Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dennis Brown (talk | contribs) at 23:40, 4 October 2008 (→‎List of defecation postures: re by nom). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< October 3 Deletion review archives: 2008 October October 5 >

4 October 2008

List of defecation postures

List of defecation postures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Shit(sic), I can't believe I'm doing this.

I haven't read the article text, I don't even care if the article gets merged, deleted or whatever. However a conclusion of, "The result was MERGE INTO NEW ARTICLE THEN SEEK SPEEDY DELETE - Nonadmin closure by nominator user:Pharmboy" just has to be the worst sort of abuse of process. Surely a nominator can't close their proposal for deletion as such a fait accompli? That would be a mockery of the whole notion of consensus. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Short version: Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't close any discussion I was the nominator for. In this case, everyone involved was in full agreement.
  • Long version: Basically, the original author changed the articles into (logical) redirects, and merged all the material into Defecation posture‎. Now, this actually made sense. Instead of three articles, each focusing on an individual posture, and a separate article with a "list" of the two, you had one comprehensive article. The only problem is that the "list of" article was really not needed as a redirect, and under any circumstance, was not up to policy. The quickest and easiest way was if the original author agreed to blank and request speedy for it, which he saw the logic in and had no problem with. Once that was accomplished, there was no reason for the AFD. Basically, it was the equivelent of WITHDRAWING the AFD because the original article was speedy deleted and the others redirected. I simply put the real explanation of what happened, for the record. (ie: if I had just said "withdrawn", we wouldn't be here, but it wouldn't have been 100% honest) Both the nominator and the original author were happy with the outcome and agree with the method (see his talk page and my talk page) and no other editor has contacted either of us with a complaint. The content was saved, it was reorganized in a better fashion, and Godwin's Law was never an issue. As for this review, I understand since it was a non-admin closure by the nom, (my first closure I do believe), so I am open to any constructive criticism. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_October_4&oldid=243060613"