Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 11

Bogdan Khmelnitsky Battalion – I have reopened this per WP:NACD, as "an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning". I agree with the applicant here (and subsequent comments from uninvovled participants) that this was not a good NAC, both due to the discussion being closed citing "SNOW" despite not meeting the threshold for that, and for not having any additional justification provided as part of the close. I will relist for 7 days to get it on a new 'log' page and allow for continued discussion about SUSTAINED. Daniel (talk) 02:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The argument that the article do not meet WP:SUSTAINED has not been attended by the closer. There are no reliable sources on the article subject other than within the last 2 months in 2023, and no such sources were presented during the deletion discussion. More on it at User talk:Cocobb8/Archives/2024/May#Bogdan Khmelnitsky Battalion . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relist and let an admin close. The rush to close the AfD "per SNOW" eight hours before the seven days were up smacks of an attempt to prevent anyone else from closing it, rather than a bona fide reduction in pointless process. The concern of the nom in the AfD was not addressed by any of the Keep !votes, half of which were a variant of ILIKEIT, and the other half - little more than a VAGUEWAVE. Granted, there was clearly no consensus to delete at that point, but relisting it for another seven days (or even another six days and 16 hours) may have garnered more useful opinions, preferably P&G-based ones. Owen× ☎ 21:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I actually observe the pattern of just counting votes and deciding based on that, not on quality of argument, even among the admins.
What's P&G? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"P&G" stands for "policies and guidelines". When you see an acronym "XYZ" here, it's often shorthand for "WP:XYZ", in this case, WP:P&G. Owen× ☎ 21:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Owen×, I've observed that many NAC closures are early closures. AGF, I think they want to gain experience with closures but with a current shortage of closers, it's usually unnecessary to do closures early. I don't want to single out this closure as it's just a trend I've noticed this year. I've seen "SNOW" closes with only 3 or 4 discussion participants which is not how I interpret SNOW to work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen I agree that a NAC SNOW--especially with only four opinions listed, as I've always understood the unwritten rule on SNOW to be 6 unanimous votes and 24 elapsed hours--is an unusual and possibly problematic occurrence. Let's let an admin handle this one. Jclemens (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate per above to allow an admin to close or relist. Too few opinions to be considered a NAC snow close. Frank Anchor 23:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Moroccanoil – moot given RFDs don't apply to articles and now that an article has been created as the nom wishes. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Meets notability guidelines for being an incredibly well-known cosmetics brand and considering the high level of controversy at this year's Eurovision Song Contest, the sponsorship of which by Moroccanoil is a major contributor of, an article is definitely both topical and necessary. Kapitan110295 (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the closure of the 2021 RFD, but the appellant does not appear to have an issue with the 2021 RFD. The appellant may either develop a draft on Draft:Moroccanoil for review via AFC or develop a new article subject to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. @Kapitan110295: overturning the three year old RfD would result in restoring Moroccanoil as a redirect to the Besiyata Dishmaya article, which is not what you want (and unlikely to happen anyway). Instead, I suggest you withdraw this appeal, and follow Robert McClenon's advice and start a new draft. Owen× ☎ 10:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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