Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeituni Onyango (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was I have re-opended Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeituni Onyango. Closing it on the technicality that the nom had withdrawn hisdelete opinion, when many others had given one, was always going to result in a needless repetition of the debate. The initial debate will probably be a no-consensus, but that's beside the point. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeituni Onyango[edit]

This is a bit of an odd one - normally *I'd* consider a rapid re-AFD of a subject to be disruptive, however as far as I can see - a withdrawn nomination isn't actually a "close" in the normal sense because no determination of community consensus is achieved because the discussion is automatically disregarded and the community hasn't *actually* spoken on the notability of the subject or the article. So as an AFD process, it never happened. (I am going to make a suggestion to make the AFD process tighter because otherwise, it's a loophole that allows people to use AFD as a protective measure - they nominate the article they want to protect and then withdraw the nom - I am not suggesting this is the case here, just that's if we are saying that "withdraw" is a proper "close" then it could be used that way).

OK to the matter at hand. I think this fails per BLP/NPF/B1E/NOTNEWS and no independent notability is established. This is not a criticism of the work put into the artice or the sources - just that she's not notable outside of this one event or her comment to OB. Cameron Scott (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was renominated 42 minutes after the closure of the previous AfD. The previous AfD was keep/non consensus at the point it closed due to the withdrawl of the nomination. This should first have gone to me (as closer) for discussion and, if that didn't progress, to WP:DRV. Listing this here again immediately is disruptive. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that's my point - it wasn't closed as keep or delete - it was pulled as an administrative action due to the nom being pulled. As far as I can see, that means the first debate never happened in regards to determining community consensus. I have already made a suggestion over at the AFD policy page that this need to be codified properly. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the closer to reverse himself. It is really pointless to begin a new debate because the nomination changes him mind. Lots of people had expressed opinions, and the nominator does not own the debate.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, lot of people had lots of opinions: ergo, it was clearly going to be a no-consensus keep. The default for articles on Wikipedia is that they exist unless it can be shown that they shouldn't. (AfD minus withdrawl of nomination) plus (no consensus in debate minus rewrite of article) equals closure of AfD as keep. Ordinary editing allows people to solve the merge and redirect points as they see fit. Creating a second AfD, then consulting the closing admin, then demanding changes to AfD procedure, then ignoring the (correct) DRV option... well, between you you've done everything here to bind my arms to get what you want. For shame. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.