The discussion was closed by a non-administrator, Zppix, in circumstances that did not meet WP:NACD. According to that guideline, "close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins." Because opinions were divided, the discussion was indeed a close call, and I see no indication that the closer attempted to weigh the strength of the arguments that were made. I ask an administrator to reclose (or, perhaps preferably, relist) the discussion. Sandstein 10:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I now see, at User Talk:Zppix/2016/November#AfD relisting, BU Rob13 wrote: "You've been repeatedly warned about moving into new areas long before you've gained the knowledge and clue necessary to be successful in them. At some point, this does become a competence issue, and I'd prefer not to see you return to ANI for that. Please stick to the areas where you've been successful or other basic areas rather than more advanced administrative tasks." This indicates that there is a pattern of inappropriate administrative actions by Zppix. Sandstein 10:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Various types of close, and relist, might have been within discretion and that is why a non-admin close was unsuitable here. Thincat (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Nanaho Katsuragi – Endorse, allow relist after two months. This discussion got kind of wild and emotional, so I suspect there's no close that's going to make everybody happy. But, the gist seems to be that the speedy close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nanaho Katsuragi (3rd nomination) was OK, and the best thing to do at this point is wait a couple of months before bringing this back to AfD again. The important thing to figure out is whether the article meets our requirements. For better or worse, if we re-start that discussion again, it's likely to get bogged down in side-arguments about process. If we come back in two months, we'll skip the process arguments and can concentrate on evaluating the article. There was an extensive side-thread about whether WP:NPASR is an effective policy; that's worth talking about, but DRV is the wrong forum. Perhaps Wikipedia talk:Deletion process would be a more useful place to continue that discussion (and feel free to pursue that immediately if you want). – -- RoySmith(talk)16:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relist AFD: No reason to speedy keep the article nor wait a couple of months "so that people could search for more (non-existent) sources" if it's due for deletion. Admin Joe has found no reliable sources regarding the subject to assert her notability, and knowing that the research was done by an administrator, it is plausible to assume most, if not all the editors at the second and third AFDs are just delaying the inevitable outcome. While I admit that it would have been the best to post the article here for review after the closure of AFD 2 (which I believe was closed improperly), I assert that I was not informed of a such a forum until AFTER the end of the 3rd AFD. AFD 1 was closed as no consensus with WP:NPASR. It was applied for AFD 2, only to be speedy kept due to me "not following procedures". I do not appreciate that an admin (Joe) and a couple of other members, being Knowledge and Sephy are blatantly ignoring WP:NPASR. It is not wrong for me to renom an article with that guideline in place. It is completely unnecessary to wait a couple of months before renomination due to so called "procedural" reasons. I strongly disagree that "no consensus" is seen as a rejection to my nom. It is not. It's only a rejection if an article was closed as kept. I also contest claims about me being "disruptive", when it is should be known those that are delaying the inevitable outcome (in this case, it's deletion) are the ones that are truly disruptive. Again, I admit that I should have brought the article to the Deletion Review sooner. This is something I could have done at the beginning. But I contest the closing of AFD 2, as an admin has very clearly ignored a guideline that grants me the right for speedy renom. Hence I request that the AFD be relisted in an attempt in reach a clear consensus. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn with fire, and a whale-sized trout to the closer. There's definite disruption going on in the second and third afds, and admonition to be dished out, but none of it is due to the nominator. The vague threat made on Nihonjoe's talk page is especially out of line. —Cryptic01:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you know the back-round here, Nihonjoe already had tried to go with a neutral approach before the article was re-nominated for a 3rd time. [1][2] Had Prince discussed the issue on the article's talk-page we wouldn't be in this mess. Further, during the 2nd deletion's close Nihonjoe suggested that he wait a "couple months". So by the time of the third nomination Nihonjoe had every right to be more stern having already shown plenty of restraint. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, cool story. WP:NPASR means that I don't need to ask for permission to renom. AFD 2 was listed following procedures to the letter. It doesn't matter what you or Admin Joe thinks. It is what it is. A guideline. And neither of you followed it. Fact. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really want to express an opinion on the main issue here, but I still feel strongly that it was out of process to start the third AFD rather than taking the second AFD to deletion review. Cryptic, please don't encourage people to just ignore AFD closures they disagree with. Calathan (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would take AFD 2 here, in the Deletion Review if I knew that this place existed. It sounds like the perfect place to file disputes of this nature. It's a shame that I didn't know better. But now I do, so it's all good. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Allow renomination after two months after the close of this DRV discussion. The excitement is out of proportion. Be sure to make a comprehensive nomination next time. The one thing worrying me is the number of mainspace incoming links. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Renominate in two months , as the practical solution. The speedy keep was really out of our usual process, but it perhaps could be defended as IAR, and I'm not going to second guess an experienced WPedian who used it that way. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately as soon as the second afd was started this was arguably about the nominator's now recurring renominations as soon as the old ones close. Despite objections over the timeframe involved, they are forcing them very pointedly instead of giving them time. At which point it starts becoming about principles and not the articles in question. I won't claim to have covered myself in glory over my response to this but the nominator knows damm well he is causing a scene and thats how he likes it. I don't object to articles being relisted but if no consensus is reached due to a lack of response after three weeks maybe a instant relist is not in anyones interest. That the nominator is unwilling to accept no consensus as a closure, despite it being a perfectly valid outcome and still insists on trying to force these articles suggests that there should be a delay in relisting in order to prevent either side becoming agitated. Allowing two-three months minimum fora new afd is perfectly reasonable and there won't be any complaints, but nominator is testing the patience of others in AFD despite several criticisms and requests to back down over several months. Not showing any concessions to his own attitude and forcefulness is what has caused the wider situation. The third afd demonstrates just how obsessed the user is over forcing things through, it is not a sign of someone understanding their situation or being neutral. This is by no means restricted to this one article. I also suggest this period between follow up afd's be applied generally to this user as they are the only person in the topic area that chooses to do so this quickly. Generally people wait upwards of 6months, which never attracts criticism in itself because this is clearly a reasonable period of time.SephyTheThird (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Noise
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was going to shut up and let you guys discuss in this deletion review, but I'm done holding my tongue with you, Sephy. You are blatantly standing in my way by ignoring WP:NPASR. You are also delaying the inevitable outcome, which is ultimately deletion. You are complaining how fast I am with relisting articles, yet you have done nothing to improve the article yourself. Not during the 3 weeks of the entire AFD process, and certainly not now. Absolutely nothing. 3 weeks is more than enough time to gather any sources that might have helped with asserting notability. But bear this in mind - if good sources don't exist, they don't. It doesn't matter if we waited for 2 more months. The outcome will still be the same. That's why I'm saying that I really do not appreciate obstructers that are getting in my way of applying proper procedures. In this case, it would be getting rid of articles that don't have any encyclopedic value. It has become apparent to me that editors like Knowledge and Sephy seem to have a problem with that. That is unacceptable. That, and an AFD that barely had any participation that was closed with no consensus with WP:NPASR attached means I could renom it without having to run through a discussion, first. Since when is a closed AFD that barely even had any participation in the first place an acceptable outcome (even more so with WP:NPASR attached)? You're just making junk up by stating that such an outcome is an "objection/rejection" to my nom, which is not. I think you seem to be forgetting that this AFD ever existed, in which your words have practically been torn apart due to your blatant lack of knowledge of existing guidelines. It's a fact that you paid no mind to said existing guideline, WP:NPASR. What makes you above that guideline, huh? I'm not making my own guidelines up, I'm just following them to the letter. And that's supposed to be a problem? Since when? Just because you don't like me? That's biased to the core. In other words, you have zero grounds to criticize my methods, as I still have WP:NPASR to use as valid reasoning to renom. Ignore that guideline all you want, but you're just getting offended over nothing just because you don't like how I deal with things on a much higher efficiency level. You're also encouraging that articles that obviously fail the notability guidelines be kept just because I was the one that nomed them. Again, you're better not participating in my AFDs if you can't prove to be helpful, but instead act as a major obstacle. I have no objections with relisting the article after two months at this stage, but I'm 99% confident that there's absolutely nothing any of you could have done to save the article, given that even Admin Joe himself has failed to find any sources to assert the subject's notability. 2 months later, this article will see to its ultimate deletion, and if it does, it will prove true to what I've said - you're intentionally obstructing my path and my objectives instead of focusing on the actual notability on the subject herself. You're not doing anyone any favors; you are, again, just delaying the entire process. Please. Stop getting in my way if an article was closed with WP:NPASR. You could try and get good ol' Joe to gang up on me again, but I know now better on how to handle with obstructers like you. The right way. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on policy, but rants like this just aren't helpful to anything. You're _really_ mad, and frankly this article existing for 2 more months isn't something worth getting that mad about. When I get that mad about something here (and I have) I know it's time for a break. Hobit (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The main concern here isn't a credits dump that pretends to be an article existing for two more months, it's more so about particular editors that intentionally obstruct my path just because they don't agree with my methods, rather than analyzing the actual notability of the subject. All I see as of this moment are repeated usage of WP:MUSTBESOURCES (repeatedly claiming that I should be giving them time to look for sources, when it is as clear as day that such a task cannot possibly be achieved because said sources are non-existent) and WP:PPOV (it's clear that those users don't like me, and they use it as a reason to disrupt my AFDs). In other words, those users (Knowledge and Sephy) have violated another guideline - WP:NPOV. And frankly, I couldn't care less whether or not I have their approval. How dare they have the audacity to call me disruptive when they themselves are ignoring existing policies and guidelines in the first place. I find that to be extremely outrageous. I don't think it's a lot to ask for them to stay off of my AFDs if they can't be bothered to present a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). Otherwise, I see it as a serious violation of that guideline, since it is very obvious that the aforementioned users have a beef with the way I conduct things. It doesn't matter what I do, or whether or not I follow the guidelines. If I'm the one nomming the article, I automatically get flaked for it. That is the impression I'm getting, and I'm displeased. Luckily, Wikipedia does not consist solely of only those users, so I am still able to erase unneeded articles off of our encyclopedia thanks to much more diligent and helpful wikipals. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should realise that perhaps not all of your nominations are made in the most neutral approach possible. You can do it, but there are just as many, if not more examples of AFD's that fail basic tests or where you become antagonistic for no reason. I can accept that perhaps my reactions are not always ideal and have said as much, but there has been no such attempts to back down from you. I'm more than happy to start again, but it won't work unless you can see that there are reasons why some of us react and to adapt. You need to leave your opinions about the article at the nomination, not continue to tell us that you are forcing through a decision. You can see that these instant renominations attract controversy, policy or not. Policy should not be used as an excuse to chase after desired outcomes, they are to assist not as an ends to a means. I'll be very happy to engage in an afd for this article if some time has passed and it can be presented without stigma or negative connotations. As it stands you have proven why the time is needed. Again, I'll work with you if you can work with the rest of us. It needs both "sides" to accept this.SephyTheThird (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The opening statements of my noms have always been constructed with info I've found about the subject, before proceeding to explain why I think they are not notable. Instant renoms are perfectly applicable when WP:NPASR is in place. It is a policy, and none of your opinions are above that guideline. Simple as that. I'm here to erase articles using existing guidelines, as opposed to arguing whether or not I need your approval. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sk8erPrince is skating towards an XfD nominations topic ban. Being right is not a justification of disruption. If another editor asks you to stop or slow down, you don't get to ignore that based on your conclusion that they are wrong. This is a collaborative project, and if he cannot work collaboratively .... --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
relist I'm sure I'm missing something somewhere, as Nihonjoe is probably one of the most reasonable folks around here. But we don't seem to have any independent reliable sources for a BLP and I just don't understand the closing of the 2nd AfD (the 3rd one I fully get). SmokeyJoe's concerns make sense to me, but that's not a basis for keeping an article, especially a BLP. Normally I'd assume this could be a language problem, but if Nihonjoe can't find anything... Seems like NPASR applies and the second nomination was policy compliant. Hobit (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hobit, I checked sources, they exist. The material is verified. There are no BLP issues, it is only a WP:BIO notability issue. "Merge and redirect" remains an unexplored WP:BEFORE option. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's not surprising you feel you are missing something, there is a long history here that has contributed to the whole situation. This article is really becoming the focus point for something that is not necessarily the fault of this article by itself. This policy is being used to justify the demands of an editor who has repeatedly shown questionable judgement in AFD, and is unable to take a step back and accept that they are getting peoples backs up. When a policy is being used by an editor to force through their desired outcome it starts to look bad on both the nominator and the process. When an AFD has a cloud over it due to concerns about a nominator's bias, attitude or any other negative impact outside of a healthy debate, isn't it best to leave it be for the time being and come back to it with a clean state of mind? SephyTheThird (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have been able to delete 28 articles off of our encyclopedia using the exact same method as I did from when I first started (and I am improving as I delete more articles). That alone is proof that my noms are not done questionably. Policies are there to be enforced to achieve progress. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. It doesn't matter if you agree or not. If it's there, then it can be used. The end. Nothing more, nothing less. If an article was closed with WP:NPASR, then I can use it to speedy renom. Your opinion on the matter is weightless in the face of an existing policy. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm fine with whatever is decided here. As others have mentioned, Sk8erPrince has a long (or at least it feels really long) history of nominating tons of articles all within one topic area, basically overwhelming anyone with knowledge of the subject area. This is only one of many issues people in the Japan-related topic area have with him. Yes, some of his nominations are good, and we appreciate that. However, he is very belligerent if anyone disagrees with him, and he is very hard to work with. Some of that likely spilled over here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I knock down fallacies in AFDs. After all, the full term for AFD is "Articles for Deletion DEBATES". If you present a point or two that I believe to be inapplicable in the face of existing guidelines, then I'll cut them down to size (also applies to decisions made by admins; though in that case, I'll have to bring the discussion here in the Deletion Review). That's how debates work. Your opinion only matters if you're following the guidelines. Also, I don't think there is any way to deny that you used WP:IAR as an excuse to ignore WP:NPASR. There is absolutely nothing wrong with renoming an article that was closed with that guideline, as I've stated quite a number of times. Like it or not, I've managed to successfully delete 29 articles off of this encyclopedia (not counting the ones that I've assisted in deleting). That's gotta be some proof of my ability to make valid noms, right? Should be undeniable at this point. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Redirects" don't count as deletion as the article's history is kept, the only thing undoing the redirect is the "undo" button. As for the articles you have deleted, what point are you trying to make? As far as contributions go at times you attack other editors, I have seen you do it and can provide the differences. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are, though. Same thing. An independent article is gone in place of a redirect. Definitely the same as complete deletion. On top of that, I believe only admins can undo a redirect. Also, I didn't "attack" other editors. I merely falsified their points if I didn't agree. Stop getting so offended over it. If you can't handle the heat in an AFD, it's best not to participate. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- If this is endorsed, I suggest deprecating and removing all mention WP:NPASR from Wikipedia entirely because there objectively is prejudice against speedy renomination and it's dishonest to pretend otherwise. ReykYO!10:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.Interesting observation, yes. Actually, yes, User:Natg_19's close of AfD1 was evidently faulty. Subsequent events demonstrate that speedy denomination was not welcome. Speedy renomination after two fruitless relists does not seem productive, does it? I agree with removing NPASR from policy, but not to expunge all records of it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then ultimately, the faulty policy we come to know as WP:NPASR is to blame as opposed to me, seeing as I follow policies to delete articles off of Wikipedia. I absolutely have no objections with removing WP:NPASR completely, as Reyk has mentioned. At least then, I could avoid getting into so many conflicts like this just because I'm following an existing policy. So am I to interpret that if WP:NPASR ultimately gets removed at the end of this discussion, I am to only renom articles that were closed as no consensus after a month has passed? If that's the case, I am ok with that. Also, what about AFDs that are closed that barely had any participation in the first place? Am I to renom it after a week has passed? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the AfD has gain no other's participation, you night consider Wikipedia:Publicising discussions. However, soliciting otherwise uninterested others' opinions on very narrow interest articles that don't deserve to be articles, may not lead to much joy. If closed as "no consensus", Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion suggests one month. Your nominations seem comprehensive and solid, I would expect that they would be deleted in the absence of opposition, the only thing I can suggest to you is that you don't explain why there is no plausible redirect target. Why can't you merge the voice actors into the article 81 Produce? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Smokey, for being insightful. However, the page you linked regarding guidelines in renoming has not mentioned how one should approach in the case of an AFD being closed with no consensus attached with WP:NPASR. By that logic, given speedy renoming is precisely like other speedy guidelines, then I should be allowed to renom articles immediately regardless of how it might look to other editors? That's what a speedy command is all about, isn't it? Also, to answer your other question:
Why can't you merge the voice actors into the article 81 Produce?
I don't think the policy needs to be completely nuked, but it does need clarification. I would add "Common options include, but are not limited to:.... closing as "no consensus" with no prejudice against speedy renomination by someone other than the original nominator (NPASR)...". This gives a neutral approach, and has fresh eyes looking at it as a result. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that particular policy is elaborated to that extent, I would have no objections against it. In fact, I'd be glad if it was expanded to be more precise so that conflicts like these could be avoided. I concur with Knowledge's suggestion. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Bahram Tavakoli – Endorse speedy, but allow recreation. Minimal discussion here, but what there is says the WP:G5 was correct. However, there's no bar to any established user creating a new article at this title, as long as it complies with our other requirements (copyright, notability, etc). – -- RoySmith(talk)14:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
