Barbara Dawson – So, what happened is, Scope creep started an AfD about Barbara Dawson and within an hour, Atsme produced a long string of reliable sources about her. Atsme then went on to perform a thorough and decisive article rescue, and I was rather surprised to see that nobody has yet decorated her talk page with the appropriate barnstars and felicitations. Come on all, give the woman some credit! This was followed by a long string of "keep" opinions and in the end Scope creep rightly withdrew his nomination.Now, DRV's role is to see that the deletion process is followed, so let's analyze this from a strict process point of view. In some cases Scope creep's withdrawal would invoke WP:SK ground 1 -- a "speedy keep" outcome. But, as WP:SK used to make clear, you can't speedily keep an article using this ground when there's a good faith editor in good standing who recommends delete or redirect. Sadly, this point was obfuscated in an edit to WP:SK on 1st November 2021, but it's still the rule. In process terms, David Eppstein's redirect !vote rules a "speedy keep". Therefore if the debate was to be closed as keep at that time -- and there's a clear consensus below that it could and should have been -- then the grounds for that have to be WP:SNOW and not WP:SK.Anyway, process wonkery aside, Mellohi, who is to be fair quite a lot less experienced than most of our AfD closers, came along and SNOW kept it. The keep outcome isn't in doubt but his wording is disputed.In the debate below, opinions are split. One camp's view is "leave it alone", with some muttering about quibbling and bureaucracy. The other camp's view is to overturn the close and re-close it, still as "keep" but either with different wording or by a different editor.It's a pretty clear no consensus to overturn, but, I'd invite Mellohi to reflect on the views the community expresses here about relatively inexperienced editors closing AfDs. Maybe leave that to others for a while?—S MarshallT/C 16:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Me (the original closer) and Scope creep (the nominator) have had a disagreement not about whether this article's AfD should be closed as a keep, but rather about the exact reason why to close as a keep. I thought WP:SNOW applied as every delete voter and the nominator retracted in favour of a keep after the article was improved (resulting in all but one of the many participants favouring a keep), but Scope creep wanted to speedy-keep as a withdrawn nomination instead, to the point that they overwrote my closure statement with theirs (an action which Randykitty reverted). Thus, I would like to ask DRV for clarification on this matter. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 14:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mellohi: I'm not contesting the fact that it was a consensus for keep, just the way it was closed. scope_creepTalk 14:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which was exactly what I meant to say. Tweaked nomination statement a little. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 14:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the only question. The result and the reasoning are there for all to see and are apparently undisputed. We all have better things to do than quibble over such trivialities. WaggersTALK 15:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close Wrong venue. Closure was clearly correct and not in dispute. If you think someone is making improper statements in closures, that can be taken to other venues such as ANI. Conversely, if you are upset that someone is overriding your closures, that can be taken to ANI as well. I'd question why ANI would be used for such trivialities as well, but this isn't a DRV issue. Smartyllama (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close per above. For what its worth, a "speedy keep" closure as a withdrawn nom would not have been appropriate because not all of the delete (or WP:ATD) viewpoints were removed (there was still one "redirect" vote standing). In the end, the article would be kept either way. User:Scope creep's conduct is an ANI issue, not a DRV issue. FrankAnchor 18:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Changed to endorse as the below votes do show there is some merit to this being on DRV. After the additional sources were added, three of the four non-keep opinions (including the nom) were crossed out and several additional “keep” votes were added making a WP:SNOW keep reasonable. I disagree with the closing comments but there is no other way this discussion would close even if it were relisted for several more days FrankAnchor 03:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per WP:BADNAC. Mellohi does not appear to have much experience participating at AfD, and per WP:NACD, controversial decisions are better left to admins, and per WP:SK#NOT, "snow closes" may be controversial and additional care is warranted. This AfD was discussed at Mellohi's Talk page, where it appears to be controversial due to two experienced AfD participants raising concerns about the close. Courtesy ping to Netherzone, who participated in the Talk page discussion after this DRV started. Beccaynr (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re-close. Eg:
The result was keep. It seems to be WP:SNOWing, as non-keep voters (and the nominator) have been retracting their votes in droves as the article was improved. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, as the article was improved. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
User:Mellohi! overdid the flowery opinion in the closing statement. Closers, but especially NAC-ers, should avoid injecting their personal opions in closing statements. Opinions, like everything in a close, should come from the discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist and let it run the full week. NAC-SNOW seems to almost always cause more drama than it ever avoids. Obviously, things are trending keep, and I don't doubt that that's the correct result, but there's no pressing reason to rush the process. Jclemens (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leave closed. No opinion on what the statement should say. Strictly speaking, a nom-withdrawn SK1 self-nac is not permitted, but I really don't see why we need to make more BURO out of this. For the same reason, I don't see the point in relisting, though anyone may renominate if they truly wished to. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per WP:NOTBURO. It was a correct reading of the trending consensus. Anyone can renom if the really disagreed with the voters. To answer the closer's question, this can't be closed as a withdraw because there was one voter who did not withdraw their redirect vote. But if that vote didn't exist it's generally better to close as a withdraw. JumpytooTalk 05:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse because it doesn't matter. Trout to the litigants in this dispute. And what is the point to this? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse with thanks to the (NAC) closer. Sources found, article improved. The 3 actual delete votes all retracted or switched to keep (including nominator, who withdrew the nomination), and there were 7 additional keep votes. It was an uncontroversial candidate for an early Keep close, including a NAC. Only lesson to be learnt is that all closers (NAC and others) should avoid facile wording which might make contributors to the discussion feel their efforts and opinions are being devalued, even if that was (presumably) not the closer's intent. References to SNOW in particular can be dangerous, since while it need not be taken that way, some people seem to interpret it as being dismissive. This was a good deletion discussion that saved and improved an article, therefore rendering further deletion discussion moot. Martinp (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In general a SNOW close is rarely a good idea in WP:HEY situations unless everyone is on board--just let it ride out. There is always a chance that there are still good arguments for deletion. With a NAC you should probably be particularly careful. But yes, it looks like a clear keep. I've no problem with a relist if people really believe there is still a strong argument for deletion they want to make. I don't see anyone making that argument here. Hobit (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist and/or reclose by someone else. AfDs don't just cease to exist when they're closed, they are permanently linked in talk pages and can be referenced as precedent. For that reason, and to discourage NACs of potentially controversial discussions, this should be reclosed by an admin with a more appropriate summary. JoelleJay (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
