Rick Ross (consultant) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

A bit of background. This article was nominated for deletion by Durova at the request of the article's subject. A variety of editors quickly called for keeping with a single other call for deletion. After about 17 hours the discussion was speedy closed by non admin Dusti [1]. I suggested to Dusti that this wasn't a good idea since courtesy deletions are one of the most controversial types of deletions and we have no detailed policy or guideline about when they should occur. Dusti refused to reopen the discussion. Dusti did say that he might reopen it if an admin wanted to, but frankly we've had enough out of process actions on a single AfD. So I'm asking for this DRV close to be overturned and the discussion reopened or for a new fresh AfD so that we can get a better idea of what the community consensus is on this article. (disclaimer: I called for keeping of this article in the AfD but I really think potentially controversial BLP deletions should not be SNOWED). JoshuaZ ( talk) 19:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Relist with thanks to JoshuaZ for acting upon principle to maintain a fair process. It isn't often that someone who believes a page ought to be kept opens up a DRV to question a speedy keep. Please relist, and brownie points to the nominator for integrity. Durova ^Charge! 20:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Do we really need a full DRV? Policy is clear that any admin can reverse a non-admin closure. Speedy closing an AFD of this type is clearly outside the allowed scope for non-admins to close so it simply must be revered. I'm happy to do that now and relist it. Does anyone object to that? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • That would be fine, thank you very much. Durova ^Charge! 20:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • If there are no objections then I wouldn't mind that result either. JoshuaZ ( talk) 21:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Zeitgeist: Addendum (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

Closing admin gave too much weight to SPA voters and ignored the complete lack of reliable sources. Sourcing has not improved--the article had zero reliable, independent sources at AfD closure, and none have materialized in the interim. Jclemens ( talk) 03:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Instead of reviewing the close decision, you seem to want us to review the closing admin: "Closing admin gave ..." "Closing admin ... ignored." On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? -- Suntag ☼ 05:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  Apologies if the phrasing seemed awkward, but every DRV is of necessity a disagreement with the closing admin's decision. The discussion was held here. Jclemens ( talk) 05:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  Per below, thanks you for discussing the matter with Stifle. A better way to phrase things to focus on the closing language instead of the person who closed may have been "The close reasoning gave too much weight to SPA voters and did not appear to properly weigh the complete lack of reliable sources." -- Suntag ☼ 15:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  In fairness, he did discuss the matter with me, and I have waived the request to discuss AFD closures with me before bringing them here. Stifle ( talk) 08:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• I disagree with the closing admin's rationale and think the strongest arguments were to merge/redirect/delete. However, from a purely procedural viewpoint a "no consensus" close is and was perfectly valid, so I'm going to reluctantly endorse it. Many of the contributors to the AfD have argued that the article should be kept and improved, though very few of them have actually made any attempt to improve it. I'm content to wait a few weeks, revisit the article, and possibly nominate it for deletion if the improvements haven't been made. Also, I'm fairly certain that if he had deleted the article, it would have ended up here anyway and likely would have been restored based on the pure numbers of contributors who think it worthy of improvement. A ni Mate 08:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  Thank you. Of course, nothing is stopping any user from redirecting the article, merging it, or starting up a discussion on the article talk page about taking either of those steps. Stifle ( talk) 08:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  Except the fact that many users see merging and redirecting as de facto deletion. As soon as someone redirects the article, someone will revert stating it's a violation of the AfD result. A ni Mate 08:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  They shouldn't — no consensus means "no consensus", not "article is locked in position for a year". Stifle ( talk) 13:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

A perfect situation for the application of a wet trout to the side of the head! lifebaka ++ 15:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse own closure of course. I considered the opinions of registered and unregistered users alike, giving the latter less weight as is customary, but could not derive a consensus to delete the article. The nominator's reasons are more likely to be reasons to relist the article at a new AFD, not review the old one. Stifle ( talk) 08:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure as perfectly reasonable. Generally speaking, no consensus closures get upheld here, since they're difficult to get wrong and the article can always be taken back to AfD in the future. The close does not preclude any sort of editorial decisions about the article, such as mergers or redirects. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 15:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - I think a delete close would have been upheld at DRV. However, while the lack of reliable source material for the article seems likely, the chorus chiming that tune wasn't as strong as it could have been, particularly in the face of the keep reasons. No consensus seems reasonable for this AfD. As you get into AfD2, AfD3, etc. the promises to fix receive less weight and so do the SPAs. I would wait 30 days before listing at AfD again to get a delete position benefit of the less weight given to the promises to fix. In the mean time, please feel free to start a merge discussion using {{ mergeto}} and {{ mergefrom}}. See WP:MERGE. -- Suntag ☼ 16:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• endorse close, consider relisting very soon The close seems logical but the lack of sources is serious. Suntag is probably right about how long it makes sense to wait. It also isn't such a bad idea because there's an off chance that better sourcing will show up sometime then. If it doesn't then this article really should go. JoshuaZ ( talk) 19:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close as nominator. The AfD was a mess, and "no consensus" is a valid interpretation of the discussion. However, we were promised improvement be those voting keep. It won't hurt to wait to see if any materializes. If it doesn't, then another AfD would be in order. The sources the article has now are conspiracy theorists complaining about the film's ideology. I'd like to see some mainstream sources for this to be a stand-alone article. -- Phirazo ( talk) 21:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment So, it looks like this should be SNOW'ed close, with a consensus that a renomination one month after the original AfD close is NOT premature? I can certainly live with that. Jclemens ( talk) 23:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• No consensus closes can be relisted at AfD immediately and still be within process. However, if you want the passage of time without improvement to be taken into account, you have to wait for time to pass. -- Suntag ☼ 00:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure. The provided rationale is more suitable (minus the inappropriate bashing of Stifle, who correctly assessed the discussion) for another AfD in case reliable sources are not found and incorporated. Everyme 00:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  Comment It was not my intention to bash anyone in listing this for DRV, and to the extent it was perceived as such rather than a straightforward statement of my disagreement with Stifle, everyone involved has my apologies. How does calling my good faith nom "bashing" fundamentally differ from me stating my opinion with respect to Stifle's closure? Jclemens ( talk) 01:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  To stifle (pun intended) this argument, let me state that I don't feel "bashed" or slighted in any way regarding this DRV listing and I have waived any right or recommendation to being asked before one of my AFD closures is brought here. I thank Everyme and others for defending my corner, but I don't need it on this one :) Stifle ( talk) 08:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse A reasonable close. How to deal with references of the nature used here is not a settled issue. I'm not sure myself how I would have !voted. I would suggest waiting more than a month before the next AfD, in the interest of avoiding another nonconsensus close. DGG ( talk) 16:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I would wait a few months to see what sources can be compiled. There are many articles on wikipedia which have even fewer sources than this one, and energies would be better spent in fleshing these out than arguing about this sort of article.-- Filll ( talk | wpc) 22:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply