- What Do I Have to Do? (Stabbing Westward song) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Need a second relist to determine whether to keep or merge the article, as the current sourcing is indeed minimal. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse own close, but no objection to this being filed. It wasn't going to be deleted, rendering an additional relist unnecessary. As I said when Jax0677 raised it with me (thank you), AfD is already overloaded and the lack of participation is limiting the ability to attain consensus. By closing ones where the only extant question is where this material should live, it allows space/bandwidth for those whose outcome is in doubt. A merger discussion can continue on the Talk page or if there's no engagement in that, an editor can do it boldly.Star Mississippi 22:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. There was no consensus to delete. A second relist might garner more support for a merge, but you don't need AfD for that. Owen× ☎ 22:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - it was an exceedingly weak nomination. No relist would have helped. Sergecross73 msg me 22:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per above. A concentrated merge discussion can be opened on the article talk page. Frank Anchor 23:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Merge discussions don’t belong at AfD. Once consensus against deletion is clear, the discussion should be closed. Propose merging on the talk page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If there was an error here, it was relisting it the first time instead of closing it then. This was never going to be deleted; at worst, there's a crystal-clear redirect target. Contra SmokeyJoe, AFD is explicitly appropriate for controversial redirects - and that can include controversial merges - but that doesn't apply here since it had never been discussed on talk nor attempted directly. —Cryptic 07:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Cryptic, read CONRED more carefully. Controversial redirects. Really, that’s a subset of Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection. Here, keep or merge the song to the band, there’s nothing remotely controversial about that. The difficulty is the structurism detail, which is not appropriate to an AfD discussion.
- Redirect proposals can belong at AfD, where it is a pseudo deletion. Merge proposals don’t belong at AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I am someone who believes merge is a very viable outcome at AfD, but there was really no other reason to keep this open after a relist. Not a close I would have made myself, but not an incorrect close. SportingFlyer T·C 16:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Why does the appellant want a second relist? They nominated the song for deletion, and it wasn't deleted. So is the request for a second relist to choose between Keep and Merge, rather than leaving that to discussion, a request based on process for process? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's particularly baffling when you look at how little effort the nominator put into the nomination over the course of the two weeks it was active too. They wrote up a three word nomination statement, refused to meaningfully engage in requests for more explanation, and seem to think things would somehow change with a third week of unguided discussion? It doesn't make any sense. Sergecross73 msg me 17:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Realizing that Sergecross73 was the primary editor opposing deletion and the interlocutor in the nom's minimal interactions, I still agree with that editor's above comment: No listing of BEFORE, no substantial interaction with objections. I mean, DRV is open for all and this isn't ANI, but it's a BOOMERANG-ish situation: if you want something deleted, put effort into the XfD, don't just come here when the discussion didn't go your way, lest you find yourself the one chastised. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to turn this into an RfC, but this isn't the first time the appellant does this. Starting a DRV like this takes zero effort on their part, and every once in a while, as they say, even a blind squirrel can find a nut. Owen× ☎ 21:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 December 9, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 22 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 November 1 (the last three nominations before this one) all had equally poor review rationales, in my opinion. If you include this one, three out of the four have pretty much been SNOW endorses. It's not a great track record for an experienced editor. (Full disclaimer, the December 9 one was against one of my closes; I also closed the November 22 one.) Daniel (talk) 17:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong endorse and trout the nominator. That sort of AfD nomination statement should result in a speedy keep without prejudice to a nomination that demonstrates at least some effort. The other engagement (and I use that term loosely) of the nominator with the discussion was also below the minium standard we should be able to expect of editors who've been engaged with the project for 6 months, let alone over 15 years. There was never any chance that this would end in delete and the closer is absolutely correct to say that AfD is not the right venue for discussions of keep vs merge. Thryduulf (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse or Procedural Close - The appellant hasn't stated a comprehensible reason for this filing, even after being asked. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse It's good to hear from Star Mississippi that they see a decline in AFD participation. I've noticed that as well since the summer which makes it more challenging to discern any consensus among discussion participants. As for this AFD, it was an extremely weak deletion rationale, barely a handful of words. Next time, try to present a more persuasive argument that indicates an adequate BEFORE was done. Given the discussion at the time of closure, this article wasn't going to be deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion discussions essentially come down to either delete or not-delete. Here, there is no question of a delete closure. Varying between the different flavours of not-delete does not require a DRV and can be taken up on the article talk page. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per Star Mississippi and SportingFlyer. Not an incorrect close at all. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|
