Wikipedia:deletion Review Log 2013 May 13

< 2013 May 12

Deletion review archives: 2013 May

2013 May 14 >

13 May 2013

Dominic McDevitt-Parks – I think this close is a massive misunderstanding. The text says that the AFD was a mistake and that the nominator and article creator have agreed editorially on a merge instead. Unfortunately, instead of withdrawing the AFD the nominator closed it. Probably due to a script. Frankly, we don't need to spend 7 days arguing the toss over this so I am invoking WP:NAC to void the close and have reclosed as nomination withdrawn, merge by editorial decision subject to usual editorial processes. If someone disagrees with this then they are welcome to raise a DRV over my close but clearly further discussion of a voided NAC is pointless. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The AfD was closed by its own nominator, after less than four hours, with only three supporters. I attempted to raise this at User talk:MZMcBride#Dominic McDevitt-Parks, but the closing admin stated that "deletion review would be a waste of time". The article should be restored; and the AfD allowed to run its course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Endorse. Since the article creator, nominator and BLP subject of the article all concur that this is not an appropriate article topic but a suitable redirect, there's no possibility that an extended discussion would have any other result. This DRV takes process-for-the-sake-of-process to the point of trolling. – iridescent 2 22:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Endorse: What iri said. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Endorse all parties agree with the outcome, which was was obvious and uncontroversial. No AfD was needed, and the nominator of this DRV has no argument as to why the closure was wrong. Hut 8.5 23:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Question Is there a reason not to block the nominator for disruption if they don't withdraw a DRV that they knew was disruptive prior to filing? Maybe a block until he agrees to withdraw it? MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply
- OK, I give up. What am I missing? The close was, on the face of it, horrible. Yes, it's probably the outcome we'll get to anyways. But it is none-the-less wrong yet I'm seeing a bunch of rather senior admins that I respect jumping in here. Is there some drama elsewhere causing problems? Hobit ( talk) 00:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply
  - The only thing I could imagine you've missed is where NYB warned him not to start the DRV. At least that's the only related thing I'm aware of. MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply
    - Ignoring the opinion of another user about a DRV justifies a block threat? Seems way over the top given that the close was out-of-process. Hobit ( talk) 02:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply
      - I see NYB warning him that he is abusing process (a violation of WP:DISRUPT) and I see Andy acting without addressing the warning. MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply
vacate close The nom shouldn't be closing the discussion even if the outcome is clear. Withdrawing the nomination is reasonable, but let someone else close it. Further, redirect wasn't even a suggested outcome in the discussion for goodness sake. And yes, redirect is different than merge. Really bad form on the nom/closer's part. Hobit ( talk) 00:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply
All is fine. Spartaz has reclosed the WP:NAC. Process is satisfied. Feel free to take the redirect to WP:RfD, but watch out for any attribution requirements. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.