Talos the Untamed – Endorse. There's clear consensus that the close was correct. There's also agreement that, while in theory, this subject could be spun back out into its own article (i.e. undo the merge) on the strength of a talk page discussion without need for DRV involvement, there's no evidence right now that such a spin-out would be warranted. There's also a side-discussion on the allowable limits of
WP:NAC, but that's not really germaine to the outcome here. --
RoySmith(talk) 00:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Article was taken to AFD before the release of the film and concluded as a merge. I have since added a few sources, and I will note that there are many more about both the film and comics version of the character on a simple Google search. This should be overturned to Keep, although I am not disputing the original close, only noting that it has not been invalidated.
2600:1700:E820:1BA0:EC2A:AD59:8F97:77DE (
talk) 04:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse I believe this should have been closed by an administrator. The close was accurate, though, and I do not believe the merged content could stand alone at this time.
SportingFlyerT·C 06:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse the AfD result looks fine, alll participants were happy with a merge outcome and this is the sort of uncontentious cose which non-admins are allowed to do. Regarding the question of whether the merge should be undone, in theory this is something to be discussed at the relevant article talk pages (although in practice there may not be many people watching that discussion). I am a bit dubious about having an article on a fictional character whose only claim to fame is appearing as a secondary character in a high profile film. Detailed discussion of the character's portrayal in that film is normally done in the article about the film and the rest of
the OP's version was only sourced to comic books. Hut 8.5 19:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Good close. The merge and redirect should until there is a consensus at the target talkpage to reverse the decision. Do not come to DRV to reverse old merge decisions. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 06:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment In general I do not believe non-sysops should be closing any AfD except SNOW keeps. There was basically consensus among participants so maybe it's an exception but maybe not. I will note, as I don't have the article watchlisted, that I don't see any substantial change in notability from when I made the nom even with the release of the film. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk) 00:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Often I will agree, but in this case the AfD should have been speedy closed due to lacking a delete rationale. AfD is not for proposed merges. Remind
User:Barkeep49 of
WP:BEFORE and
WP:ATD. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 06:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Struck after reviewing the article history and reverted redirection. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 07:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC) reply
@
SmokeyJoe: What do BEFORE and ATD have with any of this? The topic is not notable. I know this because I conducted a BEFORE in addition to looking at the sourcing that was present in the article. However, because I believe in AtD I attempted to implement a redirect. When challenged I went to a community process to establish its notability (or not). The community agreed with me the topic was not notable but also agreed with me that there was a suitable AtD. BEFORE and AtD were thus fully honored. What you really seem to be saying is that AfD is not a place to use to make non-notable topics into a redirect. Because it's late I where I live I'm not going to find more recent examples but will simply reuse
this from the last time I was challenged about the appropriateness of using AfD to have community consensus for redirect as a proposed outcome, the point of which was later
agreed to by the sysop who had challenged me. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk) 06:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)reply
BEFORE requires you to consider merge/redirect targets. You obviously found at least one. WP:ATD requires you to redirect, not delete, unless you have a compelling reason that would justify deletion of the history behind the redirect. If you were challenged in making the redirect, that is a good reason for AfD, but, the onus is on you to mention it in the AfD nomination. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 07:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)reply
You were right to use AfD to enforce the disputed merge and redirect, but please mention the dispute in the AfD nomination. Some regularly check
the history, but it is very helpful to mention it when so relevant. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 07:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Talos the Untamed – Endorse. There's clear consensus that the close was correct. There's also agreement that, while in theory, this subject could be spun back out into its own article (i.e. undo the merge) on the strength of a talk page discussion without need for DRV involvement, there's no evidence right now that such a spin-out would be warranted. There's also a side-discussion on the allowable limits of
WP:NAC, but that's not really germaine to the outcome here. --
RoySmith(talk) 00:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Article was taken to AFD before the release of the film and concluded as a merge. I have since added a few sources, and I will note that there are many more about both the film and comics version of the character on a simple Google search. This should be overturned to Keep, although I am not disputing the original close, only noting that it has not been invalidated.
2600:1700:E820:1BA0:EC2A:AD59:8F97:77DE (
talk) 04:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse I believe this should have been closed by an administrator. The close was accurate, though, and I do not believe the merged content could stand alone at this time.
SportingFlyerT·C 06:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse the AfD result looks fine, alll participants were happy with a merge outcome and this is the sort of uncontentious cose which non-admins are allowed to do. Regarding the question of whether the merge should be undone, in theory this is something to be discussed at the relevant article talk pages (although in practice there may not be many people watching that discussion). I am a bit dubious about having an article on a fictional character whose only claim to fame is appearing as a secondary character in a high profile film. Detailed discussion of the character's portrayal in that film is normally done in the article about the film and the rest of
the OP's version was only sourced to comic books. Hut 8.5 19:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Good close. The merge and redirect should until there is a consensus at the target talkpage to reverse the decision. Do not come to DRV to reverse old merge decisions. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 06:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment In general I do not believe non-sysops should be closing any AfD except SNOW keeps. There was basically consensus among participants so maybe it's an exception but maybe not. I will note, as I don't have the article watchlisted, that I don't see any substantial change in notability from when I made the nom even with the release of the film. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk) 00:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Often I will agree, but in this case the AfD should have been speedy closed due to lacking a delete rationale. AfD is not for proposed merges. Remind
User:Barkeep49 of
WP:BEFORE and
WP:ATD. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 06:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Struck after reviewing the article history and reverted redirection. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 07:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC) reply
@
SmokeyJoe: What do BEFORE and ATD have with any of this? The topic is not notable. I know this because I conducted a BEFORE in addition to looking at the sourcing that was present in the article. However, because I believe in AtD I attempted to implement a redirect. When challenged I went to a community process to establish its notability (or not). The community agreed with me the topic was not notable but also agreed with me that there was a suitable AtD. BEFORE and AtD were thus fully honored. What you really seem to be saying is that AfD is not a place to use to make non-notable topics into a redirect. Because it's late I where I live I'm not going to find more recent examples but will simply reuse
this from the last time I was challenged about the appropriateness of using AfD to have community consensus for redirect as a proposed outcome, the point of which was later
agreed to by the sysop who had challenged me. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk) 06:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)reply
BEFORE requires you to consider merge/redirect targets. You obviously found at least one. WP:ATD requires you to redirect, not delete, unless you have a compelling reason that would justify deletion of the history behind the redirect. If you were challenged in making the redirect, that is a good reason for AfD, but, the onus is on you to mention it in the AfD nomination. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 07:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)reply
You were right to use AfD to enforce the disputed merge and redirect, but please mention the dispute in the AfD nomination. Some regularly check
the history, but it is very helpful to mention it when so relevant. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 07:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.