Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 July 5: Difference between revisions

5 July 2024

List of NCAA Division III independents football records

List of NCAA Division III independents football records (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm not sure what should be done here. If the closer really felt that the keep votes should have been discounted as mentioned and that there was "a clear consensus to delete", then it should be deleted. The given merge target was only suggested by one person and thus feels like a supervote. Moreover, the given target very clearly won't support the giant off-topic stats dump that this would bring to it. As desperate as relists can be sometimes, maybe that would be better here to get some more eyes on this. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment as the closer: if the appellant isn't sure what should be done, what is the remedy being sought here? When Delete is a valid outcome, and the content isn't in violation of policy, then both Redirect and Merge are valid alternatives. My use of "selective merge" in the result makes it clear there is no intention to include all, or even any of the content in the target, which may simply degenerate into a Redirect. The choice of what, if any, to merge is an editorial--not an administrative--one. There's no harm in relisting, and I had likely done so myself had the appellant contacted me directly prior to filing this DRV. But as said, it's not clear this is what they want, and I don't believe an outright deletion is correct with a valid ATD. Owen× ☎ 13:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Down-ball

Down-ball (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closer did not allow adequate time for new voices to engage in discussion after AfD was re-listed for that express purpose. Closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly Rockycape (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• You do not appear to have discussed this with or notified @Drmies. The latter is required. That said, endorse. It ran more than sufficient time after it was relisted on 28 June. Please do not bludgeon this discussion as you did the AfD.Star Mississippi 03:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  I've pinged Drmies as I was unable to add to Drmies User Talk due to restrictions Rockycape (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi: I thought this too (and originally drafted a reply to the user on my talk page that pointed them to Drmies' user talk page), but in their defence Drmies' user talk page is ECP so they can't edit it. It was discussed with Drmies here instead: User talk:Rockycape#Nomination of Down-ball for deletion. It is for this reason I assume they couldn't post the talk page notification either. Daniel (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  After the AfD was re-listed it was not the length of time (one week) that was the issue per se but it was that re-listing for one week did not result in any new voices. Closing did not allow adequate time for new voices to engage in discussion of AfD - For the record No Consensus Rockycape (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  If it's allowed as part of the discussion here I'd like to raise the following point. "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." was not discussed on the Down-ball page. This was a new page and would have benefitted from time to develop. Before being listed AfD this author would have very much appreciated being given more time to develop the article. Rockycape (talk) 05:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  "20 June 2024 Rockycape created page Draft:Down-ball": This means the page existed for approximately two weeks. The expectation that a newcomer has two weeks grace to get a newly created page up to scratch is not reasonable.Rockycape (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed. You should have gotten it up to scratch before putting it in mainspace. —Cryptic 07:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse – The AfD was properly closed. The policy-based comments were quite consistent in saying that the article's sources were insufficient to distinguish that there was a specific game distinct from other similar and similarly named games and thus the offered sources failed to establish notability. If new sources were to be discovered, it would be possible to create a new draft based on them, but it should not be accepted into mainspace until the issues brought up at this AfD are properly considered. My involvement was at IRC channel #wikipedia-en-help where a question was raised about behavior of another editor. I read through the AfD at that time and saw no reason to pile on. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• The two earliest revisions, which had been happily living as a redirect to Four square since 2006, should be restored, since they're unrelated to the article properly deleted at afd. (It can then be sent to RFD to determine whether Downball is a better target.) —Cryptic 07:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Vacate and re-close by an admin in good standing. Locking out your Talk page from an entire class of editors is effectively a request for desysop, per WP:ADMINACCT. As with a compromised admin account, any administrative action taken by such an account can be reverted by any uninvolved admin acting in their independent capacity, with a notice left on WP:BN. If you're tired of interacting with the editing public, you are no longer an admin.

As for the substance of the appeal, it is without merit. WP:RELIST clearly spells it out: A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined, without necessarily waiting for another seven days. There is no need to keep that AfD open just to give the appellant more time to bludgeon participants. Owen× ☎ 10:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)