Angels–Mariners rivalry ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

Closer wrote "Suggestions to redirect the page to either 1995 American League West tie-breaker game or to other articles [sic] on rivalries did not win additional support following their proposal". I don't think this is a correct reading of the consensus. Three users supported the redirect to 1995 American League West tie-breaker game as an WP:ATD. One additional IP user voted for a Redirect to "an articles on rivalries" prior to the suggestion of that specific page. Only one user, the deletion nominator, opposed the redirect. The redirect page is directly mentioned as best representing the rivalry in the Seattle Times source full article about this rivalry. This ATD support was perhaps hard to notice due to the lack of actual bolded !votes for the redirect, and abnormal threading of support for the ATD, but support did exist for the redirect to 1995 American League West tie-breaker game as an alternative to deletion. PK-WIKI ( talk) 21:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Rosguill is an experienced closer and directly noted that they had considered a redirect in their close but opted against it, and wasn't consulted before this DRV was opened. While several keep and delete !voters noted a redirect was possible, I think this discussion was validly closed as delete. SportingFlyer T· C 21:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - very sound and well articulated close. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (In the interest of full disclosure, I am the original AFD nominator) - Very well written close. Redirect would have also been a viable outcome based on limited support that raised some valid points (though I personally disagree with them, as stated in the AFD). However, as Rosguill explained in the closing statement, arguments for outright deletion had the strongest backing based in policy. Frank Anchor 23:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Noting that DRV procedure was not followed here, as they never consulted with me prior to bringing it here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  The DRV instructions say that one should "Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer...", which I did do.

  This being my first interaction at DRV, I am unaware of the norms of the users here. I was attempting to "keep things out in the open" and follow the review process, rather than going straight to (and risk annoying) an individual user. If that is breaking "DRV procedure", the directions at DRV need to be updated.

  PK-WIKI ( talk) 01:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  PK-Wiki, I had removed my comment because SportingFlyer had already made the same point. Reinstating my comment after I removed it isn't appropriate, although ultimately it's not a big deal. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - Not only was this a valid conclusion by the closer, but it is a clearly explained conclusion by the closer. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Looks like a reasonable reading of consensus to me. If a redirect is desired, I would go ahead and create one. And if it proves durable/non-controversial undeletion of the history could be considered later. In other words, I don't see that the consensus in the AfD should be read as preventing a redirect. Eluchil404 ( talk) 01:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse but allow creation of redirect The close was appropriate, however, if someone wants a redirect they should be able to create it, which of course can be challenged at WP:RFD. 104.246.113.199 ( talk) 22:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I voted delete and later opined that redirect was a suitable ATD. However that got little support among the delete voters. I have no issue with any user creating a new redirect to this proposed target page. Restoring the page history is not necessary in this case. Carson Wentz ( talk) 04:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. There was not such a level of support for redirection as the suggested alternative to deletion as the appellant states, so that the close would be anything other than reasonable. — Alalch E. 14:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Avatar: The Last Airbender (disambiguation) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| restore)

Added many entries to the page named "Avatar: The Last Airbender" and "The Last Airbender" RMXY ( talk) 11:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Procedural close. The page has not been deleted, just nominated for speedy deletion, and this is the wrong venue to contest that (the talk page is the right place). However I have declined the speedy deletion as it is not substantially identical to the version deleted 16 years ago. I'm not completely convinced that this is a necessary disambiguation page, but that's something that needs to be discussed. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply