395:. There is little doubt the opener has a strong point and such a closure could not stay. The process here was a mess, NAC AfD closures as delete just do not exist, let alone using an inappropriate G6 speedy deletion to enforce a NAC closure as delete. Frankly it could had been avoided just spending a couple of minutes striking Legacypac's closure and replacing it with an admin's closure, as it was suggested both at RHaworth's talk page and in the relevant ANI thread. Consensus seems consistent with delete, so the easiest thing is (was) striking Legacypoint's closing comment and replacing with an admin closure as delete, but once we are at this point I'm fine even with a closure as redirect (not suggested in the discussion, but it makes sense) or even a relist (still, I hardly see a different outcome for the discussion).
810:, the instructions are abundantly clear that the closing user should be approached before filing for formal review. That said, when an AfD has been open for several weeks without any arguments in favor for keeping the article, I'm going to treat it as an expired PROD. In this case, we had three participating users (there's no reason to ignore the nominator's arguments) in agreement that the subject didn't meet our notability requirements. You're free to create a redirect, but I don't see that the "previous info" has any real use; the content was sourced almost entirely to the band's website and social media like Instagram and YouTube. –
86:, but not endorsed. The question of whether non-administrators can legitimately close as "delete", redirect it, and then slap a G6 template on the redirect, is discussed below. Obvious though the answer to that question undoubtedly is, a deletion review is the wrong place to decide it; but Deletion review's primary process is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed and this page has a history of overturning closes with procedural irregularities of this kind.
348:. The close seems perfectly reasonable, and trying to overturn it just because the closer doesn't own a mop seems like pointless process wonkery. I would suggest to the closer that he run for adminship, but the last time I suggest that to somebody, they got dragged through the mud for no good reason, so I'm kind of down on the whole admin thing. Rule #1 is that we're here to write an encyclopedia. Everything else is crap. --
558:, which is an essay, and in any event this would fall under "substantial procedural error." The point about non-admin closures rarely being changed is irrelevant: the page is describing a common outcome, and those outcomes involve closes which conform to NACD. This one doesn't. It's a fine point, but the close can't stand as-is.
440:
2. if the complaint is that the closer is not an admin. with the note " A request for comment discussed how to appeal closures and whether an administrator can summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus was that closures should not be reverted solely because the closer was not an
477:
also if you use twinkle under G6 XfD it lists Afd, Rfd, Tfd, and three more with a spot to put the deletion discussion link. It uses the word Admin too, I'll grant you. I know
Twinkle is not policy, but it is a widely used tool, and an Admin would never need to Twinkle on G6 XfD, because they can
553:
isn't meant to handle these sorts of cases; you can't shortcut NACD in this manner. Note particularly that G6 is meant for "uncontroversial" deletions, which this kind of deletion never would be. This also isn't fair to the administrators who patrol CAT:CSD and aren't expecting this situation.
294:
Policy states that closes should not be overturned solely on the grounds that the closer was not an admin. Apparently my close was against one policy, but somewhat consistent with other policies that suggest that a closer who can't do everything advise an admin to complete the tasks. The close
896:
all three contributors to the deletion discussion agreed that the subject wasn't notable and that conclusion looks reasonable to me, so deletion is perfectly acceptable. A Delete outcome doesn't stop you from creating a redirect. The argument that the content may be needed in the hypothetical
602:
I agree with you. I don't know how we can say that non-admins shouldn't do something and if they do, it's irrelevant. Otherwise, it's essentially people shouldn't do it and if they do, we'll only block or something if it's considered disruptive on its own. --
785:
Page was deleted after only 2 users contributed. Both
Different answers. One was delete. One was redirect. There is no harm in redirecting the page as the previous info could be used if the subject becomes noticeable, instead of recreating the entire page.
624:, the only complaint being issued here is that it was a NAC, but from my viewing of the discussion it's not controversial enough to require an admin to sort through. As an admin, I'd have closed the discussion in exactly the same way, and salute
458:
That's fine and a general point but I'd say essays and a guideline should trump that, in particular when there was an RFC not too long ago. I don't think we're reverting it. I'm thinking that an admin (preferably the person who actually
897:
situation that the band becomes notable is rather dubious as there wasn't very much content and the sourcing was very poor, I doubt it would be of much use and if anyone particularly cares it could be restored in that situation.
876:- this band is just not notable by WP standards; SwisterTwister recommended delete and is always very thorough in searching for sources. I don't believe there will be different outcome is this is overturned.
549:
is the controlling guideline here, and it couldn't be clearer: "Non-administrators should not close discussions in which they lack the technical ability to act upon the outcome, such as deletion."
273:
90:
is thanked for his accurate close and politely requested to confine his NACs to those he can actually implement in future. Appropriately enough, this DRV close is also a
768:
807:
503:- this was pretty solid consensus. The only keep vote included three articles but only the standard local stuff for a very old person - no long-term national coverage.
48:
34:
184:
43:
915:, the nub of the argument is that there shouldn't be an article for the band, and there's nothing there to say you can't go and create a redirect.
463:
the page) should strike it out and state that it has been deleted but if not, the closer of the DRV can just strike it and close it as well. --
756:
826:
Overturn to no consensus. And people don't talk to admins because questioning admins get you blocked. People have thin skin and massive egos
295:
decision was correct and should not be overturned only based on my current lack of
Adminship. I have no issue with the redirect created by
370:
202:
39:
520:
Shouldn't have been closed by a non-admin as they lack the capacity to delete pages, but the closure was not wrong other than for this.
572:), please go become an administrator. I'm willing to stick my name on the close if it comes to that as it's perfectly valid otherwise.
827:
172:
268:, it's not appropriate for NAC in this manner (and for G6 that way) and this was a serious discussion about it. On the other hand,
777:
107:
276:
but I just struck it out and closed it myself. I suggest an admin (if RHaworth doesn't), upon closing this DRV, do the same. --
21:
569:
318:
265:
193:
322:
960:
706:
663:
122:
17:
588:
I'm open for your nomination - I enjoy cleaning up messes and am getting tired of not having all the tools to do so.
428:
2. when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first,
425:
1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment
374:
206:
831:
949:
937:
919:
907:
888:
866:
851:
835:
821:
796:
695:
652:
632:
612:
597:
579:
533:
515:
487:
472:
453:
402:
378:
366:
355:
334:
314:
308:
285:
248:
210:
111:
849:
819:
142:
726:
608:
468:
330:
281:
244:
103:
201:
Wrong to NAC a dispute, especially with a delete and then closing with a redirect and not a delete.
593:
576:
563:
483:
449:
304:
138:
70:
692:
352:
555:
313:
Is that there? Can you point me to it? I could see that this would just be a technicality under
842:
812:
789:
546:
272:
exists for some reason but I believe G6 was allowed for TFDs only. I did the same thing with
257:
933:
529:
261:
91:
877:
722:
684:
604:
504:
464:
431:
3. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
326:
277:
269:
240:
228:
95:
550:
916:
629:
625:
589:
573:
559:
479:
445:
396:
300:
220:
87:
946:
689:
648:
349:
232:
641:
I do not think any other conclusion was possible, not matter who closed the debate.
900:
859:
856:
Nobody is going to block you for questioning the outcome of a deletion discussion.
434:
And, listed further down (this may not directly apply but the principle may apply):
437:
Closures will rarely be changed by either the closing editor or a closure review:
929:
803:
525:
363:
If an IP tried to close a discussion they would be blocked. Rules are rules.
235:. It was discussed with RHaworth (who was also notified of this discussion)
802:
What is it with folks posting DRVs without trying to contact me first? As
643:
78:. Two deletion decisions were reviewed here. RHaworth's G6 is
274:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Korean drinking game
266:
Knowledge (XXG):Non-admin_closure#Inappropriate_closures
763:
749:
741:
733:
236:
179:
165:
157:
149:
299:, cause it makes sense, the women is on that list.
545:, but not how we got there (sigh, bureaucracy).
321:from July allow for deletions for TFD as does
8:
705:The following is an archived debate of the
227:. Legacypac then put up a C6 request using
121:The following is an archived debate of the
928:, out of scope of DRV as mentioned above.
677:
364:
63:
444:Does this answer the policy question?
628:for trying to help out in this way.
7:
219:This was a NAC close by a non-admin
82:and Legacypac's discussion close is
963:of the page listed in the heading.
666:of the page listed in the heading.
422:Deletion Review should not be used:
317:not 6 though. The essay points to
28:
478:just take the action themselves.
959:The above is an archive of the
662:The above is an archive of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
1:
950:12:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
945:. The close was appropriate.
938:09:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
920:02:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
908:17:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
889:17:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
867:17:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
852:23:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
836:20:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
822:03:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
797:03:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
696:15:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
653:09:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
633:04:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
613:01:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
598:12:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
580:12:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
534:12:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
516:06:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
488:07:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
473:06:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
454:06:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
403:05:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
379:03:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
356:01:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
335:03:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
309:23:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
286:23:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
249:23:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
211:20:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
112:21:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
986:
966:Please do not modify it.
712:Please do not modify it.
669:Please do not modify it.
231:where it was deleted by
128:Please do not modify it.
76:not to disturb the close
40:Deletion review archives
418:Challenging a deletion
297:another user afterward
389:overturn and redirect
554:WP:NACD also trumps
709:of the page above.
385:Overturn and delete
254:Overturn and delete
125:of the page above.
74:– The decision was
973:
972:
676:
675:
381:
369:comment added by
110:
977:
968:
903:
885:
862:
845:
840:Why overturn? –
815:
794:
792:
780:
775:
766:
752:
744:
736:
714:
678:
671:
639:Endorse deletion
541:. I endorse the
512:
411:Per policy here:
196:
191:
182:
168:
160:
152:
130:
102:
100:
84:allowed to stand
64:
59:18 November 2015
53:
49:2015 November 19
35:2015 November 17
33:
985:
984:
980:
979:
978:
976:
975:
974:
964:
961:deletion review
901:
878:
860:
843:
813:
790:
788:
776:
774:
771:
762:
761:
755:
748:
747:
740:
739:
732:
731:
723:Beyond Unbroken
710:
707:deletion review
688:– endorse – --
685:Beyond Unbroken
667:
664:deletion review
505:
441:administrator."
319:this discussion
270:Template:Db-xfd
229:Template:Db-xfd
192:
190:
187:
178:
177:
171:
164:
163:
156:
155:
148:
147:
126:
123:deletion review
96:
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
983:
981:
971:
970:
955:
954:
953:
952:
940:
923:
910:
891:
871:
870:
869:
854:
824:
783:
782:
772:
759:
753:
745:
737:
729:
717:
716:
701:
700:
699:
698:
674:
673:
658:
657:
656:
655:
636:
626:User:Legacypac
618:
617:
616:
615:
600:
583:
582:
536:
518:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
442:
438:
435:
432:
429:
426:
423:
420:
414:
406:
405:
382:
371:166.176.56.199
358:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
289:
288:
251:
221:User:Legacypac
203:166.176.59.169
199:
198:
188:
175:
169:
161:
153:
145:
133:
132:
117:
116:
115:
114:
88:User:Legacypac
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
982:
969:
967:
962:
957:
956:
951:
948:
944:
941:
939:
935:
931:
927:
924:
921:
918:
914:
911:
909:
906:
905:
904:
895:
892:
890:
886:
884:
883:
875:
872:
868:
865:
864:
863:
855:
853:
850:
847:
846:
839:
838:
837:
833:
829:
825:
823:
820:
817:
816:
809:
805:
801:
800:
799:
798:
795:
793:
779:
770:
765:
758:
751:
743:
735:
728:
724:
721:
720:
719:
718:
715:
713:
708:
703:
702:
697:
694:
691:
687:
686:
682:
681:
680:
679:
672:
670:
665:
660:
659:
654:
650:
646:
645:
640:
637:
634:
631:
627:
623:
620:
619:
614:
610:
606:
601:
599:
595:
591:
587:
586:
585:
584:
581:
578:
575:
571:
568:
565:
561:
557:
552:
548:
544:
540:
537:
535:
531:
527:
523:
519:
517:
513:
511:
510:
502:
499:
498:
489:
485:
481:
476:
475:
474:
470:
466:
462:
457:
456:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
436:
433:
430:
427:
424:
421:
419:
415:
412:
410:
409:
408:
407:
404:
401:
399:
394:
390:
386:
383:
380:
376:
372:
368:
362:
359:
357:
354:
351:
347:
344:
343:
336:
332:
328:
324:
323:the guideline
320:
316:
315:WP:DRVPURPOSE
312:
311:
310:
306:
302:
298:
293:
292:
291:
290:
287:
283:
279:
275:
271:
267:
264:applies, per
263:
259:
255:
252:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
233:User:RHaworth
230:
226:
222:
218:
215:
214:
213:
212:
208:
204:
195:
186:
181:
174:
167:
159:
151:
144:
140:
137:
136:
135:
134:
131:
129:
124:
119:
118:
113:
109:
105:
101:
99:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
44:2015 November
41:
36:
23:
19:
965:
958:
942:
925:
912:
899:
898:
893:
881:
880:
873:
858:
857:
844:Juliancolton
841:
828:166.176.59.9
814:Juliancolton
811:
791:Teddy2Gloves
787:
784:
711:
704:
683:
668:
661:
642:
638:
621:
566:
542:
538:
522:Keep deleted
521:
508:
507:
500:
460:
417:
397:
392:
388:
384:
365:— Preceding
360:
345:
325:itself. --
296:
253:
224:
216:
200:
139:Leona Tuttle
127:
120:
97:
83:
79:
75:
71:Leona Tuttle
69:
58:
605:Ricky81682
465:Ricky81682
387:, or even
327:Ricky81682
278:Ricky81682
241:Ricky81682
98:S Marshall
917:Lankiveil
630:Lankiveil
590:Legacypac
574:Mackensen
560:Legacypac
480:Legacypac
446:Legacypac
301:Legacypac
882:Мандичка
690:RoySmith
570:contribs
556:WP:CLOSE
509:Мандичка
400:avarrone
367:unsigned
350:RoySmith
256:. While
80:endorsed
20: |
943:Endorse
926:Endorse
913:Endorse
902:Hut 8.5
894:Endorse
874:Endorse
861:Hut 8.5
778:restore
742:history
622:Endorse
547:WP:NACD
543:outcome
539:Comment
501:Endorse
461:deleted
346:Endorse
258:WP:BURO
217:Comment
194:restore
158:history
930:Stifle
806:noted
804:Stifle
693:(talk)
577:(talk)
526:Stifle
416:Under
393:relist
361:Relist
353:(talk)
262:WP:IAR
225:delete
764:watch
757:links
649:talk
551:WP:G6
239:. --
180:watch
173:links
52:: -->
16:<
947:sst✈
934:talk
832:talk
808:here
750:logs
734:edit
727:talk
609:talk
594:talk
564:talk
530:talk
484:talk
469:talk
450:talk
375:talk
331:talk
305:talk
282:talk
260:and
245:talk
237:here
207:talk
166:logs
150:edit
143:talk
32:<
887:😜
769:XfD
767:) (
644:DGG
514:😜
391:or
223:to
185:XfD
183:) (
92:NAC
22:Log
936:)
848:|
834:)
818:|
651:)
611:)
596:)
532:)
524:.
486:)
471:)
452:)
377:)
333:)
307:)
284:)
247:)
209:)
94:.—
42::
932:(
922:.
879:—
830:(
781:)
773:|
760:|
754:|
746:|
738:|
730:|
725:(
647:(
635:.
607:(
592:(
567:·
562:(
528:(
506:—
482:(
467:(
448:(
413:]
398:C
373:(
329:(
303:(
280:(
243:(
205:(
197:)
189:|
176:|
170:|
162:|
154:|
146:|
141:(
108:C
106:/
104:T
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.