Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 October 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) at 21:17, 8 October 2024 ((BOT) Remove section headers for closed log page. Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/DRVClerk). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Driggu Florentino (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The discussion was closed as kept only 14 hours after it began after a self-draftify of and article that started in the draft space to begin with. The page creator has done this exact same thing before (about the exact same subject) in an attempt to derail an AfD discussion and was warned by Liz about it last time. cyberdog958Talk 18:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn the closure as a bad non-admin closure and Relist - The move of the page from article space to draft space after it has been nominated for deletion, especially with a history of contested moves between article and draft spaces, is an abusive move because it prevents the community from assessing notability after that issue has been properly raised. The closer made a good-faith error in thinking that the draftification made the AFD moot, but the move by the author to draft space was in bad faith. As the appellant notes, the author had already been warned by an admin that moving an article to draft space while an AFD is pending is disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been caught up in this idiotic process before. I was the non-admin closer of the AfD, which I did as pure housekeeping because the mainspace article had been speedy deleted and there was no article to discuss for notability purposes. The AfD was indeed moot and this here discussion is merely an attempt to make it un-moot again, and I do not appreciate the adjective "bad" when I merely tried to clean up a mess that was caused by someone else's fractured procedures. I am amazed at how often this moronic sequence of events happens with nobody addressing the root problem. Someone moved a draft article to mainspace, someone else moved it back, another person requested speedy deletion, yet another person took it to a full AfD discussion, an Admin did the speedy deletion without looking at the status of either the concurrent draft article or AfD. And now you need still another process here to straighten all out. I suggest serious procedural discussions on how to prevent this idiocy in the first place, though I've said the same before and nothing happened. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have previously suggested, and will suggest again, that the display template on an article that is nominated for deletion should state not to move the article. The {{mfd}} template does include prohibitions against moving the page while the MFD is in progress. Why not add the same prohibition for AFD? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.