- Viking Quest (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
A non-admin closure was performed in a situation where there was not "uanimous or nearly unanimous" (per WP:NAC) consensus for "keep". By the numbers, there are two merges, one delete (my nom), a weak keep, and a keep. From a more substantive viewpoint, concerns of notability and the necessity of a fork were raised, but neither of the keeps responded to attempts at discussion regarding the single weak source produced that was not already on the article. I brought my concerns to the closing editor's talk page, but he did not see a problem with the closure. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to all. "Merge" is a different outcome than "keep" even if they both fall under the category of not-deletion. 40% supported keeping and 40% supported merging, so it's entirely possible that an admin would've closed as "merge". I fail to see how the spirit of non-admin closures hasn't been violated when a different outcome than the keep closure was possible or even likely. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure, could not have been closed any other way and the closer correctly pointed out that merging can be discussed on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that would be a straight "endorse". A responsible admin would not have closed it differently.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge is the same as Keep so technically this is the only possible outcome. An admin closing as merge would have using the widest anount of discretion possible so I'd endorse this as a reasonable close. Mhmm if Tim Song isn't an admin maybe we should consider nominating them anyway. They are usually clueful and I generally support giving all the regulars access to deleted revisions. Spartaz Humbug! 10:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Agree with comments above. Absolutely no consensus to delete. Decision was correct. No reason to re-open so an admin can make the exact same close.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse and agree with Spartaz about Tim too. Seems clueful. Hobit (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The primary issue in AFDs is "delete" vs "don't delete" and in most cases "merge" and "redirect" !votes fall under the "don't delete" category. Therefore, for the purposes of WP:NAC, this discussion was unanimous. Even if the AFD was closed as "merge", there would be no reasonable way the decision could be enforced if the article regulars are dead set on keeping it as a standalone article. That is, if one tried to merge an article and the merge is resisted, one would still be subject to the policies on edit warring and 3RR even with an AFD merge close. Therefore, an overturn to "merge" would be pointless. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not entirely correct. AFDs closed as merge are required to be performed promptly. There's even a template which goes on the article to indicate that, but I forget what it's named. Yes, users could continually revert, but that would be considered disruption and could result in blocks. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it could result in blocks for both the article defenders and the editor trying to implement a "merge" close. The 3RR policy lists exceptions to 3RR and merging after an AFD is not one of them. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverting a redirect (restoring the page) backed by an AfD decision is
often struck per below Flatscan (talk) 04:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC) considered "editing against consensus" and the page may be protected as a redirect (example). Flatscan (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article in question is a BLP and that's one of the "exceptions" to 3RR. BLP issues are situations where it's reasonable for an admin to use his tools to enforce a "redirect" close. I actually asked an admin to protect this article for that reason. I can't see that happening on an article about a "fictional fictional tv show". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm very sure that I've seen examples of fictional elements protected as redirects following AfDs and edit-warring, but I overstated "often" above, which I struck. Regarding my example, I think that the history of persistent recreations was the driving factor: BLP1E was the primary argument in the AfD, but the recreations did not contain any BLP violations requiring immediate removal. Flatscan (talk) 04:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Flatscan beat me to it, but I know I've seen more examples similar to the one he provided. It's not common enough that I can think of any off the top of my head, but I know page protection does happen occasionally to ensure a redirect/merge stands when editors are being stubborn. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's one of those weird issues that I don't think is well documented (though if it is, I'd love a pointer). The template exists but is often ignored. My general opinion is that AfD should only merge or redirect when deletion is the only other option. In other words, if there are 4 delete !votes and 4 merge !votes merging should be considered as an option by the closing admin. But if there are 4 keep !votes and 4 merge !votes we should keep and recommend the merge discussion occur on the talk page. In the event of a merge-as-alternative-to-delete the merge should be strongly enforced (by page protection if really needed) at least until something changes. But that's me. Hobit (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse my own close, obviously. I stand by what I said in the closing statement and concur in the first two sentences of Ron Ritzman's !vote. Tim Song (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak endorse: keep is within admin discretion and Tim Song has previously demonstrated cluefulness. I can see that merge may not have enough support for it to be the AfD result outright, but I disagree that it is obvious enough – merge received enough discussion here to be distinct from keep – for a NAC. Flatscan (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's pretty much exactly my point. I'm glad someone else understands what I am saying, even if they don't necessarily agree. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understood what you're saying too. I just don't like closing as "merge" unless either, there are strong arguments for outright deletion and merging is a viable alternative, or the consensus to merge is all but unanimous including the suggested target. (one !voter thought that Johnny Drama was a better choice for a target). I'm also reluctant to close AFDs on non-BLP articles as "merge" if there is an ongoing debate about the issue on the article's talk page because AFD shouldn't be used to get the "last word" in an edit war. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue here is that it's a non-admin closure in a circumstance where the outcome wasn't so obvious as to be nearly be a snow. Personal opinions (yours, mine, anybody else's) on merge closes aren't relevant. I started the DRV because I feel the guidelines of the NAC process have been violated. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't count noses (but if we did, we'd have 80% keep (merge is a keep, not a delete) and merely 20% delete, pretty strong outcome in favor of keep)... we evaluate the strength of argument presented. Those arguing for keep established notability satisfactorily, and their arguments generally were sound. My personal view is that this should be merged to Johnny Drama, but that's a matter for the talk page. Endorse closure as keep. There is nothing wrong with a non admin closure when it's obvious what the outcome should be. Take the "straight keep"/"Merge" discussion to the talk page. ++Lar: t/c 01:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's only obvious if you consider "merge" and "keep" to be the same thing, which isn't the case in practice or in the minds of many admins (meaning, AFDs are often closed as "merge", distinct from "keep, but suggest discussing a merge on the talk page"). Again, I don't want want this to turn a debate on the strength of the individual arguments because it's not particularly relevant to my objection. I simply don't like seeing a non-admin closure on something where it's not unreasonable to assume that another objective closer would have made a different call. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge is keep. A finding of "merge" isn't binding. It may defacto be binding if the admin that did the close goes off and does the merge right then and no one reverts or takes it to talk, but not dejure, (inasmuch as we HAVE dejure) as I understand policy. So if we're not debating strength of arguments (as you say) you do agree that "delete" was not an acceptable outcome, then? If I was doing this close, I would have closed this the way Tim did, and considered it an obvious close. Therefore, although Tim isn't an admin, there is nothing wrong with his close except for your assertion that since he wasn't an admin he shouldn't have done it, because it was a violation of how NAC works. Sometimes I'd tend to agree but in this case, with it as clear cut as it was that the answer wasn't "delete", undoing the close is just process wonking for the sake of process wonking. Therefore endorse, although your dislike of it is noted. Is this strong enough of a violation of NAC to overturn? No one else thinks so. My advice to Tim, just the same, is "don't do it again". Don't confuse that with agreeing that it's strong enough to cause an overturn. We're pragmatic here (or is it quixotic?). ++Lar: t/c 11:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. No consensus for deletion. Merge or not merge arguments should continue on the talk page. Did the closer closer 4 hours early? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
