- 2023 Clarksville tornado (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This closure seems a bit hasty and involved. Personally I see no reason to close an AFD less then 6 hours after it began. 166.199.98.17 (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This DRV is broken, please help.166.199.98.17 (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (Closer) — It was closed as WP:SNOW. Even the AfD nominator didn’t want it deleted, but rather merged. As the SNOW closer, it was pretty obvious there was not a chance of a pure keep nor a chance of a pure deletion, given there was a single non-merge delete !vote and a single non-merge keep !vote with 7 separate merge !votes, including the AfD nominator. I’ll let other chime in, but 7 (including nominator)-1-1 seems like a decent WP:SNOW closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You can see that I said that the article should be deleted in the next reply. I was thinking that the article could be deleted and then a new section would be written because the article itself was full of bloat. CutlassCiera 13:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The AFD was going and opinion could have shifted. I believe more discussion is warranted.Especially in a case like this, in theory, more information on the storm could come out and some of the injured could die. --166.199.98.17 (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (redirect). Consensus to merge and redirect. The “delete” !votes gave no rationale to delete rather than redirect.
- For continued discussion, including proposals to reverse the redirect, use the talk page of the redirect target, Talk:Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023. No deletion has occurred.
- - SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @SmokeyJoe: the discussion was open for less then six hours. Don’t you think that’s too short of a time frame for consensus to form? WP:SNOW says it should only be used when there is no chance it could change and in a few days opinion might have shifted. See also WP:RAPID.--166.199.98.17 (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Not fully in favor. As the closer I think the article has (had) a chance at GAN…But I was overruled by consensus, which is clearly merging. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn’t notice that. That is a reason for a speedy overturn, or countersign by an admin. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Prefer the latter option from those two. —Alalch E. 00:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a lot of procedural irregularities here, including a participant closing an AfD they are involved in that was not unanimous, and where it was not unanimous. Given this is a non-admin close, any administrator can revert it if they wish, per NACD. Daniel (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, we can't let this stand. DRV's core job is to see that the deletion processes are correctly followed and, in a wide variety of ways, this close flagrantly disregarded them.—S Marshall T/C 23:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. This is one of the most egregious violations of WP:CLOSE I've seen in a while. An involved non-admin participant in an AfD, who is also a primary editor of the article in question, decides to "SNOW" close the discussion after six hours, in their favour of course, despite multiple opposing !votes. Owen× ☎ 00:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a small note, there was only 1 actual oppose !vote, since the AfD nominator preferred merge to pure deletion and one of the only other two "delete" !votes further stated they were ok with merge. In actuality, there was a single !vote for delete and a single "keep" !vote that did not say they supported a merge. The keep !vote albiet was "Keep but rename to 2023 Northern Tennesse Tornado", which provides 0 policy-based reasons. The delete !vote at least was for WP:TRIVIAL. So, in reality, there was only 1 actual opposing !vote that had some standing in the AfD. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Despite the short dicussion time, there is ample reason to believe that there was a snowball's chance in hell of success for any other outcome so this was a valid application of WP:NOTBURO and WP:IAR. WP:SNOW is not about unanimity, and closers invoking said policies via said essay can be WP:INVOLVED. I could now argue that there were other theoretically possible outcomes: 'Delete' was theoretically possible, extremely unlikely, but it is not meaningfully different under the circumstances, because WeatherWriter would have then added the same or similar content to the target page, and he would be moving within a free zone of editorial decision-making that AfD can't prejudicially constrain because AfD is not about making improvements to some other article, but about deleting the nominated article; a 'redirect' bold-letters close was extremely unlikely, and it is not only not meaningfully different but is pretty much identical to 'merge', as AfD is generally not a suitable place to form a consensus on what improvements to make to an article that is not the nominated article (unlike WP:PROMERGE which is held on the target article's talk page [for that reason]), and is not about improvements as such in the first place, but about deletion, so closing as 'merge' does not impose any constraints onto a potential reverter at the target article who could say "this addition is not an improvement to this article" (conversely: after a 'redirect' close, content can be copied over from the history beneath the redirect ... so 'redirect' can have the end result of actual merger, and 'merge' can have the end result of mere redirection); additions to the target article if disputed need to be discussed on the target article's talk page.—Alalch E. 00:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I see nowhere in WP:SNOW or WP:INVOLVED saying involved users can make a snow close (except a withdrawal, but this was not that.) even if it would be the outcome, this is still a poor closure that should not be allowed to stand. 166.199.98.17 (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Courtesy ping Liz, since I was alerted via personal talk page that this was a bad closure, but Liz never commented in this discussion review. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 08:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh Probably the right outcome. Probably not worth the drama here to have closed it this way. Now you know. Jclemens (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh per Jclemens. Right outcome, but don't do early, involved, or non-admin closes like that again. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and have a proper discussion. We should not allow this sort of closure whether or not we here think it was an appropriate disposition. Thincat (talk) 09:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist. The outcome may well be "probably right" but AfD exists because "probably right" to one person is frequently "completely wrong" to another; that's why we have discussions. People sleep at different times, not everyone is on Wikipedia 24/7, which is why AfD's run for a week. There are good reasons why speedy closures are rare, and should never be made by an involved editor. Definitely a troutable closure. Elemimele (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. I do believe that merge is the right choice, but the WP:INVOLVED close must be vacated. I consider this to be a borderline snow close, and I wouldn't object if a person not involved in the AFD (or this DRV) were to re-close as a snow merge. Frank Anchor 16:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn the snow closure and Relist - It is true that the closer was trying to improve the encyclopedia, but sometimes good intention is not enough. The rule against involved closures is not one which should be ignored, because ignoring it almost never improves the encyclopedia. Editors who edit articles about tornadoes should not act like tornadoes, destroying everything in their path. I previously said that editors who edit articles about tropical cyclones should not act like tropical cyclones. The principle is the same. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
|
