- Steen Christensen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I'm taking the rather rare, but not unheard of, step of asking for a review of a DrV closing. User:NuclearWarfare endorsed a speedy deletion at DrV (link above) just recently. The !vote count was 6-8 (depending on how you count it) in favor of restoration with none opposed that I could see. The feeling was this belonged at AfD, not as a speedy. NW chose to endorse the deletion and discussions about the topic were fruitless.[2] I do fully understand NW's position on the matter, and personally would have !voted to userfy/incubate in the DrV. But given that the speedy was clearly overturned by the DrV, I don't see how this close can stand.Hobit (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion and the closure of the previous DRV: I have read the contents of the now-deleted article. Every sentence in it is contentious and/or negative unsourced information. Regardless of the notability or the sourceability of the article, this deletion is clearly covered under policy, and only a properly sourced article can replace it. Further, I believe this DRV should be closed procedurally immediately as there is no new information being presented, and it is nothing more than an example of someone being dissatisfied with the result. DRVs can overturn a deletion decision when policy violations occur, but there was no policy violation in the initial deletion, nor in the refusal to overturn the initial deletion decision. Risker (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A DrV doesn't require new information to exist. And the question isn't one of "policy violation" at DrV. The question is if the close was done properly. Given that the close was against unanimous consensus, I think that's at the very least a fair concern... Hobit (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A DRV questions the *original* closure, which was done entirely within policy, and thus the DRV's close was entirely within policy. Consensus does not trump policy, particularly not WMF policy. And, for the record, I am looking at DRVs right now because of the recent discussions related to BLPs. This is the only one that appears relevant to my interests today. I'll move over to AfD if I have time. Risker (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (EC)Endorse, the closing admin recognized the consensus and is willing to restore the article as soon as someone is willing to source it, which was a common sentiment of those who participated in the first DRV ("provided that the sources are added soon thereafter", "provided the sources are added promptly", "Overturn speedy deletion and add sources"). J04n(talk page) 02:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wrote a lengthy comment arguing that the close should be revised to provide for direct restoration to mainspace (conditioned on prompt sourcing), attempted to post it, and then the server went down....
On reconsideration, I think this is another one of those hypertechnical disputes over a technicality. The article is restored either to mainspace or to userspace. Either way, it has to be sourced either before it enters mainspace, or soon afterwards. So basically we are spending seven days debating, not whether the article should be restored (it should be), nor where it would ultimately end up (mainspace), nor the condition for a permanent location in mainspace (being sourced), but where it should be during the few hours between it is restored and it is sourced. What a productive use of time. IMO the original close should simply read "JIP (talk · contribs) is allowed to undelete the article provided that he sources it immediately thereafter", which should avoid the problem of a restored negative unsourced BLP hanging around in mainspace. Regardless, here's hoping that someone would source the article in the coming few days and moot this DRV. That said, I disagree with Risker that the DRV is procedurally improper. The allegation that the closer closed a DRV contrary to consensus is clearly within DRV's jurisdiction. Tim Song (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse DRV close, insisting on sources before restoration is not particularly onerous. I generally agree with Tim Song's analysis of the situation. I think temporary userfication with a NOINDEX is easy enough. Hypothetically, if the article were restored to article space and stayed unsourced for more than a few hours (coordination issues, distractions), I wouldn't be surprised if it were userfied or even G10'd again. Flatscan (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion Requiring sources is not unreasonable. MBisanz talk 05:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think DRV can review DRVs, but without waiving that objection, endorse closure as per MBisanz. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not endorse the sentence "Deletion endorsed". The discussion did not endorse deletion of the article. However, Endorse the second sentence as a reasonable reading of the discussion, except that "immediately" is too short. Of course, for this article to be left in mainspace, there must be at least one editor willing to step forward, to work on named problems, sourcing, and to possibly defend it at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have undeleted the article, and added all the sources and external links found on the original Finnish article to it. If it's still not satisfactory, it can undergo proposal for deletion or nomination for deletion. JIP | Talk 15:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close this DRV as moot per Flatscan. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
