Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 February 21

21 February 2020

John Tiedtke – A new AfD was opened while this DRV was in progress. Sending it back to AfD was the emerging consensus anyway. (NAC) Reyk _YO! 20:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was about to prod/AfD it myself, then I reviewed the old AfD and... seems like an improper closure. One vote for deletion is not the same as no consensus. It might have been relisted again, but overall, the consensus is pretty clear, isn't it? No arguments for deletions where refuted, and instead they were endorsed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take to AfD. I almost certainly would have closed it as WP:SOFTDELETE, but as a practical matter, we're not going to overturn a four year old AfD. For all we know, in the past four years, he's done enough that he's notable now, and AfD is the place to figure that out. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disapprove of close, but... Looks like a duck to me—in other words, it looks like a soft delete—however, as RoySmith pointed out, circumstances may have changed. Maybe or, more likely, probably not. Nonetheless, I think you've got a stronger case for AfD now as you can say that the two participants in the previous deletion concurred with deletion and that it was erronenously closed as no consensus. Doug Mehus T·C 15:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He appears darn likely to be notable. [1] is strong IMO. [2] isn't nothing. There are a few more. On the merits of the close, I agree with Roy. But I think we are better off improving the article than deleting it. Hobit (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Close as Overtaken by AFD - Let the new AFD decide. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Close as Overtaken by AFD (pragmatic) - per Robert McClenon. (Just passing and taken a peek). However I am minded AfD's should not be opened while a DRV is in determination and if that is what has happened AfD nom. should be warning. But per RoySmith the prior AfD was 4 years ago so and we've noted likely should have been SOFTDELETE best let the current AfD run; albeit possibly improperly raised.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Historic BADNAC for sure. Take it to AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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