TV Tonight Awards 2020 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I believe this award list's AfD deletion discussion, which was nominated by @ Boneymau, was closed in the wrong way, as both the 2021 and 2022 awards list pages, which I nominated for AfD in the first place, for failing notability guidelines ("having no significant coverage outside of the TV Tonight website itself, failing WP:NTV and WP:GNG"). Those award list pages were properly deleted, while this award list page was redirected to TV Tonight, by @ Liz. I believe that this page should be deleted, for my reasons. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page) 22:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• TechGeek105, please advise the administrator who closed the discussion, Liz, as required by Step 2 of Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review. Daniel ( talk) 23:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse redirect was a viable option (and in my opinion, the correct option). While there was consensus against keeping the article, there was certainly not consensus against a redirect, as neither delete vote stated an opposition to a redirect (and the nominator even supported a redirect as a WP:ATD). I also support restoring the history of the 2021 and 2022 pages as redirects, but DRV is not the place for that argument. Frank Anchor 01:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The appellant mentions "reasons" for the appeal, but doesn't list any. Having two other pages deleted isn't a valid reason on AfD, and certainly not on DRV. The AfD had two Delete !votes, and two Redirect, including the nom. Redir was the natural, correct way to close it. At this point, the appellant's petition amounts to an RfD, which is even more unreasonable. Owen× ☎ 02:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Nominator comment: My reasons why I support a deletion of the page, include having no significant coverage outside of TV Tonight itself, hence no secondary sources, and the TV Tonight Wikipedia article does not mention the awards at all. I will let the AfD closer admin, Liz know about this discussion, because @ Daniel, said it is required by Step 2 of Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page) 04:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  That is an argument for an WP:RfD, not a DRV. DRV is not AfD/RfD Round 2. You haven't suggested that the debate was closed incorrectly based on the consensus evident in the discussion, just that you disagree with the arguments levelled in the debate and therefore the end result. I fail to see which of the five DRV purposes listed at WP:DRVPURPOSE apply here. Specifically, "Deletion review should not be used...because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment". Daniel ( talk) 04:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Daniel, I have let Liz know. I agree that the discussion was closed incorrectly, because the consensus in the discussion was redirect. I believe a delete consensus would work just as well, because the awards are not notable to add to the TV Tonight article and there are no other secondary sources. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page) 04:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  For the record, the statement "I agree that the discussion was closed incorrectly" is confusing; it indicates that I said the discussion was closed incorrectly and the editor is agreeing with my statement, which is patently incorrect - I said no such thing, and (given my endorse below) clearly do not think the discussion was closed incorrectly. Daniel ( talk) 04:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Daniel, I meant, I believe that the discussion was closed incorrectly, because the discussion consensus was redirect and that a delete consensus would work just as well, because information on the awards is not on the article TV Tonight, and there are no reliable sources besides TV Tonight. Hence why I support an overturn, as the DRV nom. I will go back to editing and reading other articles now. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page) 04:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure as a viable AtD that was proposed by two editors and not objected to by the other two. I would go so far as to say that the close was clearly the best close, and any alternative may possibly have been deemed as not ideal. No procedural or other DRV-applicable argument has been advanced by the applicant, as per OwenX. Daniel ( talk) 04:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment I don't have much to add but if you disagree with the closure to allow a Redirect, I'd suggest taking this to RFD. It's much simpler to get a Redirect reevaluated than to overturn an AFD decision at Deletion review unless there is a groundswell of support for your stance (or unless I seriously screwed up which I don't believe is the case here). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as well within the closer's discretion given the status of the discussion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as a reasonable action by the closer. When the responses are split between Delete and Merge, Merge is less drastic. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as within discretion, but there's no mention of "TV Tonight Awards" at the target, and if someone were to try adding that mention they would find that it is not trivially easy (I tried).— Alalch E. 09:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse with limited participation, redirect was clearly a harmless option for the closer, and a "redirect versus delete" outcome is a lot less worrying than a "keep versus delete" debate as they both functionally lead to the same result. SportingFlyer T· C 19:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply