument for a redirect. No policy-based arguments have been made for not redirecting. Which do you think then has the better argument? I get you don't like that. And I get that this could cause last-minute !votes to dominate in some cases. But that's why we give closers discretion. And why, at most, you should be asking for a relist so you'd have a chance to make the argument that redirection is the wrong thing. But your argument that more votes means it should happen isn't how AfD works. Hobit (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As a long time editor at RfD, if the redirect were nominated there it would almost certainly be kept. The only reasons why it wouldn't be would be if there was another notable person of the same name or if it was seen as desirable to have an article about them. The AfD (whether it is closed as delete or redirect) clearly indicates that the consensus is that there should not be an article about this person. There are two other uses of the name I have been able to find - an author who is not mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia and shows no evidence of notability, and a fictional character in The Gorgon (a 1964 film) mentioned only in the cast list and as list entry in the actor's filmography, neither being useful search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think this is a good redirect, then by all means, create one without the edit history -- nothing is preventing you from doing so. This has no bearing on what was the consensus of this discussion. Avilich (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Why on earth must the edit history be destroyed (well, rendered inaccessible to non-admins), in your logic? What is the policy- or common-sense-based reason for doing that. I simply see nothing to be gained by doing so--enlighten me? Jclemens (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Most participants cited WP:DEL-REASON#8, a policy-based reason, for voting delete, and that is already in itself an argument for not keeping, redirecting, or merging. No policy-based arguments were really made for redirecting: vaguewaves barely even count, and at no point did Lugnuts elaborate on why redirecting is a valid AFD. If you cannot understand where consensus leans in such situation, then there is little point in arguing further. Avilich (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- DELREASON #8 is indeed a valid argument for deletion, but it is not an argument against redirection - indeed in many cases it is an argument for redirection: if a person is not notable enough for their own article then we want to discourage people from creating one, if they are mentioned elsewhere then a redirect does this (the corollary to WP:REDLINK). The AfD should have been relisted so that editors had the opportunity to consider (and refute if they desire) the suggestion to create a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- A reason for deletion is, by definition, itself a reason for not doing any ATD. Relisting for such a trivial reason is a silly idea: WP:RFD is the other way, and AfDs shouldn't take any more time than absolutely needed to determine the suitability of a standalone article. Redirects can be created manually, so I don't understand why you, Hobit and others want those involved to waste their time in an AfD that has already run its course. Avilich (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the same about "waste their time in an AfD that has already run its course" applies even more to those trying to change the outcome of said AfD, yes? But let's be real here, to me the question that this comes down to is if we're counting noses or weighing arguments. I'm usually more of a nose counter than most. But here we have no valid arguments for not having a redirect paired with a valid argument for having one. Seems really really open and shut and I'm worried that others (many of whom I respect quite a bit) are counting noses here. Hobit (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete. I completely agree with Ravenswing, but further action may be required. A editor who is blatantly disregarding a fundamental Wikipedia policy, consensus, and then on his talk page being rather hostile about complaints seems to be a serious issue. I'm not sure what to recommend, but something should be done in this regard. Sea Cow (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete If editors say delete, they mean delete. I find the above suggestions that they mean delete or redirect odd, without merit, and an attempt to negate the words and meaning of those who say delete. Delete means delete, it does not mean redirect. If no one has even proposed redirecting there is no need to explain why a redirect is unwarranted, and it is unreasonably to expect people to have to come back and explain. We should take people at their word.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You have made a case for discarding all delete opinions by a closer examining the policy basis of such !votes. WP:AFD is policy, and so any delete vote that doesn't deal with it simply isn't policy based. Jclemens (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per Hut 8.5's argument. Nothing wrong with the closure at all. Whether to delete or redirect the article have the same outcome and the closure shouldn't be a big deal. The person was part of the competition and that makes him an appropriate search term. Therefore, a redirect to the competition's article is a valid ATD. After all, a redirect won't hurt. SBKSPP (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The outcome of this discussion was, very clearly, to delete, and had I seen this DRV before it had gotten this much commentary I'd have reclosed it as such in my individual capacity as an administrator. A single redirect vote (and I omit the ! advisedly) without any rationale specific to the article cast a few hours before the AFD was scheduled for closure does not constitute a veto of that outcome, particularly when done by the article's creator. We must not encourage such gaming of the system by relisting this and forcing editors to redebate it. If this title is to become a redirect, it can be created editorially after the deletion of the article's history as determined by the unanimous consensus of uninvolved afd participants, whom we have a duty not to discourage. Overturn to delete. —Cryptic 08:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you alleging that Lugnuts is WP:INVOLVED with this article? If you aren't then there was no unanimous consensus for any action. If you are alleging involvement then please supply evidence, either way please supply evidence of gaming the system per WP:ASPERSIONS. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd have to say, as someone who is no friend to Lugnuts' antics, that in all fairness there's no reason to think there's any chicanery involved. He commented on the AfD, as was his privilege to do, and there's nothing sinister about the timing. He'd stepped away for a week or so after his ANI sanction, so that might well have been the first time he noticed the filing. Even if it hadn't been, as long as an AfD vote comes in before the close, it's as valid as any other. Ravenswing 20:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete - simply as a matter of policy. The consensus was not to redirect, but to delete. Not saying I disagree with Lugnuts suggestion, but the closer basically taking that route amounts to a super!vote. I might have relisted with a comment pinging all prior editors to take a look at Lugnuts' suggestion. But to do so unilaterally was incorrect. I understand Hobit's point, but in this case, where both sides used "reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments", the majority of the !votes was clearly to delete. Again, I personally would have relisted. Onel5969 TT me 12:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd certainly have no objections to a relist, and I think that's what the closer should likely have done. The only part I disagree with is that I'm unaware of an argument, at all, for not having a redirect. I don't think I've seen a "reasonable, logical, policy-based argument" for not redirecting either in the AfD or here. Hobit (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. I think that redirecting to the event that this athlete participated in would be a good idea, but there wasn't a consensus for it; the redirect was first suggested only a few hours before the AfD was closed and no one else had made a recommendation for or against having a redirect. Furthermore, the closer's refusal to discuss their AfD closures is inappropriate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete. WP:ATD is a policy, but so is WP:CON. There was a lack of consensus to redirect, but a clear one to delete. ✗plicit 04:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete or relist. As BilledMammal wrote, the closer should have participated instead of closing. My recommendation would be the same if it had been closed by an admin. Flatscan (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete in line with the consensus at the discussion. ATD isn't something you can just throw in and it suddenly overrides everything. Terrible closure. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Stifle:I've asked and I've asked. Is there a policy-based reason to not have a redirect here? Are you mainly worried about getting the history deleted? About counting noses?
You and I often don't see eye-to-eye, but I generally understand where you are coming from. Here I don't. Hobit (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy-based reason is WP:CON: there is a consensus. Policy is, for the most part, interpreted and applied by the community through consensus discussions, as has happened here. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I guess what bothers me is that as far as I can tell no one has yet given a policy-based reason for not having a redirect. The only argument I'm seeing is "people said delete", but we don't count noses, we look at policy-based arguments, yes? Do you see (or have) a policy-based reason for not having a redirect? I'm fine with a relist, but I think it's pretty likely a relist will result in a redirect since there are no reasons to not have a redirect... Hobit (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We're going round in circles I'm afraid. Policy says you respect consensus. That's it. That's the tweet. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CON supports redirect: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." WP:ATD is policy, which means that in order to be counted as policy-based, a deletion argument must convincingly address and dismiss the possibility of any less-than-deletion alternative. In the subject discussion, there are zero effective delete opinions, and redirect is the policy-based consensus, because numbers don't matter. In practice, if a bunch of folks say delete and there are no policy-compliant alternatives (like redirection) presented, we just delete it. But the moment one person comes up with a single good argument why deletion isn't necessary, that becomes the consensus until and unless refuted. WP:DGFA is also very clear: "When in doubt, don't delete." Jclemens (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- General note: Many of you have suggested that Superastig be taken to ANI over his actions. I've looked at his past several dozen AfD closes (he does rather a lot of them), and I've identified several other cases where he not only has closed against consensus, but has a marked preference for closing as redirect in those cases. I made a post to his talk page asking him to address these concerns, and as I said there, how he responds will inform where we go from here. Ravenswing 11:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and Relist In general, I think that a late call for a redirect (that makes a certain amount of sense) should lead to a relisted discussion to determine whether there is support for the redirect. In general, this does feel like a bad NAC. --Enos733 (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I haven't seen an argument explaining why a redirect would be inappropriate here and I can't believe so much figurative ink has been wasted on this discussion. Even if the article were deleted, there's nothing stopping someone from creating a new redirect. (I should also add that based on some of the comments in this discussion, I get the feeling we wouldn't be here if it was an admin who had made this exact same close.) Calidum 17:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist The close was improper. When we close as Delete, sometimes we mean that the subject shouldn't be covered at all, and sometimes we mean just that it shouldn't have an article . Usually comment at the afd makes it clear which is meant, and it can be closed accordingly. It takes judgement to recognize which is appropriate. The normal course after the redirect was suggested is that one of the other people in the discussion, generally the nominator, would come back at say whether a redirect was acceptable, To immediately close without leaving time for discussion was a unwise close. At the very least, the closer should explain which was intended, and if not on the close, in response to questions. (I & others will sometimes ensure that a redirect is or is not ok in the nomination). This sort of judgment is especially important when the reason for deletion is in fact a very recent change in a deletion guideline that may or may not be fully accepted.
- But the really important part of this is the closer doing the close at all. By the time they saw it, it was a disputed AfD, and not the sort of obvious one suitable for an non-admin close. Even more important than that rule is the practice that generally in this sort of situation someone asks the closer about it on the talk page and an explanation is forthcoming, and usually answers the problem--for example, in this instance most closers would probably have said that they agreed a redirect was suitable, as I think is the consensus here. By not being open to a discussion, a closer makes it much more difficult to correct minor oversights like this; most challenges to a close are settled in this manner--very few actually come to deletion review. If someone doesn't want to discuss what they say at WP, they can avoid taking actions that might possibly be disputed; if they do get involved in disagreements, they need to be willing to explain themselves, Not just in deketion, but everywhere in WP, the great majority of disputes are in fact resolved by the 1st step in the process, discussion. It wouldn't be practical at our size for every disagrement to be taken to a formal forum as the first step. I expect someone will take this to ani about the closer's behavior, but the issue of the close itself can and should be settled here, and in this instance a relist is the simplest way to do so. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The only difference between deleting and redirecting is the existence of the article history. Genuine question: who gives a flying fuck about the article history? Was wiping that damn pesky article history off the face of the internet so terribly important that you had to open a DRV and waste even more editor time? How ridiculous. Let's just close this and spend our time doing something more productive than arguing over whether nine (9) edits should be logged on the website or not. Mlb96 (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, gosh, and who forced you to waste your valuable time to look over this and register an opinion? You do you, care about whatever floats your boat, and go be productive wherever you wish. Ravenswing 05:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and Relist - a strong policy-based argument was given towards the end of the discussion, but previous to this point consensus was clearly to outright delete. More time should have been given to discuss the merits of a point that was significantly different than what was previously discussed. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist I've seen "delete or redirect" AfDs before and the question for the closer - since participants often don't address it - is whether Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion implies an absolute priority of a redirect over deletion. I think someday we want to clarify the policy to say whether it does, because it isn't clear to me whether the possibility of a redirect absolutely bars deletion and without clarity the closer is often left to guess (i.e supervote). Jclemens references Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try to fix problems which discusses merging+redirect as an alternative to deletion not redirect with nothing merged, so it doesn't clarify either. So with that in mind, further discussion to see if a consensus in favour of the option would emerge would have been advised. And yes, when you close a discussion you are responsible for it, and that includes answering any queries or complaints.
Regarding Cryptic's argument, Lugnuts has written most of the article and is its author, for what it's worth. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect established a consensus for equal weights in 2011, but WP:Consensus can change. WT:Deletion policy/Archive 48#Does the community really agree with WP:ATD as policy? revisited the topic in 2018. WT:Deletion policy/Archive 46#RFC: delete and redirect (2015) was more about how a redirect consensus is implemented. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that this is a good redirect that would be kept at RfD, so even if it is deleted, anyone could recreate it. So again, the only difference is the existence of the article history. Is it really worth relisting just so that you can delete the article history? Mlb96 (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- My issue isn't whether the page ends up as a redirect or not or whether there is a history under the redirect but about how AfDs should be processed when they have such a disagreement on which part of the policy has priority. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This whole close still irks me. If it is allowed to stand it will basically say that most voters in AfD discussions can be totally and completely ignored, and what they say does not need to be taken at face value. This would be a very bad precedent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You can blame the intersection of WP:CON and WP:ATD, which says that policy-based votes get more weight. We've been deleting things despite a preponderance of "Keep, I like it" or "Keep, GHits" for years; this is just the logical converse of that. Jclemens (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Having redirects that are not about people covered in substantial ways is a disservice to the project. It makes it harder for people to create articles on other people with the same name. I see no reason to redirect to bare statistical tables. Wikipedia is not served by having a huge number of redirects to of names of non-notable people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist. The relevant policies and guidelines:
- Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus says: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. For instance, if the entire page is found to be a copyright violation, the page is always deleted. If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, that argument is no longer relevant."
- Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining consensus says, "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."
- Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, "A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate."
- Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try to fix problems says: "Instead of removing content from an article, consider: ... Merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge".
Why I support preserving an article's history when possible: At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairhaven Baptist Academy, three editors supported deletion but changed to supporting a redirect after I proposed a redirect and pinged them. My view on this is close to that of Jclemens (talk · contribs) who put it well here, "Why on earth must the edit history be destroyed (well, rendered inaccessible to non-admins), in your logic? What is the policy- or common-sense-based reason for doing that. I simply see nothing to be gained by doing so--enlighten me?"When there is an alternative to deletion, I always support keeping the article's history accessible to non-admins if there are no BLP violations or copyright violations or anything else that should be publicly inaccessible in the history. The article may contain useful content for a merge or useful sources. The article may have unreliable sources that cannot be cited. But the unreliable sources may have information that helps editors find reliable sources that can be used. Without having to ask an admin to restore to draft, a non-admin who is interested in recreating the article with better sourcing and content can immediately view the prior state of the article to see if anything can be reused. Why I support overturning the close: Regardless of the vote count, when a reasonable alternative to deletion is raised with no arguments made against why it is inappropriate or why the article history should be deleted, the closer should either implement the alternative to deletion or relist the discussion and ask the participants for their opinion on the alternative to deletion. As this AfD discussion did not contain any arguments against the alternative to deletion, I find there to be a rough consensus based on the strength of the arguments to redirect (with the article history preserved under the redirect). Despite finding the assessment of consensus to be accurate, I support overturning the close. When editors raise an objection to the redirect after the close as is the case here, the AfD should be reopened and relisted to give editors the opportunity to explain why the page should be deleted instead of redirected. It is fine for a closer to close against the headcount when presented with an alternative to deletion that is reasonable and uncontested. It is not fine for a closer to be unwilling to reopen the discussion once the alternative to deletion has been contested. The closer initially had this message on their talk page: "If you're here to throw hissy fits over the closures of any deletion discussion, either drop the stick and accept the consensus or take them to the deletion review. The closures I've done are well-thought and therefore final, whether you like it or not. So, ain't nobody got time to argue with anyone over this matter." This does not comply with Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability, which non-admin AfD closers should follow. The AfD closer should have been open to discussion. That way, the DRV initiator could have asked and had the closer reopen the AfD to allow for arguments to be made about why Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion does not apply in this case. I am glad that the closer has since removed that talk page message. Cunard (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse While relisting to decide between delete and redirect would be valid, given the redirect was proposed rather late in the process and never opposed by anyone and there was clear consensus the article shouldn't be kept in its current state, this is a valid WP:BARTENDER close. Smartyllama (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist or start an RFC. If I were voting, I would probably vote redirect. However, there isn't clear enough consensus in the original discussion for that. There are quite a lot of Olympic athlete stub bios which might show up at AFD - it may be helpful to have an RFC to establish guidelines for when participants should be redirected to an event rather than deleted. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|
