Bellingham Bells – That's ridiculous. No way was that a valid NAC speedy close so I have reverted the close and reopened the AFD. Please feel free to vote but don't stifle discussion. I am not currently an admin but I believe this NAC is defensible and shortcuts an unnecessary debate before doing the right thing, which is to allow the discussion to continue – Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bellingham Bells (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Poor NAC closure based on the quality of the argument and appropriateness of using AFD for discussing a redirect (versus deletion). The argument of "there are no delete !votes" is specious, since it was only open for under four hours. tedder (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] I was the non-admin who closed the discussion. I believe that the nominator made a poor decision in bringing the article to AfD. They preferred a redirect as opposed to deletion, but had failed to start a dialogue on the articles talkpage (the article had no talkpage at the time of closing) to explore this outcome and find a consensus. Discussions on talkpages are better because they give more chance for interested parties to comment rather than the 7 days of an AfD. With all this in mind, and with nobody else advocating deletion, I closed the debate as speedy keep. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] Closing it early, rather than commenting on the talkpage decision, is a pretty pointy thing to do, especially for a non-admin closure. Further, the first criteria of WP:SK#Applicability was not fully met. Finally, redirection is a proper outcome for an AFD, not just by !voters, but also by the nominator. tedder (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] It surprises me that an admin did not choose to follow process properly and open up a talkpage or use mergeto/mergefrom tags, but thats moot. No more to say from me really, it's all in my first comment. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Bellingham Bells – That's ridiculous. No way was that a valid NAC speedy close so I have reverted the close and reopened the AFD. Please feel free to vote but don't stifle discussion. I am not currently an admin but I believe this NAC is defensible and shortcuts an unnecessary debate before doing the right thing, which is to allow the discussion to continue – Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Poor NAC closure based on the quality of the argument and appropriateness of using AFD for discussing a redirect (versus deletion). The argument of "there are no delete !votes" is specious, since it was only open for under four hours. tedder (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was the non-admin who closed the discussion. I believe that the nominator made a poor decision in bringing the article to AfD. They preferred a redirect as opposed to deletion, but had failed to start a dialogue on the articles talkpage (the article had no talkpage at the time of closing) to explore this outcome and find a consensus. Discussions on talkpages are better because they give more chance for interested parties to comment rather than the 7 days of an AfD. With all this in mind, and with nobody else advocating deletion, I closed the debate as speedy keep. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing it early, rather than commenting on the talkpage decision, is a pretty pointy thing to do, especially for a non-admin closure. Further, the first criteria of WP:SK#Applicability was not fully met. Finally, redirection is a proper outcome for an AFD, not just by !voters, but also by the nominator. tedder (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It surprises me that an admin did not choose to follow process properly and open up a talkpage or use mergeto/mergefrom tags, but thats moot. No more to say from me really, it's all in my first comment. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.