Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 October 20

Abby McDeere (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The discussion and subsequent decision was controversial, but the outcome was redirect and merge useful content. However, this is not even remotely what happened. The article was 10,669‎ bytes (on my screen that's 3 pages) and the redirect points to a listing, where the character is described in 2 lines in the most cursory way imaginable, with no sources. No attempt has been made to move any content from the deleted article. This is not what was decided on. 91.64.59.134 (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well no, the outcome of the discussion was Redirect, with a note saying that anybody who wants to can merge content. So far nobody has, but that doesn't stop you from doing so. However the outcome of the discussion was that having this level of detail on this character was excessive, so the coverage of her in other articles isn't going to approach this kind of depth. Hut 8.5 18:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Any editor, including 91.64.59.134, is welcome to merge any referenced and encyclopedic content from the preserved history. It's not the closing admin's responsibility. pburka (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - having contributed to the AFD, and having highlighted the woefulness of the nomination, I was nonetheless part of the numeric minority. The arguments for redirection weren't great, and the statements in support of deletion were vapid and childish. But they were what was supported by consensus. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The decision was right, it just hasn't been carried out. If you'd like to correct that, you are welcome to carry it out.—S Marshall T/C 13:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - close is reasonable and left merging up to editorial discretion; as the page history is preserved, the OP can use their editorial discretion to merge if desired. Hog Farm _Talk 21:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks everyone. --91.64.59.134 (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Good call. The more we get rid character pages the better. They're true trash. scope_creep^Talk 13:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Hammond (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe the closer of the discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly. There were both delete and keep arguments that mainly judged the depth of coverage in reliable sources. I don't think there was a clear consensus to keep based on what was put forth and no rationale was given on the NAC. For transparency, I originally started the AfD after reviewing the article as part of a WP:Cleanup request, and came here after reviewing the closer's contributions with greater scrutiny after a recent block. Aranya (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think "keep" was a plausible outcome for the AfD, but it's not clear-cut and it was inappropriate for a non-admin to close this one. pburka (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist while I think the content is probably going to be kept at this stage, I think it's closer to a no consensus than a keep which could change tenor of future renoms, should they happen. It's also not an appropriate NAC as there is valid discussion about both sides, and at least needs a closing statement. Star Mississippi 16:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - This was not so much a bad non-admin closure as a sock closure. The closer has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh, thanks for flagging. I'm not active enough in DRV to do an early relist, but I think that's exactly what's needed. This was not a valid close. Star Mississippi 18:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck Joe Biden (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There is a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast where some editors have raised potential new information that has some to light since Fuck Joe Biden was closed as a SNOW delete. There have been sources brought up that have resulted in some editors motioning to created an article titled Let's go Brandon (a page which currently redirects to Kelli Stavast), believing that the phrase "Let's go Brandon" has become a minced oath for "Fuck Joe Biden". I am bringing this here as sources clearly indicate that the two phrases are related and thus any potential "Let's go Brandon" article would look very similar to a "Fuck Joe Biden" article. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 06:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment See also Draft:Let's Go Brandon!, its MfD, RfD's on the redirects... This is just a mess, as most partisan things are in the heat of the moment. There's probably enough RS coverage for some sort of an article, or a paragraph in Public image of Joe Biden, but when we close AfDs on current, controversial topics in 40 hours, you know they're going to get revisited sometime soon... Jclemens (talk) 07:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think there's much for DRV to do here, the deleted version was very short and was only discussing a college football chant, so any article along the lines of what the OP's suggesting would have to be a complete rewrite anyway. You might as well just write a new article. Hut 8.5 11:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The closer acted in accordance with procedures in snow closing this, but, in retrospect, would have better off to wait 7 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I don't disagree at all. The closer was right per our processes, but ultimately, the snap decision of the crowd looks to have aged poorly. Jclemens (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Re-Creation Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This is likely to wind up either back at DRV or at Arbitration Enforcement, as the last stop for content, or the conduct forum for American politics. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse LGB =/= FJB, even if they are the same under the duck test. In any case this likely isn’t a big enough subject for an entire article and could just be covered at either one or both of the above mentioned articles. At most maybe recreate as a redirect to “let’s go brandon”. Dronebogus (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The deletion process is not for creating new articles, and outside the change of phrasing to something more 'work appropriate', no new WP:N overall has been picked up since last month (I do agree the nom should've went the full seven days though despite the then-SNOW consensus). Nate • (chatter) 21:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Closer comment: Hi all, happy to take the constructive feedback around potentially letting this run for the full 7 days considering the content matter. At the same time, I made a judgement call on the content matter, and thought it was best for the encyclopedia to activate the snowball clause considering the overwhelming consensus, and the very poor content of the article. I still believe the close as delete was the correct decision and hence endorse deletion (as closer), as I don't believe any (perceived or real) procedural imperfections have impacted the outcome. No strong opinion on what should happen in terms of recreation etc. Daniel (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It was a tough call, honestly, and though I would have preferred the seven days, the signal/noise ratio where nonsense was being added (and protection required) trying to derail it probably worked out in the end. I did not expect this to linger on in new forms after a month at the same time. Nate • (chatter) 23:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the above. Just because SNOW closing an AfD turned out to not resolve the matter doesn't imply that letting it run for a full 7 days WOULD have resolved anything more conclusively. Our processes are not optimized for politically contentious topics. Jclemens (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Wikipedia is not the news and Wikipedia is not America. If this was about the leader of most any other country in the world, we would never have had the article, the AFD, nor this discussion. Stifle (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I can't see how any editor could look at the close, and suggest that it should be anything different. If this isn't WP:SNOW I don't know what is. Nothing to say it can't be mentioned in another article about someone saying this. Though even a redirect would be WP:ONEEVENT. Nfitz (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]