Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 January 19

21 High Street Doha (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

NAC close which was to merge, even though the clear consensus was to delete. The NAC closure acted as a !supervote, inserting their own opinion as an ATD into the decision. I have asked the editor to reverse their decision, and they have politely declined. The discussion should either have been closed delete, or relisted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Vacate NAC and reopen. I oppose a straight overturn to delete because there was clearly not consensus to delete (as opposed to merging) and none of the delete arguments made any opposition to merging. While a merge close is not an unreasonable outcome, a NAC should only be used in cases where consensus is at least somewhat obvious, and four delete votes vs two merge votes does not show an obvious consensus either way. The close did not appear to be a super vote as the only comment, “as an ATD,” is commonly added in the reasoning of ATD closures. Frank Anchor 23:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist The nomination and delete contributions are clearly within policy/guidelines, the merge contributions are simply assertions with no response to the arguments presented. ATD is not a blanket cover-all that can be delplyed in the absence of any justification. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Vacate NAC. In theory it could have been clear that the merge close is underpinned by a delete consensus, with later merge !votes being based on the same delete rationales as those above, while identifying merger as a reasonable alternative to deletion, with no subsequent substantive opposition to merger as opposed to deletion. The problem is that it isn't clear; close to being clear, but not quite. I'm open to revising this comment. —Alalch E. 13:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse NAC As noted above, no refutation for merge as an ATD after it was raised means that the ATD is the policy-based consensus, no "supervoting" involved because the delete opinions didn't explain why deletion was superior to merging, especially considering that notability was the issue under consideration. Jclemens (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist/vacate. I don't have a problem with these sorts of closures in general, but in this case I'm not comfortable !voting endorse for a combination of reasons: 1) this wasn't uncontroversial and shouldn't have been NAC'd, 2) the merge !votes were entirely unreasoned, and 3) the merge suggestion didn't appear until the end of the discussion, so the delete !voters had insufficient time to respond and should have been given another week, especially after the closure was contested on the closer's talk page. I agree with Frank Anchor that overturning to delete wouldn't be justifiable since no arguments against a merger were presented. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to comment on the relist vs. vacate question below: when we're this many days removed from the closure, the AfD won't show back up at WP:OLDAFD if the closure is vacated, so there's a risk that it'll be forgotten about and remain unclosed for a long time, as has happened in the past. I think I'd thus prefer to relist (with the understanding that, per WP:RELIST, the discussion can still be closed at any time), though obviously it's not a big deal either way. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I would've voted to relist the AfD. But when I realized that the content has already been merged to the article, I decided to endorse the closure. I agree with Frank and Jclemens that the closure is not a supervote at all. SBKSPP (talk)
• Comment The merge !votes are not refutations, they're simply assertions crucially lacking any reasoning whatsoever of why non-reliable source, not independent material should be merged. An ATD still requires compliant material; there's no element of the discussion which refutes the arguement that the material is not compliant with the guidelines. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree this would be a concern if true, and apologize for not reviewing this issue, but it didn't see that issue raised in the AfD. That is, "the sources don't count for notability" is different than "the sources don't establish verifiability", and the latter a lower bar than the former. Reliable sources don't have to be independent or non-trivial/significant, else the GNG wouldn't have separate clauses for them: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Jclemens (talk) 05:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    There's literally millions of shopping malls worldwide, we are not a travel guide or directory. Verification is not the concern, the issue is whether there is a justification for noting the existence of this commercial establishment (whether as a stand alone article or included elsewhere), which requires secondary, independent sourcing (otherwise we become a directory). The delete arguments make a clear, guidance-based argument why this commercial enterprise should not be noted, merge fails to refute that. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, that's a different argument, one that is not particularly relevant to deletion, since there's nothing in policy that would prevent a new redirect and adding the material to the redirect target. Jclemens (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Vacate. I don't mind (or, if anything, prefer) closure as an ATD against headcount, but given the merge !votes only being a WP:JUSTAVOTE and a WP:PERX, more input is needed. Clyde!Franklin! 04:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - What does Vacate do, exactly, since some of the Vacates have not said either Relist or Delete? Robert McClenon (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I’ve always considered “vacating” a close to be a simple revert of the NAC (and, in this case, the resulting merge/redirect) and allow an administrator to either close or relist. Someone can correct me if this is not a good assessment. Frank Anchor 15:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Warn the originator that their persistence in moving an article to article space is acting like a paid editor. If they aren't a paid editor, they shouldn't act like one. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disagree, but aren't user conduct issues outside of the DRV remit? Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't. That's better handled in the ANI, not here. Besides, there's nothing wrong if they merged some, if not all, of the content to the article. That doesn't make them paid editors. SBKSPP (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The closure as merge was wrong and contrary to consensus. As Goldsztajn quite correctly states, ATD isn't a licence to ignore consensus. As a borderline decision, it was also not eligible for a non-admin to close. However, the article has now been merged and forms two sentences of Katara (cultural village), with a redirect in place. This is a sensible outcome, even if it was arrived at by a suboptimal set of actions. As such, I think it is appropriate for DRV to take no action with respect to the article, whilst politely disapproving of the closure. A relist would inevitably lead to the same result, and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The merger did not produce a good result. Raw pasting infobox and all (although often justified when merging, but not here) did not lead to an improvement of the target article. All the target article needed regarding the subject of the discussed article was a single sentence about the open-air outdoor air conditioned shopping mall, listing it with the rest of the facilities (what that looks like), in a way which flows with the rest of the prose. The desired state of the target article didn't really depend on merging, so for me, merger was not an obviously sensible outcome. Further, "21 High Street Doha" is not the proper name of the thing. It is named "21 High st". So the redirect is not useful either. "21 High st" could have been / could be a slightly useful redirect. Update: the article already had content about 21 High st, while it was named "Katara Plaza" (during development). Merging the content caused it to appear as if "21 High Street" and "Katara Plaza" were different things when they are the same thing. —Alalch E. 17:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse at the least deletion isn't an option--there is a reasonable redirect target. And merging seems to be the better policy-based outcome even if those !voting to merge didn't explain their reasoning. No objection to a relist to get more input however. Hobit (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]