The last deletion discussion is over ten years old, and in that time Redban has continued podcast hosting and publishing, and is now the part-owner of the Sunset Strip Comedy Club. There are many sources covering his more recent works. (The previous closing admin has been inactive several years so I won't notify them.) SmolBrane (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. The deletion is old and there is a good chance the subject is now notable enough to merit an article. I'm willing to draftify this to see how it can be improved and brought up to acceptable standards. The main-space name is create protected anyway, so there's no way this article would appear in main space by itself unless a reviewer approves it. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I'm happy leaving this in Anachronist's capable hands. Owen×☎ 22:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Downgrade Salting to ECPto allow review of draft. ECP did not exist when the title was salted. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify a very old discussion, no problem with reviewing a new draft to see if he's notable now. SportingFlyerT·C 16:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refund either to draftspace or user sandbox. This should have been non-controversial and doesn't need our formal input. Of course all current standards apply when put into mainspace directly or via AfC. Jclemens (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also expected this to be non-controversial! And I agree with Robert regarding ECP. SmolBrane (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation is disallowed via salting (variations include Redban, Brian Reichle, Brian "Redban" Reichle, Brian Redban Reichle; no evidence of recent gaming of titles at plausible names, so for example there were no recreation attempts at ... [you know where to look at]; so no extant threat of tendentious impetus). Allow recreation by reducing the salting level (or totally unsalt). No requirement or suggestion to use AfC, an optional process, and there is no COI. Only refund outdated BLP content to draft if it is sourced and not garbage. If it is unsourced outdated BLP content do not undelete.—Alalch E. 23:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and unsalt. It has been years since the aforementioned attempted creations and my own research online makes this a promising article. TLAtlak 02:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Noting for the record that the creator of the article, 2 keep !voters, and the "no consensus" closer have all been sockblocked. QueenofHearts 16:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This non-admin closure by Coookiemonster mentioning "No consensus has been made for the aforementioned areas, and given that there has been extensive discussion over two weeks and that no more votes have occurred in the past few days, a second RELIST will likely be a waste of time." is not reasonable. The right call would have been to relist the AfD for the 2nd time to get more policy based arguments, but instead, Coookiemonster closed it too soon. The article on Justin Jin has received over 800 views with a daily average of 40+, which is significant traction
considering it doesn't appear as the first hit in a Google search. I believe many other editors would have placed their arguments if it were relisted. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. The Delete views may or may not have garnered consensus, but deletion was certainly a potential outcome, making this a BADNAC, especially for an editor who has been here less than three months. Owen×☎ 11:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak relist this is clearly a WP:BADNAC as the result is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. evidenced by several valid keep and delete votes, along with the closer admitting the close was complicated and there is justification that is fairly evenly split between both sides. Second relists are very common. My !vote is only a weak relist because I agree that there is a strong possibility relisting will not sway consensus either way, citing the large attendance this AFD has already received. However, that is not a decision that should be made to a non-admin closer. It should be left to an admin, particularly one who has experience closing contentious discussions. FrankAnchor 16:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate Crystal clear WP:BADNAC. Can probably be speedily relisted, or even vacated and re-closed by a competent administrator. SportingFlyerT·C 19:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist: An article controversially closed as "No consensus" while there was a clear assessment of probable "deletion". Pure situation of WP:VOTE and non assessment of argument by the closer. Just WP:BADNAC, and will require an admin closure. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried to advise the closer a few days ago to be more careful closing AFD discussions considering their relative inexperience, especially in administrative areas and I feel like my advice was ignored. Another incident like this and I think we might need a topic ban. If no advice had been given to the editor, I'd say this was just a well-intentioned mistake. But the fact that I told them not to handle "close calls" means, to me, that the editor doesn't listen to advice. This has happened before in AFDLand with other overly eager editors and it hasn't ended well. Let's hope this Deletion review gets the message across. No opinion on what should happen here as I very well may be closing this discussion if it gets relisted again and I don't want to be considered "involved". LizRead!Talk! 23:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to all, I should have been more careful. I think I will stop closing AFD in the future because this happened. I tried to look more close into Non-admin_closure after @Liz warned me but I got in over my head. — 🍪CookieMonster 00:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for saying this, User:Coookiemonster. Being able to see when you were wrong is a key attribute for a closer and even some of our top closers don't have it. Because you have seen you were wrong, it's for you as AfD closer to do the paperwork. See the second limb of "speedy closes" under Wikipedia:Deletion review#Closing reviews. The sequence is: (1) revert your AfD close; (2) relist the AfD with an appropriate explanation; and then (3) close this DRV as "speedy overturn".—S MarshallT/C 09:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other best advice I can give is that AfD in general needs participants more than it needs closers. A single additional !vote may be very helpful in helping an administrator reach a consensus. SportingFlyerT·C 16:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Close and Relist, as per above discussion. This may already be in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse. On the one hand I think that Cookie was correct in their assessment of consensus, on the other, I agree that this AfD was a poor candidate for a NAC both because a non-admin 's inability to close as delete could lead to an unconscious bias against deletion and because it's contentious enough that it is likely to get taken to DRV in any case and certain to in case of a NAC which is unlikely to be sustained as it requires a judgement call based on the careful weighing of comments. Note that I hate giving this advice, I thought such AfD's were obvious NC closes that I should be able to make before I had the bit, and I would love to make them now that I have given it up. But experience has shown that they don't stick and thus don't save time or effort compared to waiting for an admin to close them in the first place. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate NAC and handle the closure and closer issues separately. For the latter, it appears a message has been, perhaps belatedly, received. For the former, any admin can close, to include substantially reiterating this editor's reasoning. Jclemens (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, a little weakly. This is obv WP:BADNAC, but I feel that CookieMonster's rationale is mostly correct. After being closed at no consensus and indexed on the search engines, the article has been viewed nearly 1,000 times a day. This is not an indicator of notability but perhaps one of popularity... there was also an extensive discussion over two weeks. On Wikipedia, I've learned not to rush things and we should not WP:RUSHDELETE, I will keep this on my watchlist and after WP:2MONTHS will nominate this article for deletion. Separately, ensure that they do not close another contentious AfD again. TLAtlak 02:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was indexed when the AFD was started, not when it was closed. No one is rushing to delete here, as the point of DRV is for a relist. Please read the nom before putting your 2 cents.
From what I can see, Coookiemonster is just an SPA with 0 mainspace content contributions. The drafts they are moving will obviously be precisely moved to the right naming structure by any AfC reviewer while accepting and the categories they are adding are useless contributions done to game their edit count, making it look like they are an experienced editor. Close to 1500 useless edits from March 21st to March 28th, including the clear outcomes of AfD closures they made. I believe none are controversial apart from Justin Jin's closure. Going offline right after S Marshall suggested that he revert his close? Just a clever way to disrupt a particular AfD and hide it like a routine closure. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember searching this subject up and I’m pretty sure the Wikipedia article wasn’t in the first page of Google results, and if IIRC new articles at AfD automatically get a no index tag? My point is that this is a popular article. What I mean by rushing to delete is that new sources are appearing for this subject. Thanks for bringing up CookieMonster’s edits, and with Alalch E.'s text below I'm neutral.
For future reference, when a DR is created is it required to add a tag to the article itself? I wasn’t aware there even was a DR until a few days later. TLAtlak 20:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist Obvious and clear BADNAC. We'll probably get this AFD wrong anyway, but it should be an admin that evaluates it. One more relist may be best before a second close. Usedtobecool☎️ 10:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate. "Endorse BADNAC because X" comments are unnecessary unless X is something exceptional. A DRV such as this one takes approximately the same amount of resources to conduct regardless of it outcome, and it takes only a small-to-moderate amount of energy on top for an individual admin to reclose or relist (considering also that the things said in the deletion review can add some outside perspective and make it easier). For a modest added investment we probably get a significantly better final product, because an AfD that doesn't suffer from a perception that process wasn't followed correctly can be assumed to be significantly better. This should be completely routine.—Alalch E. 11:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, Alalch E. I'd go even further and say that clear cases of BADNAC should be instantly reverted, either in lieu of bringing them to DRV, or short-circuiting DRV for a speedy close. If the AfD outcome was in any way disputed, as evidenced by it being brought to DRV, there is nothing to be gained by endorsing the non-admin close over re-closing properly, and plenty to be gained by eliminating these pointless energy drains. Owen×☎ 11:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
