A non-admin closure of a controversial AfD with views evenly split between Keep and Delete. As with two other recent non-admin closures by this editor, this comes across as a supervote. I suggest a speedy Overturn and relist.
Owen×☎ 18:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn and relist as that would have been the most likely action of an admin if it had been handled by an admin.
Tehonk (
talk) 18:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn and relist per my suggestion in the other DRV.
SportingFlyerT·C 20:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Chikki Panday – Speedily overturned as an inappropriate NAC and incorrect reading of consensus, in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator per
Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions - "Deletion-related closes may only be reopened...(2) by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning".
Daniel (
talk) 22:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Another non-admin closure by this editor where they cast a supervote ("keep per WP:HEY") in a controversial AfD, which doesn't reflect the actual lack of consensus.
Owen×☎ 18:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn and relist - the best close there is no consensus but the discussion on both sides isn't great, so another week may help clear this up, and this was a clearly controversial close per BADNAC.
SportingFlyerT·C 18:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn as a BADNAC as it was clearly controversial and "keep per WP:HEY" is clearly a supervote rather than a consensus.
Tehonk (
talk) 19:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Deletion just one week after the nomination. The projects were notified selectively and the users who participated in the previous AfDs weren't notified.
Alaexis¿question? 13:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse. I see only one coherent argument for keeping the article, versus two clear Delete views, two more that imply a lack of notability, and of course, the subject of the article himself, who is entitled to call for the deletion under
WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Normally, this level of participation and distribution of !votes might allow for an extra week of relisting, but in the case of a BLP that contains potentially disparaging assertions, time is of the essence. Kudos to the closing admin for doing the right thing, and not letting this drag on beyond the minimum seven days. We normally notify the author of an article when it is listed in AfD, but it is neither required nor common practice to notify participants in previous AfDs for that page.
Owen×☎ 14:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, does seems like a bit of a rules for thee but not for me on the OP's part; i.e. ignored the Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer portion of the instructions. Curious.
El_C 18:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I haven't initiated deletion reviews for a long time and didn't notice this recommendation in the Instructions section, my apologies. I'll do it next time, but since the review has been opened, I think that this should be decided on the merits of the case.
Alaexis¿question? 22:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse I think delete was not only a perfectly valid conclusion but the best conclusion. Selective notification doesn't make for a defective AfD except in very specific circumstances (selective canvassing) not met here.
SportingFlyerT·C 18:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse. A week is the standard period, it is not necesary to ping previous AfD's participants, and there was a consensus to delete. A normal number of editors participated and exhibited an above-average level of interest and activity, making this a well-attended AfD. In my opinion, which projects were notified never matters to the extent that a close should be overturned only because of that, because assuming that members of a particular project would have !voted contrarily to the outcome reached (keep instead of delete in this case), is conceptualizing them as a voting block and assuming that they have a particular tendency, so under that premise it would be better never to notify any such project harboring noticeable tendencies, and if the idea that one voting block is needed to oppose another voting block (the projects that were notified), that is contrary to how consensus is reached, and is an implicit accusation of tendentiousness directed at the actual participants (even if a very mild one). I'm of a view that DRV should be agnostic as to which WikiProjects were notified.—
Alalch E. 22:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah. The usual standard for DRV to overturn a deletion discussion due to insufficient notification is if there's no meaningful notification to anybody at all - usually this means no {{
afd}} tag on the article (or the process's equivalent), but we've also done so for noincluded {{
tfd}} tags and once or twice for images with neither {{
ffdc}} in their captions nor notification on the article talk pages. Participants in previous deletion discussions are almost never specifically notified, nor should they be. If they care about improving content and not just scoring points in the inclusionist-deletionist wars, they should be watching the article anyway.That said, we might be willing to reopen this if you've got very strong, substantive reasons (ie, not the purely-process ones you raised above) to keep this content that you were unable to express because the afd closed before you saw it. Do you? —
Cryptic 01:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment It looks like the same four DELSORT lists were notified in the most recent AfD as were notified in the previous. Was something else expected?
Jclemens (
talk) 04:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
overturn this person is hugely quoted in the press (as was shown in the AfD) and cannot be considered "non-public" per the requirements of
WP:BLPDEL. If you are regularly giving quotes to major news sources (which they use) and doing interviews online, you're a public person.
Hobit (
talk) 06:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Lion of Oz – Overturn I'll be honest, this is confusing. But there's consensus for a reclose, but no one is willing (or able, in the case of those having participated) to do it. So kicking back to AfD. I don't think the consensus is strong enough to call this a Bad NAC, just a less than ideal one given the issue is the statement, not the outcome.
StarMississippi 15:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This non-admin closure says that the consensus found the film passed
WP:NFILM and
WP:NFO criteria 1. To my eye, the consensus was that it did not meet criteria 1 (or any other NFILM criteria), but that those in favour of a keep considered the sources sufficient for
WP:GNG. I think the closing rationale does not accurately reflect the consensus, and I think the discussion overall was too controversial to be suitable for a non-admin closure. I request that an admin review this close.
~ L 🌸 (
talk) 06:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
(disclosure: I was the nom) I agree that this was a poor close. The closer's statement, The sources provided, including reviews, adequately establish the film's notability under WP:NFILM. Additionally, given that the film received reviews from major publishers, it fulfills the requirements outlined in WP:NFO#1, looks to me like a supervote, especially considering that everyone agreed the case for
WP:GNG was stronger than the one for
WP:NFILM, even the respondents who thought it met both of them. I would grumble at, but accept, a keep closure; however, I agree with LEvalyn that the closing rationale does not accurately reflect the discussion. --
asilvering (
talk) 07:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I stand by the rationale behind my closure. As highlighted by multiple users in the AfD discussion, the film has received reviews from notable publishers, thereby meeting the criteria outlined in WP:NFO#1, a crucial component of WP:NFILM.
GSS💬
Point one, the question isn't whether your assessment is a correct identification of the film's notability: the question is whether this close accurately summarized the consensus of the AfD discussion. I can understand a conclusion that consensus was for a GNG keep, but no one in the AfD said it was a pass of NFILM#1. That is because, point two, NFILM#1 requires full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics, and this film has zero of those.
~ L 🌸 (
talk) 07:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
It seems you might have overlooked the comments by those who !voted to keep (there are four of them), referencing reviews that automatically point toward WP:NFO#1.
GSS💬 07:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse the closure of Keep, which was a valid reading of consensus, and the most plausible reading of consensus. With 6 Keeps, citing
reliability of sources, and 3 Deletes including the nomination, this appeal appears to be saying that the closer should have supervoted by ignoring consensus.
To be clear, I don’t object (too much) to a closure of keep, which I agree is a plausible reading of the debate, and there’s no need to pass NFILM if GNG is met. However, I strongly object to the closer’s stated rationale, which inserts its own supervote by making assertions about NFILM#1 which are not supported by the AfD. It is the citation of NFILM over GNG that I contend interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I don't think a pass of NFILM#1 should go "on the record"; I'm not asking for a different decision, but for a more accurate statement of closure rationale.
~ L 🌸 (
talk) 08:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn as a
WP:BADNAC, as the close has become controversial, and re-close by a competent administrator. The closing statement reads like a vote instead of reflecting the result of the consensus. I'm not sure there's a better outcome for the initiator of this DRV, though, even with a couple keep !votes that I read as weak.
SportingFlyerT·C 10:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn and get an admin to close, without relisting. I appreciate
GSS's transparency, but this transparency allows us to see the improper reasoning behind the close. An XfD closer's job is not to assess the article and its sourcing, and it is certainly not to come up with their own fresh arguments. Their job is to read the consensus of the participants. And participants excludes the closer, who is expected to be neutral and impartial as to the page being discussed. If we had any doubt that this was a supervote, GSS's comments here, doubling down on their mistake, removes that doubt. This is a classic
WP:NACPIT situation. Relisting would be a waste of time, but the current closure cannot be allowed to stand.
Owen×☎ 13:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
My reason for closing the AfD should not be treated as a super !vote. It's a standard practice to summarize the consensus outcome, which is why I indicated it when closing the AfD. Additionally, it was crystal clear that the subject is notable and meets the notability criteria mentioned in WP:NFO, which is what I mentioned while closing the AfD. Thank you.
GSS💬 13:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Once again, you prove my claim. If it was crystal clear that the subject is notable and meets the notability criteria mentioned in WP:NFO, then you should have !voted that way as a participant in the AfD, rather than imposed your view as a closer. You did not "summarize the consensus outcome". You took bits and pieces of the views you agreed with, added a bit of your own view that wasn't reflected in any of the participants' comments, and closed it based on that. That,
GSS, is what we call a supervote. And as
SportingFlyer mentioned, this was clearly not an uncontroversial AfD, which means that it should have been left for an admin to close.
Owen×☎ 14:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, your response makes it crystal clear this was a BADNAC close, even if Keep is a viable option.
SportingFlyerT·C 18:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse keep closure as the correct result, but I agree this close would have been better left to an admin. The wording of the close is more appropriate as a “keep” vote rather than a close, making the close a (likely unintentional)
WP:SUPERVOTE. That said, there is consensus to keep, and the discussion
does not need to be reopened so an admin can close it the same way. FrankAnchor 15:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - It is true that the close was less than ideal, but any other close would need to be brought to DRV and overturned. Reopening the AFD so that it can be closed by an admin would be process for the sake of process. Either this DRV or the close of this DRV should serve as the non-controversial close of the AFD.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 17:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - I may seem to be usually in favor of what seems to be process for the sake of process, but that is because it is important to get the right answer, that is, the answer that improves the encyclopedia, so that it is important to ascertain what the {rough} consensus is if there is a (rough) consensus. In this case, we know what the right answer is, and can
ignore any process for the sake of process.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 17:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse as the only result that could be reached in the discussion (as even a no consensus close would be a stretch). I think the problem here is not with the close but the rational provided. I find it helpful if a closer summarizes the discussion with works like "Participants say" or "Supporters of keeping the article" or something similar to indicate to readers that the closers comments are a summary of the discussion, rather than a statement that appears to be a comment in support or opposition to deleting an article. --
Enos733 (
talk) 17:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree. Both of those should have been left to an admin. The second one should probably have been relisted.
SportingFlyerT·C 18:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you,
Tehonk! I listed both here at DRV. These out-of-process WP:BADNAC non-admin supervote closures need to stop.
Owen×☎ 18:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
There's nothing wrong with a non-controversial non-administrative close, but as soon as there's a delete or it's a close call the correct thing to do is to cast a vote in the AfD! The most valuable thing someone can do at AfD is participate.
SportingFlyerT·C 20:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn and close by an administrator as a
BADNAC. The closer's rationale is an excellent argument for !voting 'keep', but is a distinctly poor rationale for closing as keep - closers are responsible for assessing consensus in the debate, and referring back to that consensus in their closure. I would have done this myself under the provisions of
Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions ("an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity") but given it's being discussed here with some split opinions, would rather leave to the closure of this debate to take action if that's where consensus lands.
Daniel (
talk) 22:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn bad non-admin closure. NOTBURO was mentioned, but vacating closes is not very BURO because it just takes one person to reclose. It is not running the whole process again, and while overturning a BADNAC can also lead to a relist (not in this case), if a relist is truly needed, that would especially not be a BURO moment. So overturning such closes is usually worth the community resources as having more certainty in the correctness of the outcome and a better written closing statement is not quite so insignificant.—
Alalch E. 00:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn for an admin to close. Bad close verging on Supervote. Correct result, but closing summaries must close per the consensus of the discussion, not introduce the closer’s rationale. NACers when challenged should not stand their ground and force a DRV case, that is not a net positive to the project. NAC closes should be restricted to closes that will not be challenged. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 22:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Someone please reclose as we seem to be split on leaving vs. reclosing, but that the ultimate result was correct.
Jclemens (
talk) 04:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a case of a non-admin close that shouldn't have been a non-admin close, but was ultimately the correct result of keep. So let's just move on, endorse the end result,
WP:TROUT GSS for the BADNAC (and the other BADNACs brought up in this discussion), and trout LEvalyn for the futile challenge to the result.
Carson Wentz (
talk) 15:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I respectfully disagree.
LEvalyn did the right thing in bringing this to our attention here. The two other BADNACs have since been speedily overturned, and hopefully
GSS has finally received the message. None of this would have happened had the appellant not spoken up.
Owen×☎ 15:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
LEvalyn has also been clear that the desired outcome is not a futile challenge to the result. From a reply above: I'm not asking for a different decision, but for a more accurate statement of closure rationale. --
asilvering (
talk) 16:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree with Owen and others above that this absolutely isn't a futile challenge. This isn't the equivalent of swapping keep to no consensus, and the minimal change that comes from that difference. A faulty AfD close rationale is something that should absolutely be corrected at DRV, especially when done by a non-admin.
Daniel (
talk) 22:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Oyi, closing statement didn't reflect the discussion but the final result (keep) was easily justified by the discussion. Eh, I'm okay with a new closer, new closing statement, or just an overturn so someone else can close it. The NAC doesn't play a role--it's just a bad summary of the discussion and should not stand.
Hobit (
talk) 06:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Meh. The keep and delete votes were both reasonably strong and had a reasonable disagreement on interpretations of policy. Accordingly, as there is a 2/3 majority for keep, it should have been closed as keep and not NC. But the close is erroneous, it's not up for the closer to decide whether NFILM is met. The closer can write There is a consensus that the references below meets GNG, which would have been fine, but as it stands it is a supervote. I still don't really see whether it's worth it to oveturn and then re-close with a different statement. VickKiang(talk) 02:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn and reclose yes the result will likely be the same, but that is not the point of DRV.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 18:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This debate has had one comment in the past 14 days. I think it's ready to be closed. (Sadly I offered an opinion and are therefore no longer uninvolved, so I have to pass on doing it myself.)
Daniel (
talk) 11:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
A non-admin closure of a controversial AfD with views evenly split between Keep and Delete. As with two other recent non-admin closures by this editor, this comes across as a supervote. I suggest a speedy Overturn and relist.
Owen×☎ 18:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn and relist as that would have been the most likely action of an admin if it had been handled by an admin.
Tehonk (
talk) 18:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn and relist per my suggestion in the other DRV.
SportingFlyerT·C 20:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Chikki Panday – Speedily overturned as an inappropriate NAC and incorrect reading of consensus, in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator per
Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions - "Deletion-related closes may only be reopened...(2) by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning".
Daniel (
talk) 22:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Another non-admin closure by this editor where they cast a supervote ("keep per WP:HEY") in a controversial AfD, which doesn't reflect the actual lack of consensus.
Owen×☎ 18:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn and relist - the best close there is no consensus but the discussion on both sides isn't great, so another week may help clear this up, and this was a clearly controversial close per BADNAC.
SportingFlyerT·C 18:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn as a BADNAC as it was clearly controversial and "keep per WP:HEY" is clearly a supervote rather than a consensus.
Tehonk (
talk) 19:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Deletion just one week after the nomination. The projects were notified selectively and the users who participated in the previous AfDs weren't notified.
Alaexis¿question? 13:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse. I see only one coherent argument for keeping the article, versus two clear Delete views, two more that imply a lack of notability, and of course, the subject of the article himself, who is entitled to call for the deletion under
WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Normally, this level of participation and distribution of !votes might allow for an extra week of relisting, but in the case of a BLP that contains potentially disparaging assertions, time is of the essence. Kudos to the closing admin for doing the right thing, and not letting this drag on beyond the minimum seven days. We normally notify the author of an article when it is listed in AfD, but it is neither required nor common practice to notify participants in previous AfDs for that page.
Owen×☎ 14:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, does seems like a bit of a rules for thee but not for me on the OP's part; i.e. ignored the Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer portion of the instructions. Curious.
El_C 18:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I haven't initiated deletion reviews for a long time and didn't notice this recommendation in the Instructions section, my apologies. I'll do it next time, but since the review has been opened, I think that this should be decided on the merits of the case.
Alaexis¿question? 22:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse I think delete was not only a perfectly valid conclusion but the best conclusion. Selective notification doesn't make for a defective AfD except in very specific circumstances (selective canvassing) not met here.
SportingFlyerT·C 18:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse. A week is the standard period, it is not necesary to ping previous AfD's participants, and there was a consensus to delete. A normal number of editors participated and exhibited an above-average level of interest and activity, making this a well-attended AfD. In my opinion, which projects were notified never matters to the extent that a close should be overturned only because of that, because assuming that members of a particular project would have !voted contrarily to the outcome reached (keep instead of delete in this case), is conceptualizing them as a voting block and assuming that they have a particular tendency, so under that premise it would be better never to notify any such project harboring noticeable tendencies, and if the idea that one voting block is needed to oppose another voting block (the projects that were notified), that is contrary to how consensus is reached, and is an implicit accusation of tendentiousness directed at the actual participants (even if a very mild one). I'm of a view that DRV should be agnostic as to which WikiProjects were notified.—
Alalch E. 22:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah. The usual standard for DRV to overturn a deletion discussion due to insufficient notification is if there's no meaningful notification to anybody at all - usually this means no {{
afd}} tag on the article (or the process's equivalent), but we've also done so for noincluded {{
tfd}} tags and once or twice for images with neither {{
ffdc}} in their captions nor notification on the article talk pages. Participants in previous deletion discussions are almost never specifically notified, nor should they be. If they care about improving content and not just scoring points in the inclusionist-deletionist wars, they should be watching the article anyway.That said, we might be willing to reopen this if you've got very strong, substantive reasons (ie, not the purely-process ones you raised above) to keep this content that you were unable to express because the afd closed before you saw it. Do you? —
Cryptic 01:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment It looks like the same four DELSORT lists were notified in the most recent AfD as were notified in the previous. Was something else expected?
Jclemens (
talk) 04:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
overturn this person is hugely quoted in the press (as was shown in the AfD) and cannot be considered "non-public" per the requirements of
WP:BLPDEL. If you are regularly giving quotes to major news sources (which they use) and doing interviews online, you're a public person.
Hobit (
talk) 06:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Lion of Oz – Overturn I'll be honest, this is confusing. But there's consensus for a reclose, but no one is willing (or able, in the case of those having participated) to do it. So kicking back to AfD. I don't think the consensus is strong enough to call this a Bad NAC, just a less than ideal one given the issue is the statement, not the outcome.
StarMississippi 15:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This non-admin closure says that the consensus found the film passed
WP:NFILM and
WP:NFO criteria 1. To my eye, the consensus was that it did not meet criteria 1 (or any other NFILM criteria), but that those in favour of a keep considered the sources sufficient for
WP:GNG. I think the closing rationale does not accurately reflect the consensus, and I think the discussion overall was too controversial to be suitable for a non-admin closure. I request that an admin review this close.
~ L 🌸 (
talk) 06:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
(disclosure: I was the nom) I agree that this was a poor close. The closer's statement, The sources provided, including reviews, adequately establish the film's notability under WP:NFILM. Additionally, given that the film received reviews from major publishers, it fulfills the requirements outlined in WP:NFO#1, looks to me like a supervote, especially considering that everyone agreed the case for
WP:GNG was stronger than the one for
WP:NFILM, even the respondents who thought it met both of them. I would grumble at, but accept, a keep closure; however, I agree with LEvalyn that the closing rationale does not accurately reflect the discussion. --
asilvering (
talk) 07:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I stand by the rationale behind my closure. As highlighted by multiple users in the AfD discussion, the film has received reviews from notable publishers, thereby meeting the criteria outlined in WP:NFO#1, a crucial component of WP:NFILM.
GSS💬
Point one, the question isn't whether your assessment is a correct identification of the film's notability: the question is whether this close accurately summarized the consensus of the AfD discussion. I can understand a conclusion that consensus was for a GNG keep, but no one in the AfD said it was a pass of NFILM#1. That is because, point two, NFILM#1 requires full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics, and this film has zero of those.
~ L 🌸 (
talk) 07:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
It seems you might have overlooked the comments by those who !voted to keep (there are four of them), referencing reviews that automatically point toward WP:NFO#1.
GSS💬 07:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse the closure of Keep, which was a valid reading of consensus, and the most plausible reading of consensus. With 6 Keeps, citing
reliability of sources, and 3 Deletes including the nomination, this appeal appears to be saying that the closer should have supervoted by ignoring consensus.
To be clear, I don’t object (too much) to a closure of keep, which I agree is a plausible reading of the debate, and there’s no need to pass NFILM if GNG is met. However, I strongly object to the closer’s stated rationale, which inserts its own supervote by making assertions about NFILM#1 which are not supported by the AfD. It is the citation of NFILM over GNG that I contend interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I don't think a pass of NFILM#1 should go "on the record"; I'm not asking for a different decision, but for a more accurate statement of closure rationale.
~ L 🌸 (
talk) 08:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn as a
WP:BADNAC, as the close has become controversial, and re-close by a competent administrator. The closing statement reads like a vote instead of reflecting the result of the consensus. I'm not sure there's a better outcome for the initiator of this DRV, though, even with a couple keep !votes that I read as weak.
SportingFlyerT·C 10:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn and get an admin to close, without relisting. I appreciate
GSS's transparency, but this transparency allows us to see the improper reasoning behind the close. An XfD closer's job is not to assess the article and its sourcing, and it is certainly not to come up with their own fresh arguments. Their job is to read the consensus of the participants. And participants excludes the closer, who is expected to be neutral and impartial as to the page being discussed. If we had any doubt that this was a supervote, GSS's comments here, doubling down on their mistake, removes that doubt. This is a classic
WP:NACPIT situation. Relisting would be a waste of time, but the current closure cannot be allowed to stand.
Owen×☎ 13:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
My reason for closing the AfD should not be treated as a super !vote. It's a standard practice to summarize the consensus outcome, which is why I indicated it when closing the AfD. Additionally, it was crystal clear that the subject is notable and meets the notability criteria mentioned in WP:NFO, which is what I mentioned while closing the AfD. Thank you.
GSS💬 13:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Once again, you prove my claim. If it was crystal clear that the subject is notable and meets the notability criteria mentioned in WP:NFO, then you should have !voted that way as a participant in the AfD, rather than imposed your view as a closer. You did not "summarize the consensus outcome". You took bits and pieces of the views you agreed with, added a bit of your own view that wasn't reflected in any of the participants' comments, and closed it based on that. That,
GSS, is what we call a supervote. And as
SportingFlyer mentioned, this was clearly not an uncontroversial AfD, which means that it should have been left for an admin to close.
Owen×☎ 14:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, your response makes it crystal clear this was a BADNAC close, even if Keep is a viable option.
SportingFlyerT·C 18:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse keep closure as the correct result, but I agree this close would have been better left to an admin. The wording of the close is more appropriate as a “keep” vote rather than a close, making the close a (likely unintentional)
WP:SUPERVOTE. That said, there is consensus to keep, and the discussion
does not need to be reopened so an admin can close it the same way. FrankAnchor 15:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - It is true that the close was less than ideal, but any other close would need to be brought to DRV and overturned. Reopening the AFD so that it can be closed by an admin would be process for the sake of process. Either this DRV or the close of this DRV should serve as the non-controversial close of the AFD.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 17:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - I may seem to be usually in favor of what seems to be process for the sake of process, but that is because it is important to get the right answer, that is, the answer that improves the encyclopedia, so that it is important to ascertain what the {rough} consensus is if there is a (rough) consensus. In this case, we know what the right answer is, and can
ignore any process for the sake of process.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 17:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse as the only result that could be reached in the discussion (as even a no consensus close would be a stretch). I think the problem here is not with the close but the rational provided. I find it helpful if a closer summarizes the discussion with works like "Participants say" or "Supporters of keeping the article" or something similar to indicate to readers that the closers comments are a summary of the discussion, rather than a statement that appears to be a comment in support or opposition to deleting an article. --
Enos733 (
talk) 17:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree. Both of those should have been left to an admin. The second one should probably have been relisted.
SportingFlyerT·C 18:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you,
Tehonk! I listed both here at DRV. These out-of-process WP:BADNAC non-admin supervote closures need to stop.
Owen×☎ 18:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
There's nothing wrong with a non-controversial non-administrative close, but as soon as there's a delete or it's a close call the correct thing to do is to cast a vote in the AfD! The most valuable thing someone can do at AfD is participate.
SportingFlyerT·C 20:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn and close by an administrator as a
BADNAC. The closer's rationale is an excellent argument for !voting 'keep', but is a distinctly poor rationale for closing as keep - closers are responsible for assessing consensus in the debate, and referring back to that consensus in their closure. I would have done this myself under the provisions of
Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions ("an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity") but given it's being discussed here with some split opinions, would rather leave to the closure of this debate to take action if that's where consensus lands.
Daniel (
talk) 22:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn bad non-admin closure. NOTBURO was mentioned, but vacating closes is not very BURO because it just takes one person to reclose. It is not running the whole process again, and while overturning a BADNAC can also lead to a relist (not in this case), if a relist is truly needed, that would especially not be a BURO moment. So overturning such closes is usually worth the community resources as having more certainty in the correctness of the outcome and a better written closing statement is not quite so insignificant.—
Alalch E. 00:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn for an admin to close. Bad close verging on Supervote. Correct result, but closing summaries must close per the consensus of the discussion, not introduce the closer’s rationale. NACers when challenged should not stand their ground and force a DRV case, that is not a net positive to the project. NAC closes should be restricted to closes that will not be challenged. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 22:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Someone please reclose as we seem to be split on leaving vs. reclosing, but that the ultimate result was correct.
Jclemens (
talk) 04:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a case of a non-admin close that shouldn't have been a non-admin close, but was ultimately the correct result of keep. So let's just move on, endorse the end result,
WP:TROUT GSS for the BADNAC (and the other BADNACs brought up in this discussion), and trout LEvalyn for the futile challenge to the result.
Carson Wentz (
talk) 15:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I respectfully disagree.
LEvalyn did the right thing in bringing this to our attention here. The two other BADNACs have since been speedily overturned, and hopefully
GSS has finally received the message. None of this would have happened had the appellant not spoken up.
Owen×☎ 15:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
LEvalyn has also been clear that the desired outcome is not a futile challenge to the result. From a reply above: I'm not asking for a different decision, but for a more accurate statement of closure rationale. --
asilvering (
talk) 16:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree with Owen and others above that this absolutely isn't a futile challenge. This isn't the equivalent of swapping keep to no consensus, and the minimal change that comes from that difference. A faulty AfD close rationale is something that should absolutely be corrected at DRV, especially when done by a non-admin.
Daniel (
talk) 22:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Oyi, closing statement didn't reflect the discussion but the final result (keep) was easily justified by the discussion. Eh, I'm okay with a new closer, new closing statement, or just an overturn so someone else can close it. The NAC doesn't play a role--it's just a bad summary of the discussion and should not stand.
Hobit (
talk) 06:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Meh. The keep and delete votes were both reasonably strong and had a reasonable disagreement on interpretations of policy. Accordingly, as there is a 2/3 majority for keep, it should have been closed as keep and not NC. But the close is erroneous, it's not up for the closer to decide whether NFILM is met. The closer can write There is a consensus that the references below meets GNG, which would have been fine, but as it stands it is a supervote. I still don't really see whether it's worth it to oveturn and then re-close with a different statement. VickKiang(talk) 02:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn and reclose yes the result will likely be the same, but that is not the point of DRV.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 18:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This debate has had one comment in the past 14 days. I think it's ready to be closed. (Sadly I offered an opinion and are therefore no longer uninvolved, so I have to pass on doing it myself.)
Daniel (
talk) 11:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.