- UP Halcyon (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
A non-admin closed a week-old AfD for UP Halcyon. I think the AfD should have been continued, reposted, for at least another week on this basis: The discussion was shut down far too soon after major improvements were made, thus allowing insufficient time for voters to re-assess.
The original article, while well-written and non-promotional was lacking citations. When it was suddenly PRODed I objected, desirous of fixing it. The proposer then placed it in an AfD vote. In that single week I cleaned up the page and added two references. Another editor added six more references, all of them correctly cited.
During the brief vote period, several editors voiced an early, short opinion, "Delete, no sources" or something like that, and most dialog occurred prior to substantive improvements to the article. I believe we have fixed the page, addressed the original (valid) concern about a lack of sources, and have established validity (~the group exists) and that it is notable, as an important part of its community. Therefore I'd like to give time for cooler heads to reassess. Note, the non-admin who closed the discussion created it as a REDIRECT. I do not believe this to be a helpful resolution. My opinion remains that the UP Halcyon article should be Kept, but I hoped the voters would come to that conclusion after seeing our improvements. The last six references were added only a day or so prior to deletion - maybe 30 hours had passed (I cannot see the page history to check). Voters didn't have much of a chance to see these improvements. I asked the user to re-list, but he/she declined. Jax MN (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist - The fact that it was a non-admin close is not the issue. But two of the first Delete !votes said that it had no sources, which was true, and has been rectified by adding nine sources as well as other material. I do not know whether I would !vote to Keep or Delete in its current form. However, when No Sources are cited, the addition of sources is a reason to Relist, and to ping the editors who !voted to see if they change their !votes. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist would decide what needs to be done and allow further analysis of the sources. >>> Extorc.talk 15:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Great. Thank you for those comments. Who then effects (~does) the relist? The current article is still a REDIRECT, and the article itself is suppressed. Jax MN (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- DRV is a consensus process, so other may comment yet. A DRV is nominally 7 days, this normally means it'll be open for at least 7 days after which an admin will close it. In extreme cases it can be quite a bit longer. There are circumstances where it can be closed earlier (withdrawn, initial closer undoes their close etc.) but normally it is going to be at least 7 days. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist Although this was just about within the discretion of a NAC so its not like Astig did anything wrong, the discussion was still active and mildly contentious over whether the references meet NORG guidelines. More discussion wouldn't hurt. That said, based on the last comment by Rublamb I agree that more sources are needed to prove notability (and Rublamb !voted Keep) and the analysis of the sources and the argument for Keeping, I think we're simply delaying the inevitable and this will end up being a redirect anyway. HighKing++ 21:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist when sources get added to the article at the last minute, a relist so they can be evaluated is proper, regardless of the previous "no sources" objections, which immediately are deprived of any weight by AGFing the new sourcing addresses the source issue. Jclemens (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. The nominator’s reason for deletion was overcome by the addition of sources. Allow immediate renomination (after the close of this DRV). This is different to “relist” in that there will be a fresh nomination statement, which is needed because the old one no longer applies. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep this was a WP:BADNAC as the outcome was at least somewhat controversial, as shown by valid "keep" and "redirect" votes, and what were at the time valid "delete" (though later addressed by the addition of valid sourcing). No prejudice against re-nomination if someone wishes to go that route. Per User:SmokeyJoe, this would allow better rationale for deletion since the AFD's rationale no longer applies. Carson Wentz (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per SmokeyJoe. Note that User:Jax MN's DRV nomination statement seems to suggest that they think the developed version of the article is not available to them to be seen, but isn't that this version just before the redirect implemented. An AFD outcome of "redirect" does usually (as here) leave behind edit history. --Doncram (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Really nothing wrong with the closure. The delete/redirect !votes do have more weight than the keep !votes. As one of the delete/redirect !voters, our arguments aren't just the WP:METOO arguments. The sources added were heavily rebutted by HighKing, in which I'm convinced with the user's arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree in general but one of the (IMO) valid arguments made above was that the additional sources had only been added ~30 hours before closing and the discussion was ongoing. A relist would allow the discussion to continue and allow other editors to comment. Overturning to Keep would be inappropriate. The nom said that it was a "non-notable organization" and additionally pointed out that there were no refs. Some refs have been added (and under discussion) but we haven't reached a consensus on the first part of the nomination, whether the org in notable or not. HighKing++ 16:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Even with the sources added, I still don't think it meets WP:NORG. You even analyzed them one by one and concluded that it still fails NORG. SBKSPP (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist Clear BADNAC and a difficult discussion, needs to be re-closed. No comment on what the new outcome should be. SportingFlyer T·C 23:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|
