Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 June 27

1794 in Ukraine (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Relist. While not harbouring strong feelings about the outcome of this AFD, I believe that it was contentious and therefore should not have been closed after three days by a non-admin. Though it was "withdrawn by nominator", there was no consensus yet, and per WP:WITHDRAWN: "While the nominator may withdraw their nomination at any time, if subsequent editors have suggested an outcome besides keep [...], the discussion should not be closed simply because the nominator wishes to withdraw it". Geschichte (talk) 07:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there's a better argument that this should have been closed as withdrawn instead, so that you could immediately start a new afd without the old one having any weight. —Cryptic 08:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As the editor who closed the discussion, the sole delete !vote was cast after the nominator withdrew, the discussion should have been closed earlier. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 10:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. No, it "should" not have been closed earlier. Although it "may" have been closed, it never hurts to get more input. The nominator saying "withdraw" is not an automatic end to a discussion. Geschichte (talk) 11:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (to “Withdrawn”). WP:SLAP the AfD nominator for the inadequate nomination. Allow a fresh nomination of better quality. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse end result but this should have been closed as “withdrawn” or “procedural keep.” This is a valid withdrawal as there were no delete/ATD votes at the time the nominator withdrew. With the close being on procedural grounds, there is no prejudice against immediate re-nomination. Frank Anchor 12:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting is acceptable as well per OwenX, Alalch E, and others' interpretation of WP:WITHDRAWN, which I consider to be reasonable, though an optional new AFD with a better nomination statement is my first preference. Frank Anchor 12:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and Relist - This was a bad non-admin close with both Keep and Delete votes and should have been allowed to run at least one week. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• This one's difficult because it was properly withdrawn before any delete !votes were posted and could have been closed as keep before then. I'll decline to bold any suggestion, but I think a new AfD is best. SportingFlyer T·C 18:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Once the final Delete was cast, the AfD can no longer be speedy-closed as withdrawn, especially by a non-admin. The fact that it could have been speedy-closed earlier doesn't matter. Owen× ☎ 20:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for this comment. It's important that everyone understands that when formal prerequisites for a "withdrawn" close are met, but the nominator does not close themselves as "withdrawn", the next editor who could do so can still make a comment supporting an outcome other than keeping, and if they do so, then the discussion can no longer be closed as "withdrawn". —Alalch E. 21:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It depends on what subsequent means in this context. I've always taken it to mean that you can withdraw if someone has !voted delete, but it can't be closed as withdrawn. In this instance it should have been clear to the petitioner that this was a withdrawn AfD as opposed to someone who !votes and then the nom wishes to withdraw, and a new AfD started. SportingFlyer T·C 22:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Subsequent there means subsequent to the nomination. If subsequent to the deletion nomination there are, say, two keep !votes, the nominator can withdraw and close as "withdrawn", or, if the nominator does not do so and instead only leaves a comment that they withdraw, anyone else can close as "withdrawn", but they are not compelled to do so and, subsequent to the withdrawal comment, can add their !vote with any recommendation, and if that recommendation is anything other than keep, then no one can close as withdrawn anymore as the matter has become contentious again (just as it had been prior to the nominator's withdrawal), and the AfD proceeds as normal. So this AfD's outcome as "keep" can not be understood as a proper (speedy) keep from withdrawal, and the comments in this DRV suggesting that are wrong. I see that the closer has commented here saying: As the editor who closed the discussion, the sole delete !vote was cast after the nominator withdrew, the discussion should have been closed earlier. And that is wrong. There are no such shoulds. Closing as "keep" as if due to withdrawal under these circumstances was a substantial procedural error, compounded by the bad NAC, which is a procedural error in itself. So this was a very bad close. —Alalch E. 22:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You seem mighty confident that you're correct there. If someone has withdrawn their nomination without opposition, but maybe doesn't know they can self-close, it's potentially tendentious to vote !delete afterwards. SportingFlyer T·C 16:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Gotta WP:AGF. Where's the evidence, even hypothetically? —Alalch E. 22:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn bad non-admin close and relist.—Alalch E. 21:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist per OwenX, Alalch E. Jclemens (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist - Withdrawn nominations are closed when there are no outstanding delete !votes because they are viewed as non-contentious. The moment there is a delete !vote, then it is contentious and cannot be closed early. For those viewing this situation as a quirk of timing, consider the case of an AFD that is withdrawn and closed immediately, any editor coming across the article and thinking it should be deleted is free to nominate for deletion. End result is still an open AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

…which is exactly why I voted to endorse with the option of starting a new AFD (particularly given the very weak rationale of the nominating statement) Frank Anchor 16:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geschichte's comment can serve as the nomination after the relist. The relist comment can point to it and say to treat it as functionally equivalent to the nomination. —Alalch E. 20:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in North America (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'd like to request the reopening of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racism in North America. All 4 commenters that supported delete mentioned that the topic isn't covered as a whole but rather individually by coutry (i.e. "no coverage of this subject as a whole", "Unable to find anything discussing this topic specifically", "This article should not exist unless sources can be found that specifically discuss racism in North America as a whole"). In my comment, among other things, I mentioned that Google Scholar has 867 hits for "racism in North America". Many, if not all of these sources deal with racism in North America as a whole and would be out of place inside each individual country's article. Here are a few: "Transnational Perspectives on the History of Racism in North America", "Imperialism and Settler Colonialism: Xenophobia and Racism in North America" (let's remember that California was Mexico a mere 200 years ago), "Racism and the mental health of East Asian diasporas in North America: a scoping review", and I could go on. The discussion was closed a few hours after I made my point and before anyone else had a chance to either counter it or to agree with it and review their positions. I feel a relist would have been more reasonable. Rkieferbaum (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist This seems like a blatant failure of the AfD process and is making me rethink my "no, AfD is fine" comment at the does AfD need review. The first source which comes up in my search was a scholarly article which clearly looked at racism in the continent as a whole, the article's clearly a valid summary article, and the only failure I can see is that those advocating for the article to be kept didn't demonstrate the available sources clearly enough, so we've lost an article on a notable topic that has been in a relatively stable state since 2008. Being an "unnecessary conflagration" isn't really a deletion rationale, either. This needs to be relisted so more sources such as [1] can be reviewed. SportingFlyer T·C 22:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Involved comment as nom - I was somewhat surprised by the close, and would not object to a relist. But comments like we've lost an article on a notable topic so badly miss the nomination argument that I must respond. None of the content was about "racism in North America" continent-wide, it was a series of vignettes about various countries in North America that were inferior to the per-country articles. The notable content is already included at other articles. It is about how to organize this information; the claim that "there are at least two scholarly articles that use this phrase" does not imply that we must organize this information in a specific way to maximize article-count. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you look at the topic's history, the per country articles were valid splits of this parent topic, and the topic has been covered by sources. There wasn't really a proper reason for deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 20:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as a valid close. This Deletion Review asks the reviewers whether the close was a valid close, not whether it was the close that they would have done. Relist would have been valid, but not the only possible close. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Review of Draft for originator to submit draft that would involve splitting out some material. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Robert McClenon: see, that's part of the problem. It wasn't a delete but a BLAR, so the history is still there. Reverting it and adding robust references that solve the "coverage of this subject as a whole" would be good editorial practice for all intents and purposes. But reverting a BLAR after consensus in AfD would certainly qualify as diruptive editing. So that's where we're at at this point: by ignoring an opinion that contradicted the central argument of those defending deletion, this closure keeps me from proceding with what, IMHO, would be good editorial practice even in the eyes of at least some of those who supported deletion ("This article should not exist unless sources can be found that specifically discuss racism in North America as a whole"). The one part that doesn't fit in all of this is the claim that there was consensus to close that AfD as it was. So here we are. Rkieferbaum (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It was a very bold close. It happens to match what my !vote would have been.
  Unless overturned, and further discussion belongs at Talk:Racism by country. Do not authorise draftspace drafting from DRV, that is beyond the scope of DRV and is a bad thing. A fork to draftspace should NOT be allowed unless done by consensus established at Talk:Racism by country. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I fail to see how there was a problem with the nominated version that could not have been corrected through regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what you want. There was a discussion, which led to the article becoming a redirect, with the content not already in other articles being moved elsewhere. That is "regular editing" in my book. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The complaint was that this wasn't a comprehensive overview nor a set navigation list, to oversimplify things. It could have been edited into either one. You're absolutely correct that a redirect is regular editing in that it does not require admin tools, but it seems to me that in this case even a simpler solution was not contemplated. This is specifically a comment, rather than a !vote to overturn or anything else, because the outcome isn't terrible... I'm just wondering why these alternatives do not appear to have been considered. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just noting that this discussion was relisted twice and even though a third relisting is possible, many participants are irritated by relisting more than twice (and some are even irritated at one relisting!). So, I think this discussion was given plenty of time although I understand how the Rkieferbaum would have wanted to see a response to their opinion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It’s the comment-free pointless relisting that’s exasperating. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The decision to relist should be guided by the potential for building consensus. If there's a clear path forward, relisting could very well make sense regardless of the number of previous listings. After a couple of relistings, it may often become evident that consensus is unlikely, in which case closing with rough or no consensus could be preferable. But a third relisting may be warranted if new information emerges that could facilitate consensus, in which case this should be articulated when relisting. The aim for consensus (rather than voting or arbitrary closings) is what makes participating in AfDs constructive and enjoyable. Rkieferbaum (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Rkieferbaum, and of that I agree with, but it doesn’t go at all to my point. If there is a good reason to relist, include a relisting comment. A lot of relists are not good, but empty procedure, and diminishes the significance of relisting. If the discussion does not show a consensus, but the potential closer can see a pathway to consensus, that potential closer should relist with a comment that helps later participants contribute to moving along that pathway. The relister should articulate the reason for relisting on every relist. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• So, I can't find a procedural fault here. I don't see sufficient grounds to relist a discussion that had already been relisted twice; and the close did fully reflect the consensus at the debate; so I have to agree that the deletion process was correctly followed. But I also agree with SportingFlyer that this was an extreme outlier from our normal range of outcomes about content that has this many academic sources, and I agree with JClemens that the problems would have been better solved with the edit button than with redirection. We don't normally let people take a mulligan on an AfD outcome, but in this case I can see good reasons why we should? I'm uncomfortable with leaving things how they are, in any case.—S Marshall T/C 08:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]