Open Book Collective – Clear consensus the non-admin closure was inappropriate and therefore it is undone. No consensus to overturn to any other specific action, so I'm defaulting to relisting, with the usual caveat that it can be closed at any time without waiting seven more days. * Pppery *it has begun... 18:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This was admittedly a low-quorum discussion, but I don't think the arguments against redirection were any good at all. This article was created directly in mainspace by Flavoursofopen, a disclosed COI editor, against the WP:COIEDIT guideline (which I'm assuming they were unaware of). Of the two "keep" votes
Myotus blindly asserts that it appears notable enough without linking any sources
Overturn. WP:BADNAC clearly states: A non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations: [...] The outcome is a close call [...] or likely to be controversial. Almost any No-consensus closure is bound to be a BADNAC. Whether the proposed redirect is a suitable ATD is something the re-closing admin should determine. Owen×☎ 22:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate per above.—Alalch E. 23:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn – As an editor who was citicized for closing AfDs, it should have been redirected rather than being closed as a no consensus. I do not see this as a "close call" and I do not understand what it is, but I do know that the closure was unjustified. It is better to wait for the closer to be online to question them about the reason for their closure. ToadetteEdit! 10:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It is better to wait for the closer to be online to question them about the reason for their closure" - question, did you check to see the timeline here before making this statement? The applicant enquired at the closer's talk page at 02:16, 27 April 2024, then waited nearly 48 hours before initiating the DRV at 22:32, 28 April 2024. No issue with Shadow311 not being available (we are all NA for periods at times), but to suggest that Mach61 should have waited longer here before coming to DRV or done something different, as your comment points to, is not accurate or fair in my opinion. Daniel (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to (soft) redirect. This is a WP:BADNAC, as is just about any no consensus closure or any closure on a relisted discussion, as it is obviously a “close call.” In this particular discussion there is the nom and one redirect !vote based in policy against two keep !votes. One is a well-meaning COI account and the other is a baseless claim of notability. As there is not a quorum, this must be a soft redirect which can be spun back at any time for any good-faith reason without the prospect of re-redirecting without further discussion. I consider vacating for an admin to re-close an acceptable option as well per OwenX though that is my second preference. FrankAnchor 12:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only saw the request to revert the close today, sorry. It appears I can't revert the close anymore since the deletion review is happening. Shadow311 (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can still reverse your close. Per DRV rules, Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, [...]. Just revert the AFD close, re-add it to the AFD log, and close this DRV with language along the lines of "speedy overturn with consent of AFD closer." (or have an admin do so on your behalf). FrankAnchor 13:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate per WP:BADNAC. No other comment on how this should be closed, but considering this leaned not-keep it should be closed by someone who can implement the full range of closes. SportingFlyerT·C 23:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate - I would Endorse the close if it were closed by an admin, as a valid closure, but I concur with the previous statements that this should have been left for an admin. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How "sticky" is a COI? Article creator declares a COI on COPIM, COPIM is directly related to this article... but is that sufficient connection to assume that the original article creator has a COI with respect to this article? It seems plausible, but not incontrovertible, so where do we draw a line? Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak overturn to redirect. I mulled over this for a while, but I find Mach's source analysis convincing, and the keep arguments unconvincing. And, of course, the redirect's target can always be expanded with information. Queen of Hearts (talk) 04:54, 6 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.
