Stochastic_terrorism – Speedy close, out of scope of deletion review. Article has not been deleted and there is no need to go through DRV to discuss something from 4 years ago; if you feel the topic is now independently notable you can demerge it. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Lovejoy (band) – The upshot of this DRV is that the AfD can be considered null and void. Anyone can recreate an article to replace the redirect at their own convenience, using any process they like (draftspace, WP:AFC, or just simply writing it in mainspace replacing the redirect). Once the article is created, it can be renominated at AfD by any interested editor immediately, should that editor believe it doesn't meet our policies and guidelines. Daniel (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
What a mess It looks like several people have used a consent AfD to re-redirect this to the most notable member several times since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovejoy (band) was closed as.... withdrawn after an agreement to merge among three editors. GorillaWarfare did the right thing by withdrawing the nom--that's what happens when the nominator is satisfied with the agreed outcome, which was itself reasonable at the time. But that also means there was never any AfD basis to keep re-redirecting the article, and hence there's really nothing for us to do here, other than point out that WikiDan61, Onel5969, and Wizzito have been inappropriately referencing a withdrawn AfD as normative, including someone getting Kinu to semi-protect the redirect. A bit of education and a return trip to AfD if someone wants to keep it redirected per WP:BLAR are in order. Jclemens (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't fault WikiDan61, Onel5969, and Wizzito. They saw the result as normative, because the result whereby the nominator withdraws (speedy keep), is normative, causing them to be justifiably confused by the irregular combination of nominator withdrawal and merger outcome. —Alalch E.15:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thing about this band is that although they meet the notability requirement of having charted, the band had no notable coverage in RS the last time I checked. I did believe that the AfD resulted in the merger, but I didn't know it was that complicated. wizzito | say hello!21:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Y'all see? This editor (and the other two certainly as well) thought the AfD resulted in merger. This is because on the talk page it says "Withdrawn after agreement from all participants to merge." which reads the most like a normal merge from AfD due to snowclose ("agreement from all participants") when it was not the case (if it was, then there would have been an AfD basis to re-redirect). Instead, it was a speedy close due to withdrawal with a separate layer of consensus about merging, but on the AfD side of things the outcome was essentially speedy keep, it's just that the two issues were conflated and compressed to a single point in time. (Yes the word "withdrawn" is also there, but it's confusing.) —Alalch E.22:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and Deny request. Out of scope for DRV as there was no deletion. To reverse the decision to redirect, use the talk page of the target to establish consensus. See Talk:Wilbur Soot#Update Lovejoy section; there is already an objection even for expansion. Discourage drafting of spinouts unless done with consensus on the talk page of the parent article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to null outcome. This is a mess as Jclemens says because the close is bad. The nominator erroneously thought that she can close the AfD herself because there is agreement among all participants. WP:CLOSE says: In uncontentious circumstances, even an involved editor may close a discussion. For example, if you propose something, and it's obvious to you that nobody agrees with you, then you can close the discussion, even though you're obviously an "involved" editor. But nominating for deletion and getting support for merger is not nobody agrees with you, that's "everybody agrees with you on the key issue that there should not be a standalone article, but they've also come up with an alternative to deletion". In this case things are mostly going your way, but you can't shortcut the discussion, precisely because you're invested in the success of your proposal even if in modified form. Simply, The AfD nominator can't close with the outcome of "merge". Early close due to nominator withdrawal given the fulfillment of the necessary condition that there are no !votes except for keep !votes gives "speedy keep" as the outcome. The nominator can declare their withdrawal in a comment, but can't close themselves when there are !votes other than keep. The intent was great, but the result caused lasting confusion, as was already noted in this discussion, and this AfD needs to go away, despite being quite old now.Because this AfD was closed by its nominator with a result other than speedy keep, and especially seeing how the support was not the required type of support, there was a substantial procedural error. This is per WP:SKCRIT 1.3. (See also WP:WITHDRAWN and the nom withdrawal AfD instructions.) The AfD is invalid, it can not be corrected, and its result is null. —Alalch E.14:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AFC is never mandatory (unless the page is protected in mainspace, which is not the case here), anyone can simply move the content into mainspace, subject to another AFD. However, a review of the current Draft:Lovejoy (band) seems like a reasonable conclusion to this discussion. FrankAnchor03:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure why this is here. There is nothing stopping the OP or anyone else from writing an article at this title, it isn't salted. There isn't any requirement to get a draft approved either. Nor is there really an AfD consensus against having an article, the AfD was withdrawn after people agreed to a merge. It was inappropriate for people to repeatedly use this withdrawn AfD to revert the recreation of the article, if there is a dispute about whether an article should be redirected then the appropriate course of action would be to start a new AfD. If what the OP says is accurate then the subject clearly meets WP:NMUSIC and notability isn't likely to be questioned if the new version is properly written. Hut 8.511:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
