Chloe Lewis (figure skater) – No fault of the original closer, but due to the sockpuppetry that has come to light since the close, consensus below is to relist for further discussion. Daniel (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I think this is the right avenue for this. I saw this but never voted in it, I think it should be kept and I later noticed @Hameltion: bring this up somewhere. There's actually good sourcing from the Oregonian and also Colorado Gazeette. She is also a Youth Olympic silver medalist. So I think it should kept instead. Coop (talk) 09:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. FrankAnchor 12:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Both sources are already included in the current draft being worked on. Nothing more to be done here; suggest a withdrawal and speedy close. Owen×☎ 11:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse' - What OwenX said. -- Whpq (talk) 11:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per OwenX. I have no objection to the draft being spun out to an article in its current state, but that is not in the scope of the DRV discussion. FrankAnchor 14:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to relist. It has come to my attention that delete voter Big Money Threepwood was indef blocked. Striking that vote, there is not a WP:QUORUM, meaning it must be relisted or closed as no consensus (with no prejudice against immediate renomination) or soft delete (subject to immediate restoration upon any good faith request such as this DRV). Relisting is probably the best option here, citing added visibility from this DRV. I will add that the Sandstein closed the AFD correctly based on information known at the time. FrankAnchor 19:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a valid close, but this isn't the right avenue. Some editors, including the current appellant, reasonably think that DRV is the right avenue to consider a new draft when an article was deleted, but DRV is not necessary in such cases. The article was deleted but not salted, and the draft will be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just note for posterity how unsatisfying the AfD was: these adequate sources were already in the article, but none of the delete !voters addressed why they felt they were insufficient, and the nominator didn't understand the subordinate role of an SNG vs GNG. But no one was making those points at the time, so the closer went along with unsubstantiated claims of sourcing problems. The draft should just be moved back into mainspace at this point. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 16:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I share your frustrations, but as an admin, I can tell you that it's damned if you do, and damned if you don't. If you discard perfunctory !votes that constitute a numerical majority and close based on guidelines, you're accused of supervoting. And if you don't discard perfunctory !votes, you're accused of counting noses and ignoring guidelines. We love quoting WP:NOTAVOTE, but in practice, things aren't as simple. Owen×☎ 17:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, hard to close a discussion when there are no good policy-backed !votes. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The right thing to do if you're looking at closing a discussion where you disagree with the participants' interpretation of guidelines is to comment instead of closing. —Cryptic 19:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Endorse" and "the draft can be turned into an article right now as it is" aren't compatible; the changes from the version deleted at AFD and now are almost entirely cosmetic. —Cryptic 17:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Substantial content was added to the draft on 20 April. However, even if that was not the case, my opinion is akin to “I would have voted keep, but consensus disagreed with me, so I endorse the result.” DRV is not AFD part 2, but I’m sure you already know that. FrankAnchor 17:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would this "substantial content" be the changes to the infobox, the removal of the statement that she's a freshman in college, or the six new tables that give unreferenced statistics of the exact same competitions as the table that was already there? AFC isn't AFD part 2 either; if this is moved into mainspace I'll speedy it. —Cryptic 18:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I retract the "substantial" part, as I looked more at the quantity of the content than the quality. Thanks for finding my error. FrankAnchor 19:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed one of the delete voters are banned does their vote still count? Coop (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. FrankAnchor 12:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not, which also causes there to not be a WP:QUORUM and "delete" to be an inappropriate close. FrankAnchor 19:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, I didn't know there was already another draft in progress. I'm fine with closing and withdrawing if someone knows how to do that. Coop (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. FrankAnchor 12:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually closed this as withdrawn by nominator, but Cryptic's comment at 18:12 made me reconsider that approach. Leaving this open for the time being (despite your 'withdrawal') as we need a resolution on that statement. Daniel (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Deletion Review is not AFC, and does not move a draft into mainspace. But ...
Relist after discounting the sockpuppet !vote. The appellant is advised to improve the article while the deletion discussion is resuming, to try to get a Heymann result. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per everyone above. The delete closure was fine at the time it was made, but now that it's been reasonably challenged and one of the deleters was a sock a relist is reasonable. * Pppery *it has begun... 03:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we needed a participant to later be blocked for socking to have overturned this - a deletion discussion that waves away those sources with no more than "fails WP:SIGCOV" is defective, not just an outcome being disagreed with. But, as I mentioned above, we do need to overturn it, not just wave it away as "the deletion discussion was correct, but you can go ahead and move some stuff around in the WP:REFUNDed article and just dump it back in mainspace". —Cryptic 03:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I also wouldn't move the draft into mainspace any time soon, to be honest. The DRV nom has just been blocked, and the two articles we're basing this on fail WP:YOUNGATH (one is from her home metro area and the other is from her dance partner's metro area), and there's no other clear sourcing available yet. SportingFlyerT·C 06:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "keep" !vote makes a policy-based argument for Redirect without deletion of the edit history, which is not refuted in the AfD. 2603:6011:8241:6E00:243F:DBC7:2745:2359 (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Close as moot. Nom is also a sock. The extant draft can go through AfC like any other and if substantially improved, it will not be a G4. StarMississippi 11:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nom is also a sock does not excuse the fact that the article was later found to be deleted without a quorum. In addition, there are multiple good-faith votes to not endorse the result, so the DRV must run its course. FrankAnchor 12:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely correct. However five more days here to kick it back to AfD for ~ 7 or more seems silly when there's a path to mainspace in less time and there's no guarantee a relist will result in retention. To be clear though, my opinion not policy. StarMississippi 01:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Star Mississippi writes: there's a path to mainspace in less time and there's no guarantee a relist will result in retention. Yes, but there's no guarantee that AFC will result in promotion back to mainspace either. I would decline the current draft because it does not speak for itself and does not describe significant coverage by reliable sources. The idea of moving the draft into article space in its current state is well-meaning but silly. So I also think that a relist will very likely repeat the deletion. There is no quick path to resolve this. The article isn't ready for mainspace; the draft isn't ready for mainspace. The proponents of an article need to work on the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist due to socking issues. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist; no fault, but tainted by socking. Queen of Hearts (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist due to tainting by socking. If it wasn't for the socking I think this probably would have been relisted, rather than closed. TarnishedPathtalk 14:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pinging @Daniel: to re-close this three week old DRV. Owen×☎ 14:16, 21 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.
