This was a non-admin closure that I believe does not fall within the limits of Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. It did not look like a clear consensus had been reached nor did it appear to be non-contentious. I believe it should have been left for an admin. I commented, but did not vote, at this discussion. I have posted a notice of this discussion on the talk page of the discussion's closer. Papaursa (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IAR Endorse, for the same reasons I gave in the List of Australian Ambassadors to Venezuela DRV, below. Some of the delete comments were clearly not in accordance with established policy, i.e. I think the idea of the article needs to be on Wiki, however this clearly needs allot of work before I could vote for keep. I could maybe, possibly, see how this might have been closed as NC, but there's no possible way it could have been closed as delete, so the close seems good to me, and nobody would even be questioning it if the closer owned a mop. Given some of the absurd hazing I've seen at WP:RFA, I can't blame people for not wanting to put themselves up for adminship. We need more people willing to do good work, not chasing them away because of our stupid rules. -- RoySmith(talk) 00:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - At the end of the day consensus was to Keep and personally even I would've closed as such (and I'd imagine anyone else would too), Perhaps a more lenient closer may of closed as NC however regardless it's still a keep. –Davey2010Talk 04:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Improper closure by non administrator. Non admins should stop closing these things unless it is 100% clear cut and not controversial. Tim Bosnia (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per RoySmith. It would be ideally closed by an admin, but it was closed correctly (I could see a NC close here, but many of the delete arguments were about cleanup and so should be given less weight). Hobit (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not the best NAC I've ever seen, but by no means the worst. If it would make the process wonks feel better I will vacate the close and reclose it myself (also as keep). Stifle (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, unnecessary drama, clearly lack of consensus for deletion, A NC close would had been a viable option, but at the end of the day it would not change anything. Cavarrone 11:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moot If Stifle wants to reclose it as keep, he can do that, and someone can bring it back here, and that would likely be endorsed as an admin did it. Admins are like black belts: you don't get the bit and then get the good judgment, you demonstrate the good judgment and then you get the bit. Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
As discussed with MarPatton, she request to WP:USERFY the article to put more development to the article as she can. Donnie Park (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Has she asked Timotheus Canens if he would send a copy of the article to her userspace? Offhand I don't see where she has and that's kind of one of the things that should've been done prior to taking this to DRV. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ENDORSE Failure to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted by Deletion Review. Tim Bosnia (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
List of Australian Ambassadors to Venezuela – Relisted. This controversial non-admin closure doesn't get consensus support here and is therefore relisted for somebody else to close. AKS.9955, please consider closing only clear-cut discussions until you are an administrator yourself. – Sandstein 06:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
inappropriate non admin closure under WP:NAC. This non admin should not close AfDs that are close like this. LibStar (talk) 12:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I performed the non-admin closure and would want to know from LibStar, why is this inappropriate closure? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
this has already been discussed on your talk page. As per WP:NAC, experienced non-admins in good standing may consider closing a discussion on that page which is beyond doubt a clear keep. This AfD does not meet that. LibStar (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On my TalkPage, I too pointed out that "non-admins can perform AfD closure as Keep, Redirect, Merge and no consensus". You are reading only one part of NAC and not reading it full. I gave you a link there and I recommend you read it. There are other points after "....experienced non-admins in good standing may consider closing a discussion on that page which is beyond doubt a clear keep"; you are totally ignoring that fact just to build your case. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be ignoring important parts of the pages you're citing here. You cited this in support of the view that non-admins can make no consensus closures. This says that "AfDs with little or no discussion may be relisted if they're relatively new, or closed as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination". In other words if an AfD has very little participation and has been open for some time then it's OK for a non-admin to close as no consensus for lack of participation. This was emphatically not one of those AfDs - it was an AfD with substantial participation where opinion was divided. You also ignored the fact that the same page says "No consensus closes (with the exception of WP:NPASR closes) should generally be avoided, as they require more difficult analysis of consensus." This AfD was one of them. Non-admins are indeed allowed to close discussions where the result is obviously Keep, but that has nothing to do with this case. I suggest you refrain from closing discussions of this type in the future unless you manage to pass RfA. Hut 8.5 20:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also quoting Non-administrators should restrict themselves to the following types of closures:Clear keep outcomes after a full listing period (stated in the instructions to each XfD, this is usually seven days), absent any contentious debate among participantsthis AfD has clear debate . LibStar (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IAR endorse. WP:Non-admin_closure#Pitfalls_to_avoid says, No consensus closes (with the exception of WP:NPASR closes) should generally be avoided, as they require more difficult analysis of consensus., and this closure clearly violates that rule. But, it's a stupid rule. The important thing is that we get to the right endpoint, and looking at the AfD, I'm convinced we did. I can't imagine closing this any way other than NC. The only possible alternative action would have been to relist it. But, since it was already relisted once, was open for 26 days, and had attracted reasonable, policy-based arguments on both sides, from a total of eight editors, a relist was hardly necessary, and probably pointless. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen so an admin can close it. This is a clear example of a discussion which shouldn't be closed by a non-admin. As the closer seems to have a pattern of questionable non-admin closures of discussions (at least two have been overturned in the last two weeks) I think we need to make it clear that this action isn't appropriate. Hut 8.5 20:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The result should be keep because a non-admin was so disruptive that there is a DRV and so much manpower used to correct a wrong. The default of disruption like this should be an automatic keep, not re-litigate. Otherwise, that just encourages non-administrator misconduct.Whiskeymouth (talk) 04:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, I'm curious. Were they overturned simply because they were NACs, or because they ended up with the wrong result? Could you provide links to them? -- RoySmith(talk) 20:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wayne Woodward, I too had closed it with a comment "Merge / redirect to be discussed on article TalkPage". Since I was new on NAC, instead of merging / redirecting myself, I left the remark like that. Discussion on this subject can be found here. It was Bonadea & Davey2010 who pointed that out. Let me make it clear, the decision was not overturned but the procedure was corrected.
I would like to highlight this AfD discussion (exactly similar case except the closing comments) which ended in merge vote BUT the merge was not performed. This AfD was closed by RoySmith. See how the merge was finally performed.
Zoroastrian Students' Association. Do we count number of votes or look at the quantum or go by the merit of the case? Between 16th June and today (11 days), what did the AfD achieve apart from few relisting? At WP:AFDEQ I read "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself. Thus, you should not attempt to structure the AfD process like a vote". You two guys are admins, please help me understand this.
Jean-Michel Coulon & Rudolf Roy: An honest question to both you admins. Are non-admins NOT supposed to perform NAC? In NAC, under "appropriate closures", I read the following. Quote "AfDs with little or no discussion may be relisted if they're relatively new, or closed as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination" Unquote. Where did I err?
Dan Avidan. Its a clear keep outcome? Why are we even discussing this closure?
As I've said above you are completely missing the point of that quotation on no consensus closures. It says that it's OK for non-admins to close as no consensus in the case where the AfD has been open for some time and has seen very limited participation. That doesn't mean that it's a good idea for non-admins to perform other kinds of no consensus closures, and the same page advises you against it earlier on. The discussions you're closing as no consensus aren't ones with limited participation, they're ones with significant participation where opinion was divided. The guideline here is WP:NACD, which says Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. No consensus discussions usually fall under this, except for the special case where the AfD had limited participation. The same goes for AfDs which had substantial debate or where lots of editors disagreed with the eventual outcome. I think it might be best if you took a step back from non-admin AfD closures. I'm sure you're trying to help but it looks like you're getting in a bit over your head. That closure which you excuse on grounds of inexperience was a mere two weeks ago. Hut 8.5 10:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - I mean shit I know in the past I've perhaps pushed boundaries but that's a whole new level! - The AFD should've without a doubt been relisted and I also notice a growing trend in the editor making extremely questionable closes, I appreciate they wanna help but I personally think they're doing more harm than good, Anyway although technically there is no consensus at the AFD it still should've been relisted. –Davey2010Talk 03:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Davey2010, I can understand your frustration. You raised objection on a NAC performed by me (entire discussion here) and forced me to open the AfD. When I refused, you threatened me and took the matter to DRV. Here you were told by Newyorkbrad & SmokeyJoe that the NAC was proper and that the matter should not have been brought up to DRV. Not to be embarrassed further, you closed the DRV yourself citing "Endorsed - I seriously don't see the consensus in Keeping it but arguing over it is pointless and beginning to be a waste of everyones time, Best thing I can do is take it on the chin and move on!". Are you trying to get back at me for that instance? If not then rather than making opening ended and lose statements, talk on merit (like you did in case of Wayne Woodward and I immediately acknowledged). In case of Wayne Woodward also, the closure decision was NOT overturned and only the process / approach was improved. I gave a point by point explanation (read above) of the cases being discussed. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You might wanna read WP:AGF - I don't hold grudges especially over something stupid as an AFD and I find it extremely worrying you would bring that up and simply assume I'm holding somesort of grudge but to answer your question No that AFD has nothing whatsoever to do with my comments,
Your entire talkpage is full of complaints and I myself have noticed you've closed a few AFDs that should've been closed as a different outcome or relisted (My only reasoning for not bringing it up as I couldn't see the point in arguing and arguing and arguing with you),
At the end of the day however you see it your outcome WAS overturned ..... You closed it as Keep and I reclosed it as Redirect ..... thus it was overturned. –Davey2010Talk 13:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: Everyone, this is taking far too much time and is not worth spending energy (atleast not mine) on this matter any further. I am not a vandal and neither do I have any COI in any of the AfD, not worth "fighting over it" and scoring brownie points. AfD nominators start getting upset when their desired AfD results are not met. In the interest to move forward; I recommend following;
Involved admins in this matter - please tell me the NACs (I am involved in) that should be opened and re-listed. I will gladly do it.
I will continue to perform NAC but ONLY clear keeps for now. Wont touch NC.
Since you guys are admins, I suggest you make the related policies better and not so vague that it can be interpreted either way based on convenience. It should be either Black or White - cant be grey.
Let me know if something else is needed and lets not waste time on this worthless discussion (and trust me, the outcome of NONE of the AfD are going to be any different than what I did). Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The people coming out with the hierarchical bureaucratic stuff above need to show that a sysop would have closed it differently. If they can't do that they're wasting our time.—S MarshallT/C 17:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point - No admin would've closed it at all - It would've been relisted. –Davey2010Talk 18:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The competent ones would have closed it. WP:RELIST says ...relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable. I accept that there's currently a fashion for chickenhearted sysops to fill up AfD with no-consensus debates that they really ought to have closed, but all they're really doing is wasting volunteer time.—S MarshallT/C 18:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No they wouldn't as there's alot of competent admins at AFD who relist instead of closing, I agree there's some that should be closed as such but on the whole I don't see the issue with relisting and regardless of what RELIST says relisting is always preferred over closing as No Consensus and I've even witnessed it here that Relist is preferred over closures. –Davey2010Talk 18:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you feel WP:RELIST gets it wrong and should be ignored (unlike what was done on this NAC) but you feel the close was wrong because it violated WP:NAC? It's hard to argue that there was a process problem with the close when your preferred close also runs afoul of our guidelines. Hobit (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A couple thoughts, in no particular order.There was absolutely no reason to relist this debate, and there's hardly ever good reason to relist one that had received this much participation, or even a third as much; about the only time where it might be correct to do so is if substantial evidence had been added to the article or AFD shortly before closing that would likely impact the outcome. The few times I've looked into closing afds since becoming active again I gave up in frustration after edit conflicts trying to close multiple debates with people unnecessarily relisting them, in a few cases minutes after their daily log page became eighth in line.There wasn't a consensus for deletion, so the outcome was correct. The folks with boldfaced "keep" arguments didn't have terribly strong, policy-based rationales for them, but the rationales of the folks with boldfaced "delete" ones were even weaker. There's perhaps weak consensus for a merger, but it's not nearly strong enough to impose based on the afd, and the last step of a merger is not deletion except in extraordinary cases (which this is not). Go work it out on the lists' talk pages.There isn't anything at all vague about WP:NAC's statements about no-consensus closes. It explicitly only permits them is if there's both "little or no discussion" and there's "no prejudice against speedy renomination" (and the latter should be mentioned in the closing statement). If you can misread the essay so badly as to think it's supporting other kinds of no consensus closes by non-admins instead of going out of its way to forbid them, you're probably going to miss enough nuance that you actually shouldn't be closing debates as no consensus, if at all.On the other hand, if you'd indicated here that you understood that WP:NAC guided you not to close but you did it anyway, I'd have had much less of a problem with that. Like RoySmith, I think that it's dumb for WP:NAC to say this. The debates it says are ok for non-admins to close aren't the ones that take up a lot of time to do. A history of only closing such doesn't help us evaluate a candidate at WP:RFA, either, since there's hardly any room for judgment in closing those; all it would show is that he would be the kind of robotic rules-bound buttonpusher admin that we're not really in desperate need of. —Cryptic 19:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
endorse Only realistic close choice (though keep would have been a close second IMO) and a WP:TROUT to LibStar for the pointy nomination statement and generally poor behavior at the AfD. Hobit (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion review is a review of the nature of the close. If you have issues with my behaviour take it up elsewhere. LibStar (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. Non-admins should not be closing discussions other than the most clear-cut keeps. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen per WP:NACD: Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. --Tavix(talk) 00:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, as an admin if that helps. No other way that this could have been closed, and a relist is clearly inappropriate as there was plenty of participation and no indication that another week would have moved this any closer to a consensus. Lankiveil(speak to me) 01:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Relist I understand that this AfD was open for quite a while. However, I personally see a result tending towards a merge here (instead of a no-consensus). Although open for 3 weeks, the AfD was relisted only once. Relisting helps to generate visibility and places it at the front of the queue increasing the likelihood that more editors will vote. I would have preferred to relist it again and wait for more opinions. Relisting twice is good enough for me - should nothing change after the second relist, it can be closed. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
