Luca Soccer Club – Overturned to no consensus. Clearly this situation has become an unholy mess of procedural confusion and lack of clarity, between the multiple AFDs and DRVs. There is some support here for the notion that the second AFD could be allowed to stand on its own, with a numerical consensus for deletion, but overall I assess that the procedural concerns raised in the "overturn" !votes have the consensus here in this DRV. The feeling is that the second AFD was (a) out of process, as the first AFD should have been DRVd first, (b) tainted by a failure to notify participants in the first AFD, and (c) affected by the aborted DRV that took place simultaneously with it. There was also the view expressed by SmokeyJoe that the second AFD shouldn't have been closed as delete even by itself, given the GNG evidence presented. The overall decision is therefore amended to a no consensus, with the article restored, and I request that we let the dust settle with a period of at least two months without further AFDs. I further recommend that if editors do wish to renominate in future, they come with evidenced counterarguments to the keep !votes already presented, and make sure to notify everyone who participated already. —
Amakuru (
talk) 12:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
On 11 August, the community decided to keep this article in
this AfD. On 12 September,
Indianfootball98 nominated it for deletion again. On 14 September,
Stalwart111 attempted to convert this very early renomination into a deletion review, which of course it should have been all along; but on 15 September,
Spinningspark closed that deletion review on the basis that an AfD was ongoing. In my view Spinningspark's action there was poorly thought through, and it should have been the deletion review that continued, but I let that pass, assuming that in the circumstances, no proper closer could possibly find a "delete" consensus at the AfD. On 19 September,
Fenix downdid find a "delete" consensus at the AfD, and when challenged about this on his talk page, cited the ratio of "keeps" to "deletes" in what I see as disregard of the DGFA.This second AfD would benefit from close scrutiny, and I would particularly encourage those reviewing this decision to check the short contribution histories and low edit counts of the "delete" !voters. —
S MarshallT/
C 12:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn as hopelessly compromised by the procedural errors. Even if that weren't the case, a slew of early delete !votes who don't return to the AfD after further sources are posted should be discounted as not relevant to the sum total of sourcing. I note six initial deletes, most perfunctory, additional sources posted, and then 3-2 keep afterwards, leaving aside the legitimate procedural critiques. In other words, even if this were a brand new AfD, closing as delete with the sourcing discussion trajectory as it is would have been inappropriate; a relist would have been ideal, a no consensus/administrative close also within the realm of closer discretion since the AfD irregularity had been brought to light. But there is no
WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS for deletion here, and the vastly different outcome even though the AfDs were both posted to all the same DELSORT lists suggests that some sort of inappropriate influence cannot be ruled out.
Jclemens (
talk) 18:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn the second AfD; do NOT allow another Afd; if desired, open another Deletion Review on the first AfD. What a mess! After the first Afd, immediately opening a second AfD was disruptive; perhaps that was through ignorance, but insisting it remain open was disruptive without excuse. Closing the deletion review as a procedural matter was a mistake, since the reason for the review was procedural error in the second AfD. By the time
Fenix down got to the second AfD, they were put in an impossible position; no decision would have been any good. At this point, the best we can do is pretend the second AfD never happened, and that the first deletion review never happened. If someone is unhappy with the first AfD, open a new (third) Deletion Review. --
Larry/Traveling_Man (
talk) 19:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse I absolutely disagree that the second AfD should have been a DRV, and I'm surprised to see people suggesting it. DRV is an appropriate venue for discussing procedural issues with deletion discussions, or mistakes made by closers. It's not a venue for discussing whether the subject is notable, and that's the concern the nominator of the second AfD had. If they had opened a DRV with that rationale they would have been told "DRV is not AfD round 2", so they opted to start AfD round 2 instead. While a month is rather soon to reopen the issue, the second AfD had far more participation and more detailed analysis of the sources, so I think it is a rather better discussion and the result should stand. Hut 8.5 07:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I certainly disagree with this. In the past, we've had to deal with editors whose attitude was: That consensus is wrong and the relistings will continue until this crap article is deleted. Most of them are topic-banned or site-banned now, because the community does take a dim view of rapid renomination, and rightly so.—
S MarshallT/
C 14:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I can definitely understand the view that the second AfD was inappropriate because of the short time between nominations, however I don't understand the advice to go to DRV instead. If we want to stop people renominating that soon then we should just tell them not to renominate so soon, rather than telling them to go to DRV. Hut 8.5 16:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Request temp-undeletion.
Can we confirm whether everyone from AfD1 was notified of AfD2? If not, that alone is a reason to overturn. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 07:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
No, that isn't a reason to overturn. There is no requirement for a new AFD to notify participants of an old AFD. While I would support doing that, it is actually quite rare for it to happen.
SpinningSpark 08:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Yes it is, considering combination with the rapid renomination that is normally not ok. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 10:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Agree wth Smokeyjoe that it is a bit
stealthy to relist without notifying those who have debated in good faith in the recent past. Not required but a bit stealthy nonetheless.
Lightburst (
talk) 13:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
To reiterate: Yes, it is.
Jclemens (
talk) 15:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Link to the guideline that so requires that action please.
SpinningSpark 16:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
That just says to me that you agree that there is no such guideline. Citing pages that could just as easily be cited by the other side is meaningless other than confirming that you have no argument.
SpinningSpark 12:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Request temp-undeletion.
The consternation over a small new soccer club seems out of proportion.
AfD2 has more quality input than AfD1, and it did already when the rapid renomination complaint occurred.
Rapid renominations are a bad idea because they rarely develop the discussion, but this one did.
Ideally, the AfD2 should be considered a continuation of AfD1. AfD1 participants should have been invited to participate in AfD2. Some did.
The AfD2 closer,
User:Fenix down, is remiss in not commenting on the "keep" "consensus" in AfD1.
User:Fenix_down, could you make that comment now? Did you close of AfD2 consider all the arguments present in AfD1?
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 06:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Request temp-undeletion. It is essential to see what the !voters were looking at, in both AfD1 and AfD2.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 02:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Done. I had seen your request but left it to others as I am a little involved here.
SpinningSpark 12:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Thanks. It took me a long time to work out why you considered yourself involved. (the Sept 13 DRV close). --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 07:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't have thought soft undeletion is something that you need to worry about from an INVOLVED point of view. It's pretty much routine for contested AFDs where the result was delete, unless the DRV is so lacking in merit that it's not even worth continuing with it. —
Amakuru (
talk) 09:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse The question here is there are procedural errors that override the closure of the underlying AfD. The only procedural question I see is the strength of the guidance in the
WP:RENOM essay. While I think the essay is quite good, the essay only provides a suggestion. Without any procedural errors, we must judge the underlying discussion. The strongest case for a relist was that the last five bolded keep/delete comments split 3-2 for keep. However, the last two were delete comments, so there was no clear trajectory of later comments. A closer should not discount early comments for being early, especially in this case where one editor quickly provided a detailed analysis of the sourcing used in the article. --
Enos733 (
talk) 16:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
You're correct to refer to the rules, and you're correct to say that RENOM is an essay. For the guideline, please see the third limb of
WP:PCLOSE: it says (lightly paraphrased) that hasty renominations that boil down to an objection about the outcome of a previous AfD should be procedurally closed (which means closed without result) and listed at DRV instead. This is what Stalwart111 did, and this is why I say that Spinningspark was wrong to reverse Stalwart111's action.—
S MarshallT/
C 10:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
If that indeed was what the DRV nominator had done, that might well have been my action. But the DRV nomination was not challenging the outcome of a previous AFD, they actually supported that outcome. Rather, they were objecting to the opening of a second AFD. The correct procedure under those circumstances is to call for speedy close from within the AFD, not to open a DRV on a discussion that is still ongoing. That's for the simple reason that at that stage there is no decision to endorse or overturn.
SpinningSpark 12:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry, I'm really confused by this reply and I don't understand it at all. To me, Stalwart111's deletion review nomination seems mostly consistent with the third limb of
WP:PCLOSE, except that Stalwart111 didn't actually close the AfD. He had the right idea though -- Stalwart111 was saying that if Indianfootball98 wanted to challenge the outcome of the previous AfD (which he did, from his AfD nom), then DRV was the place to do it. But that led to two parallel discussions happening at once. In my view, the correct way to regularize this would have been to procedurally close the AfD, not procedurally close the DRV. I've tried to follow the argument to the contrary and I can't see how it makes sense.—
S MarshallT/
C 13:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
It's quite simple. The order of events needs to be pclose AFD2, THEN open a DRV on AFD1. Now I accept your criticism that I could have closed it myself. I did not do so, because as I said in my DRV close, I would have felt uncomfortable closing a discussion that had become so well developed. By the way, no one referred to PCLOSE in either discussion.
SpinningSpark 14:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Not exactly. Mentioning procedural closure is not the same as referring to the guideline. That is, pointing out that the guideline has something significant to say regarding the case in hand.
SpinningSpark 12:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)reply
People closing discussions should either know the rules, or else be willing to look them up. When we mention a guideline, it shouldn't be necessary tell the closer what that guideline says.—
S MarshallT/
C 14:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)reply
As I said, the guideline was not actually mentioned. I think you have an idealistic view of the superhuman abilities of administrators. Show me the administrator who knows every word of policy and guidelines off by heart and I'll resign immediately (besides which, the body of guidelines is edited on a daily basis). Contrary to what you say, AFD participants who want their arguments to be given weight by the closer need to explicitly say what guideline(s) they are arguing from.
SpinningSpark 14:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)reply
How do you view that debate in the light of the guidelines that I've now told you about?—
S MarshallT/
C 16:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure which debate you mean. I wasn't responsible for closing AFD2 so no comment on that. I don't think it changes my close of DRV1 for the reasons I've already given. The nom called for AFD2 to be closed, not for AFD1 to be reviewed (they only said DRV is where the nom of AFD2 should go) and the only two bolded !votes were for speedy close because AFD2 was still ongoing. The debate had so thoroughly gone down that path that to try and force it back on to a PCLOSE#3 procedure would be either impossible or at best hopelessly confusing. Close and refocus was the only sensible course to my mind.
SpinningSpark 16:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Had I simply come across the second AFD during a wander through the AFD logs I probably would have non-admin closed it as being out of process, with the suggestion that the nominator take their grievance here to DRV. But my involvement in the previous AFD (only a month earlier) would have made that a
WP:BADNAC. So I didn't. Instead, I argued it should be closed (within the AFD, as suggested), and brought it here so that it could be highlighted as out of process and closed by an uninvolved admin. Unfortunately, the nature of football-related AFDs (and the related WikiProject) is that by the time anyone else saw it, there were already a slew of non-policy !votes for deletion. So DRV1 was closed before the AFD could be closed, but it is still absolutely the case that the AFD should have been closed. St★lwart111 01:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Yes, very BADNAC. So why not admin closure? Instead of closing it oneself procedurally as an involved non-admin, one could have asked an administrator to do it. The "unfortunately" part actually starts when an ongoing AfD can't be reviewed at DRV (and can't be effectively procedurally corrected under
WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE by switching the venue to DRV because the reason for renomination is not DRV-worthy).
— Alalch Emis (
talk) 16:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Indeed, I asked a group of uninvolved admins with a working knowledge of deletion processes (right here) to do exactly that. St★lwart111 22:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I would note that the guideline in
WP:PCLOSE describes an immediate renomination. To me, a month between AfDs does not feel "immediate." --
Enos733 (
talk) 16:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn to null outcome Spent a long time debating this one. On one hand "it's just an essay" on the other hand, this is not behavior that AfD could really support. If there was something special about the prior AfD, fine. But there doesn't appear to be. We can't just keep doing this over and over until the delete side gets what they want (because the recreation bar is much higher than the "send it to AfD again" bar). And not just because "the delete side wins" but because AfD can't support having a redo every time someone doesn't like the result. Let's wait for
WP:RENOM and then we can discuss it again. RENOM isn't always required, but there should be a darn good reason for when it's not. No such reason was given.
Hobit (
talk) 10:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse. I would disregard the procedural issues raised by the appellant with respect to the first AfD and DRV. In my view, it does not matter whether the closure of the first AfD and DRV was correct, because we have a more recent decision "on the merits" before us: the second AfD. It is this most recent closure that we should now review, and I see no benefit in reviewing earlier discussions. As to the second AfD, the appellant does not really substantiate why they believe it was wrongly closed. They are of the view that citing the ratio of "keeps" to "deletes" is a disregard of the
WP:DGFA, but they do not explain why that is so. Numbers do matter to some extent in AfDs, in addition to the weight of the arguments advanced. The appellant also remarks on "the short contribution histories and low edit counts of the "delete" !voters", but in my view these edit counts are not so low as to suggest sock- or meatpuppetry, and I don't see why else these views should be discounted. A case for doing so could be made if their arguments were unfounded in policies and guidelines, but apart from one person ("the club is so irrelevant") that doesn't seem to be the case to me. For lack of a convincing reason to question the closer's judgment, I would not overturn their closure. Sandstein 14:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Additionally, with respect to the arguments about
WP:RENOM above: Compliance with
WP:RENOM (an essay, I note, and therefore a text of no particular authority) is an argument on the merits and belongs at AfD, not DRV. It would therefore have been an argument to make in the second AfD for keeping the article or closing the AfD without a result. That argument was indeed made by some in the second AfD, but did not obtain consensus. It is not for us at DRV to substitute our judgment for that of the AfD participants. Sandstein 14:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I must say, I do rather object to the characterization of this as "procedural issues". In rapid succession, we have the same discussion, different decision-makers, opposite results. In the circumstances, how can we possibly have confidence in our decision making processes?—
S MarshallT/
C 16:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
We can't, but we've never pretended that Wikipedia is good at consistent decision-making. Our decisions tend to be decided by whoever bothers to show up, which is often quite random. Sandstein 18:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
If our decisions were random, and if it was acceptable to redo a discussion promptly after closure, then I could just keep re-starting the same discussion until my preferred outcome was reached. I have to ask: If the contributors to AfD #1 wanted their views to be given weight in the close of AfD #2, would they need to copy/paste them into the new AfD? Should I have pinged them all during AfD #2 so this could happen?—
S MarshallT/
C 09:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)reply
@
S Marshall: Well, that's how AfDs work, for better or worse. The people who participate in them get to decide the outcome, but that outcome is not permanent: an article can be renominated if not deleted, or recreated if deleted. Pinging previous AfD participants is OK, as long as it is not done in an one-sided manner so as to amount to canvassing. If we want our deletion decisions to be consistent, we'd need to delegate them to a permanent Deletion Committee, but I don't think that there would be community consensus for that, and it wouldn't scale sufficiently to deal with the number of deletion requests we have. Sandstein 09:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Well, I don't see it quite that way. For as long as I've been editing, the community has always frowned on rapid renomination after a "keep" closure at AfD. I've been citing
WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED as an
argument to avoid since 2009, and indeed I see that that redirect was created in 2007. I do realize that WP:ATA is an essay and you're unimpressed by essays. I wonder whether we need an RfC to establish whether the community does frown on it.—
S MarshallT/
C 13:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)reply
That's peculiar, since I'm sure you've expressed distaste for WP:ATA on more than one occasion, such "One of the worst things about Wikipedia deletion processes is ATA, an essay that consists entirely of a list of things that some editors think other editors shouldn't be allowed to say." in
Dec 2019. --
81.100.164.154 (
talk) 14:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)reply
ATA does tell us what the community thinks about deletion discussions. It's true that I personally disagree with a lot of the thought behind ATA and I would love to deprecate large parts of it.—
S MarshallT/
C 16:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Sandstein: The slippery-slope argument is then "is it okay with you if many of our keep discussions result in an immediate relisting?". That seems like it has the potential to be quite disruptive. Would you be okay with delete outcomes also being immediately relisted and a "keep" outcome in those resulting in a restoration of the article?
Hobit (
talk) 17:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
No, it would not be okay with me if many of our "keep" outcomes result in an immediate renomination (not relisting). That would be a waste of community time. But I'd say so in the overhasty second AfD, and if enough people agreed, the AfD would be closed as speedy keep. But that argument is one for AfD participants to make, and they did not do so here. It's possible to make the case that
WP:RENOM should be a policy or guideline, but right now it is not, and so we should not pay it any heed here. With respect to a "delete" outcome being immediately contested, that is in fact possible even now: everybody is free immediately after a deletion to request draftification and to recreate the article; if it is sufficiently different from the deleted version (which is often very easy to do) it will need another AfD to delete. Sandstein 18:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse: Despite me making some procedural errors, the second AFD had clear consensus to delete the article.
Indianfootball98 (
talk) 06:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn to null outcome: I would not disregard the procedural issues.
WP:RENOM is very helpful here as it documents best practices -- no one here is saying that it doesn't. Saying that something is an essay doesn't answer the question of what the most opportune recourse is. Incidentally, the problem of too-soon renominations is addressed in a guideline:
WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE: Nomination is an immediate objection to a prior deletion outcome. This nomination was an immediate objection to a prior deletion outcome. A possible correction is specified: List it at deletion review .... This correction is good when the objection as expressed in the deletion nomination itself is composed of arguments that would work at DRV... but when same reasons are classic deletion arguments, porting the discussion over to DRV would mean instant relitigating -- not a proper use of this venue. The reasons for renomination were that... "club fails NFOOTY". I mean... seriously? This immediate objection would not work at DRV so the aforementioned correction would not be a feasible solution. This makes the deletion discussion incorrigibly procedurally compromised, and the only proper way to close would have been a PROCEDURALCLOSE. Instead it was closed with a material finding of consensus, and it couldn't have been. This means that there were substantial procedural errors, and the close needs to be overturned. S Marshall says that during the previous DRV of this same AfDit should have been the deletion review that continued, and the AfD that was closed. I agree per above that the AfD should have been procedurally closed (not even contingent on a DRV close, but by any administrator who'd treat it as non-constructive in light of WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE and WP:RENOM), but also, that the DRV should have been speedily closed (as it was). So I'd have shut everything down, and told interested parties to wait, and to use the right venues if and when they have the right reasons.
— Alalch Emis (
talk) 19:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)reply
That's a better argument than I made. +++.
Hobit (
talk) 21:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)reply
The question is whether and AfD made a month after the close of the first AfD is equivalent to "immediate" as described in
WP:PCLOSE. I don't think the timing leads to a clear violation of the guideline and I don't see anything to indicate the nomination was in bad faith. --
Enos733 (
talk) 04:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I disagree that the second AfD was "incorrigibly procedurally compromised". It cannot be so for violating RENOM, because that page is an essay and therefore cannot establish correct renomination procedure in a manner that binds other editors. I agree that PCLOSE, as a guideline, is applicable to this case, but being a guideline rather than a policy, it can be overridden by local consensus, such as in an AfD. If editors had made PCLOSE-based arguments in the AfD, the closer would have been required to give such arguments considerable weight, but such arguments were made only by @
S Marshall and @
Stalwart111. I can't fault the second AfD closer for not giving these two (even if persuasive and guideline-based) opinions determining weight in the face of every other AfD participant who wanted to discuss the notability of the topic on its merits. I would therefore still not overturn the second AfD, even if I can now better see the argument for doing so. Sandstein 09:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Relist: I don't think the issue here, is the odd history of AFD/DRV/2nd AFD ... but that in the second AFD, that the close was premature, and should have been given at least another week. Saying that it should be deleted on a 9-3 vote, suggests that the closer has a fundamental misunderstanding how AFD works.
WP:GAFD is clear it's not a vote, but a discussion. In that discussion of 9 "delete votes", 7 of them were right at the beginning, before any reasons to keep it were provided. Then there were 3 keep votes, followed by 2 more deletes, one of which seemed a bit pointy. None of the earlier 8 users who endorsed the delete, returned to the discussion after reasons to keep it were presented, other than Muur's non-sequitur. Consensus was never reached - particularly after the clear Keep AFD day's earlier. Another option is close as no consensus, with no prejudice against relisting.
Nfitz (
talk) 20:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I was listing it by the closure sequence ... but that's not my point at all. My point was about the poor AFD2 closure.
Nfitz (
talk) 23:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn (though I would think my opinion was obvious by now). Obviously I had a problem with the closer's vote-count (under the circumstances) and said so at his talk page. I would have brought this here myself were it not for the fact that I've been swamped with school holidays (vacation) activities. I brought it to DRV when the second AFD was first opened in the hope someone would close that second (out-of-process) AFD and review the original AFD instead (if that's what the nominator of the second AFD wanted). That discussion was closed. Fundamentally, those who expressed a view in favour of deletion cited
WP:NFOOTY and the second AFD featured a disingenuous list of sources and whether or not they should be considered valid. But that list was deeply flawed and multiple people said so. On the other hand, multiple people provided sources to confirm the subject meets
WP:GNG and given that
WP:NFOOTY does not supersede that guideline, !votes that relied on
WP:NFOOTY really hold no value. Add to that the personal attacks and
WP:POINTY contributions from a couple of the !delete voters who had their unrelated AFD nominations SNOW closed elsewhere... the second AFD shouldn't have been opened, should have been closed when it was brought here the first time, and shouldn't have been closed as anything other than a result that aligned with the only policy-based arguments in the discussion. St★lwart111 01:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I suggest that a better procedure for dealing with an AFD that needs to be urgently closed would have been to request assistance at ANI rather than opening a DRV.
SpinningSpark 12:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)reply
This is probably correct, but ANI is a cross between an eternal flame and dumpster fire, so I find it hard to fault any editor with a modicum of common sense for trying to find any other appropriate venue first.
Jclemens (
talk) 16:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Amen to that. One can always approach administrators individually of course, but a bit or work is needed to find one active at that moment.
SpinningSpark 16:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Yes, I could have. But rather than asking an individual admin (to implement my personal desired outcome) I brought it here so that it could be reviewed impartially and so that any number of admins familiar with deletion and related procedure (and uninvolved with either AFD) could action a close. But that idea was rejected. Bureaucracy is a wonderful thing. St★lwart111 22:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn (no consensus, and procedurally compromised). AfD2 is not a strong consensus, and the closing statement is inadequate. There were persuasive "Keep" !votes,
Henriklars (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2021 makes an analysis of the sources, and was persuasive to many. However, Nfitz (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2021, offered five sources, and of these #2,3,4 are good enough. Henriklars source analysis is criticised, but Nfitz's is not.
St★lwart111 and Eastmain also make good "keep" !votes.
The closer's perfunctory statement implies a strong consensus, which there is not. The procedural irregularity, loudly complained about during the process, may have poisoned the discussion. End the end, the discussion was poor, key sources were not discussed.
There are multiple reasons for why quick relisting is discouraged. One of them is that an AfD discussion so soon after the previous one tends to be of lower quality. This happened here. A lot more words were posted, but few of the words were directing to why the best sources weren't good enough. Overturn to "no consensus", and follow
WP:RENOM and do not allow a fresh AfD nomination until at least two months after the close of this DRV discussion. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 07:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Luca Soccer Club – Overturned to no consensus. Clearly this situation has become an unholy mess of procedural confusion and lack of clarity, between the multiple AFDs and DRVs. There is some support here for the notion that the second AFD could be allowed to stand on its own, with a numerical consensus for deletion, but overall I assess that the procedural concerns raised in the "overturn" !votes have the consensus here in this DRV. The feeling is that the second AFD was (a) out of process, as the first AFD should have been DRVd first, (b) tainted by a failure to notify participants in the first AFD, and (c) affected by the aborted DRV that took place simultaneously with it. There was also the view expressed by SmokeyJoe that the second AFD shouldn't have been closed as delete even by itself, given the GNG evidence presented. The overall decision is therefore amended to a no consensus, with the article restored, and I request that we let the dust settle with a period of at least two months without further AFDs. I further recommend that if editors do wish to renominate in future, they come with evidenced counterarguments to the keep !votes already presented, and make sure to notify everyone who participated already. —
Amakuru (
talk) 12:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
On 11 August, the community decided to keep this article in
this AfD. On 12 September,
Indianfootball98 nominated it for deletion again. On 14 September,
Stalwart111 attempted to convert this very early renomination into a deletion review, which of course it should have been all along; but on 15 September,
Spinningspark closed that deletion review on the basis that an AfD was ongoing. In my view Spinningspark's action there was poorly thought through, and it should have been the deletion review that continued, but I let that pass, assuming that in the circumstances, no proper closer could possibly find a "delete" consensus at the AfD. On 19 September,
Fenix downdid find a "delete" consensus at the AfD, and when challenged about this on his talk page, cited the ratio of "keeps" to "deletes" in what I see as disregard of the DGFA.This second AfD would benefit from close scrutiny, and I would particularly encourage those reviewing this decision to check the short contribution histories and low edit counts of the "delete" !voters. —
S MarshallT/
C 12:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn as hopelessly compromised by the procedural errors. Even if that weren't the case, a slew of early delete !votes who don't return to the AfD after further sources are posted should be discounted as not relevant to the sum total of sourcing. I note six initial deletes, most perfunctory, additional sources posted, and then 3-2 keep afterwards, leaving aside the legitimate procedural critiques. In other words, even if this were a brand new AfD, closing as delete with the sourcing discussion trajectory as it is would have been inappropriate; a relist would have been ideal, a no consensus/administrative close also within the realm of closer discretion since the AfD irregularity had been brought to light. But there is no
WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS for deletion here, and the vastly different outcome even though the AfDs were both posted to all the same DELSORT lists suggests that some sort of inappropriate influence cannot be ruled out.
Jclemens (
talk) 18:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn the second AfD; do NOT allow another Afd; if desired, open another Deletion Review on the first AfD. What a mess! After the first Afd, immediately opening a second AfD was disruptive; perhaps that was through ignorance, but insisting it remain open was disruptive without excuse. Closing the deletion review as a procedural matter was a mistake, since the reason for the review was procedural error in the second AfD. By the time
Fenix down got to the second AfD, they were put in an impossible position; no decision would have been any good. At this point, the best we can do is pretend the second AfD never happened, and that the first deletion review never happened. If someone is unhappy with the first AfD, open a new (third) Deletion Review. --
Larry/Traveling_Man (
talk) 19:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse I absolutely disagree that the second AfD should have been a DRV, and I'm surprised to see people suggesting it. DRV is an appropriate venue for discussing procedural issues with deletion discussions, or mistakes made by closers. It's not a venue for discussing whether the subject is notable, and that's the concern the nominator of the second AfD had. If they had opened a DRV with that rationale they would have been told "DRV is not AfD round 2", so they opted to start AfD round 2 instead. While a month is rather soon to reopen the issue, the second AfD had far more participation and more detailed analysis of the sources, so I think it is a rather better discussion and the result should stand. Hut 8.5 07:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I certainly disagree with this. In the past, we've had to deal with editors whose attitude was: That consensus is wrong and the relistings will continue until this crap article is deleted. Most of them are topic-banned or site-banned now, because the community does take a dim view of rapid renomination, and rightly so.—
S MarshallT/
C 14:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I can definitely understand the view that the second AfD was inappropriate because of the short time between nominations, however I don't understand the advice to go to DRV instead. If we want to stop people renominating that soon then we should just tell them not to renominate so soon, rather than telling them to go to DRV. Hut 8.5 16:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Request temp-undeletion.
Can we confirm whether everyone from AfD1 was notified of AfD2? If not, that alone is a reason to overturn. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 07:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
No, that isn't a reason to overturn. There is no requirement for a new AFD to notify participants of an old AFD. While I would support doing that, it is actually quite rare for it to happen.
SpinningSpark 08:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Yes it is, considering combination with the rapid renomination that is normally not ok. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 10:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Agree wth Smokeyjoe that it is a bit
stealthy to relist without notifying those who have debated in good faith in the recent past. Not required but a bit stealthy nonetheless.
Lightburst (
talk) 13:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
To reiterate: Yes, it is.
Jclemens (
talk) 15:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Link to the guideline that so requires that action please.
SpinningSpark 16:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
That just says to me that you agree that there is no such guideline. Citing pages that could just as easily be cited by the other side is meaningless other than confirming that you have no argument.
SpinningSpark 12:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Request temp-undeletion.
The consternation over a small new soccer club seems out of proportion.
AfD2 has more quality input than AfD1, and it did already when the rapid renomination complaint occurred.
Rapid renominations are a bad idea because they rarely develop the discussion, but this one did.
Ideally, the AfD2 should be considered a continuation of AfD1. AfD1 participants should have been invited to participate in AfD2. Some did.
The AfD2 closer,
User:Fenix down, is remiss in not commenting on the "keep" "consensus" in AfD1.
User:Fenix_down, could you make that comment now? Did you close of AfD2 consider all the arguments present in AfD1?
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 06:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Request temp-undeletion. It is essential to see what the !voters were looking at, in both AfD1 and AfD2.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 02:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Done. I had seen your request but left it to others as I am a little involved here.
SpinningSpark 12:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Thanks. It took me a long time to work out why you considered yourself involved. (the Sept 13 DRV close). --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 07:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't have thought soft undeletion is something that you need to worry about from an INVOLVED point of view. It's pretty much routine for contested AFDs where the result was delete, unless the DRV is so lacking in merit that it's not even worth continuing with it. —
Amakuru (
talk) 09:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse The question here is there are procedural errors that override the closure of the underlying AfD. The only procedural question I see is the strength of the guidance in the
WP:RENOM essay. While I think the essay is quite good, the essay only provides a suggestion. Without any procedural errors, we must judge the underlying discussion. The strongest case for a relist was that the last five bolded keep/delete comments split 3-2 for keep. However, the last two were delete comments, so there was no clear trajectory of later comments. A closer should not discount early comments for being early, especially in this case where one editor quickly provided a detailed analysis of the sourcing used in the article. --
Enos733 (
talk) 16:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
You're correct to refer to the rules, and you're correct to say that RENOM is an essay. For the guideline, please see the third limb of
WP:PCLOSE: it says (lightly paraphrased) that hasty renominations that boil down to an objection about the outcome of a previous AfD should be procedurally closed (which means closed without result) and listed at DRV instead. This is what Stalwart111 did, and this is why I say that Spinningspark was wrong to reverse Stalwart111's action.—
S MarshallT/
C 10:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
If that indeed was what the DRV nominator had done, that might well have been my action. But the DRV nomination was not challenging the outcome of a previous AFD, they actually supported that outcome. Rather, they were objecting to the opening of a second AFD. The correct procedure under those circumstances is to call for speedy close from within the AFD, not to open a DRV on a discussion that is still ongoing. That's for the simple reason that at that stage there is no decision to endorse or overturn.
SpinningSpark 12:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry, I'm really confused by this reply and I don't understand it at all. To me, Stalwart111's deletion review nomination seems mostly consistent with the third limb of
WP:PCLOSE, except that Stalwart111 didn't actually close the AfD. He had the right idea though -- Stalwart111 was saying that if Indianfootball98 wanted to challenge the outcome of the previous AfD (which he did, from his AfD nom), then DRV was the place to do it. But that led to two parallel discussions happening at once. In my view, the correct way to regularize this would have been to procedurally close the AfD, not procedurally close the DRV. I've tried to follow the argument to the contrary and I can't see how it makes sense.—
S MarshallT/
C 13:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
It's quite simple. The order of events needs to be pclose AFD2, THEN open a DRV on AFD1. Now I accept your criticism that I could have closed it myself. I did not do so, because as I said in my DRV close, I would have felt uncomfortable closing a discussion that had become so well developed. By the way, no one referred to PCLOSE in either discussion.
SpinningSpark 14:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Not exactly. Mentioning procedural closure is not the same as referring to the guideline. That is, pointing out that the guideline has something significant to say regarding the case in hand.
SpinningSpark 12:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)reply
People closing discussions should either know the rules, or else be willing to look them up. When we mention a guideline, it shouldn't be necessary tell the closer what that guideline says.—
S MarshallT/
C 14:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)reply
As I said, the guideline was not actually mentioned. I think you have an idealistic view of the superhuman abilities of administrators. Show me the administrator who knows every word of policy and guidelines off by heart and I'll resign immediately (besides which, the body of guidelines is edited on a daily basis). Contrary to what you say, AFD participants who want their arguments to be given weight by the closer need to explicitly say what guideline(s) they are arguing from.
SpinningSpark 14:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)reply
How do you view that debate in the light of the guidelines that I've now told you about?—
S MarshallT/
C 16:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure which debate you mean. I wasn't responsible for closing AFD2 so no comment on that. I don't think it changes my close of DRV1 for the reasons I've already given. The nom called for AFD2 to be closed, not for AFD1 to be reviewed (they only said DRV is where the nom of AFD2 should go) and the only two bolded !votes were for speedy close because AFD2 was still ongoing. The debate had so thoroughly gone down that path that to try and force it back on to a PCLOSE#3 procedure would be either impossible or at best hopelessly confusing. Close and refocus was the only sensible course to my mind.
SpinningSpark 16:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Had I simply come across the second AFD during a wander through the AFD logs I probably would have non-admin closed it as being out of process, with the suggestion that the nominator take their grievance here to DRV. But my involvement in the previous AFD (only a month earlier) would have made that a
WP:BADNAC. So I didn't. Instead, I argued it should be closed (within the AFD, as suggested), and brought it here so that it could be highlighted as out of process and closed by an uninvolved admin. Unfortunately, the nature of football-related AFDs (and the related WikiProject) is that by the time anyone else saw it, there were already a slew of non-policy !votes for deletion. So DRV1 was closed before the AFD could be closed, but it is still absolutely the case that the AFD should have been closed. St★lwart111 01:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Yes, very BADNAC. So why not admin closure? Instead of closing it oneself procedurally as an involved non-admin, one could have asked an administrator to do it. The "unfortunately" part actually starts when an ongoing AfD can't be reviewed at DRV (and can't be effectively procedurally corrected under
WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE by switching the venue to DRV because the reason for renomination is not DRV-worthy).
— Alalch Emis (
talk) 16:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Indeed, I asked a group of uninvolved admins with a working knowledge of deletion processes (right here) to do exactly that. St★lwart111 22:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I would note that the guideline in
WP:PCLOSE describes an immediate renomination. To me, a month between AfDs does not feel "immediate." --
Enos733 (
talk) 16:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn to null outcome Spent a long time debating this one. On one hand "it's just an essay" on the other hand, this is not behavior that AfD could really support. If there was something special about the prior AfD, fine. But there doesn't appear to be. We can't just keep doing this over and over until the delete side gets what they want (because the recreation bar is much higher than the "send it to AfD again" bar). And not just because "the delete side wins" but because AfD can't support having a redo every time someone doesn't like the result. Let's wait for
WP:RENOM and then we can discuss it again. RENOM isn't always required, but there should be a darn good reason for when it's not. No such reason was given.
Hobit (
talk) 10:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse. I would disregard the procedural issues raised by the appellant with respect to the first AfD and DRV. In my view, it does not matter whether the closure of the first AfD and DRV was correct, because we have a more recent decision "on the merits" before us: the second AfD. It is this most recent closure that we should now review, and I see no benefit in reviewing earlier discussions. As to the second AfD, the appellant does not really substantiate why they believe it was wrongly closed. They are of the view that citing the ratio of "keeps" to "deletes" is a disregard of the
WP:DGFA, but they do not explain why that is so. Numbers do matter to some extent in AfDs, in addition to the weight of the arguments advanced. The appellant also remarks on "the short contribution histories and low edit counts of the "delete" !voters", but in my view these edit counts are not so low as to suggest sock- or meatpuppetry, and I don't see why else these views should be discounted. A case for doing so could be made if their arguments were unfounded in policies and guidelines, but apart from one person ("the club is so irrelevant") that doesn't seem to be the case to me. For lack of a convincing reason to question the closer's judgment, I would not overturn their closure. Sandstein 14:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Additionally, with respect to the arguments about
WP:RENOM above: Compliance with
WP:RENOM (an essay, I note, and therefore a text of no particular authority) is an argument on the merits and belongs at AfD, not DRV. It would therefore have been an argument to make in the second AfD for keeping the article or closing the AfD without a result. That argument was indeed made by some in the second AfD, but did not obtain consensus. It is not for us at DRV to substitute our judgment for that of the AfD participants. Sandstein 14:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I must say, I do rather object to the characterization of this as "procedural issues". In rapid succession, we have the same discussion, different decision-makers, opposite results. In the circumstances, how can we possibly have confidence in our decision making processes?—
S MarshallT/
C 16:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
We can't, but we've never pretended that Wikipedia is good at consistent decision-making. Our decisions tend to be decided by whoever bothers to show up, which is often quite random. Sandstein 18:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
If our decisions were random, and if it was acceptable to redo a discussion promptly after closure, then I could just keep re-starting the same discussion until my preferred outcome was reached. I have to ask: If the contributors to AfD #1 wanted their views to be given weight in the close of AfD #2, would they need to copy/paste them into the new AfD? Should I have pinged them all during AfD #2 so this could happen?—
S MarshallT/
C 09:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)reply
@
S Marshall: Well, that's how AfDs work, for better or worse. The people who participate in them get to decide the outcome, but that outcome is not permanent: an article can be renominated if not deleted, or recreated if deleted. Pinging previous AfD participants is OK, as long as it is not done in an one-sided manner so as to amount to canvassing. If we want our deletion decisions to be consistent, we'd need to delegate them to a permanent Deletion Committee, but I don't think that there would be community consensus for that, and it wouldn't scale sufficiently to deal with the number of deletion requests we have. Sandstein 09:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Well, I don't see it quite that way. For as long as I've been editing, the community has always frowned on rapid renomination after a "keep" closure at AfD. I've been citing
WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED as an
argument to avoid since 2009, and indeed I see that that redirect was created in 2007. I do realize that WP:ATA is an essay and you're unimpressed by essays. I wonder whether we need an RfC to establish whether the community does frown on it.—
S MarshallT/
C 13:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)reply
That's peculiar, since I'm sure you've expressed distaste for WP:ATA on more than one occasion, such "One of the worst things about Wikipedia deletion processes is ATA, an essay that consists entirely of a list of things that some editors think other editors shouldn't be allowed to say." in
Dec 2019. --
81.100.164.154 (
talk) 14:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)reply
ATA does tell us what the community thinks about deletion discussions. It's true that I personally disagree with a lot of the thought behind ATA and I would love to deprecate large parts of it.—
S MarshallT/
C 16:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Sandstein: The slippery-slope argument is then "is it okay with you if many of our keep discussions result in an immediate relisting?". That seems like it has the potential to be quite disruptive. Would you be okay with delete outcomes also being immediately relisted and a "keep" outcome in those resulting in a restoration of the article?
Hobit (
talk) 17:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
No, it would not be okay with me if many of our "keep" outcomes result in an immediate renomination (not relisting). That would be a waste of community time. But I'd say so in the overhasty second AfD, and if enough people agreed, the AfD would be closed as speedy keep. But that argument is one for AfD participants to make, and they did not do so here. It's possible to make the case that
WP:RENOM should be a policy or guideline, but right now it is not, and so we should not pay it any heed here. With respect to a "delete" outcome being immediately contested, that is in fact possible even now: everybody is free immediately after a deletion to request draftification and to recreate the article; if it is sufficiently different from the deleted version (which is often very easy to do) it will need another AfD to delete. Sandstein 18:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Endorse: Despite me making some procedural errors, the second AFD had clear consensus to delete the article.
Indianfootball98 (
talk) 06:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn to null outcome: I would not disregard the procedural issues.
WP:RENOM is very helpful here as it documents best practices -- no one here is saying that it doesn't. Saying that something is an essay doesn't answer the question of what the most opportune recourse is. Incidentally, the problem of too-soon renominations is addressed in a guideline:
WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE: Nomination is an immediate objection to a prior deletion outcome. This nomination was an immediate objection to a prior deletion outcome. A possible correction is specified: List it at deletion review .... This correction is good when the objection as expressed in the deletion nomination itself is composed of arguments that would work at DRV... but when same reasons are classic deletion arguments, porting the discussion over to DRV would mean instant relitigating -- not a proper use of this venue. The reasons for renomination were that... "club fails NFOOTY". I mean... seriously? This immediate objection would not work at DRV so the aforementioned correction would not be a feasible solution. This makes the deletion discussion incorrigibly procedurally compromised, and the only proper way to close would have been a PROCEDURALCLOSE. Instead it was closed with a material finding of consensus, and it couldn't have been. This means that there were substantial procedural errors, and the close needs to be overturned. S Marshall says that during the previous DRV of this same AfDit should have been the deletion review that continued, and the AfD that was closed. I agree per above that the AfD should have been procedurally closed (not even contingent on a DRV close, but by any administrator who'd treat it as non-constructive in light of WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE and WP:RENOM), but also, that the DRV should have been speedily closed (as it was). So I'd have shut everything down, and told interested parties to wait, and to use the right venues if and when they have the right reasons.
— Alalch Emis (
talk) 19:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)reply
That's a better argument than I made. +++.
Hobit (
talk) 21:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)reply
The question is whether and AfD made a month after the close of the first AfD is equivalent to "immediate" as described in
WP:PCLOSE. I don't think the timing leads to a clear violation of the guideline and I don't see anything to indicate the nomination was in bad faith. --
Enos733 (
talk) 04:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I disagree that the second AfD was "incorrigibly procedurally compromised". It cannot be so for violating RENOM, because that page is an essay and therefore cannot establish correct renomination procedure in a manner that binds other editors. I agree that PCLOSE, as a guideline, is applicable to this case, but being a guideline rather than a policy, it can be overridden by local consensus, such as in an AfD. If editors had made PCLOSE-based arguments in the AfD, the closer would have been required to give such arguments considerable weight, but such arguments were made only by @
S Marshall and @
Stalwart111. I can't fault the second AfD closer for not giving these two (even if persuasive and guideline-based) opinions determining weight in the face of every other AfD participant who wanted to discuss the notability of the topic on its merits. I would therefore still not overturn the second AfD, even if I can now better see the argument for doing so. Sandstein 09:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Relist: I don't think the issue here, is the odd history of AFD/DRV/2nd AFD ... but that in the second AFD, that the close was premature, and should have been given at least another week. Saying that it should be deleted on a 9-3 vote, suggests that the closer has a fundamental misunderstanding how AFD works.
WP:GAFD is clear it's not a vote, but a discussion. In that discussion of 9 "delete votes", 7 of them were right at the beginning, before any reasons to keep it were provided. Then there were 3 keep votes, followed by 2 more deletes, one of which seemed a bit pointy. None of the earlier 8 users who endorsed the delete, returned to the discussion after reasons to keep it were presented, other than Muur's non-sequitur. Consensus was never reached - particularly after the clear Keep AFD day's earlier. Another option is close as no consensus, with no prejudice against relisting.
Nfitz (
talk) 20:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I was listing it by the closure sequence ... but that's not my point at all. My point was about the poor AFD2 closure.
Nfitz (
talk) 23:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn (though I would think my opinion was obvious by now). Obviously I had a problem with the closer's vote-count (under the circumstances) and said so at his talk page. I would have brought this here myself were it not for the fact that I've been swamped with school holidays (vacation) activities. I brought it to DRV when the second AFD was first opened in the hope someone would close that second (out-of-process) AFD and review the original AFD instead (if that's what the nominator of the second AFD wanted). That discussion was closed. Fundamentally, those who expressed a view in favour of deletion cited
WP:NFOOTY and the second AFD featured a disingenuous list of sources and whether or not they should be considered valid. But that list was deeply flawed and multiple people said so. On the other hand, multiple people provided sources to confirm the subject meets
WP:GNG and given that
WP:NFOOTY does not supersede that guideline, !votes that relied on
WP:NFOOTY really hold no value. Add to that the personal attacks and
WP:POINTY contributions from a couple of the !delete voters who had their unrelated AFD nominations SNOW closed elsewhere... the second AFD shouldn't have been opened, should have been closed when it was brought here the first time, and shouldn't have been closed as anything other than a result that aligned with the only policy-based arguments in the discussion. St★lwart111 01:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I suggest that a better procedure for dealing with an AFD that needs to be urgently closed would have been to request assistance at ANI rather than opening a DRV.
SpinningSpark 12:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)reply
This is probably correct, but ANI is a cross between an eternal flame and dumpster fire, so I find it hard to fault any editor with a modicum of common sense for trying to find any other appropriate venue first.
Jclemens (
talk) 16:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Amen to that. One can always approach administrators individually of course, but a bit or work is needed to find one active at that moment.
SpinningSpark 16:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Yes, I could have. But rather than asking an individual admin (to implement my personal desired outcome) I brought it here so that it could be reviewed impartially and so that any number of admins familiar with deletion and related procedure (and uninvolved with either AFD) could action a close. But that idea was rejected. Bureaucracy is a wonderful thing. St★lwart111 22:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn (no consensus, and procedurally compromised). AfD2 is not a strong consensus, and the closing statement is inadequate. There were persuasive "Keep" !votes,
Henriklars (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2021 makes an analysis of the sources, and was persuasive to many. However, Nfitz (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2021, offered five sources, and of these #2,3,4 are good enough. Henriklars source analysis is criticised, but Nfitz's is not.
St★lwart111 and Eastmain also make good "keep" !votes.
The closer's perfunctory statement implies a strong consensus, which there is not. The procedural irregularity, loudly complained about during the process, may have poisoned the discussion. End the end, the discussion was poor, key sources were not discussed.
There are multiple reasons for why quick relisting is discouraged. One of them is that an AfD discussion so soon after the previous one tends to be of lower quality. This happened here. A lot more words were posted, but few of the words were directing to why the best sources weren't good enough. Overturn to "no consensus", and follow
WP:RENOM and do not allow a fresh AfD nomination until at least two months after the close of this DRV discussion. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 07:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)reply