Operation Balboa ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The article was previously nominated for a PROD and no policies were cited to support a redirect. The AfD ended with two votes after being relisted twice: one in favor of deletion and another in favor of a redirect. As the nominator of the AfD, I disagree with a redirect and believe the deletion should proceed. NoonIcarus ( talk) 12:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse own close and slightly confused. NoonIcarus, in your own nom you essentially indicated a redirect Any noteworthy content is already covered in the United States–Venezuela relations#United States interference allegations section. There was no argument made against a redirect and it's a valid AtD. Star Mississippi 14:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - When the subject is mentioned at the proposed redirect target, a redirect is usually a good alternative to deletion. Also, the PROD that the appellant mentions was fourteen years ago, and hardly has any bearing on the current dispute. Redirect is the right conclusion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Weak relist I think the close here wasn't a correct assessment of the deletion discussion so far – it was effectively being used as a supervote. On the other hand, I think that if the closer had posted a "redirect" opinion and left the AfD for someone else to close, it would probably have ended up being closed as "redirect" anyway after more opinions came in. So my view here is "technically we should relist this, in case there are stronger arguments against redirecting that were cut off by the supervote, but I suspect that doing so would in practice be a waste of AfD voters' time". Another possibility may be to relist at RfD, because the dispute here is mostly not about whether the article content should be kept, but about whether the redirect should be kept. -- ais523 21:47, 6 July 2022 ( U T C)
  • My close was eight days after the last input, so I don't think I cut off any forthcoming !votes. I don't think there's a particular interest in the subject, hence two relists and two !votes, but no objection to a relist if consensus thinks it would be helpful. Personally think your RfD idea would lead to more clear resolution for the reasons you said. Star Mississippi 21:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse- There doesn't seem to be any good reason for this title not to redirect to an article where it is mentioned. Nor, as pointed out in the AfD, would there be a problem with retaining the article history underneath the redirect. Reyk _YO! 00:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Reyk's spot on here. Jclemens ( talk) 04:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, reasonable outcome for me. Stifle ( talk) 09:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (redirect). WP:ATD-R is Policy. Someone not seeing the need for a redirect is an extremely weak argument. Many good things are not strictly needed. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment In sight of the responses offered, I would like to withdraw my review request, if possible. I have read several useful explanations; I'm grateful of the participants who have offered them. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 13:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply