The Risky Business ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The closer, King of Hearts has closed The discussion has been closed with results that may not have reflected inadequacy or insufficiency of arguments and consensus. There were three delete and one redirect. Also, the closer has been under the administrative review which puts his duties into question. Gh87 ( talk) 18:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC) -- Gh87 ( talk) 18:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• A) I'd strongly suggest you strike the "under administrative review" part. That's voluntary and certainly doesn't say anything negative about the admin (the opposite in fact). At DrV it's wise to not comment on the closer, but rather on the close. B) Redirect is the standard outcome in situations like this and it was suggested in the AfD. So endorse Hobit ( talk) 18:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Hobit. I don't see even the hint of an argument here against redirection. postdlf ( talk) 19:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and suggest that other encouragement may be needed to get the nom here to actually read and understand the deletion policies. He's been on a campaign to delete--rather than just redirect--TV episodes. If an episode isn't notable, it should almost always redirected to the show or season article, regardless of the head-counting in the AfD, because of WP:ATD, which is policy. Jclemens ( talk) 03:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• This nomination is totally without merit and should be closed.— S Marshall T/ C 09:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Natalia Fowler ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Arguments from those who voted keep are based on knowledge of soap operas and their entities, NOT on establishing notability of this article's subject. However, it was a non-administrative closure by Rcsprinter123, and the arguments that favor merge have become less reliable in the wakes of recent events, such as removal of "List of All My Children miscellaneous characters" under WP:G12. Honestly, the latest keep argument points out merely the reject proposed policy on fictional characters. I thought: arguments appear insufficient to conclude a discussion; I demand a relist, and I demand to add more of my arguments, if possible, can help. -- Gh87 ( talk) 17:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC) -- Gh87 ( talk) 02:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Gh87's deletion rationale in the AFD was invalid, as it was entirely based on the current state of the article contra WP:BEFORE and WP:NOTCLEANUP, and failed to consider alternatives to deletion. Jfgslo's !vote was the same unelaborated boilerplate in every pop culture-related AFD he participates in (one part WP:VAGUEWAVE, one part "it's just not notable"), and the other deletion !vote was also just a WP:VAGUEWAVE. Which at a minimum leaves the deletion side without a compelling argument, just opinion, and at most means this could have been closed as "no consensus" given that the bare opinions in this AFD were split. However, DGG's comments were the most substantive and consistent with consensus, so together with the other keep !voters, it certainly wasn't unreasonable to close this as "keep" and that result is not contrary to any policy here.

  Re: the DRV rationale above, the deletion of a character list because it contained copyright infringements has absolutely no relevance to anything here. And Gh87 should take care not to "demand" anything. postdlf ( talk) 19:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply

  • If you thought my arguments are invalid and other deletion !votes vague, what about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional women of Passions, volume 1? That resulted a delete: isn't it to you premature to conclude? -- Gh87 ( talk) 20:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Maybe yes, DGG's argument was "most substantive and consistent with consensus." Morever, it wasn't "unreasonable to close this as 'keep'." However, it was enough for the non-administrator, but what about administrator's judgment? I've read over and over DGG's argument, and I've conclude: the argument was a pledge to educate major fictional elements, notable or not, sourced or not, to readers; the notability of the "major" character and reliability of sources were absent from the argument. I've been thinking: would the administrator close it as "keep"? -- Gh87 ( talk) 20:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. This is a defensible closing, the AfD was already relisted once, and this is not a BLP or other page where incorrectly keeping it creates any real-world problems or risks. As a point of etiquette, in suggesting the outcome of an XfD or any other discussion on Wikipedia, the phrase "I demand" comes off sounding extremely strident and should generally not be used. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply

I have struck it right now for your request. -- Gh87 ( talk) 02:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse per the above. Nom has repeatedly demonstrated a basic failure to understand or abide by deletion policy. Jclemens ( talk) 03:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• This nomination is totally without merit and should be closed.— S Marshall T/ C 09:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• I don't think this is an appropriate NAC, and I'm of the view that NACs, especially inappropriate NACs, are not entitled to the deference we usually accord to admin closes, and should be sustained only if there is no reasonable alternative close, which is not the case here. Overturn and reclose. T. Canens ( talk) 16:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• I doubt this'll be closed any other way, but as an NAC? I'm not convinced. Four keeps against three deletes, with very little discussion actually based on policy/guidelines... overtutn and reclose. Alzarian16 ( talk) 17:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. This is the kind of discussion that I wanted to close as a non-admin but usually didn't because I was afraid of being bitten. It is on the border of "Keep" and "No Consensus" and so arguably not obvious enough for a NAC but equally clearly not closable as a "Delete". Since admins have no special ability to read consensus (as opposed to their special ability to delete) there is no reason to force a re-close with the same result. Eluchil404 ( talk) 18:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Well, in this case keep vs. no consensus is a judgment call. And there are practical differences between the two (a no consensus makes a subsequent AfD easier to bring) so it's not a purely semantic issue. At least in theory, the quality of judgment of an admin has been tested at RfA, but the same cannot be said for that of a non-admin (and the very fact that a non-admin decided to close this AfD when it's pretty clearly non-obvious arguably shows questionable judgment). T. Canens ( talk) 19:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC) reply
    • No, administrators do not have a monopoly over decision-making functions on Wikipedia, and no, passing RFA is not test of your quality of judgment. Our admin corps is by and large well-meaning, but it contains children, self-confessed drug users, and a small percentage of complete and utter fools. Many who have the tools wouldn't have a snowball's chance of passing a modern RFA, and there are some who'll lose them when we eventually find a mechanism for community de-adminship.

      Anyone can close a discussion as "no consensus" or "keep", and that's as it should be. For DRV purposes, the only question that should matter is, was the close correct? The status of the closer would only be relevant if they were a sock for a blocked user.— S Marshall T/ C 19:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment Though obviously I think the close correct, since I argued for keeping at the AfD, it should not have been a NAC. NAC's of disputed articles with relatively borderline consensus tend to come here; it would be better to avoid them in order to try to eliminate unnecessary further argumentation. Not that all admins necessarily do better closes than all non-admins, but at least an appeal of an admin close will need to focus on the actual issues. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Silver Medal (Zoological Society of London) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

• wrongful speedy. not a recreation of deleted page, rather a new referenced list article based strictly on the model: Frink Medal.
• wrongful AfD. no before. list of notable scientists, who list on their CV's. in addition medal itself is listed in museums, [1] and auction houses. [2] Slowking4: 7@1|x 14:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• I believe that the article, as it was, was fairly flawed (wrong list of winners for example). I don't think the article can meet WP:GNG, but I'd certainly be willing to see if you can get it there. I think you can perhaps turn this into a "list of" for the winners (assuming a fair number of them are notable). In any case, I'd suggest you withdraw the DRV and ask for the article be moved to your user space. You could then fix it up. I'd suggest you only move it to mainspace after A) finding two solid reliable sources or B) getting permission from DRV or the deleting admin (neither of which would prevent someone from sending it off to AfD). Hobit ( talk) 22:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• RestoreIt was deleted primarily for not being correct. The new one is properly sourced and is not. The G4 was donewithout sufficient checking of the anAfDd the two articles. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Ah, could we get a temp restore of both the AfDed page and the Speedied page? Hobit ( talk) 05:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply
    • I undeleted the G4'd version and put the last edit of the AfD'd version in my userspace here, to avoid confusing the histories. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 23:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks! Hobit ( talk) 04:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Undelete and send to AfD as a reasonable contest of a G4 by an editor in good standing. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• restore pretty much per smokeyJoe. It isn't the same article by any means, so not really a G4 in any case. Not clear that it will make it at AfD though... Hobit ( talk) 04:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC) reply
• Restore: And send to AfD if necessary.-- Milowent • ^{has spoken} 14:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC) reply