Joe Biden sexual assault allegation – procedurally re-close the second AfD with no real conclusion; the first AfD is endorsed as no consensus.
Given the contentious nature of all aspects of this article and the AfDs, it's worth itemising what there is and isn't consensus on:
The original AfD was fairly contentious and ended up numerically leaning towards keep, but a detailed and sensible closing statement by Sandstein has generally assisted in most people accepting that closure as a correct evaluation of "no consensus" at that time. The participants in this DRV that mention the first AfD are generally doing so in terms of endorsing it.
Following a no-consensus closure, there's no technical or policy reason why a second AfD shouldn't have been started. However, given the short period of time elapsed, the number of editors supporting keep in AfD1, and the continuing mention of the topic in the news, most participants in this debate don't seem to think there's much of a chance of a substantially different outcome at this time. Various arguments have been made in this DRV that are very much tiptoeing towards re-arguing the AfD - though a common trend in a few of them is at least worth considering from an efficiency perspective: media coverage of this allegation is certainly not going away, and if anything more of it is occurring as time goes by. Very few people seem to genuinely expect a delete outcome if we debate this again, even if a significant number very much think that would be a good thing. The withdrawal of AfD2, therefore, is considered a broadly sensible move, with the primary problem being the phrasing of the closure.
"Speedy keep" in this context is generally considered to be a little inaccurate, with its implication of "of course we keep this article", rather than "it was not considered worth having another argument about this article at this time." While yes, it was closed speedily, and yes, we've kept the article, many participants are uncomfortable with the exact phrasing. There is not overall consensus in any way to re-open the AfD, but I do consider there's consensus to re-close it in a way that more accurately describes the avoidance of a pointless continued discussion, rather than a ringing consensus to keep. ~ mazcatalk 13:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This page was nominated for deletion today. A discussion was beginning, with delete votes, keep votes, and others complaining about the fact that it had just survived AfD as a "no consensus" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Biden assault allegation five days ago. Then, the nominator withdrew the nomination, closing it as a "speedy keep". Problem is this is in violation of WP:WDAFD, which clearly states: "If no one else has supported the deletion proposal and you change your mind about the nomination, you can withdraw it. ... If no one has supported deletion of the article you may close the discussion yourself as a WP:Speedy keep, or you may leave it for someone else to close the discussion." This cannot be withdrawn or a speedy keep. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm expecting there's WP:SNOW chance of this article getting deleted either of this is reopened or someone else nominates it later. So, I'd be fine with keeping the second AfD closed, but changing"speedy keep" to "withdrawn" as a more accurate description of what happened. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus at a well-attended discussion five days ago. What's changed since then? (If that's a stupid question, please forgive me: I'm not an American and I don't follow US politics because I find it so tiring.)—S MarshallT/C 22:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Definitely an improper closure. CBS527Talk 23:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe just leave it - It might have been an improper close, but it was also a questionable open. Opening a new deletion discussion less than a week after the last one was closed was likely not helpful. Is it likely we are going to end up with consensus for deletion where the previous discussion failed? Or based on the comments that were made in this one before the impugned speedy keep? If it about the label, perhaps we change it to a speedy no consensus.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Change - per Darryl Kerrigans suggestion. Speedy no consensus or Speedy close. The re-nomination was too fast in the first place, re-adding it will only cause more headache for many.BabbaQ (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Or, at least, change to no consensus withdrawn. I’m generally in favor of IAR closes to save time, particularly for a withdrawal, and it will end with no consensus or keep. But, as to the question of what’s changed, this is a fast moving subject. And frankly, the article is poorly written and the TP is fraught with POV pushing on both sides. I’d let it play out, to bring in more observation if nothing else. O3000 (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AfD1. Good close, could have been closed as a "rough consensus to keep"; could not have been closed as "delete". I think this is a good result, the topic is not going to go away, and preventing it from having a single main page of coverage would mean mentions appearing in many places. The topic requires considerably careful attention to WP:DUE and WP:BLP, as emphasized by the well written close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fix the close of AfD2. It should not have been closed with the statement The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, but with Nomination withdrawn. The "keep" in "speedy keep" is apparently the problem. AfD2 did not find a consensus to keep. Standard moratoria should apply, a minimum two months before a WP:RENOM. If there are real content problems, use the talk page and normal WP:DR. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Speedy close" per Steve Quinn below. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fix the close of AfD2. The AfD2 should have been closed, even if the close was done improperly, as it was too soon to open a new AfD. The AfD2 should not be reopened. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fix the close of AfD2. Simple fix - Change " Speedy Keep" to just "Keep" Cox wasan (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse It seems reasonable for a nominator to speedily close such a discussion to save us all from further wasted effort. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - The nominator cannot declare "speedy keep" for their own nomination nor can they withdraw it under these conditions as pointed out by Muboshgu. - MrX 🖋 14:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While the nominator is strictly correct, having another AfD on this subject just days after a well-attended contentious one was closed with no new arguments is a bad idea, so I don't think we should reopen it. Wait a few weeks. Hut 8.5 15:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fix the close of AfD2 - It indeed should've been closed, even if, as stated above, the close itself wasn't done properly. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - While not a textbook-close of AfD2, I think AfD2 would have eventually reached the same conclusion as AfD1, and further discussion would just waste time. Essentially per WP:IAR. --MuZemike 18:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not going to weigh in with either an endorse or overturn because I can't figure out which outcome would be more absurd. I will, however, point out that I once withdrew an AfD nomination I had made, and the discussion then continued on to delete the article anyway. -- RoySmith(talk) 19:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith Now that's funny! And a good one. It sounds like the topic in question caused an emotional response! ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the AFD1 closure, Overturn the AFD2 close. Though honestly, I strongly believe this articles as a standalone is a blatant failure of BLP (when in combination with NOTNEWS and POV policy), and we need discussion elsewhere of why we don't create standalone articles when only "accusations" exist, regardless of media coverage and public-figure weigh in -we're an encyclopedia first and foremost. (If they were proven out, or were going into a court case, that would be something). --Masem (t) 21:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn AfD2 and reopen per WP:WDAFD. Or marking it as "Speedy close" is also acceptable given the circumstances (WP:IAR). "Speedy keep" is obviously inappropriate per WP:WDAFD and "No consensus" is a false outcome - so that cannot be. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can't an admin just undo the close and let the AfD run? Why are we even here? (I voted in the initial AfD and I agree with Masem - very concerned about the fact we've been keeping articles that clearly fail WP:NOT because a large number of keep !voters cite WP:GNG.) SportingFlyerT·C 06:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re-frame - I'm a bit with larry sanger: Wikipedia is at heart a bit flashmobocratic (my coinage, of course)---- what, with AfD's decided by admin roulette: some just counting noses; others try to figure out which side's arguments seem more cogent. Rather than have a page like this one deleted or kept by happenchance or whim, can't there be some kind of rhyme or reason applied? I propose in cases like the present there be something comparable to a "direct" or "automatic" legal appeal---- to wp's deletion review. When a legitimately sizeable minority or plurality of cogent observers feel there to exist on Wikipedia a point-of-view fork, how can an AfD close of "No consensus" (and hence defaults to Keep) be valid, according to WP's foundational principles? For example, ought the article "Armenian Genocide denial" be considered a POV fork to, say, that of "Military history of the Republic of Turkey"? Or – not? Maybe DR is where such cases as involve such articulate and passionate of competing antogonists ought to automatically be brought.
(But, I'm beginning to repeat myself.) – My !vote is, in other words: Forget the obvious minutia of the present DR and instead invest into a spontaneous DR taking up the original AfD close of "no consensus (defaults to keep)."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 06:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AfD closure looks proper, was 18 to 38 per Sandstein's comments would just continue into a vote for president. Clearly there will be a significant group of people that support this topic, and today it has received much more mainstream press. No chance of deletion now. If someone really wants to delete, they can try a second nomination as well. Trying to overturn the closure on this is Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep closed but change result from 'speedy keep' to 'procedural close' or something along those lines. The closure-by-nom was improper, but it seems clear that reopening the AfD would only lead to more wasted time. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. WP:RENOM is not a guideline, even if it is good advice. As a matter of procedure, speedy keep by reason of withdrawal is invalid because of other proponents. --Bsherr (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
and I will add that I don't see how changing the close to just "keep" is appropriate. The discussion was not allowed to run its course, and I don't see any consensus for keep as opposed to no consensus. --Bsherr (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fix the close of AfD2. Whatever happens, the article should remain and not be deleted. The left-wing media is even starting to have to cover the allegations because their cover-up of the allegations was so absurd and rife with cognitive dissonance. The jig is up.JimmyPiersall (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse or, let sleeping dogs lie. A nominator should have the right to withdraw their own nomination, and in this case I'm glad they did. The nom for AFD2 was untimely. There was no way that the community's consensus was going to change or develop in less than a week. Leaving the discussion open only wasted editor time and effort on re litigating an issue that had been beaten to death the week before. Now if we strictly look at process, sure the process was probably wrong: since some editors had voted delete, the nom shouldn't technically have withdrawn. But process for the sake of process is the very bane of Wikipedia. It was already apparent that the second AFD was not going to change the outcome. If we're doing process for processes sake, then it probably shouldn't have been opened in the first place. If we do anything because of this DRV, perhaps it would be to change the AFD2 close to Procedural close instead of a speedy keep, though I think that is also bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep closed - there are enough people that want the article and not enough that want it deleted. it is a newsworthy topic that should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToeFungii (talk • contribs) 05:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - there was a clear majority support to keep the article. BeŻet (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'cmt w rgd original AfD's close- With no small contingent of wikipedians' reasonably argueing the article violated What-Wikipedia-is-Not (its providing a forum for advocacies, whatever their merits, & venue for trial-by-media absent due process, etc etc), How are WP's most basic principles upheld via the usual close in such cases of No Consensus Default to Keep"? Wikipractice ought be amended here, through, rather than keeping/deleting outright, its shifting the disputed page to draft space for a season until and if it gains actual consensus. It don't take no prognosticative genius to imagine how this issue's gonna reoccur quite often going forward and it would make for a marvelous precedent were this DR to institute this change in now, at least in my humble opinion.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Burn it all It's a story about an unwanted hand in a vagina, and its community refuses to admit "vagina" is the right word to describe what's under her skirt. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AfD1; Overturn AfD 2 per WP:WDAFD; Or at the very least, change AfD2 to speedy close / procedural close. If this were a less popular/run-of-the-mill article, I would probably say leave it be; but with a presidential candidate in American news media, a lot can change in a week (so, in this case, I don't think the WP:RENOM "2 months" suggestion can be used as a blanket time period for every article). By the time this deletion review closes, it will be more than a week. And since there were immediate delete !votes before the nom withdrew, then obviously the community wants to continue the conversation. Especially since the first AfD was no consensus, I don't really see the harm in letting editors talk further - maybe there will be stronger consensus this time, and the discussion can be put to rest. - Whisperjanes (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and re-close procedurally invalid closure. Lightburst (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AFD1 - I encourage everyone to look at WP:SNOWBALL: If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process. That page gives the specific example: "For example, if an article is speedily deleted for the wrong reason (the reason was not within the criteria for speedy deletion), but the article has no chance of surviving the normal deletion process, it would be pointless to resurrect the article and force everyone to go through the motions of deleting it again." Here we have, in my opinion, an exactly analogous situation; it might have been improper to speedy keep, but it's so obvious that the subject is notable and deserves an article that undoing the keep and forcing it to go through AfD will just waste time because the article doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted. Redoing this process is a waste of time. Ikjbagl (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
