Let's Go Brandon – The result was Endorse per WP:SNOW. Like the AfD, this DRV is obviously not going to close any other way, so there is no sense in wasting more time piling on identical votes. Consensus is that this AfD was always going to be closed as Keep by whoever closed it. Some users want to troutUser:Superastig for performing a non-admin closure on this AfD. While the outcome of this AfD was obviously not controversial, I can think of very few topic areas less controversial than US politics and US presidential elections, and therefore it probably would've been better to wait for an admin to close it, to avoid any potential drama (e.g., this DRV). Other users want to trout User:Beccaynr for bringing this AfD to DRV when the outcome was obviously a foregone conclusion. Let's put this episode to bed fully, accept the result of the AfD, and move on with our lives. —ScottyWong— 05:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This was a NAC close involving a controversial topic and discussion, further discussed at the closer's Talk page. Should this NAC close be overturned to permit an administrator to close the discussion under these circumstances? If the NAC close is acceptable under these circumstances, did the closer interpret consensus correctly? Beccaynr (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as an administrator. I had been following the discussion and was planning on closing it myself but didn't get there in time. This was really the only way it could have realistically ended, based on the arguments presented and the fact that it met the standards of WP:EVENT, a guideline I know a thing or two about (having proposed and written much of it). The WordsmithTalk to me 16:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bad NAC, trout the closer; futile challenge, trout the challenger - Common practice is for NACs to be only in uncontroversial discussions. The language on our page about NACs is clear that "controversial" is not just about the outcome but includes the topic, and there are few more obvious controversial subjects than an article about a political insult. Deciding to go with a NAC is a bad call that just adds an additional layer of drama in an already heated area, regardless of how much thought was put in it or how likely the outcome was at this point. Best avoided in the future, FWIW. That the closer's immediate response to being challenged wasn't a clarification, but a dismissive instruction to "drop the stick" is not reassuring. All of this said, bringing it to DRV is likewise not a good call as the result was all but inevitable. Trouts for the closer and the challenger, and recommend speedy close of this DRV as such to minimize further conflict. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse in agreement of the detailed reasoning of both The Wordsmith and Rhododendrites, above. SNOWable closes in political topics are often a bad ideas, and I think that rule extends to NACable: just because the result was ridiculously obvious doesn't mean someone won't get butthurt that an admin didn't close it, and that is best avoided whenever possible, as it clearly was avoidable in this case by just waiting for an admin to close it. Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In defense of my good faith in bringing this to deletion review, my concern is about the NAC process in this AfD closure and the determination of consensus related to our policies as applied to inclusion of this type of content. This AfD may become an example of precedent for other recent viral phenomena and "shock news", so from my view, clarification about the closure process and the determination of consensus on whether to have a standalone article had seemed reasonable to request. Beccaynr (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And that's not an unreasonable concern, but Wikipedia doesn't run on precedent, even though it sort of does, and so the fundamental question is "Is DRV going to overturn this to a different outcome?" and the answer you're already getting is "probably not" which I expect to be further evident as more people chime in. Regardless of the technicalities of NAC's, this one wasn't going to be closed any other way, so you're going to get a lot of support for it per WP:NOTBURO. Jclemens (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Before your comment, I was writing to add clarification about my thought process (and about how I accept the trout and will remember it for future reference) - I had also thought about the outcome and reasoning of the Elsa D'Silva AfD by Spartaz, which was userfied at my request after deletion and then became Safecity. I am the nominator of this AfD, so I am not going to add a formal !vote, but because there appear to be questions related to why I opened this review, I wanted to add a clarification about my reasoning. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the OP's questions, yes and yes. It is true that a couple of !votes on either 'side' were probably liable to dismissal, but enough of those requesting the article be kept based their arguments on policy (e.g. SIGCOV) and the N guidelines. Likewise, editors continued to !vote keep even after the possibility of a merge had been raised. For transparency, I speak as someone who has regularly and vociferously disagreed with the closer on numerous previous occasions. Endorse. (Except in eagerness: the close was a few hours early.) ——Serial 17:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Let the decision stand. By any standard, this article should exist: it is sourced, it conforms to policy, it has survived several attempts at deletion. But some people seem dead set, for whatever reason, to delete such articles. Be fair, be NPOV, be evenhanded. Concentrate now on making such articles fair, evenhanded, better-sourced, and better; concentrate not on trying to get it deleted because you disagree with the article or the article's sentiment. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as a bad NAC, and let The Wordsmith or another admin close. While the result will still certainly be the same, it is the closing comment that is the most important part in this instance. Curbon7 (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Curbon7, are you sure you mean "endorse"? You seem to be suggesting that the close be overturned. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I'm not a fan of NACs for topics even slightly controversial, and this was an unfortunate NAC. At the same time, the decision to Keep was the right one, so it was just likely only a matter of time until an admin made the same call. I recommend letting it be. For the record, I !voted in the AfD; my memory is that it's fine for !voters to comment on a Deletion Review, but feel free to disregard my comments here if I'm wrong about that. Moncrief (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said before in similar cases, by far the most efficient outcome here would be for any uninvolved administrator to undo the NAC and reclose it, as WP:NACD expressly allows. That would save us a week of discussion and get us an outcome that no one would be likely to challenge. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that doesn't happen, count me as a !vote to overturn the close, partly because I think that process is important in this context and partly because I think a better closing statement by an administrator would likely forestall additional bickering about this article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Should not have been closed as a NAC. I even made clear in the redirect discussion I started before this became an article that it was controversial and that a quick close of anything related was wrong. That said...it'll probably be closed as a keep based on consensus, but it should be done by an experienced admin rather than someone who doesn't know the process (that's why I rarely NAC because it should only be done in clear cases, not ones like this). Nate•(chatter) 23:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There's BADNAC and then there's BADNAC. The result here is keep which is a good NAC result (the most important thing), and the consensus was very clear which is also good (the other most important thing); editor is in good standing, also good. The only thing that wasn't good was that the subject is controversial. So it fails one of four cumulative requirements. Endorsing this close would in no way create confusion regarding what the rules around non-admin closure are, and what they are supposed to prevent: inoperative/bad closes and bad perceptions. Not only was the close operative and based on a good reading of consensus, no bad perception can come from an experienced editor in good standing closing something that couldn't have possibly been closed any other way. So this is actually an edge case. If we didn't have instruction creep and were collectively much more capable of comprehending norms teleologically, we could have imagined a specific rule under which this would be good NAC. So WP:NOTBURO (this is why we have it) — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relist The principle behind the NAC rule is important. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, while the outcome is obvious, it clearly should not have been a NAC given the nature of the discussionJackattack1597 (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. While this was controversial inasmuch as the topic has a political slant, this isn't controversial at all in terms of policy-based arguments, which is what we actually care about on Wikipedia. The close was solid, and the fact that the only objection is that it's a NAC, with no argument against the substance of the close given by OP, shows the weakness of the attempt to overturn what is an obvious case of a clear consensus. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per WP:NOTBURO. I don't see an admin closing this differently. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Whether or not it was a NAC, the outcome would had been the same (snow keep) as per Wikipedia policy. Samboy (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Samboy is correct. Keeping this discussion open any longer is unnecessary. Additionally, an administrator has endorsed this action and stated he was simply a little late to initiate the closure. That satisfies the importance of administrator involvement in controversial matters. Kind regards to all,Hu Nhu (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, admin sanctioned above, and the consensus to keep the page was overwhelming in number and scope.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there was clearly a WP:SNOW close situation at the AfD, and it’s inevitably going to repeat here. This is just beating a dead horse. Dronebogus (talk) 06:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. while the outcome would have probably been the same, it should have been closed by an admin given the subject matter. if nothing else it would provide a better closer that's less inclined to continue causing issues with the page going forward.dh (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to what? Are you suggesting that this be deleted or that this be relisted upon it being overturned? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relist There's no disagreement regarding the consensus at the AfD (ie keep). I'm not convinced this per se needed an admin to close; it may well have been a topic of controversy, but the discussion was overwhelmingly for keep. However, given an earlier NAC of this was admin-reverted and given the closer has indicated they spent hours considering this closure, it is reasonable to assume they were aware of this, it probably would have been better as a non-admin to contribute rather than close. It's also reasonable to point out the closure does not address the merge arguments in the discussion. Because of this, I can neither endorse nor overturn, I think the preferable option is to void the closure - which relist does best in addressing the procedural error. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as there would not have been a reasonable basis for closing other than "keep". As a second choice, reopen so an administrator can re-close the discussion as "keep" in place of the non-admin closure. --Metropolitan90(talk) 01:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there was very clear consensus to keep in the AFD and the non-admin closure was appropriate per WP:SNOW. Possibly add a post-closure note on the AFD signifying User:The Wordsmith’s endorsement of the closure as an admin. Frank AnchorTalk 02:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per the NOTBURO policy. Closer has been registered here a bit longer than I have. Cannot believe this is even being reviewed and discussed. Editing must be gettin' pretty slow on Wikipedia? or aren't there much better things to take up time? P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there 11:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The MaxBrowne2 NAC was properly reverted by User:Clpo13, as a BADNAC, a poor closing statement (my opinion) and closed early without justification. User:Superastig’s close, another NAC, was better, and was not an early close. User:Superastig should, however, be criticised for the part of their response “So, it's best for you to drop the stick and accept the consensus. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)” on their talk page. That is not the right tone for a response to a query on their close. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's just his signature, you can see it on other responses on his talk page. I don't see anything inappropriate about it.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ortizesp: I think the bit that SmokeyJoe was referring to was the comment wrt dropping the stick and accepting consensus (which is very much not a response in line with Superastig's responsibilities under WP:ADMINACCT). That comment is definitely not part of Astig's signature! ——Serial 14:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I originally voted for a "Weak Keep" in the original deletion. But as the article developed, I changed it to a "Strong Keep". Also, there was a strong consensus to keep the article just before the discussion closed. Yoshiman6464♫🥚 13:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Since, in accordance with our Policies and Guidelines, this topic is self-evidently eligible to have its own article in Wikipedia, I'm highly disappointed by this deletion query. First, as to Wikipedia is not a democracy, consequently, consensus doesn't necessarily dictate the existence or deletion of an article. Second, since Wikipedia is not censored, an encyclopedic subject must not be highjacked by political sentiments whether leftist or right-wing, which is not what I see happening to this one. In my humble opinion, the unnecessary delay and unencyclopedic barriers that made it harder to create this article is one solid piece of evidence of that specific attempt. Best Regards! The Stray DogTalk Page 15:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Certainly the result will be to keep the article either way, but since this is a controversial event there is something wrong with it being a NAC. It should be reopened, and an admin should close it again, Bwmdjeff (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, as the consensus can't be evaluated any other way. Yes, maybe having an admin close it would be best, but the consensus is so clearly in one direction that overturning would just be a waste of precious admin resources. JumpytooTalk 05:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Endorse and trout DRV nominator. We are not a bureaucracy, stop making us jump through silly hoops just for the sake of following process when the outcome is this obvious.--GRuban (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noted above that I accept the trout, and will consider it for future reference - this is also my first ever attempt at a deletion review. I feel this is a controversial AfD for a variety of reasons, and that a closing statement from an administrator would be a benefit to the encyclopedia. Beccaynr (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I didn't take part in the original deletion discussion so when I saw this "deletion review" I thought that maybe it was a close call to keep the article, but when I went and looked, I couldn't believe how overwhelmingly the consensus was to keep the article. I've never seen anything as blatantly one sided as this. I also concur to WP:TROUT the nominator of this review. Completely unnecessary.--JOJHutton 18:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Jackattack1597 & Curbon7; TROUT the closer for their WP:BITING comments. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which newcomer has the closer bitten in their close? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is WP:UNCIVIL is more acceptable page for you, then? I'm certain that my point is across regardless. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. I don't see incivility in their closing statement. Can you point to the sentence in the closing statement that you find uncivil? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The topic may be controversial, but the closer did interpret the consensus correctly. Good thing an admin endorsed the closure. So it's pointless to re-open it for any admin to re-close it. After all, Wikipedia is WP:NOTBURO. Even non-admins can close the discussion since the outcome is so obvious. The statement of the keep !votesrs are based on policies. There's nothing wrong for a non-admin to close a controversial discussion like this as long as it's analyzed carefully, in which the closer really did. SBKSPP (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per SBKSPP and others. 99g (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn While this was certainly not a close call I think the NAC may misinterpreted consensus. Since this is a polarizing issue it's best for someone with experience and admin status to make the final call. The NAC may not have interpreted correctly that the article should be "reviewed again in a year or so". Any discussion with heavy participation over a political issue of this nature should be closed by and admin. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong endorse The request for review is a classic exhibition of an editor refusing to drop the WP:STICK. The non-admin closure was absolutely appropriate. Per WP:NAC, Non-admin closures should be avoided when the outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. The outcome was not in doubt, as demonstrated by all the !votes to overturn that explicitly say that the outcome was not in doubt. This includes the overturn !votes by Curbon7, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Jackattack1597, DimethylHydra, and Extraordinary Writ. Banana Republic (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The retractions of "delete" opinions by editors like Rhododendrites and Mrschimpf indicate an increasing and sustained amount of coverage throughout the AfD discussion, i.e. a trend towards a "keep" consensus in a discussion where there is clearly no consensus to delete. Hence, a "keep" closure is correct. Moreover, overturning a deletion discussion just because the discussion was closed by a non-sysop is not a situation under WP:DRVPURPOSE where deletion review may be used. feminist (+) 06:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A deletion discussion being closed by a non-sysop when it needed to have been closed by a sysop is WP:BADNAC, and that is the fifth point of WP:DRVPURPOSE (procedural error). Bad NACs are routinely overturned here on this grounds. However I doubt that there often comes a NAC this predominantly good to be challenged as a bad NAC. The conventional wisdom that the subject of the discussed article must not be politically charged, with some equating this to a "controversial topic" (which I would not do, as not everything that is politically charged is automatically controversial), is DRVPURPOSE-relevant under a certain interpretation of WP:NACD [second point - "controversial decision"] -- this is the main cause for the challenge; this is a technically valid DRV challenge after all, but it was destined to fail because of WP:BURO which is an overriding policy. The added wisdom gained from this for me is that we must have the shrewdness to apply high-level norms, which are often worded as general principles, in specific situations. Often low-level conventions, that are more instructively worded, and appear more directly applicable, have a greater allure, because they carry a greater sense of direct utility, but they must not be seen as more important. I interpreted DGG's relist !vote along here these lines when he said that The principle behind the NAC rule is important, so the principle he refers to is also a high-level norm, important enough not to be overridden by BURO, just we like don't invoke IAR to override WP:V. However this is more speculative than not, because it's easy to see how BURO would apply here, and it's not so clear what this unspecified competing principle demands. I guess the idea is that NAC must be absolutely pristine in every conceivable sense in order for the trust in the process not to be eroded, because Wikipedia:Process is important. I think that showing this much worry about process's robustness is actually what could erode, if not trust, but certainly that sense of robustness, so it's a give and take. Maybe Beccaynr will find my tldr interesting. — Alalch Emis (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Endorse. More and more sources are coming out about this "chant" every day, and it's obviously meets the notability requirements. Cable10291 (talk) 09:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Um, do you mean “endorse” by that, since endorse means you agree with the original outcome (i.e. that keeping was correct?) Dronebogus (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. I was confused as, 'remove' and 'keep' were not being used. Cable10291 (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bad NAC, trout the closer; futile challenge, trout the challenger per Rhododendrites etc. But in the end, it couldn't be closed any other way, so per WP:NOTBURO the close should stand. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. While it is indeed a controversial topic, the NAC itself is far from controversial. From any kind of view, this article would survive any attempts at deletion. No matter who close this, the outcome would not change that the article will be kept. Challenges like this should only be raised if the outcome is in doubt, but not on this matter. SunDawntalk 13:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There is no other way it could've been closed so no reason to waste time with this deletion review. DreamFocus 15:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (Keep) I did not think that this phrase would catch on, but it obviously has. An article like this is needed, as people will look here to find out what it means. Roger (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
