I was the original nominator of this at AfD. During the process the article was completely rewritten. Any consensus that obtained before that rewrite became irrelevant because of the rewrite. Because of the rewrite I withdrew my nomination (by no means expecting this to close the discussion early - one editor one opinion). The fact of the massive rewrite was flagged, and I believed a new consensus had formed in favour of keeping the article. It appears to me, despite the closer giving a rationale on his/her own talk page when challenged, that this was an improperly read consensus and that the deletion should be overturned. The closer has suggested that this be taken to Deletion Review, so I see no further need to negotiate with them. If it is then felt essential a procedural AfD should be undertaken to find a true consensus. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the cache link reflects the "pre-rewrite" version of the article, as originally proposed for deletion, not the version at the close of the AfD, which may now be found at Lists of ships -- Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Correct the result but don't relist. Agree with the reasoning; the first delete !votes are in regards to a completely different article than the latter keep-!votes, so any consensus of this discussion could never be determined by comparing the arguments of those batches. But the article has been recreated in the latter state already, so there is no reason to relist it back. But a note should be attached to the article and the AfD that the close itself was not correct judgment of consensus so we don't get G4-taggings and suchlike. Regards SoWhy 23:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
clarify, please because I can interpret this as either "this is the correct result", or "please correct the result". Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, sorry. I meant "correct the result". Must have forgotten the "the". Regards SoWhy 23:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I was the one who closed this AfD. While I personally believe that I interpreted the situation correctly, it is of course possible that I was wrong. I encouraged the nominator to take this to deletion review because I'm not horribly fond of the idea of reversing my own administrative actions when I'm still convinced that they were right. But I would take no offense should another admin like to overturn the deletion without going through all the bureacratic motions and I would not consider it wheel-warring. L'Aquatique[talk] 23:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rjd0060 correctly relisted the debate because of the major changes to the article and the rewrite was clearly marked within the discussion. None of the comments that came after the changes were in favor of deletion, so the result should be corrected (changed to keep instead of delete) to reflect that. - Mgm|(talk) 00:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn- the consensus had clearly shifted towards keep after the relist. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn apparently only one person wanted to delete the rewritten version, and didn't give much of a reason. The closing admin doesn't give a reason for this decision. I really hope this isn't just a case of a bean-counting, no-reading AFD close gone embarrassingly wrong... but there seems to be little reason given to delete the rewritten article. The delete comments, except for the late one which contained no argument, were all clearly talking about a fundamentally different version of the article. --Rividian (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do nothing. If I read the logs correctly, the rewritten version was moved to Lists of shipsbefore it was deleted so the only thing deleted was a redirect which has since been recreated. While that makes the deleting admin doubly guilty, for both for misreading the AfD and not noting that the article was not the one under discussion (how can a redirect be an indiscriminant list?), it makes the solution simple. The status quo is fine so there's nothing to do unless someone wants to ammend the AfD (a practice I don't much like) or make sure that things are clear on the articles (new) talk page. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, I think you are correct so far, but I think a correction of the AfD's outcome would benefit us so everyone knows the new list is not against the AfD's consensus and that it cannot be targeted by G4. Regards SoWhy 08:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support that view (G4 proofing). I also do wonder at the technical parts of the closing of this AfD since the article, bizarrely (and pleasingly) survives! Do admins have some sort of "autoclose" bot that takes the task over, but that needs rather more careful supervision than may have happened here? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most admins use User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js, a very good script to automate the needed template changes and tasks when deleting. Assessing the consensus is nothing an bot could ever do, so that is still the job of the admins. Regards SoWhy 09:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do nothing per Eluchil404. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do nothing per Eluchil404. Sandstein 18:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
