The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm not sure that I understand your request. Since Oaktree b has commented, and other editors likely will too, I don't see how this AFD can be called "unreviewed". I also do not think you can convert an AFD nominated article to one that has been tagged with a BLPPROD. LizRead!Talk!00:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I understand. My thoughts were that these were all good draftify candidates but because they had been moved out, were considered contested and thus had to go through the AfD process. My original thinking was that because these were all completely unsourced, they would make a good candidate for bundled draftify, could all be done at once and save editor time (
no good deed...).
But then, after seeking advice off-wiki on the NPP discord, I was told that because these were BLP (I see now, all but one) they would've instead qualified for BLPPROD.[a] And because BLP policy is one of, if not the most important things on the project, I thought that should supersede. I wasn't sure if guidance at BLPPROD said that I could place both an AfD tag and a BLPPROD tag at the same time. I'm also aware of the respective timelines for each: an expired prod should, in theory, be deleted after 7 days; whereas a AfD may not reach consensus after the first week and be relisted. This led me to my comment above, where I was hoping that should the closing admin see that if any individual page not receive any !keep votes and also not have any citations added to it after a week here (I've left
two notes and a template on the authors' talk page) would it be possible to treat those pages as a BLPPROD failure and delete them.
I
can see now that we're obviously headed
straight to the scene of the accident so I'll now ask your advice. I'd be happy to withdraw and ask for a procedural speedy keep on this page, and then I will not bundle but individually tag all the above (less the one non-biography) as BLPPROD and start the process with those.
CommentMicrobiologyMarcus, despite your withdrawal of this nomination, this AFD can not be closed as Speedy Keep because at least one editor has advocated Deletion. If you think that these articles should be Draftified, you can specify that option in your statement. Perhaps other editors will agree. LizRead!Talk!03:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)reply
^Side note: that's fine, I'm not too proud to admit when something is a learning opportunity. Experience is the best teacher and for unique situations like this, I'll know how to address them in the future.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm not sure that I understand your request. Since Oaktree b has commented, and other editors likely will too, I don't see how this AFD can be called "unreviewed". I also do not think you can convert an AFD nominated article to one that has been tagged with a BLPPROD. LizRead!Talk!00:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I understand. My thoughts were that these were all good draftify candidates but because they had been moved out, were considered contested and thus had to go through the AfD process. My original thinking was that because these were all completely unsourced, they would make a good candidate for bundled draftify, could all be done at once and save editor time (
no good deed...).
But then, after seeking advice off-wiki on the NPP discord, I was told that because these were BLP (I see now, all but one) they would've instead qualified for BLPPROD.[a] And because BLP policy is one of, if not the most important things on the project, I thought that should supersede. I wasn't sure if guidance at BLPPROD said that I could place both an AfD tag and a BLPPROD tag at the same time. I'm also aware of the respective timelines for each: an expired prod should, in theory, be deleted after 7 days; whereas a AfD may not reach consensus after the first week and be relisted. This led me to my comment above, where I was hoping that should the closing admin see that if any individual page not receive any !keep votes and also not have any citations added to it after a week here (I've left
two notes and a template on the authors' talk page) would it be possible to treat those pages as a BLPPROD failure and delete them.
I
can see now that we're obviously headed
straight to the scene of the accident so I'll now ask your advice. I'd be happy to withdraw and ask for a procedural speedy keep on this page, and then I will not bundle but individually tag all the above (less the one non-biography) as BLPPROD and start the process with those.
CommentMicrobiologyMarcus, despite your withdrawal of this nomination, this AFD can not be closed as Speedy Keep because at least one editor has advocated Deletion. If you think that these articles should be Draftified, you can specify that option in your statement. Perhaps other editors will agree. LizRead!Talk!03:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)reply
^Side note: that's fine, I'm not too proud to admit when something is a learning opportunity. Experience is the best teacher and for unique situations like this, I'll know how to address them in the future.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.