John R. Craig – Relisted. We have no consensus here. Under these circumstances, I can choose to relist the AfD. I'm doing so because there was not all that much discussion in the AfD, and all the people here can probably enliven it a bit. Sandstein 20:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Closer misinterpreted the consensus saying "The result was no consensus. Split between "keep" and "merge" - either of which can be a discussion after this." Completely ignoring the "Redirect" votes which are functionally equivalant to merge, giving a clear consensus for Merge/Redirect
Mztourist (
talk)
15:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Relist - I concur with the nominator that the closer appears to have overlooked that Merge and Redirect are functionally equivalent. At this point, rather than overturning the close, the least disruptive approach is to Relist.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
16:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn and merge/redirect - I truly don't see how this could have been closed as anything other than merge/redirect. Including the nominator, there are five policy-based arguments for that outcome, compared with two against it. There's no reason that should have been closed as no consensus, and even a relist would have been inappropriate: there were many participants and the arguments are policy-based. See
WP:RELIST. There's a clear consensus that the article should be converted into a redirect, and there's no objection to merging relevant content into the target article.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
18:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)reply
This discussion has changed a lot since I !voted, so I want to comment again for the benefit of the closer. The AfD was in order because the nominator proposed deletion. This was not originally a request for merger/redirection, so separate discussion is not required. And even if it was, that's an argument for a procedural close, not for endorsing the no consensus close. The main argument I see throughout this discussion is that the AfD consensus is wrong, whether because the nominator should have discussed, because the nomination was part of some bad-faith mass nom, because the sourcing was adequate, because the article actually could have been merged somewhere else, and even because "the 'keep' !votes were reasonable." But those were issues for the original AfD, not for this discussion. By their !votes, a majority of the AfD participants rejected each of these arguments. The only question now is whether the closer correctly interpreted the consensus, and on that issue the answer is clear: He did not.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
00:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)reply
I agree merge was a more accurate summary of the discussion. That said, I really can't imagine the Navy dedicated a DD to someone and doesn't have documentation as to why. Should be a fine source. So with some searching, work and a bit of luck hopefully we can get the bio article back.
Hobit (
talk)
18:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Your comment above demonstrates exactly why I'm "aggressive" by this. You mis-closed an AfD, doubled down, and are tripling down. To paraphrase an infamously oft-used
NASCAR ruling, your actions, quite aside from being
frankly wrong, are detrimental to the reputation of the admin corps. -
The BushrangerOne ping only23:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn the !vote is 6-2 to merge to
USS John R. Craig (DD-885), and the keep votes don't really argue against a merge, merely against a delete. (The claim that GNG is met is made with no evidence.) Due to the extreme vitriol in one of the keep votes, I think a DRV is justified here.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
19:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)reply
That's exactly the point I was making. Since no administration action is required, a decision as to what to do with the article (add sources and improve it, blank it as a redirect, selectively merging with sources) can be done outside the scope of an AfD, and probably requires a more in-depth discussion. I did not "completely ignore" the "Redirect" votes, I just forgot to write it in the closing rationale, as I was in the middle of closing about 15 other AfDs because we have a backlog.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)19:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Relist there have been two developments since my previous comment. First, several veteran editors have implied that the purpose of an AFD close is not to assess consensus, but simply to determine what administrative actions are necessary. This is clearly not established practice (or else the AFDCloser options would just be "Delete" and "Do not delete"), and generally seems bizarre to me. Second, Ritchie333 has added another source to the article; this helps the Keep argument and weakens several of the Merge/Redirect arguments. (if you squint there might be an INVOLVED issue, but best to ignore that) It seems more prudent to re-list and to determine whether the added source is indeed substantial coverage of the person (and not the boat). I will note that consensus is clear we should not straight-up delete articles on people who are namesakes of ships which have stand-alone articles, further nominations of that type would be disruptive.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
04:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure that matters. They must satisfy GNG for the stand-alone article, but when there's a clear alternative-to-deletion that has consensus and that the nominator knows about, an AFD is disruptive. It in fact is not "articles for discussion".
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
04:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)reply
I was responding to your specific comment that "consensus is clear we should not straight-up delete articles on people who are namesakes of ships which have stand-alone articles" to point out that consensus is that just being a ship namesake doesn't establish notability and absent SIGCOV in multiple RS the namesake pages should be merged/redirected into the ship page.
Mztourist (
talk)
05:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse An AfD was premature, as no merger had been proposed on the talk page and thus regular editing had not yet failed to effect a proposed merge. As one of the participants pointed out, this was previously part of a mass-nom, and then this opened by the same nom after the mass nom was procedurally declined. Is it OK for this to be merged? Sure. Should we be erring on the side of mass nominators? Absolutely not. Procrusteanism is the bane of collegiality, and that is obvious here. Sustaining the Keep closure is not a miscarriage of wiki-justice, as there are two detailed RS'es present in the article, even though only one is cited in our preferred format. Thus, I strongly suggest we in effect remand the merge/redirect/keep discussion to a discussion at the article talk page, rather than subjecting it to arbitrary processes which highlight themselves for drive-by involvement. If the editor proposing the merger/redirection lacks the time to participate in an article-specific editorial/improvement process, then he or she is of course free to not pursue that option.
Jclemens (
talk)
20:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)reply
No, actually, I think the more correct response would be that using AfD without discussion defeats the point of starting a merge discussion on the talk page first. The nom skipped that, and based on the huge number of individual items in the rejected mass-nom, it's reasonable to assume paid no specific attention to the topic. Overturning the correct answer (and yes, merge/redirect/keep are all functionally equivalent with cosmetic differences) by enforcing a more specific outcome for which no editing discussion was attempted inappropriately rewards 'bad' behavior, and is clearly not the right outcome unless you want to reward those who don't bother with discussion before proposing deletion. By sustaining the close, we send a clear message: Discuss before you nominate, or risk being send back to discuss like you should have done in the first place. Cheers,
Jclemens (
talk)
04:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)reply
I disagree, AFD is the discussion. Requiring Users to first raise a discussion on the Talk Page simply prolongs the process for deleting thinly sourced pages. Merge/redirect/keep are not "all functionally equivalent", otherwise what is the point of AFD? By sustaining the close you are saying that consensus will be ignored.
Mztourist (
talk)
04:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)reply
WP:PEREN is
thataway. It's not Articles for Discussion, and if deletion isn't on the table, it shouldn't remotely be the first resort. If you want to start an RfC to rename AfD, I'd be happy to support it, BTW. Cheers,
Jclemens (
talk)
06:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)reply
It's not correct to say that AfD can only be used when the desired outcome is deletion.
This RfC established that AfD can be used in cases where the nominator wants to redirect the article and that is disputed, which has been written into
the deletion policy. At least two people disagreed with redirecting in the AfD, so it's fair to say that it's disputed here. AfD can't be used for proposing merges, but there is very little difference between redirect and merge in this case. Hut 8.508:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Correct, but it was not disputed at the time of nomination, was it? No, because no prior discussion had taken place anywhere to the best of my knowledge. That is the issue: there was never a reason for deletion OR a disputed merge in play, so the number of people saying merge/redirect is all just fine, and that outcome is fine to editorially accomplish. What's not fine is 1) bludgeoning articles with AfD when it's neither needed nor appropriate, and 2) jumping to AfD without prior discussion. AfD is full of nonsense like this, and the best thing we can do is when it's brought to our attention at DRV note that it was never ripe for a deletion (or enforced merge/redirect) discussion in the first place.
Jclemens (
talk)
22:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)reply
These AFDs arose after I PROded a number of pages of single Navy Cross recipients in WWII, which were dePRODed without explanation. Discussion took place on my Talk Page:
User talk:Mztourist#Navy ship namesakes and
User talk:Mztourist#Proposed deletion of the article Paul Leaman Clark and following that articles were put up to AFD by me and others, many of which closed as delete or merge/redirect (e.g.
Paul Leaman Clark. As there are approximately 3-500 such pages it is unrealistic to suggest an individual Talk Page discussion of each, particularly as has been shown 1 or 2 Users will reflexively argue for retention and the page will end up at AFD anyway.
Mztourist (
talk)
05:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Your PRODs were necessarily out of order, because you later proposed that these articles be merged. PRODs are only for 1) uncontroversial, and 2) deletions--the only way they would have been OK is if you discovered the possibility of redirection after trying to delete them all. The equivalent resolution process for uncontroversial redirects should have been a BOLD redirect. But after the PRODs, you did the mass AfD nom, rejected on procedural grounds, and then this and other AfDs. So you're 0 for 3, by my reckoning, on actually using the right processes to do large-scale cleanups. If you can't be bothered to yes, go through multiple articles and actually be sure there's nothing to sustain them (per
WP:BEFORE), the most correct process would have been an RfC. AfD requires individual research to substantiate the topic, individual discussion per situation, and individual outcomes. How many of the "successful" AfDs are actually notable articles that have now been deleted because you couldn't be bothered to spend the time to check each individual Wikipedia article to see if it really merited inclusion or not?
Jclemens (
talk)
06:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)reply
You should have done a BEFORE and seen that I didn't propose the mass AFD nom, so your analysis and "0 for 3" is flawed. After the articles were dePRODed without explanation I raised the issue on the dePRODer's Talk Page and after receiving a response that indicated that this would be controversial I put the pages up individually for deletion. The mass deletion was closed as a procedural Keep to allow individual discussion of each page. You are welcome to go back through each of the deleted pages and see if any of them "are actually notable articles that have now been deleted".
Mztourist (
talk)
09:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Sorry if the details are getting a little fuzzy here, and specifically if you were personally offended by any of it.
WP:BEFORE doesn't describe my responsibilities, but your point is taken regardless. People who object to process clarity forget that this kerfuffle is the whole reason such processes exist: to protect the encyclopedia who desire to Right Great Wrongs by deleting things: it's supposed to be hard to do, and I would prefer it were harder still.
Jclemens (
talk)
23:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)reply
The fact there was no discussion prior to the AfD doesn't mean AfD was inappropriate. It would be entirely reasonable to start a discussion instead of taking a BOLD action if the decision was expected to be contentious. And if that was what the nominator was expecting then they would have been right, because it was contentious. Above you've compared a BOLD redirect to a PROD. One of the first things the
PROD policy says is "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." It's perfectly reasonable to do the same for BOLD redirects. In any case none of this impacts the close. Regardless of the reasons for ending up at AfD, we've had the AfD and the consensus was merge/redirect. Hut 8.508:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)reply
You can think that, and advocate that, but that's simply not what deletion policy says. The AfD was never proper in the first place, absent a contested merge, and as such, the only thing that it got right was the closer not enforcing a not-elsewhere-previously-discussed outcome.
Jclemens (
talk)
23:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Yes, "merge" and "redirect" are functionally equivalent results, but they are both also equivalent to "keep". None of those outcomes requires an administrator to hit the "delete" button, which is the point of AfD. Deciding between those outcomes is a matter for normal, non-admin editing which can take place on the article talk page without any of this attention-seeking at AfD.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
22:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)reply
That is not how AfD works. At all. If the consensus of a discussion is to merge/redirect, the closing administrator closes it as merge/redirect, not "no consensus because you can do it yourself". Redirect is a perfectly cromulent clsure option. Also your
casting aspersions at the end there is highly dissapointing. -
The BushrangerOne ping only23:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn and reclose as merge/redirect - the closer
has said they closed as no consensus because No administrative action is required, so whatever happens to the article after the debate can be done by ordinary editors - which indicates either a fundamental misundersanding of how the AfD closure process works, or a
WP:SUPERVOTE. When an AfD's consensus is to merge or redirect an article, the closing administrtor closes the discussion with a result of merge or redirect. They do not entirely ignore the !votes to redirect to claim there is an even number of keep and merge !votes and that therefore there is "no consensus", and they also do not (as seen in the diff above) claim that t the votes were all about as appropriate as each other and thus consider it "even" somehow - in that case the number of !votes does become a factor, and as noted above the merge/redirect has a heavy consensus, while the keeps have one that is
very much arguing against a consensus on the subject and the other very heavily
castsing aspersions. If I had not !voted in this one and came across it while patrolling AfDs to close, I would have closed as "redirect with content to be merged from history by editors as desired" without hesitation or a second thought; I am utterly shocked at how the closer handled this and has handled the questioning of their clousure. -
The BushrangerOne ping only23:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)reply
And I just re-read the closer's statement above. a decision as to what to do with the article (add sources and improve it, blank it as a redirect, selectively merging with sources) can be done outside the scope of an AfD, and probably requires a more in-depth discussion.. Wow. I have no idea how to respond to this, aside from that "in-depth discussion" is exactly what the AfD was for! -
The BushrangerOne ping only23:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment I was not aware of
WP:SUPERVOTE before reading it here, but that is clearly what is happening, particularly with the closer becoming
WP:INVOLVED by adding a reference to the retained page. The close showed a complete lack of proper process, the consensus was to merge or redirect and that is what the closer should have done. I have serious concerns about the closer's competence to assess and close AFDs given their comments above, ignoring the basic requirements of GNG, i.e. SIGCOV in multiple RS and relisting comments such as this
[1] that completely dismiss the views of other Users.
Mztourist (
talk)
04:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)reply
To clarify my above comment, I don't feel there's an INVOLVED violation here, it just looks a bit like one. If Ritchie added a reference and then closed the AFD, there would be an issue. If he first closes the AFD based on consensus, there's no reason he or any other editor can't then improve that article. And the re-listing with Edward Costello was clearly correct IMO; none of the delete votes addressed Mccapra's well-made argument.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
04:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)reply
"Just looks a bit like one"? Closer made an incorrect close and then went and added sources to the page to try to justify the NC after being called out on their Talk Page. In relation to Edward Costello, the relist was fine, the relist comments are not valid, the noms, mine and at least one other's are perfectly valid deletion arguments.
Mztourist (
talk)
05:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn to merge even though I personally think just to have the thing closed was a good idea (but not within discretion in this case). My experience is that merges done by mandate from AFD are not so well done as those done "editorially". Sometimes redirect is taken as delete and redirect by the closing admin. This is undesirable unless there has been consensus for the delete aspect and it would have been a wrong result in this case.
Thincat (
talk)
11:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn to redirect (or merge). The main issue in that discussion was whether the subject should be covered in a standalone article or in the warship article, and consensus was on the side of the warship article. It doesn't make much difference whether this is done through a redirect or a merge, a redirect wouldn't stop people merging later and a merge wouldn't stop people removing the content from the target article later, which would make it functionally equivalent to a redirect. I don't agree with the closing admin's reasoning here. Merge and Redirect have always been valid AfD closures and the fact they don't involve admin action isn't a reason not to close with one of them. BOLDly redirecting it also wouldn't be a good idea because the redirection is disputed.
Policy says that in this case the best thing to do is to have a discussion at an appropriate venue, one of which is AfD. Hut 8.512:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn to redirect or merge, pretty much exactly per Hut 8.5. A controversial
WP:BLAR certainly can be discussed at AfD and at the moment AfD can have other outcomes besides 'keep' and 'delete'. A separate merge proposal is not needed because we already have the consensus.
Eddie891TalkWork17:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)reply
The Bushranger, you may criticize the "Keep" !votes, but they were not sufficiently criticized in the AfD, just at the "merge" !votes were not seriously discussed in detail, and with "merge" there is important detail. Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection is a very real distinction. There is very little to say about Craig in the
USS John R. Craig (DD-885), as he had nothing to do with that ship, but another ship, and if the "merge" amounts to a mere mention, that is pretty close to a pseudo-deletion. AfD is for deletions, and while a consensus for something is a consensus, a merge is not competently ordered in a closing statement. "Redirect" should not be read as synonymous with "merge". An AfD rough consensus for a merge means that the merge process should begin, and in that process newly raised details may mean that the merge does not go ahead. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
23:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse. There is a clear consensus not to delete the article, but none on what precisely to do with it. Anyone wishing to merge, redirect, etc. is empowered to do so by
WP:BB, or to open a discussion on the talk page.
Stifle (
talk)
12:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)reply
The discussion was at the AfD. The discussion had a very clear consensus for an outcome that would result in the page being redirected. "Redirect with content to be merged by editors as desired" is a standard closing statement in this case. -
The BushrangerOne ping only23:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn to merge/redirect as that is a valid AfD outcome and was the consensus of the discussion. There is no need to have another discussion elsewhere.--
P-K3 (
talk)
14:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)reply
There's little if any meaningful difference between redirect and merge here. The article is very short, only cites one source, and the main points are in the destination article anyway. There's almost nothing to merge. A Redirect closure wouldn't stop a merge being done by anybody who was interested, and a Merge close would involve a redirect with at most a tiny amount of prose being merged. And there would be nothing stopping anybody from removing that tiny amount of prose from the target for editorial reasons, at which point it becomes equivalent to a redirect. Hut 8.520:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse If you're having to argue about consensus then you haven't got one. This is the normal state of affairs on Wikipedia and so it's no surprise that there was no consensus in this case too.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
21:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)reply
We're not "arguing about consensus". There was a very clear consensus that the closer chose to ignore, and the fact that a lot of well-respected editors above think this should be endorsed makes me wonder if some of Wikipedia's naysayers have an actual point. -
The BushrangerOne ping only23:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)reply
No its a case of a clear consensus being ignored by the closer and then various Users expressing contrasting views of what AFD is all about.
Mztourist (
talk)
14:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm reluctant to wade into this discussion again, but let's assume for argument's sake that you're right and that "Merge" was a better result for the AfD. It's not an unreasonable view to hold. Now, per
this essay, "good for you. Now go about your business;
don't keep reminding us that your "opponent" didn't "win"." That's really what I'm getting at.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)reply
No, because if I now boldly merge and redirect there are several Users who will jump on me claiming that there was no consensus per your close and so it amounts to a Keep, when there was a very clear consensus of Merge/Redirect. You have also shown yourself to be involved by making additions to the page. So don't tell me to DTS and "go about my business"
Mztourist (
talk)
16:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn A supermajority voted that the article should not be a separate article, and it was inappropriate for it to be closed for the position of the superminority. Content may added to the
USS John R. Craig (DD-885) article in both the merge and redirect situations which are related as a merge is presumed to include a redirect even if not presented as "merge/redirect". The first keep vote was not based in policy, conveniently omitting the "well-known and" part of ANYBIO, pretending the need for multiple significant sources does not exist, and the second just complained about procedure.
Reywas92Talk20:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
John R. Craig – Relisted. We have no consensus here. Under these circumstances, I can choose to relist the AfD. I'm doing so because there was not all that much discussion in the AfD, and all the people here can probably enliven it a bit. Sandstein 20:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Closer misinterpreted the consensus saying "The result was no consensus. Split between "keep" and "merge" - either of which can be a discussion after this." Completely ignoring the "Redirect" votes which are functionally equivalant to merge, giving a clear consensus for Merge/Redirect
Mztourist (
talk)
15:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Relist - I concur with the nominator that the closer appears to have overlooked that Merge and Redirect are functionally equivalent. At this point, rather than overturning the close, the least disruptive approach is to Relist.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
16:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn and merge/redirect - I truly don't see how this could have been closed as anything other than merge/redirect. Including the nominator, there are five policy-based arguments for that outcome, compared with two against it. There's no reason that should have been closed as no consensus, and even a relist would have been inappropriate: there were many participants and the arguments are policy-based. See
WP:RELIST. There's a clear consensus that the article should be converted into a redirect, and there's no objection to merging relevant content into the target article.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
18:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)reply
This discussion has changed a lot since I !voted, so I want to comment again for the benefit of the closer. The AfD was in order because the nominator proposed deletion. This was not originally a request for merger/redirection, so separate discussion is not required. And even if it was, that's an argument for a procedural close, not for endorsing the no consensus close. The main argument I see throughout this discussion is that the AfD consensus is wrong, whether because the nominator should have discussed, because the nomination was part of some bad-faith mass nom, because the sourcing was adequate, because the article actually could have been merged somewhere else, and even because "the 'keep' !votes were reasonable." But those were issues for the original AfD, not for this discussion. By their !votes, a majority of the AfD participants rejected each of these arguments. The only question now is whether the closer correctly interpreted the consensus, and on that issue the answer is clear: He did not.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
00:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)reply
I agree merge was a more accurate summary of the discussion. That said, I really can't imagine the Navy dedicated a DD to someone and doesn't have documentation as to why. Should be a fine source. So with some searching, work and a bit of luck hopefully we can get the bio article back.
Hobit (
talk)
18:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Your comment above demonstrates exactly why I'm "aggressive" by this. You mis-closed an AfD, doubled down, and are tripling down. To paraphrase an infamously oft-used
NASCAR ruling, your actions, quite aside from being
frankly wrong, are detrimental to the reputation of the admin corps. -
The BushrangerOne ping only23:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn the !vote is 6-2 to merge to
USS John R. Craig (DD-885), and the keep votes don't really argue against a merge, merely against a delete. (The claim that GNG is met is made with no evidence.) Due to the extreme vitriol in one of the keep votes, I think a DRV is justified here.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
19:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)reply
That's exactly the point I was making. Since no administration action is required, a decision as to what to do with the article (add sources and improve it, blank it as a redirect, selectively merging with sources) can be done outside the scope of an AfD, and probably requires a more in-depth discussion. I did not "completely ignore" the "Redirect" votes, I just forgot to write it in the closing rationale, as I was in the middle of closing about 15 other AfDs because we have a backlog.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)19:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Relist there have been two developments since my previous comment. First, several veteran editors have implied that the purpose of an AFD close is not to assess consensus, but simply to determine what administrative actions are necessary. This is clearly not established practice (or else the AFDCloser options would just be "Delete" and "Do not delete"), and generally seems bizarre to me. Second, Ritchie333 has added another source to the article; this helps the Keep argument and weakens several of the Merge/Redirect arguments. (if you squint there might be an INVOLVED issue, but best to ignore that) It seems more prudent to re-list and to determine whether the added source is indeed substantial coverage of the person (and not the boat). I will note that consensus is clear we should not straight-up delete articles on people who are namesakes of ships which have stand-alone articles, further nominations of that type would be disruptive.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
04:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure that matters. They must satisfy GNG for the stand-alone article, but when there's a clear alternative-to-deletion that has consensus and that the nominator knows about, an AFD is disruptive. It in fact is not "articles for discussion".
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
04:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)reply
I was responding to your specific comment that "consensus is clear we should not straight-up delete articles on people who are namesakes of ships which have stand-alone articles" to point out that consensus is that just being a ship namesake doesn't establish notability and absent SIGCOV in multiple RS the namesake pages should be merged/redirected into the ship page.
Mztourist (
talk)
05:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse An AfD was premature, as no merger had been proposed on the talk page and thus regular editing had not yet failed to effect a proposed merge. As one of the participants pointed out, this was previously part of a mass-nom, and then this opened by the same nom after the mass nom was procedurally declined. Is it OK for this to be merged? Sure. Should we be erring on the side of mass nominators? Absolutely not. Procrusteanism is the bane of collegiality, and that is obvious here. Sustaining the Keep closure is not a miscarriage of wiki-justice, as there are two detailed RS'es present in the article, even though only one is cited in our preferred format. Thus, I strongly suggest we in effect remand the merge/redirect/keep discussion to a discussion at the article talk page, rather than subjecting it to arbitrary processes which highlight themselves for drive-by involvement. If the editor proposing the merger/redirection lacks the time to participate in an article-specific editorial/improvement process, then he or she is of course free to not pursue that option.
Jclemens (
talk)
20:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)reply
No, actually, I think the more correct response would be that using AfD without discussion defeats the point of starting a merge discussion on the talk page first. The nom skipped that, and based on the huge number of individual items in the rejected mass-nom, it's reasonable to assume paid no specific attention to the topic. Overturning the correct answer (and yes, merge/redirect/keep are all functionally equivalent with cosmetic differences) by enforcing a more specific outcome for which no editing discussion was attempted inappropriately rewards 'bad' behavior, and is clearly not the right outcome unless you want to reward those who don't bother with discussion before proposing deletion. By sustaining the close, we send a clear message: Discuss before you nominate, or risk being send back to discuss like you should have done in the first place. Cheers,
Jclemens (
talk)
04:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)reply
I disagree, AFD is the discussion. Requiring Users to first raise a discussion on the Talk Page simply prolongs the process for deleting thinly sourced pages. Merge/redirect/keep are not "all functionally equivalent", otherwise what is the point of AFD? By sustaining the close you are saying that consensus will be ignored.
Mztourist (
talk)
04:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)reply
WP:PEREN is
thataway. It's not Articles for Discussion, and if deletion isn't on the table, it shouldn't remotely be the first resort. If you want to start an RfC to rename AfD, I'd be happy to support it, BTW. Cheers,
Jclemens (
talk)
06:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)reply
It's not correct to say that AfD can only be used when the desired outcome is deletion.
This RfC established that AfD can be used in cases where the nominator wants to redirect the article and that is disputed, which has been written into
the deletion policy. At least two people disagreed with redirecting in the AfD, so it's fair to say that it's disputed here. AfD can't be used for proposing merges, but there is very little difference between redirect and merge in this case. Hut 8.508:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Correct, but it was not disputed at the time of nomination, was it? No, because no prior discussion had taken place anywhere to the best of my knowledge. That is the issue: there was never a reason for deletion OR a disputed merge in play, so the number of people saying merge/redirect is all just fine, and that outcome is fine to editorially accomplish. What's not fine is 1) bludgeoning articles with AfD when it's neither needed nor appropriate, and 2) jumping to AfD without prior discussion. AfD is full of nonsense like this, and the best thing we can do is when it's brought to our attention at DRV note that it was never ripe for a deletion (or enforced merge/redirect) discussion in the first place.
Jclemens (
talk)
22:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)reply
These AFDs arose after I PROded a number of pages of single Navy Cross recipients in WWII, which were dePRODed without explanation. Discussion took place on my Talk Page:
User talk:Mztourist#Navy ship namesakes and
User talk:Mztourist#Proposed deletion of the article Paul Leaman Clark and following that articles were put up to AFD by me and others, many of which closed as delete or merge/redirect (e.g.
Paul Leaman Clark. As there are approximately 3-500 such pages it is unrealistic to suggest an individual Talk Page discussion of each, particularly as has been shown 1 or 2 Users will reflexively argue for retention and the page will end up at AFD anyway.
Mztourist (
talk)
05:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Your PRODs were necessarily out of order, because you later proposed that these articles be merged. PRODs are only for 1) uncontroversial, and 2) deletions--the only way they would have been OK is if you discovered the possibility of redirection after trying to delete them all. The equivalent resolution process for uncontroversial redirects should have been a BOLD redirect. But after the PRODs, you did the mass AfD nom, rejected on procedural grounds, and then this and other AfDs. So you're 0 for 3, by my reckoning, on actually using the right processes to do large-scale cleanups. If you can't be bothered to yes, go through multiple articles and actually be sure there's nothing to sustain them (per
WP:BEFORE), the most correct process would have been an RfC. AfD requires individual research to substantiate the topic, individual discussion per situation, and individual outcomes. How many of the "successful" AfDs are actually notable articles that have now been deleted because you couldn't be bothered to spend the time to check each individual Wikipedia article to see if it really merited inclusion or not?
Jclemens (
talk)
06:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)reply
You should have done a BEFORE and seen that I didn't propose the mass AFD nom, so your analysis and "0 for 3" is flawed. After the articles were dePRODed without explanation I raised the issue on the dePRODer's Talk Page and after receiving a response that indicated that this would be controversial I put the pages up individually for deletion. The mass deletion was closed as a procedural Keep to allow individual discussion of each page. You are welcome to go back through each of the deleted pages and see if any of them "are actually notable articles that have now been deleted".
Mztourist (
talk)
09:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Sorry if the details are getting a little fuzzy here, and specifically if you were personally offended by any of it.
WP:BEFORE doesn't describe my responsibilities, but your point is taken regardless. People who object to process clarity forget that this kerfuffle is the whole reason such processes exist: to protect the encyclopedia who desire to Right Great Wrongs by deleting things: it's supposed to be hard to do, and I would prefer it were harder still.
Jclemens (
talk)
23:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)reply
The fact there was no discussion prior to the AfD doesn't mean AfD was inappropriate. It would be entirely reasonable to start a discussion instead of taking a BOLD action if the decision was expected to be contentious. And if that was what the nominator was expecting then they would have been right, because it was contentious. Above you've compared a BOLD redirect to a PROD. One of the first things the
PROD policy says is "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." It's perfectly reasonable to do the same for BOLD redirects. In any case none of this impacts the close. Regardless of the reasons for ending up at AfD, we've had the AfD and the consensus was merge/redirect. Hut 8.508:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)reply
You can think that, and advocate that, but that's simply not what deletion policy says. The AfD was never proper in the first place, absent a contested merge, and as such, the only thing that it got right was the closer not enforcing a not-elsewhere-previously-discussed outcome.
Jclemens (
talk)
23:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Yes, "merge" and "redirect" are functionally equivalent results, but they are both also equivalent to "keep". None of those outcomes requires an administrator to hit the "delete" button, which is the point of AfD. Deciding between those outcomes is a matter for normal, non-admin editing which can take place on the article talk page without any of this attention-seeking at AfD.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
22:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)reply
That is not how AfD works. At all. If the consensus of a discussion is to merge/redirect, the closing administrator closes it as merge/redirect, not "no consensus because you can do it yourself". Redirect is a perfectly cromulent clsure option. Also your
casting aspersions at the end there is highly dissapointing. -
The BushrangerOne ping only23:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn and reclose as merge/redirect - the closer
has said they closed as no consensus because No administrative action is required, so whatever happens to the article after the debate can be done by ordinary editors - which indicates either a fundamental misundersanding of how the AfD closure process works, or a
WP:SUPERVOTE. When an AfD's consensus is to merge or redirect an article, the closing administrtor closes the discussion with a result of merge or redirect. They do not entirely ignore the !votes to redirect to claim there is an even number of keep and merge !votes and that therefore there is "no consensus", and they also do not (as seen in the diff above) claim that t the votes were all about as appropriate as each other and thus consider it "even" somehow - in that case the number of !votes does become a factor, and as noted above the merge/redirect has a heavy consensus, while the keeps have one that is
very much arguing against a consensus on the subject and the other very heavily
castsing aspersions. If I had not !voted in this one and came across it while patrolling AfDs to close, I would have closed as "redirect with content to be merged from history by editors as desired" without hesitation or a second thought; I am utterly shocked at how the closer handled this and has handled the questioning of their clousure. -
The BushrangerOne ping only23:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)reply
And I just re-read the closer's statement above. a decision as to what to do with the article (add sources and improve it, blank it as a redirect, selectively merging with sources) can be done outside the scope of an AfD, and probably requires a more in-depth discussion.. Wow. I have no idea how to respond to this, aside from that "in-depth discussion" is exactly what the AfD was for! -
The BushrangerOne ping only23:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment I was not aware of
WP:SUPERVOTE before reading it here, but that is clearly what is happening, particularly with the closer becoming
WP:INVOLVED by adding a reference to the retained page. The close showed a complete lack of proper process, the consensus was to merge or redirect and that is what the closer should have done. I have serious concerns about the closer's competence to assess and close AFDs given their comments above, ignoring the basic requirements of GNG, i.e. SIGCOV in multiple RS and relisting comments such as this
[1] that completely dismiss the views of other Users.
Mztourist (
talk)
04:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)reply
To clarify my above comment, I don't feel there's an INVOLVED violation here, it just looks a bit like one. If Ritchie added a reference and then closed the AFD, there would be an issue. If he first closes the AFD based on consensus, there's no reason he or any other editor can't then improve that article. And the re-listing with Edward Costello was clearly correct IMO; none of the delete votes addressed Mccapra's well-made argument.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
04:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)reply
"Just looks a bit like one"? Closer made an incorrect close and then went and added sources to the page to try to justify the NC after being called out on their Talk Page. In relation to Edward Costello, the relist was fine, the relist comments are not valid, the noms, mine and at least one other's are perfectly valid deletion arguments.
Mztourist (
talk)
05:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn to merge even though I personally think just to have the thing closed was a good idea (but not within discretion in this case). My experience is that merges done by mandate from AFD are not so well done as those done "editorially". Sometimes redirect is taken as delete and redirect by the closing admin. This is undesirable unless there has been consensus for the delete aspect and it would have been a wrong result in this case.
Thincat (
talk)
11:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn to redirect (or merge). The main issue in that discussion was whether the subject should be covered in a standalone article or in the warship article, and consensus was on the side of the warship article. It doesn't make much difference whether this is done through a redirect or a merge, a redirect wouldn't stop people merging later and a merge wouldn't stop people removing the content from the target article later, which would make it functionally equivalent to a redirect. I don't agree with the closing admin's reasoning here. Merge and Redirect have always been valid AfD closures and the fact they don't involve admin action isn't a reason not to close with one of them. BOLDly redirecting it also wouldn't be a good idea because the redirection is disputed.
Policy says that in this case the best thing to do is to have a discussion at an appropriate venue, one of which is AfD. Hut 8.512:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn to redirect or merge, pretty much exactly per Hut 8.5. A controversial
WP:BLAR certainly can be discussed at AfD and at the moment AfD can have other outcomes besides 'keep' and 'delete'. A separate merge proposal is not needed because we already have the consensus.
Eddie891TalkWork17:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)reply
The Bushranger, you may criticize the "Keep" !votes, but they were not sufficiently criticized in the AfD, just at the "merge" !votes were not seriously discussed in detail, and with "merge" there is important detail. Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection is a very real distinction. There is very little to say about Craig in the
USS John R. Craig (DD-885), as he had nothing to do with that ship, but another ship, and if the "merge" amounts to a mere mention, that is pretty close to a pseudo-deletion. AfD is for deletions, and while a consensus for something is a consensus, a merge is not competently ordered in a closing statement. "Redirect" should not be read as synonymous with "merge". An AfD rough consensus for a merge means that the merge process should begin, and in that process newly raised details may mean that the merge does not go ahead. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
23:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse. There is a clear consensus not to delete the article, but none on what precisely to do with it. Anyone wishing to merge, redirect, etc. is empowered to do so by
WP:BB, or to open a discussion on the talk page.
Stifle (
talk)
12:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)reply
The discussion was at the AfD. The discussion had a very clear consensus for an outcome that would result in the page being redirected. "Redirect with content to be merged by editors as desired" is a standard closing statement in this case. -
The BushrangerOne ping only23:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn to merge/redirect as that is a valid AfD outcome and was the consensus of the discussion. There is no need to have another discussion elsewhere.--
P-K3 (
talk)
14:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)reply
There's little if any meaningful difference between redirect and merge here. The article is very short, only cites one source, and the main points are in the destination article anyway. There's almost nothing to merge. A Redirect closure wouldn't stop a merge being done by anybody who was interested, and a Merge close would involve a redirect with at most a tiny amount of prose being merged. And there would be nothing stopping anybody from removing that tiny amount of prose from the target for editorial reasons, at which point it becomes equivalent to a redirect. Hut 8.520:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse If you're having to argue about consensus then you haven't got one. This is the normal state of affairs on Wikipedia and so it's no surprise that there was no consensus in this case too.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
21:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)reply
We're not "arguing about consensus". There was a very clear consensus that the closer chose to ignore, and the fact that a lot of well-respected editors above think this should be endorsed makes me wonder if some of Wikipedia's naysayers have an actual point. -
The BushrangerOne ping only23:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)reply
No its a case of a clear consensus being ignored by the closer and then various Users expressing contrasting views of what AFD is all about.
Mztourist (
talk)
14:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm reluctant to wade into this discussion again, but let's assume for argument's sake that you're right and that "Merge" was a better result for the AfD. It's not an unreasonable view to hold. Now, per
this essay, "good for you. Now go about your business;
don't keep reminding us that your "opponent" didn't "win"." That's really what I'm getting at.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)reply
No, because if I now boldly merge and redirect there are several Users who will jump on me claiming that there was no consensus per your close and so it amounts to a Keep, when there was a very clear consensus of Merge/Redirect. You have also shown yourself to be involved by making additions to the page. So don't tell me to DTS and "go about my business"
Mztourist (
talk)
16:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn A supermajority voted that the article should not be a separate article, and it was inappropriate for it to be closed for the position of the superminority. Content may added to the
USS John R. Craig (DD-885) article in both the merge and redirect situations which are related as a merge is presumed to include a redirect even if not presented as "merge/redirect". The first keep vote was not based in policy, conveniently omitting the "well-known and" part of ANYBIO, pretending the need for multiple significant sources does not exist, and the second just complained about procedure.
Reywas92Talk20:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.