Endorse the close. The consensus was clearly for deletion, but in most cases moving to draft is equivalent to deletion; the article no longer exists in mainspace. Retaining it as a draft simply implements the courtesy we extend to all editors to request that deleted content is made available to work further on. Creating redirects from deleted articles is also sensible and within the closer's discretion. If you really object strongly to their existence, I'd suggest nominating them at WP:RfD. – Joe (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what WP:DRV is for? Because you lead out with "consensus was clearly for deletion", but instead of using one of the options available at DRV ("overturn and delete"), you recommend a run through WP:RFD instead? —Locke Cole • t • c 13:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is for deleting articles. When there is a consensus to delete, that's what it is – a consensus to delete an article. It doesn't mean the content can't be reused outside of mainspace, or that the title can't be a useful search term for our readers. I don't understand why you are making such a great effort to expunge this content, especially since almost all the participants in the AfD agreed it would likely be a notable topic very soon. – Joe (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So consensus be damned. This is why I dreaded coming to DRV. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you want redirects deleted, take it to WP:RfD. That was the wrong forum for the deletion of redirects. Hobit (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So two separate discussions was the proper course of action, even though the redirects pointed to the articles up for deletion. WP:MULTIAFD is bullshit? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something? I think that link is only for articles, not bundling articles and redirects for deletion. The deletion criteria for each are quite different and I don't think I've every seen a bundled AfD that included redirects. Hobit (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It uses the term "article" in some parts and "page" in others. My impression was, for discussions on related topics, it was best to keep the discussion together rather than having many separate discussions. And again, in light of the fact that they were redirects to the offending articles, this made sense. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that reading, but I don't think that's how things are done in practice. Hobit (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close but perhaps I'm missing something. I'm honestly not sure what the nom is asking for here or why. Do you disagree with having the draft exist? If so, why? And why do you feel the redirects should be deleted? Is it harming Wikipedia in some way I'm missing? WP:CHEAP is a pretty good summary of the general consensus on redirects. Hobit (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly not sure what the nom is asking for here [...] The non-admin closure was inappropriate. The discussion was definitely a [c]lose call [or] controversial decision [...] better left to admins., and the editor who performed the close did not limit their close to outcomes they have the technical ability to implement (in this case, the redirect deletions which would have been deleted per WP:CSD#G8 at the end of the discussion. [...] or why. Well, I tried to get an administrator to look at the non-admin closure at WP:AN, however, two administrators indicated they did not have the authority to review a non-admin closure. With that new information in-hand, I removed the statement from WP:NACD that says an administrator may reopen a closed discussion, whereupon I was reverted by @Joe Roe:. A discussion took place at the talk page there, I started this DRV, and eventually the administrator who closed the WP:AN discussion reopened it. I again asked at WP:AN for an uninvolved administrator to review the non-admin closure, but then Joe Roe unilaterally decided to end the discussion AGAIN after having !voted here. What I REALLY, REALLY want to know is, why did I waste a week of time following this discussion, making arguements, and so forth just to be told here that "nah fam, redirects are cheap, don't worry about it". The whole point of the AFD was WP:CRYSTALBALL/WP:TOOSOON and the discussion included the redirects per WP:MULTIAFD. I was even told during the AFD that nominating the redirects wasn't necessary because WP:CSD#G8 would take care of them, but then we got a non-admin closure who wasn't technically capable of performing the close properly. That... curious editor, is why we are now HERE. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the background. That run around is clearly a problem. But a few other things: The redirects are perfectly reasonable as far as I can tell. Even if they'd gotten deleted, someone else could have redirected them to iPhone and that would get you in exactly the same place. And sending an article to be a draft doesn't seem unreasonable (and WP:SOON hints at that being the right thing to do in this case). So as much as I agree the process has sucked, I really do think we are in the right place. If you feel we aren't in the right place, take the draft to MfD and the redirects to RfD. I think both would be kept, but that is the next step from here IMO. Hobit (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression one of the outcomes at DRV was "overturn". In so much as the redirects are concerned, it's crystal clear there was consensus to delete (one of the !voters even came back to add to their comment to explicitly include the additional redirects I added after they'd initially !voted). I could go and spend a week at RFD, or DRV could stick to the consensus that existed at AFD... as I said at WP:AN, I'm fine with the two pages being sent to Draft, but all the redirects should be gone. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel a certain amount of sympathy for Locke Cole who's clearly been sent round the houses. There are people who care whether the closer is a sysop, but mainstream Wikipedia thought is not so blitheringly credentialist. For the most part we care whether the close was right, not who made it. I don't think it was massively wrong. The text is gone, as requested. Users who type these plausible search terms into the search bar will find something helpful. But. We haven't given this user FairProcess, and we should. And that AfD didn't really reach a consensus to draftify, did it? On balance: Relist.—S MarshallT/C 20:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I said at the afd and continue to think that the available information is sufficient and sufficiently reliable for an article, but this is still a reasonable close, as is generally the case with a compromise close such as this. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clear WP:BADNAC close as there were several valid outcomes. I agree we're not generally "blitherlingly credentialist" but given the process (the user may be more likely to accept a similar result if closed by an administrator, since I do generally agree with Hobit) this needs to be vacated and re-closed, probably after a relist to "get a more thorough consensus." SportingFlyerT·C 05:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I participated in the AfD. I do not know if the decision is a bad one, however since it is a controversial decision, and as such it probably should not have been closed by a non-administrator. Lightburst (talk) 13:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to take a neutral stance here. While I !voted for a delete for both articles, I see nothing wrong with a harmless bunch of redirects per WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You !voted Draftify... also, the redirects are effectively neologisms. Those terms don't exist in sources except for rumors/guesses, and that makes them a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL, a policy, not an essay... —Locke Cole • t • c 13:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's a very thin line between Draftify and Delete. The general understanding is that the subject doesn't warrant an article, yet. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just got an ad from Apple for this. Coming out in 7 days. I think we can safely expect we'll have an article within a week or so. Hobit (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I !voted in the AfD and chose delete. However this close is also proper and in keeping with WP:ATD. Lightburst (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Josh Hammond – Relist. There's a fair bit of empathy here for the closing admin, who was faced with a difficult task making sense of some poor arguments on all sides. But, there's also clear consensus that this should have been relisted for further discussion. -- RoySmith(talk) 01:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The AfD was three to one vote in favour of Keep, and it was closed as a Delete. It seems that the closing administrator has substituted his/her own opinion in place of the consensus. I think a relist would be prudent ~~ Dflaw4 (talk) 06:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd technically endorse since nobody seems to have found any WP:GNG sources, the best keep !vote is actually a good argument for deletion (no WP:GNG sources and negates one of the !keep votes), and there's not really mention of any place where WP:GNG sources could be found, so not sure a relist would have been all that helpful. That being said, would have preferred a discussion with closing admin to see if they would have relisted before coming here, though. Correct result, odd procedure. SportingFlyerT·C 08:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as there was no consensus to delete. The only delete !vote was made before editors started improving the article and all subsequent !votes were to keep. The closer seemed to have made their own assessment. That's a supervote which was based on GNG which is a guideline not a policy and so admits of exceptions. Our actual policies and processes such as WP:ATD and WP:DGFA were not followed. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - SWP13 apparently added references. Dflaw4 said that they're "not sure that those references help meet WP:GNG", no-one else commented on the references. Considering SWP13 supposedly believes these sources satisfied GNG and that only one editor said they're "not sure" they do, there is no consensus that the sourcing does not meet GNG, nor clear consensus that it does. Further discussion was warranted, not a closure as delete. --MrClog (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. The keep arguments are weak, but so is the only delete !vote; that doesn't add up to a consensus to delete. It should have been relisted. – Joe (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Further discussion was warranted and justifiable. That said, the keep arguments are weak. --Enos733 (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
relist I understand the close, but in the case where numeric good-faith consensus seems to be going against the guidelines, a relist is generally the best option on the table. At the moment I don't think consensus can be said to exist for deletion. Hobit (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - No Consensus would have been a reasonable close, but since the article is being improved and other editors are saying to relist, Overturn and Relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse or optionally relist. I can't really blame the closing admin here, one of the keep !voters basically admits that the subject doesn't meet the GNG, another notes that references have been added without mentioning the quality and the third one just refers to the others. The sourcing is very poor, almost all the sources cited are IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes or similar sites which either namecheck him as being in the cast of some film or repeat a biography the subject probably wrote. The only exception is [1], which is a blog which we shouldn't be using as a source for personal information in a BLP anyway. I've no objection to relisting but if it has to be closed in that state I think Delete is the best closure. Hut 8.5 21:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request temporary undeletion. I want to see the references added by User:SWP13. I'm guessing that either they were improperly ignored, or they were so poor as to not be worth commenting on. Like the one offered in the AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the cached version, only the first three sources are about the subject, the next eleven are about the films and verify that Hammond was in it. The first three sources have zero secondary source content, and so fail the GNG without considering whether they are reliable sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: I've done a temporary undeletion. Hut 8.5 16:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, relist. During the AfD, SWP13 (talk·contribs) added fifteen sources to the article, which previously had none except for the IMDb external link. The first three could be argued to support notability (although I argue they do not). The addition of these sources demands a comment in the AfD, they were not obviously gratuitous reference bombing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In response to the above "Endorse" arguments, I would emphasise that the issue at hand, as I understand it, is whether the votes in the AfD support a "delete" consensus—not whether the sources found thus far meet WP:GNG. This is why I applied for the review—because I do not believe that the "delete" close logically follows from the votes and discussion in the AfD. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dflaw4: to clarify, what's being discussed here is whether the AfD closer read the consensus correctly—whatever the decision was—not whether the participants in the discussion came to the correct conclusion. ——SN54129 10:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly, that's how I understand it, ——. Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you meant my endorse specifically, but to clarify I'm commenting on the closer's rationale for closing as they mention WP:GNG, not whether the sources meet WP:GNG. (I haven't looked at the sources.) SportingFlyerT·C 04:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We usually see things these days a little broader than that. If the result is grossly wrong, the procedure did not work properly
Overturn and relist this was not in keeping with our WP:CONSENSUS policy. Lightburst (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relist because there were only four comments on the deletion page, and there was no clear consensus. CrazyBoy826 (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn there was no consensus to delete. WP:NOTABILITY clearly states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". It has to meet one not both otherwise the subject-specific guidelines would not exist. WP:NACTOR says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." If consensus was that his roles were significant, as the three KEEP votes suggest, then it should've been closed as KEEP. Two of the three films he was in mentioned in the lead have him listed as a main character, that a significant role in those films deemed notable enough by Wikipedia standards to have an article. The closing statement by Bibliomaniac15 "it has come into question whether there are sources beyond a simple listing of roles that would allow this to pass WP:GNG." is not a valid reason to delete the article since it does not have to pass the general notability guidelines. DreamFocus 06:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The AfD was just relisted yesterday, with a two-to-two vote thus far, and has been suddenly closed as a Delete with no explanation. ~~ Dflaw4 (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You probably should have asked the closing administrator for an explanation before taking it here. I know it's technically optional, but this is a classic AfD where that could have been helpful. SportingFlyerT·C 08:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, SportingFlyer, I didn't realise you could ask a closing administrator to take back his/her "close". I'm relatively new to this process. I will keep that in mind for the future. Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Relisting was sensible as opinions were evenly divided and some digging for more sources was being done. The peremptory deletion was not explained and so seems out of process. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. There was no consensus when the discussion was relisted and obviously none emerged afterwards, because there were no additional comments. This is indeed a strange close. At the very least, coming down on one side when the !votes are evenly split needs some explanation. @Bibliomaniac15: Could you please explain your reasoning? – Joe (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
O+r I note Bibliomaniac15 has just returned from a hiatus a few years' long. Notwithstanding our perennial backlogs, contentious AfD closes are a good way of annoying a lot of people all at once (the Josh Hammond DRV^^^ is theirs too), perhaps just slow down a tad with the closes. ——SN54129 18:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I made a mistake in closing this one without checking the date of the relist; it was still listed in the old AFD section as I was going through it. bibliomaniac15 19:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yep, that happens, especially if you're rusty I suspect. Welcome back! speedy relist or backing out of the close is my !vote here given the above. Hobit (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
