Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 November 3: Difference between revisions

3 November 2021

Let's Go Brandon

Let's Go Brandon (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was a NAC close involving a controversial topic and discussion, further discussed at the closer's Talk page. Should this NAC close be overturned to permit an administrator to close the discussion under these circumstances? If the NAC close is acceptable under these circumstances, did the closer interpret consensus correctly? Beccaynr (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse as an administrator. I had been following the discussion and was planning on closing it myself but didn't get there in time. This was really the only way it could have realistically ended, based on the arguments presented and the fact that it met the standards of WP:EVENT, a guideline I know a thing or two about (having proposed and written much of it). The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Bad NAC, trout the closer; futile challenge, trout the challenger - Common practice is for NACs to be only in uncontroversial discussions. The language on our page about NACs is clear that "controversial" is not just about the outcome but includes the topic, and there are few more obvious controversial subjects than an article about a political insult. Deciding to go with a NAC is a bad call that just adds an additional layer of drama in an already heated area, regardless of how much thought was put in it or how likely the outcome was at this point. Best avoided in the future, FWIW. That the closer's immediate response to being challenged wasn't a clarification, but a dismissive instruction to "drop the stick" is not reassuring. All of this said, bringing it to DRV is likewise not a good call as the result was all but inevitable. Trouts for the closer and the challenger, and recommend speedy close of this DRV as such to minimize further conflict. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse in agreement of the detailed reasoning of both The Wordsmith and Rhododendrites, above. SNOWable closes in political topics are often a bad ideas, and I think that rule extends to NACable: just because the result was ridiculously obvious doesn't mean someone won't get butthurt that an admin didn't close it, and that is best avoided whenever possible, as it clearly was avoidable in this case by just waiting for an admin to close it. Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Comment In defense of my good faith in bringing this to deletion review, my concern is about the NAC process in this AfD closure and the determination of consensus related to our policies as applied to inclusion of this type of content. This AfD may become an example of precedent for other recent viral phenomena and "shock news", so from my view, clarification about the closure process and the determination of consensus on whether to have a standalone article had seemed reasonable to request. Beccaynr (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  And that's not an unreasonable concern, but Wikipedia doesn't run on precedent, even though it sort of does, and so the fundamental question is "Is DRV going to overturn this to a different outcome?" and the answer you're already getting is "probably not" which I expect to be further evident as more people chime in. Regardless of the technicalities of NAC's, this one wasn't going to be closed any other way, so you're going to get a lot of support for it per WP:NOTBURO. Jclemens (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Before your comment, I was writing to add clarification about my thought process (and about how I accept the trout and will remember it for future reference) - I had also thought about the outcome and reasoning of the Elsa D'Silva AfD by Spartaz, which was userfied at my request after deletion and then became Safecity. I am the nominator of this AfD, so I am not going to add a formal !vote, but because there appear to be questions related to why I opened this review, I wanted to add a clarification about my reasoning. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• To answer the OP's questions, yes and yes. It is true that a couple of !votes on either 'side' were probably liable to dismissal, but enough of those requesting the article be kept based their arguments on policy (e.g. SIGCOV) and the N guidelines. Likewise, editors continued to !vote keep even after the possibility of a merge had been raised. For transparency, I speak as someone who has regularly and vociferously disagreed with the closer on numerous previous occasions. Endorse. (Except in eagerness: the close was a few hours early.) ——Serial 17:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse - Let the decision stand. By any standard, this article should exist: it is sourced, it conforms to policy, it has survived several attempts at deletion. But some people seem dead set, for whatever reason, to delete such articles. Be fair, be NPOV, be evenhanded. Concentrate now on making such articles fair, evenhanded, better-sourced, and better; concentrate not on trying to get it deleted because you disagree with the article or the article's sentiment. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn as a bad NAC, and let The Wordsmith or another admin close. While the result will still certainly be the same, it is the closing comment that is the most important part in this instance. Curbon7 (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Curbon7, are you sure you mean "endorse"? You seem to be suggesting that the close be overturned. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Extraordinary Writ oops I had a brainfart lol. Curbon7 (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse. I'm not a fan of NACs for topics even slightly controversial, and this was an unfortunate NAC. At the same time, the decision to Keep was the right one, so it was just likely only a matter of time until an admin made the same call. I recommend letting it be. For the record, I !voted in the AfD; my memory is that it's fine for !voters to comment on a Deletion Review, but feel free to disregard my comments here if I'm wrong about that. Moncrief (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• As I've said before in similar cases, by far the most efficient outcome here would be for any uninvolved administrator to undo the NAC and reclose it, as WP:NACD expressly allows. That would save us a week of discussion and get us an outcome that no one would be likely to challenge. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • If that doesn't happen, count me as a !vote to overturn the close, partly because I think that process is important in this context and partly because I think a better closing statement by an administrator would likely forestall additional bickering about this article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn Should not have been closed as a NAC. I even made clear in the redirect discussion I started before this became an article that it was controversial and that a quick close of anything related was wrong. That said...it'll probably be closed as a keep based on consensus, but it should be done by an experienced admin rather than someone who doesn't know the process (that's why I rarely NAC because it should only be done in clear cases, not ones like this). Nate • (chatter) 23:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse. There's BADNAC and then there's BADNAC. The result here is keep which is a good NAC result (the most important thing), and the consensus was very clear which is also good (the other most important thing); editor is in good standing, also good. The only thing that wasn't good was that the subject is controversial. So it fails one of four cumulative requirements. Endorsing this close would in no way create confusion regarding what the rules around non-admin closure are, and what they are supposed to prevent: inoperative/bad closes and bad perceptions. Not only was the close operative and based on a good reading of consensus, no bad perception can come from an experienced editor in good standing closing something that couldn't have possibly been closed any other way. So this is actually an edge case. If we didn't have instruction creep and were collectively much more capable of comprehending norms teleologically, we could have imagined a specific rule under which this would be good NAC. So WP:NOTBURO (this is why we have it) — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Relist The principle behind the NAC rule is important. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn, while the outcome is obvious, it clearly should not have been a NAC given the nature of the discussionJackattack1597 (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse. While this was controversial inasmuch as the topic has a political slant, this isn't controversial at all in terms of policy-based arguments, which is what we actually care about on Wikipedia. The close was solid, and the fact that the only objection is that it's a NAC, with no argument against the substance of the close given by OP, shows the weakness of the attempt to overturn what is an obvious case of a clear consensus. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse per WP:NOTBURO. I don't see an admin closing this differently. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse Whether or not it was a NAC, the outcome would had been the same (snow keep) as per Wikipedia policy. Samboy (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse Samboy is correct. Keeping this discussion open any longer is unnecessary. Additionally, an administrator has endorsed this action and stated he was simply a little late to initiate the closure. That satisfies the importance of administrator involvement in controversial matters. Kind regards to all,Hu Nhu (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse, admin sanctioned above, and the consensus to keep the page was overwhelming in number and scope.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse there was clearly a WP:SNOW close situation at the AfD, and it’s inevitably going to repeat here. This is just beating a dead horse. Dronebogus (talk) 06:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn. while the outcome would have probably been the same, it should have been closed by an admin given the subject matter. if nothing else it would provide a better closer that's less inclined to continue causing issues with the page going forward.dh (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn to what? Are you suggesting that this be deleted or that this be relisted upon it being overturned? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• Relist There's no disagreement regarding the consensus at the AfD (ie keep). I'm not convinced this per se needed an admin to close; it may well have been a topic of controversy, but the discussion was overwhelmingly for keep. However, given an earlier NAC of this was admin-reverted and given the closer has indicated they spent hours considering this closure, it is reasonable to assume they were aware of this, it probably would have been better as a non-admin to contribute rather than close. It's also reasonable to point out the closure does not address the merge arguments in the discussion. Because of this, I can neither endorse nor overturn, I think the preferable option is to void the closure - which relist does best in addressing the procedural error. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse as there would not have been a reasonable basis for closing other than "keep". As a second choice, reopen so an administrator can re-close the discussion as "keep" in place of the non-admin closure. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse there was very clear consensus to keep in the AFD and the non-admin closure was appropriate per WP:SNOW. Possibly add a post-closure note on the AFD signifying User:The Wordsmith’s endorsement of the closure as an admin. Frank Anchor^Talk 02:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse per the NOTBURO policy. Closer has been registered here a bit longer than I have. Cannot believe this is even being reviewed and discussed. Editing must be gettin' pretty slow on Wikipedia? or aren't there much better things to take up time? P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 11:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. The MaxBrowne2 NAC was properly reverted by User:Clpo13, as a BADNAC, a poor closing statement (my opinion) and closed early without justification. User:Superastig’s close, another NAC, was better, and was not an early close. User:Superastig should, however, be criticised for the part of their response “So, it's best for you to drop the stick and accept the consensus. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)” on their talk page. That is not the right tone for a response to a query on their close. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • That's just his signature, you can see it on other responses on his talk page. I don't see anything inappropriate about it.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @Ortizesp: I think the bit that SmokeyJoe was referring to was the comment wrt dropping the stick and accepting consensus (which is very much not a response in line with Superastig's responsibilities under WP:ADMINACCT). That comment is definitely not part of Astig's signature! ——Serial 14:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse - I originally voted for a "Weak Keep" in the original deletion. But as the article developed, I changed it to a "Strong Keep". Also, there was a strong consensus to keep the article just before the discussion closed. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 13:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse Since, in accordance with our Policies and Guidelines, this topic is self-evidently eligible to have its own article in Wikipedia, I'm highly disappointed by this deletion query. First, as to Wikipedia is not a democracy, consequently, consensus doesn't necessarily dictate the existence or deletion of an article. Second, since Wikipedia is not censored, an encyclopedic subject must not be highjacked by political sentiments whether leftist or right-wing, which is not what I see happening to this one. In my humble opinion, the unnecessary delay and unencyclopedic barriers that made it harder to create this article is one solid piece of evidence of that specific attempt. Best Regards! The Stray Dog Talk Page 15:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Endorse. Certainly the result will be to keep the article either way, but since this is a controversial event there is something wrong with it being a NAC. It should be reopened, and an admin should close it again, Bwmdjeff (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse, as the consensus can't be evaluated any other way. Yes, maybe having an admin close it would be best, but the consensus is so clearly in one direction that overturning would just be a waste of precious admin resources. Jumpytoo Talk 05:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
• 'Endorse and trout DRV nominator. We are not a bureaucracy, stop making us jump through silly hoops just for the sake of following process when the outcome is this obvious.--GRuban (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I noted above that I accept the trout, and will consider it for future reference - this is also my first ever attempt at a deletion review. I feel this is a controversial AfD for a variety of reasons, and that a closing statement from an administrator would be a benefit to the encyclopedia. Beccaynr (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse I didn't take part in the original deletion discussion so when I saw this "deletion review" I thought that maybe it was a close call to keep the article, but when I went and looked, I couldn't believe how overwhelmingly the consensus was to keep the article. I've never seen anything as blatantly one sided as this. I also concur to WP:TROUT the nominator of this review. Completely unnecessary.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn per Jackattack1597 & Curbon7; TROUT the closer for their WP:BITING comments. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Which newcomer has the closer bitten in their close? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Is WP:UNCIVIL is more acceptable page for you, then? I'm certain that my point is across regardless. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
      • No. I don't see incivility in their closing statement. Can you point to the sentence in the closing statement that you find uncivil? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse The topic may be controversial, but the closer did interpret the consensus correctly. Good thing an admin endorsed the closure. So it's pointless to re-open it for any admin to re-close it. After all, Wikipedia is WP:NOTBURO. Even non-admins can close the discussion since the outcome is so obvious. The statement of the keep !votesrs are based on policies. There's nothing wrong for a non-admin to close a controversial discussion like this as long as it's analyzed carefully, in which the closer really did. SBKSPP (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse per SBKSPP and others. 99g (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn While this was certainly not a close call I think the NAC may misinterpreted consensus. Since this is a polarizing issue it's best for someone with experience and admin status to make the final call. The NAC may not have interpreted correctly that the article should be "reviewed again in a year or so". Any discussion with heavy participation over a political issue of this nature should be closed by and admin. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Strong endorse The request for review is a classic exhibition of an editor refusing to drop the WP:STICK. The non-admin closure was absolutely appropriate. Per WP:NAC, Non-admin closures should be avoided when the outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. The outcome was not in doubt, as demonstrated by all the !votes to overturn that explicitly say that the outcome was not in doubt. This includes the overturn !votes by Curbon7, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Jackattack1597, DimethylHydra, and Extraordinary Writ. Banana Republic (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)