Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 3

List of rampage killers (familicides in the United States) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Unsatisfactory rationale by the closer. Since last relisting, this had received 2 Keep votes and 0 Delete votes, and should be relisted again or closed as no consensus. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to "No Consensus" or relist. I don't see any consensus in that discussion, and as 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 notes above it is odd to close as a "Delete" after a relist period with no comments supporting deletion. In particular I find the comments in the AfD by 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 and Timothy reasonable and a sufficient rebuttal to the delete comments to prevent the finding of a consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. The same admin who relisted it chose to close it as delete after two new keep comments. Not seeing a consensus to delete this long-standing list. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that in prior DRV's, including recently, it has been held that a prior relist, with subsequently no or little/adverse participation following the relist, does not bind another administrator from subsequently finding consensus and closing a discussion as such. That being said, that principle has (to my knowledge) not been tested where it is the same administrator who relisted then subsequently found consensus after no or little/adverse participation following that relist. Daniel (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: much seems to be made of my 26-January relist. To be clear: consensus to delete already existed at the time, but wasn't clear to me. It was a mistake to relist this AfD, but a harmless one. When I went over the views more carefully earlier today, it became clear that most of the Keep (and the "Oppose") !votes had to do with the notability of the term Familicide, and the difference between it and other types of murders, neither of which are relevant to the notability of this list of familicides in the US. We already have a Familicide page. Once you give those arguments the weight they deserve, you're left with relevant arguments based on P&G, the vast majority of which are for deletion.

TimothyBlue's Keep view, added after that ill-conceived relist, certainly made my decision harder, but it wasn't enough to swing the balance. The appellant's !vote was about the notability of the familicide concept, not about the notability of this particular list, and therefore didn't add much.

Unanimous !votes after a relist will tip the scales towards those !votes if the scales were balanced beforehand. That was not the case here. Owen× ☎ 04:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to NC there clearly was enough gray area to not delete prior to the last relist, even if the closer claims after the fact (and ONLY after their close was challenged), that the relist was made in error. There was unanimous support to keep afterward including a very well-reasoned vote by TimothyBlue. And neither of these keep votes were refuted. There is no realistic way this could have closed as delete. Frank Anchor 14:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I think delete was a perfectly reasonable reading of that discussion and would have closed it that way myself, albeit maybe with a bit more explanation. SportingFlyer T·C 21:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC The admin's mistake, such as it was, wasn't harmless in that it caused two editors to spend time participating in good faith. Consistency and logical outcomes are part of the community's faith in the process. If two more 'delete' !votes had been cast, it would have been just as wrong for the most recently relisting admin to close this discussion as Keep. So yes, per Daniel's comment above, I believe an admin's relisting does create a presumption of neutrality such that a contrarian close should be remediated here. Don't want to risk that as a closer? Don't relist without assessing that there's not a current consensus, and if you do end up doing so, let someone else close it if you disagree with the outcome unanimously supported by post-relist comments. Jclemens (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You make a valid point about harm. My apologies to Ficaia and to TimothyBlue for wasting their time participating in a debate that I could have--and should have--already closed. But I don't see how from that you've arrived at the remedy of overturning to NC. Wouldn't such an outcome effectively waste the time of all the participants on that AfD? All of them participated in good faith, and--I believe--arrived at a consensus prior to Ficaia and TimothyBlue joining the discussion. I fail to see how an overturn corrects my own mistaken relisting. If I erred in my process, DRV should step in to correct the process and arrive at the consensus result, rather than toss out several valid Delete !votes to restore the appearance of consistency. I'd willingly take my WP:TROUTing for the pointless relist, but I don't see why JMWt, Buidhe, JPxG and Bearian should have their valid opinions tossed out due to my process mistake. Owen× ☎ 00:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, although I was involved and !voted to delete so my opinion here is likely worth bupkis. jp×g🗯️ 00:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close. I was one of the keep votes, but I think the close reflected consensus. As far as my !vote, I think @OwenX: saw that it was a rather weak rationale (I think it was valid, but I can see the weakness in my points). While I disagree with the outcome, I think the close was valid. I do not feel that my time was wasted because I think Owen× assessed my !vote along with all the others, nothing else is needed.

I probably would have closed as delete on 25 January 2024, I can see the disconnect between the close, the relist on 25 January 2024, and the results from the relist, but I think this is a very minor issue and again I think the OwenX assessed all the !votes.

The other keep vote included no valid rationale; the existence of a notable topic does not mean associated lists are notable. My rationale was weak, this no valid rationale at all, I would have assessed this as an ILIKEIT vote, without sources or guidelines. I don't see how these two votes could outweigh the others.  // Timothy :: talk  00:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to No Consensus - I disagree with the idea that a consensus to delete existed before the relist, at least not if Oppose is interpreted as Keep. I interpret Oppose as meaning opposing deletion or Keep. A consensus did not exist to delete before the relist, and the additional !votes to Keep certainly did not create that consensus. I don't like to overturn a close at DRV, but I don't see how to sustain the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - as the nom I appreciate my views are not worth much here - however I do not understand some of the rationale given above. We are assessing the notability of the list, and I have given several policy reasons why a) it is not notable and b) it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion in other ways. These haven't been refuted, indeed the main editor working on the list explained in depth how it is original research. No amount of relisting changes the fundamentals that almost everyone agrees with - it's OR and doesn't follow the published literature in terms of defining the reasons for inclusion. Indeed it sets up its own ideosyncratic inclusion criteria as a subpage of a talkpage. The only other possible reason for a !keep vote is essentially WP:IAR and if we are going to start using that as a reason for NC then we might as well stop having AfD. JMWt (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, what we're actually discussing here is more about process and fairness than the specific content of the discussion: Did the admin conduct create a 'party foul'--for lack of a better term--and, if so, does that make the closure, as closed, sufficiently off-base that the result should be invalidated? The actual nomination makes almost no difference here, because at this point it's about the reasonableness of the outcome on the basis of the admin actions, not even the discussion of the nomination. That may sound weird in light of IAR, but if it's a fatal process boo-boo, we're not going to prohibit a new listing where these sorts of considerations can and should be addressed. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Well then I don't understand this discussion. User:Frank_Anchor says:

    Overturn to NC there clearly was enough gray area to not delete prior to the last relist, even if the closer claims after the fact (and ONLY after their close was challenged), that the relist was made in error. There was unanimous support to keep afterward including a very well-reasoned vote by TimothyBlue. And neither of these keep votes were refuted.

    Which makes it sound like there is no consensus because there were two !keeps after a relist and that they were not refuted. I didn't refute them because there didn't seem any point, they shed no further light on the central policy issues of whether the list was notable or met the inclusion standards. One of them failed to address the question of whether the page could ever be written without significant WP:OR. The other appears to have been disowned by the author in this DRV discussion.

    And in your comment above, you said Overturn to NC The admin's mistake, such as it was, wasn't harmless in that it caused two editors to spend time participating in good faith. Consistency and logical outcomes are part of the community's faith in the process. If two more 'delete' !votes had been cast, it would have been just as wrong for the most recently relisting admin to close this discussion as Keep. So yes, per Daniel's comment above, I believe an admin's relisting does create a presumption of neutrality such that a contrarian close should be remediated here. Don't want to risk that as a closer? Don't relist without assessing that there's not a current consensus, and if you do end up doing so, let someone else close it if you disagree with the outcome unanimously supported by post-relist comments.

    To me this makes even less sense when read alongside your most recent reply to me. You appear to be arguing that the page should essentially be kept (via an overturn to NC) on the strength of two !votes which do not address the fundamental problems with the page. One of which has been essentially disowned here at the DRV.

    You're not even arguing in the original comment that there should be a relist (which to me would also be pointless, unless someone could come up with a published source which the list was using as a criteria for inclusion), you are asking for the page to be kept.

    I ask everyone to think through the ramifications of keeping pages that are clearly OR. It is not inconceivable that this list would be used by media - and possibly even sloppy academics - as a source. When it is just a bunch of words put together by individuals using their own selection criteria.

    Keeping this page on any basis without a proper accounting of the major ways it breaks the deepest and most fundamental policies of Wikipedia bring the project into disrepute, encourages misinformation and makes a nonsense of the concept of consensus.

    The page was literally written to correct the wrong that the original (and main) author/editor saw in the published literature on the topic. I don't understand why this isn't a slamdunk, end of discussion. At very least that's a WP:TNT right there. JMWt (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. The closer was correct. Bearian (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]