Sahar Nowrouzzadeh – Endorse, as despite the perhaps low participation in the AFD there is a feeling that the close accurately reflects the outcome of the AFD. While there may be more sources now than when the article was deleted, most people here think that a properly written draft would be needed before restoration and that a merge or a redirect should be considered too. A redirect was also considered in this discussion but a clear redirect target could not be determined. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Individual has been the primary subject of many news articles since the AFD process concluded. A quick Google search for her name shows that she is at the center of a controversy including the U.S. president and was a key figure in the Obama administration's highly notable peace agreement with Iran. Ave Caesar (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The closer read the discussion, what there was of it, correctly. However, only two editors commented. This was closed less than a month ago: have there really been many news articles since the AFD process concluded about this person? But if you, or anyone, have sources not previously considered, you are welcome to start Draft:Sahar Nowrouzzadeh and attempt to write a better version that clearly demonstrsates notability. of course this will fail if the sources do not exist. If you want the previous version as a starting point, i for one would be ok with it being restored, moved to draft, and marked as an AfC draft. But any person requesting that should do so on the understanding that it should not be moved back to mainspace until and unless there is a significant improvement in sourcing. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The US State Department's internal watchdog apparently released a report three or four days ago concluding she was improperly forced out of her position as an expert on Iran in the Office of Policy Planning because of her ethnicity and associated guesses about her political beliefs. In the current climate ... yes, there have been a lot more sources since a month ago. I can't speak to lasting notability, or versus BLP1E, of course, but there's a whole lot of news stories. e.g. [1][2]. I'm also fine with the old version being moved to draft/sandbox/whatever to give it a go. WilyD 06:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the new sources have made this a plausible search term. We should have at minimum a redirect rather than a redlink.—S MarshallT/C 12:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious question being, a redirect where? The interest in this lady will come from people who're following the Trump impeachment enquiry but this seems too tangential to mention there. Hmmmm.—S MarshallT/C 12:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's likely to remain difficult to evaluate how the situation is going to shake out for some time. Restoring a bio (or reworking into an event article?) with the expectation it's possible it'll need to be merged in the medium/long term wouldn't be a wholly unsuitable approach. The opposite approaching - trying to redirect/merge somewhere - I think is likely to be a whole lot less manageable if that turns out to be the wrong approach as the situation develops. WilyD 07:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. If you want to recreate, use draft, and follow the advice in WP:THREE. As it was properly deleted, do not allow recreation in mainspace without AfC approval. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Washington Redhawks – Some agreement, but not quite consensus, that this was a BADNAC. There seems to be general cosnensus that any possible merge discussion can still happen per normal procedures. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Non-administrator closed as no consensus. There was a clear consensus for merger. 4meter4 (talk) 02:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist as a WP:BADNAC. Any admin can re-close this immediately in a way they choose - I am not arguing against the no consensus. SportingFlyerT·C 04:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Deletion review should not be used...when you have not discussed the matter with the user who closed the discussion first. Which 4meters4 has not done. And not arguing against the result does not a bad Nac make. 4meters4 is in the comfortable positron of seeing consensus in their own position, but, actually, while two editors !voted "merge", two argued for the article to be kept, and one "anything but delete". ——SN54129 08:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: You should not have closed that AfD per WP:BADNAC as it was a close call, you should probably have closed it as a merge anyways which I don't think administrators can implement, and you should self-revert. 4meter4 should have discussed it with you first, true, but that doesn't change the procedure here. SportingFlyerT·C 08:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
you should probably have closed it as a merge anyways which I don't think administrators can implement I have no idea what you're trying to say, sorry.but that doesn't change the procedure here It literally is the procedure here, and I was directly quoting the instructions. Unless they're not meant to be followed of course 🙈 😃 ——SN54129 09:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say non-administrators, sorry, typo above. The fact it wasn't discussed with you doesn't mean the DRV is invalid - typically we require them as many problems can be solved without going to DRV, but I think this was a clear WP:BADNAC so I'm not that fussed. SportingFlyerT·C 10:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's clear to me that the keep votes were not entirely against merger based on their comments, and that merge seemed to be the most balanced close in this case. Merge was a theme throughout the conversation, and it seems like merger was a compromise everyone could live with based on everyone's comments. CorbieVreccan spent most of his keep comment making merger suggestions. Paul McDonald suggested merge as a viable option. Bagumba and I both recommended merge. WriterArtistDC wanted deletion and hewhoamareismyself preferred keep but admitted others might have valid reasons to merge. All and all merger is the best close in this case.@Serial Number 54129: you deleted this preceding comment from this page on your last post. (I'm assuming by accident.) Please be more careful when posting. 4meter4 (talk) 08:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - there's really not a consensus for merge here. It's sometimes imposed as a bit of a super vote in no consensus cases where it's suggested, but the point is made (and looking, correctly) that the proposed merge target is really too large for a merge, which isn't then addressed. Merge arguments invoked WP:FORK (which is wholly inapplicable), and WP:SUSTAIN (which does seem to be applicable, but is somewhat subjective and didn't catch on. There's not a consensus here for anything. It's perhaps maybe not always a great idea for non-admins to close things that aren't completely clear cut, but when they get it right, I can't not endorse. WilyD 10:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Accurate close.—S MarshallT/C 10:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Void close as WP:BADNAC. I had already done that on my own, but User:Winged Blades of Godric saw fit to revert my close, calling it a super-vote. I'm not going to edit-war over that, but clearly this was a BADNAC, which says non-admins should not close discussions where, The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. That's clearly the case here. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, BADNAC is a good bit of advice. On the other hand, it's a supplement to an informational page, so it doesn't need to be adhered to rigourously when it doesn't make sense to do so. Unless the close was actually bad (and I don't think it was) re-opening it on principle so it can be re-closed the same way is needlessly bureaucratic (especially when the "rule" against it is actually just a bit of advice as to what's probably best practice, and not a rule at all.) WilyD 14:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to RoySmith here, his remark can also stand on WP:DRVPURPOSE point #5. He's free to say that a non-admin close of a contentious discussion amounts to a substantial procedural error and that would be given weight by the DRV closer. I differ from him about whether an NAC should be an automatic reopen but deletion review is often concerned with errors of process. It's the nature of the venue. Almost by definition everything or virtually everything that comes through DRV is contentious, and there isn't a good way of appealing a DRV, so we tend to be very conservative about mistakes, wanting to reopen anything that could be wrong.—S MarshallT/C 16:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He's of course free to say that, but he's wrong, and the only reason I can think to think the argument he presented makes any sense at all is if you feel absolutely compelled to follow WP:ANYTHING because it's some immutable authority. I didn't try to invoke the authority of NOT#BUREAU, only made an argument along those lines because it applies. And since this is a discussion, not a !vote, when someone's vote is clearly in error, it makes sense to point that out. WilyD 06:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse not a great discussion for a non-admin to close but I think the close itself is reasonable. AfD isn't the best venue for deciding on merges. Obviously AfDed articles can be merged if it's clearly a good idea but it isn't supposed to be for just deciding whether to keep content as a standalone article or merge it somewhere else. There was clear consensus against outright deletion so that's all that was happening here. I don't see much of an attempt at a convincing rebuttal to the ONEEVENT argument, but equally the point that the suggested merge target is already very long is perfectly reasonable. I'd suggest that whether to merge it (or possibly merge a bit of it) is better discussed on the relevant talk pages. Hut 8.5 19:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I probably would have done it differently, but that doesn't make what was done the wrong action. Want to merge? Open a merge discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Void Close as per User:RoySmith as WP:BADNAC, noting, as does Roy Smith, that nearly everything that comes through DRV is contentious, and comes through DRV because it is contentious, and so should be left to neutral administrators. Just leave it open for a regular AFD administrator to close it. The close might be No Consensus, or Merge. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are now four admins agreeing with the close so I don't think overturning it for that reason would be valid now. Hut 8.5 09:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd caution--there is no WP:SENIORITY and just because one or even four admins come to the same conclusion that doesn't mean others cannot speak against that conclusion openly. I endorsed earlier, and I've not changed my position, but I'm also open to other arguments. Let the discussion run its course. I'd like to hear WP:ALLARGUMENTS.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'm not suggesting closing this discussion, I'm just saying that the AfD closure shouldn't be overturned at this point just because it was made by a non-admin. Hut 8.5 19:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This was probably not clear cut enough to be really a good discussion for a non-admin close. But I think the closer got it right. in fact, had it been closed as "Merge" and brought here, I would probably say "OVERTURN". (yes one of the those selecting KEEP spent a number of words on possible merge targets, but only to demonstrate why each was unsuitable. Some others discussed byt did not favor merge, and no clear policy-based argument was made for merging.) As Per WP:PI Procedure should be followed in general, but this isn't a case I can get very worked up about. In any case, a merge does not need an AfD result, nor is an AfD the place to go if a merge is what is wanted. Any editor can open a merge discussion on the article talk page at any time, and if consensus is achieved, a merge can be done. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Void close as a BADNAC, in support of Roy Smith. Challenged NACs disputed by an admin. Should not have to spend a week at DRV.
No consensus to delete. No consensus to merge, mandating a merge from AfD. The nomination and discussion lack a sufficient source analysis to support the discussion. I read the leading sources as quite dubious. My reading causes me to lean to “Rename to Washington Redhawks Hoax, with question as to whether this was a notable hoax. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An admin reverted the NAC’s close. That was a proper action, long term policy. A non-admin reverted the admin’s revert. That was not OK. That non admin’s revert should be chastised. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realise the user who reverted RoySmith wasn't also an administrator. I view this in the same serious light as SmokeyJoe. SportingFlyerT·C 01:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the closing rationale. While there may be a case for merging, there wasn't a consensus to delete. Maybe it was a WP:BADNAC call, but, per Paulmcdonald, one could just initiate a merger proposal outside of AfD and it would probably achieve wide support, no? It might even survive a bold move. Doug MehusT·C 00:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The decision that needs an AfD discussion is that of whether or not an admin should hit the "delete" button. The outcome of this discussion was that the article and its content were not deleted, and the nominator here also doesn't want them to be deleted, so I don't see the point of discussing the issue here. Just start a merge discussion at Talk:Washington Redhawks, which the AfD closure does nothing to preclude. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, Phil Bridger. My thoughts exactly. Maybe it was an incorrect close, but did the requestor also discuss with the non-admin closer about adjusting their closing decision or rationale? That's worth mention as well. At any rate, WP:DRV is generally to review whether consensus was correctly assessed, which usually means the requestor is requesting an article be undeleted or deleted when it should've been kept. This does seem like a needless "knuckle rapping" exercise for the non-admin closer.Doug MehusT·C 20:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close per no apparent attempt to discuss with the closer, per this. Doug MehusT·C 20:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Void close per WP:BADNAC. Recommendations of Roy Smith. In any event, a merge is similar to a keep and could likely have been discussed on the article talk page. AfD non-consensus keep - then discuss merge on talk. Done. Lightburst (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst I'd still argue that closing this procedurally per the nom not making an effort to ask that the close be reassessed first having been done. Doug MehusT·C 19:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I consider that proper. Perhaps it may have avoided a deletion review so you are probably correct. But here we are... Lightburst (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst Yeah, but like you said, I just don't think it's even necessary to go through this. Why couldn't the nom just propose a merge on the talk page, outside of AfD or, heck, be bold? Given the apparent support, it probably would've survived a bold move.Doug MehusT·C 19:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, here we are, but here we don't need to be. Merging is an issue that can be discussed and implemented between editors on article talk pages without any admin involvement, so it doesn't need any permission from AfD or DRV. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Probably not an ideal non-admin close, but at this point it would be preferable to open a merge discussion at the article talk page rather than reopening an AfD that has been closed for nearly a week. Lepricavark (talk) 06:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that, either way, there is a clear consensus that no consensus was the correct close. ——SN54129 13:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
