Hablemos de Salud – Overturn to withdraw. Overall sentiment is consistent: 1) the redirect can remain; 2) the redirect should be considered an individual editorial decision rather than the result of AfD consensus. So I think this is the result that best clarifies this situation. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Another involved non-admin closure by TenPoundHammer (talk·contribs) I discovered while collecting evidence for an Arbcom case. The article was unilaterally redirected by TPH. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong with this particular case, except perhaps the original deletion nomination. The nominator simply withdrew the nomination with no outstanding delete opinions, per WP:SK#1(a), and if anyone disagrees with redirection they can revert it, which means that a talk page discussion will be needed to reinstate it per WP:BRD. What outcome are you looking for? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Seems a reasonable procedural close per WP:SK#1(a).4meter4 (talk) 11:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was essentially withdrawn after Matt91486 merged the page's content. Treat the closure as such and let's not get caught up in semantics. ✗plicit 13:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, AfD nominators are allowed to speedily close their own discussions as "keep" where there are no !votes to delete. They can then subsequently redirect the article as a normal editorial action. That redirection can be reverted by any editor. TPH has compressed those two separate decisions into a single outcome.—S MarshallT/C 13:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a withdrawal which is permissible as long as there's not been any votes to delete. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore - I won't say Endorse because the nominator-closer made an error in combining the roles of nominator and closer, but it was an error without effect, as it would be silly now to overturn it and have someone else take the same action. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon, withdrawals are often closed by the nominator who is withdrawing and there is nothing in our procedures and policies which forbid this as long as there were no delete votes.4meter4 (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go with overturn to withdraw which is probably a largely irrelevant difference here, but I think more accurate. Some people take an AfD closure to merge as carrying some weight and I think "withdraw" is just more descriptive of what happened. But eh. Hobit (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to withdraw (change the close from "merge" to "nomination withdrawn") per Hobit. This is similar to the case at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 June 5#Darkover (TV series), where TenPoundHammer's close as "redirect" was overturned. TenPoundHammer was banned on 20 June 2022 from closing XfD discussions.
A nominator should be closing their own deletion nomination only when the page has been speedy deleted or the nominator is doing a Wikipedia:Speedy keep withdrawal close. A close as "merge" is not a Wikipedia:Speedy keep. A "merge" close means there is a consensus after a WP:SNOW or full AfD discussion to require a merge. That was not the case here as the AfD was closed after having been open for a little over an hour. A "merge" close would make it harder for a standalone article to be restored as an editor would have to contest the close or substantially improve the article. It is fine to impose such requirements after a seven-day discussion but not after a one-hour one. A "withdraw" close would not impose such requirements.
I am fine with the subsequent action of editorially redirecting the page to Élmer Huerta as a good alternative to deletion after the merge given the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that were found. So I support an "overturn to withdraw, keep the redirect in place but allow any editor to reverse the redirect without having to gain consensus to reverse it".
Endorse simple procedural close/merge with no dissenting opinions on the AFD. The closure was technically in violation of WP:NACD but was done in good faith and and this DRV violates the spirit of WP:NOTBURO. FrankAnchor 18:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak overturn to withdraw per Hobit and Cunard. This probably didn't need to be brought to DRV, but since we're here "withdrawn" does seem a better summary of what took place, and it also prevents any possible issues if someone wants to recreate the article somewhere down the road. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Thank you for draftifying this article. Now I can use this as a starting point to write a new article if I can find more sources to show notability. LPascal (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I only just saw this page was deleted recently. I would have contributed to the discussion or strengthened the case for notability if I had known the page was being considered for deletion. This page was part of an Australian women artists project and may have been started by a trainee editor who may not have been aware of all the policies re notability for artists and may not have access to the same sources I do. There were mistakes made in using a commercial gallery as a reference for the non-commercial and important Holmes a Court collection, which is an early and ongoing non-commercial collection of Indigenous art. So there are two non-commercial galleries for Jeannie Pwerle and I might be able to find more given time for more research. I also find that the notability standard for female Indigenous artists is very difficult as it generally requires references to reviews or articles written by white Australians. The work of Indigenous artists can be notable amongst curators and the collectors of Indigenous art without being written about. However as Jeannie Pwerle was an early Utopian artist and paints her personal yam dreaming stories, it may be possible to show notability as an artist who has contributed to a significant new art movement which is one of the criteria for notability for artists. I have looked at the site for the admin user:Stifle who closed the delete discussion and he seems to have waived his right to be consulted first. So I am asking here for two things before I do any more research and draft a new article on Jeannie Pwerle 1. Is it worth me doing some more research to see if there are more references for her notability and more examples of her paintings in collections or will it be a hopeless waste of time if a new article is going to be deleted again or if no-one is willing to re-open her page for me to work on? 2. Is it possible for me to find or be sent the draft of her page that was deleted so I can see what needs to be changed or where mistakes were made? And apologies for this long comment. I have not tried to object to a deletion before. LPascal (talk) 03:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)LPascal[reply]
Endorse and allow recreation. This was a difficult close, as the commenters pointed to one work in a national collection and a 32-word entry in Aboriginal Artists Dictionary of Biographies. Other comments suggested that WP:NARTIST 4(d) usually means at least three prominent exhibitions and the bibliography entry does not meet WP:GNG. While a no consensus close may also be appropriate, the close, "The keep !votes based on WP:ARTIST part 4 and WP:ANYBIO have been adequately refuted," is based on policy. --Enos733 (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, pretty clear case of a supervote. If "consensus" means "I agree with the policy arguments on this side and disagree with the policy arguments on the other side", we might as well give up on having these discussions at all. I understand the OP to alternatively be requesting that the article be restored as a draft, which can't be done until this case is resolved. If someone can ping me at that point, I will happily undelete it and userfy it to LPascal's userspace. -- Visviva (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but draftify per request. There was nothing wrong with the close, but LPascal makes a good case for more time to work on this article to make notability clear. This is why draft space exists. StarMississippi 01:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but draftify per Star Mississippi.4meter4 (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus - The close was a supervote. There was strength of arguments on both sides. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do think no consensus was probably the better close. But delete may have been within discretion. That said, I don't see the need for this to go to draft--if better sources (or evidence that an SNG is met) is found, just recreate it. allow recreation with no prejudice to a new AfD. Hobit (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own deletion as within reasonable range of outcomes. No objection to draftifying. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know the policy or etiquette for my making this comment so apologies if I'm not following policy. I am satisfied with the suggestion that I write a new article for Jeannie Pwerle with the aim of finding better sources to support her as a notable artist. I would only write the article and post it to Wikipedia if I could find supporting references. I would do this slowly in my sandbox as I have other articles in the pipeline first and it would take some time to research. I don't expect the deletion to be overturned and the original article to go live again on wikipedia. But I would like to get a draft of the original article if possible and I would dump it into my sandbox to look at. I don't really know the technicalities of how this can happen and what it means to draftify or recreate an article, so if the decision ends up being to allow me to work on a new article, please notify me of how I can get a copy of the original deleted article.LPascal (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)LPascal[reply]
Endorse This is not a supervote, but appropriate weighing of the argument, regardless of the number. When looking at the discussion, I can see that neither the NARTIST #4, nor the ANYBIO #3 criteria are met. The former because the galleries aren't museum collections, the latter because Aboriginal Artists Dictionary of Biographies isn't a national dictionary as required. Everyone simply saying "Keep NARTIST 4(d)" has their argument refuted, and, again, regardless of how many people !vote keep based on them, the arguments are weak, and outweighed by delete !votes. ~StyyxTalk? 13:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
