Donald Drumpf – Relisted. This is a contested non-admin early closure. Initial discussion here does not indicate an immediate consensus. Per WP:NACD, "closes may only be reopened by an uninvolved administrator or by consensus at deletion review." I am accordingly reopening the deletion discussion in my individual capacity as an administrator, in the hope that the energy that is being expended on this conversation can be redirected towards the discussion on the merits, where it will do more good. I also recommend that the closer consider stop closing non-unanimous, non-expired AfDs, because if I recall correctly this is not the first closure of theirs that I've had to undo. – Sandstein 18:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Donald Drumpf (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Further information: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 2 § Donald Drumpf This WP:RFD discussion closed prior to the 7-day recommended discussion time by an editor who stated a somewhat non-neutral comment in the discussion (WP:INVOLVED). Also, per WP:NACD, it may be wiser to have an administrator close this discussion since opinions regarding a possible new target vary and are split. Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Closer comment (Endorse): First off, the whole discussion was muddled by the fact that one of the possibilities to redirect this to (Donald J Drumpf) was being AfDed while this discussion was going on. After that was closed, it made perfect sense for somebody to close this RfD the exact same way, that is, in favor of redirection to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). When I closed it, I considered it unlikely that it would be closed any other way. It wouldn't have be closed as a disambiguation because the only person who wants that is Steel; and also because two of the three pages have been merged, with the third page easily accessible from the merged pages. It won't be closed as deleted because few, if anybody, want to delete it. It won't be closed as a redirect to Donald J Drumpf, because that is now a redirect. It won't be closed as a redirect to Donald Trump because only a handful of people support that redirect, and most of the ones who don't think that redirecting it there violates policy. That leaves redirection to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) as the only viable option. And you have another recently closed discussion on top of it. I'd note that I did not vote on the issue of whether Donald Drumpf should be redirected to Donald Trump, to Donald J Drumpf, or to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). I'd also note that, at one point, Donald Drumpf was both a redirect and a disambiguation, which I felt needed to be resolved as quickly as possible, especially considering the volume of traffic to the page. p b p 20:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Oh, one thing I forgot: even though it only ran for 4 1/2 days, it had over 20 participants. p b p 21:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Suggest speedy close of this DRV: :You know, Wikipedia gets a black eye whenever a redirect is RfDed or DRVed, because people who are using it can't get where they're going. This is especially troublesome on a highly-viewed redirect. Shame on User:Steel1943 for extending this process for one minute longer than when the outcome was clear, let alone one week. p b p 20:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] @Purplebackpack89: You have seemed to forget that the purpose of DRV is to ensure that the community agrees with your close, specifically the circumstances that led you to close the discussion under the WP:IAR circumstances which you did. I don't agree with how you closed the discussion, but hope that consensus can be formed on your close in a timely manner no matter which way the discussion sways. Yeah, DRV is basically the "last stand" when there is a disagreement such as this, but I hope that this disagreement between the two of us can be resolved rather quickly by the community. Steel1943 (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] @Steel1943: If I thought it was even remotely possible that the community en masse would disagree with the outcome I concluded, I would not have closed it. Your DRV is particularly problematic in that it doesn't weigh in as to whether the outcome was correct or not. Instead, your DRV focuses almost entirely on procedure. If the correct outcome was reached, even with incorrect procedure, the outcome (which I might add isn't deletion) is almost always endorsed. p b p 21:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] @Purplebackpack89: Actually, I did question your closing outcome as well ("...opinions regarding a possible new target vary and are split.") Steel1943 (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] @Purplebackpack89: procedure can be important. I suggest to you that if you followed the procedure that we would not be here right now. There was no good reason to close it early and it is a legitimate complaint. I am endorsing this closure, however I don't find this DRV to be out of line whatsoever. HighInBC 16:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closer: This close was incredibly classy, the best, all the editors I know were very very impressed by it. This is the type of DRV we simply do not need, and I feel the "early" close was within the range of appropriate discretion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Revert close and Relist - Three issues with the close: The closure was early (WP:RFD/AI), the closure was especially inappropriate for a non-administrator (WP:BADNAC/WP:NACD), and the discussion shouldn't be closed by an involved party who has even !voted (WP:INVOLVED/WP:CLOSE). Discussion was ongoing. There are circumstances where an early close is allowed, this isn't one of them (WP:RFD/AI again). I recommended a revert to the closer on their talk page, and as was pointed out there, I even voted in concurrence with the outcome of the close. If Steel1943 hadn't raised this issue, I would have (I actually considered raising the issue at WP:ANI last night with the hope of a speedy revert of the close as an administrator has that prerogative when it comes to a nac). The argument that the outcome of the close was correct only holds water if it is unreasonable to think the consensus could've changed if the standard time remaining had been allowed to pass. There was enough variance and shifting circumstances around the discussion that it should have be left open for the full time (new opinions may arrive and those already participating may realign). —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] I still say if you have no problem with the outcome, you shouldn't bother with a DRV. I will maintain to my dying day that the vast majority of admins wouldn't have closed it any differently. You mention the circumstances changing; I accounted for that (by essentially counting votes for Donald J Drumpf and Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) as votes for the same thing). Since nearly of the votes in the last 48 hours of the RfD were to one of these two pages, it made perfectly good sense to me. p b p 22:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] @Purplebackpack89: In response to your response to Godsy's comment above. See, here's the thing: When it comes to the fact that I brought this discussion to DRV, I couldn't care any less about how your assessment of the discussion's consensus in your close coincides with my personal opinion about what should happen to the nominated page. (Godsy may possibly share this opinion, given their statement that they were going to bring a discussion about your close to WP:ANI.) This DRV discussion is here because you have essentially invoked WP:IAR to counteract three separate guidelines regarding closing discussions. My concern (and probably Godsy's) is that you closed a discussion improperly, not because your closing result was right or wrong, but because your opinion that the circumstances of the discussion allowed for you to close the discussion when you did (and for that matter, at all) are questionable. Steel1943 (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] @Steel1943: If your concern is less the outcome and more my behavior, you are at the wrong forum. This is a forum for discussing outcomes. If you want to discuss my behavior, try here instead. p b p 00:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] @Purplebackpack89: The outcome of that discussion was that it was closed by someone who I believed should not have closed it for the reasons I have already stated. I asked you if you would reopen the discussion: You said you would not. Thus, we are now here. Steel1943 (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Obviously no support to delete. Not a deletion matter. Resume discussion on the best target on the redirect talk page, at Talk:Donald Drumpf. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Talk pages are not for determining targets of redirects: that's what WP:RFD is for ... and that's the type of discussion's close that's being discussed here. This comment is a rather interesting bit of circular, confusing, misleading bureaucracy. Steel1943 (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] No, Steel1943, you are mistaken. Altering the target of a redirect should be discussed on its talk page. RfD is for deletions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] @SmokeyJoe: Discussions for redirect target changes and redirect deletions are both purposes of discussions at RFD, now that it is "Redirects for discussion" rather than "Redirects for deletion". If RFD still had the old name, I would agree with you. Steel1943 (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] OK. Makes sense, since redirects will be retargeted a lot. Incidentally, when was the name change? I don't see a record of it. Still, DRV is for reviewing deletions and deletion processes, and as there is no deletion involved here, it is out of scope for DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] @SmokeyJoe: Prior to the RFD, it redirected to Donald Trump. It redirects to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) now. p b p 15:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] @Steel1943: The point is that it would never have been closed as delete, by me or by anybody. SmokeyJoe's comment is somewhat of a vindication of what I've been saying, namely that this is a place to discuss whether it was wrong to close something as keep or not. p b p 00:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Yes, pbp, partly at least. The discussion showed a consensus to keep. A note on decorum at WP:DRV. It is your close being reviewed. You should make a statement, and answer questions, but should not be badgering or bludgeoning. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict × 2) @Purplebackpack89: I'm quite aware of what SmokeyJoe meant by their comment, but thank you for adding your personal spin on things. If you have a issue with the fact that this is essentially the only venue to post a discussion for an XFD discussion when the close is contested (even if deletion is not suggested anywhere), I would recommend going to Wikipedia talk:Deletion review and posting a move request so that this venue can be renamed. Steel1943 (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] The creation of the article itself is beyond ridiculous (Never Mind). Who would possibly believe that this topic would be remotely important enough to deserve its own Wikipedia article? At most, the article would be a stub, with no more than ten sentences total. Delete this article, have some common sense, people. --TheFancyFedoraWielder (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] @TheFancyFedoraWielder: This isn't an article; this is a redirect. Donald J Drumpf was once an article, but was deleted and is now redirected...to the same place this article is redirected, Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). p b p 01:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] @TheFancyFedoraWielder: I was about to tell you something similar to what Purplebackpack89 just informed you, but they beat me to it. Steel1943 (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] @Steel1943: I'm sorry then, I didn't read deep into this... --TheFancyFedoraWielder (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Eyh, this DRV is why early closes and SNOW closes are usually bad ideas; if this had just been allowed to run to its conclusion, it would have been dealt with much quicker than is going to be the case now. Probably the existing close will stick, as it was the direction the discussion was inevitably moving towards. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC).[reply] IMO, that's on Steel1943 for it taking so long. This entire DRV is ridiculous, disruptive and should be closed immediately. There is no way the RfD was going to get closed any other way than the way I closed it. There is no way this DRV is going to overturn it. Steel1943 is way too hung up on process and seems to be willing to waste a lot of other peoples' times to make some sort of point about it. p b p 15:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] @Purplebackpack89: Changes were still happening with the related pages. That, and I don't feel like I need to repeat for a third time the three reasons why you closing the discussion is questionable ... and itself disruptive enough to have at least two editors (including myself) want your close overturned. Steel1943 (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] @Steel1943: The whole "Changes were still happening" argument holds no water at all, because: The discussion was closed after the Donald J Drumpf AfD was closed (by an admin) as merge Because that discussion was closed, there was really only one way to close this discussion. And I hate to repeat it, but if the closure is correct but the closer is wrong, it is a waste of time to have a DRV. DRV isn't about chastising closers, it's about changing outcomes. Except for this DRV, which is about you wasting a lot of mine and other peoples' times because you want to teach me some sort of lesson or make some sort of point. Be the better man and withdraw this DRV p b p 15:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] @Purplebackpack89: I find it rather amazing that you are accusing me of "wasting a lot of ... [time]" when you were actually the one who intiated this "waste of time". Let's do the math here. If you had just reopened the discussion like Godsy and I requested on your talk page (after you closed the discussion only 4 1/2 days after it was opened, I might add,) the RFD would have probably have been closed after the 7-day period had elapsed. Instead, you chose not to reopen the discussion, resulting in this DRV. So, here's the timeline you chose for this: Instead of the RFD playing itself out after the 7-day period, if you add the 4 1/2 days the RFD discussion was open, plus the 7 days this DRV will be open before it will be closed, plus the 7 days the RFD will have to be open again if the result of this DRV is to "overturn", the RFD will have to be relisted, which will require it to be open for another 7 days. So, right there, that's a grand total of 18 1/2 days ... and a whole 11 1/2 of those days could have been avoided if you had just* reopened the discussion* as asked. Steel1943 (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] On the other hand @Steel1943:, 14 days could have been avoided if you hadn't started this. 14 > 11 1/2. 7 days of your 11 1/2 will be avoided as you will not have a consensus to relist. And you will not get a consensus to relist because you have not provided one iota of evidence that a closure different from the way I closed it was ever going to be in the cards. Stop being disruptive. p b p 16:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict) @Purplebackpack89: What's disruptive (apparently based on your last statement) is your lack of ability to know when you should not take an non-admin administrative action, especially when this DRV is a direct result of you refusing to reopen the RFD (since, after all, Wikipedia is a community-focused project.) And as already proven, if I hadn't opened this DRV, some other action would have still happened in response to your questionable close. At this point, the quickest way to get this off both of our plates is for you to reopen the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict) @Purplebackpack89: ...And about your inquiry for me to "prove it could have been closed differently." Yes, it could have been closed by an uninvolved administrator after the RFD's 7-day recommended discussion time. I have already stated a few times in this discussion that my concern isn't your assessment of the consensus (I honestly couldn't care less about that), but the fact that you WP:IAR'ed three separate guidelines that went against you closing the discussion and when you did. I think that this discussion should not have been IAR closed in the matter which you closed it, or for that matter, IAR'ed at all. Steel1943 (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] That's not a different outcome. A different outcome would have been if the closer had deleted it, turned it into a disambiguation page, or redirected it to Donald Trump. The reason I closed early was because I consider it unlikely that it would've been redirected anywhere else. p b p 17:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse close While the full 7 days should have been allowed to occur, there is no doubt in my mind that this would have ended up the same way. While the closure was premature I see no reason to overturn it. HighInBC 16:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] There's something about US presidential elections that seems to drop Wikipedia discussions over the event horizon into a black hole made of pure, 180-proof stupid. I'm going to use some of the most emphatic language I've ever used in the seven years I've been a regular at deletion review, and I make the following very strong statement with all due forethought: I have never seen a case that so thoroughly satisfied WP:DRVPURPOSE point #5. It is completely impossible for deletion review to endorse an early snow close by a non-admin who participated in the debate. We have absolutely no choice except to overturn this. I express no view on whether it would be appropriate for an uninvolved sysop to snow close the debate, but this close simply cannot stand.—S Marshall T/C 17:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] I'm waiting for the part where you prove that it could have been closed with the result being different than mine, @S Marshall:. The fact is, it would have been closed the exact same way had it run its course, and you, like Steel1943, have not proven otherwise. p b p 17:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Donald Drumpf – Relisted. This is a contested non-admin early closure. Initial discussion here does not indicate an immediate consensus. Per WP:NACD, "closes may only be reopened by an uninvolved administrator or by consensus at deletion review." I am accordingly reopening the deletion discussion in my individual capacity as an administrator, in the hope that the energy that is being expended on this conversation can be redirected towards the discussion on the merits, where it will do more good. I also recommend that the closer consider stop closing non-unanimous, non-expired AfDs, because if I recall correctly this is not the first closure of theirs that I've had to undo. – Sandstein 18:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This WP:RFD discussion closed prior to the 7-day recommended discussion time by an editor who stated a somewhat non-neutral comment in the discussion (WP:INVOLVED). Also, per WP:NACD, it may be wiser to have an administrator close this discussion since opinions regarding a possible new target vary and are split. Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closer comment (Endorse): First off, the whole discussion was muddled by the fact that one of the possibilities to redirect this to (Donald J Drumpf) was being AfDed while this discussion was going on. After that was closed, it made perfect sense for somebody to close this RfD the exact same way, that is, in favor of redirection to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). When I closed it, I considered it unlikely that it would be closed any other way. It wouldn't have be closed as a disambiguation because the only person who wants that is Steel; and also because two of the three pages have been merged, with the third page easily accessible from the merged pages. It won't be closed as deleted because few, if anybody, want to delete it. It won't be closed as a redirect to Donald J Drumpf, because that is now a redirect. It won't be closed as a redirect to Donald Trump because only a handful of people support that redirect, and most of the ones who don't think that redirecting it there violates policy. That leaves redirection to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) as the only viable option. And you have another recently closed discussion on top of it. I'd note that I did not vote on the issue of whether Donald Drumpf should be redirected to Donald Trump, to Donald J Drumpf, or to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). I'd also note that, at one point, Donald Drumpf was both a redirect and a disambiguation, which I felt needed to be resolved as quickly as possible, especially considering the volume of traffic to the page. p b p 20:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one thing I forgot: even though it only ran for 4 1/2 days, it had over 20 participants. p b p 21:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest speedy close of this DRV: :You know, Wikipedia gets a black eye whenever a redirect is RfDed or DRVed, because people who are using it can't get where they're going. This is especially troublesome on a highly-viewed redirect. Shame on User:Steel1943 for extending this process for one minute longer than when the outcome was clear, let alone one week. p b p 20:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplebackpack89: You have seemed to forget that the purpose of DRV is to ensure that the community agrees with your close, specifically the circumstances that led you to close the discussion under the WP:IAR circumstances which you did. I don't agree with how you closed the discussion, but hope that consensus can be formed on your close in a timely manner no matter which way the discussion sways. Yeah, DRV is basically the "last stand" when there is a disagreement such as this, but I hope that this disagreement between the two of us can be resolved rather quickly by the community. Steel1943 (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: If I thought it was even remotely possible that the community en masse would disagree with the outcome I concluded, I would not have closed it. Your DRV is particularly problematic in that it doesn't weigh in as to whether the outcome was correct or not. Instead, your DRV focuses almost entirely on procedure. If the correct outcome was reached, even with incorrect procedure, the outcome (which I might add isn't deletion) is almost always endorsed. p b p 21:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplebackpack89: Actually, I did question your closing outcome as well ("...opinions regarding a possible new target vary and are split.") Steel1943 (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplebackpack89: procedure can be important. I suggest to you that if you followed the procedure that we would not be here right now. There was no good reason to close it early and it is a legitimate complaint. I am endorsing this closure, however I don't find this DRV to be out of line whatsoever. HighInBC 16:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closer: This close was incredibly classy, the best, all the editors I know were very very impressed by it. This is the type of DRV we simply do not need, and I feel the "early" close was within the range of appropriate discretion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Revert close and Relist - Three issues with the close: The closure was early (WP:RFD/AI), the closure was especially inappropriate for a non-administrator (WP:BADNAC/WP:NACD), and the discussion shouldn't be closed by an involved party who has even !voted (WP:INVOLVED/WP:CLOSE). Discussion was ongoing. There are circumstances where an early close is allowed, this isn't one of them (WP:RFD/AI again). I recommended a revert to the closer on their talk page, and as was pointed out there, I even voted in concurrence with the outcome of the close. If Steel1943 hadn't raised this issue, I would have (I actually considered raising the issue at WP:ANI last night with the hope of a speedy revert of the close as an administrator has that prerogative when it comes to a nac). The argument that the outcome of the close was correct only holds water if it is unreasonable to think the consensus could've changed if the standard time remaining had been allowed to pass. There was enough variance and shifting circumstances around the discussion that it should have be left open for the full time (new opinions may arrive and those already participating may realign). —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still say if you have no problem with the outcome, you shouldn't bother with a DRV. I will maintain to my dying day that the vast majority of admins wouldn't have closed it any differently. You mention the circumstances changing; I accounted for that (by essentially counting votes for Donald J Drumpf and Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) as votes for the same thing). Since nearly of the votes in the last 48 hours of the RfD were to one of these two pages, it made perfectly good sense to me. p b p 22:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplebackpack89: In response to your response to Godsy's comment above. See, here's the thing: When it comes to the fact that I brought this discussion to DRV, I couldn't care any less about how your assessment of the discussion's consensus in your close coincides with my personal opinion about what should happen to the nominated page. (Godsy may possibly share this opinion, given their statement that they were going to bring a discussion about your close to WP:ANI.) This DRV discussion is here because you have essentially invoked WP:IAR to counteract three separate guidelines regarding closing discussions. My concern (and probably Godsy's) is that you closed a discussion improperly, not because your closing result was right or wrong, but because your opinion that the circumstances of the discussion allowed for you to close the discussion when you did (and for that matter, at all) are questionable. Steel1943 (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: If your concern is less the outcome and more my behavior, you are at the wrong forum. This is a forum for discussing outcomes. If you want to discuss my behavior, try here instead. p b p 00:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplebackpack89: The outcome of that discussion was that it was closed by someone who I believed should not have closed it for the reasons I have already stated. I asked you if you would reopen the discussion: You said you would not. Thus, we are now here. Steel1943 (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously no support to delete. Not a deletion matter. Resume discussion on the best target on the redirect talk page, at Talk:Donald Drumpf. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are not for determining targets of redirects: that's what WP:RFD is for ... and that's the type of discussion's close that's being discussed here. This comment is a rather interesting bit of circular, confusing, misleading bureaucracy. Steel1943 (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Steel1943, you are mistaken. Altering the target of a redirect should be discussed on its talk page. RfD is for deletions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: Discussions for redirect target changes and redirect deletions are both purposes of discussions at RFD, now that it is "Redirects for discussion" rather than "Redirects for deletion". If RFD still had the old name, I would agree with you. Steel1943 (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Makes sense, since redirects will be retargeted a lot. Incidentally, when was the name change? I don't see a record of it. Still, DRV is for reviewing deletions and deletion processes, and as there is no deletion involved here, it is out of scope for DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: Prior to the RFD, it redirected to Donald Trump. It redirects to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) now. p b p 15:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: The point is that it would never have been closed as delete, by me or by anybody. SmokeyJoe's comment is somewhat of a vindication of what I've been saying, namely that this is a place to discuss whether it was wrong to close something as keep or not. p b p 00:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, pbp, partly at least. The discussion showed a consensus to keep. A note on decorum at WP:DRV. It is your close being reviewed. You should make a statement, and answer questions, but should not be badgering or bludgeoning. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2) @Purplebackpack89: I'm quite aware of what SmokeyJoe meant by their comment, but thank you for adding your personal spin on things. If you have a issue with the fact that this is essentially the only venue to post a discussion for an XFD discussion when the close is contested (even if deletion is not suggested anywhere), I would recommend going to Wikipedia talk:Deletion review and posting a move request so that this venue can be renamed. Steel1943 (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The creation of the article itself is beyond ridiculous (Never Mind). Who would possibly believe that this topic would be remotely important enough to deserve its own Wikipedia article? At most, the article would be a stub, with no more than ten sentences total. Delete this article, have some common sense, people. --TheFancyFedoraWielder (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TheFancyFedoraWielder: This isn't an article; this is a redirect. Donald J Drumpf was once an article, but was deleted and is now redirected...to the same place this article is redirected, Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). p b p 01:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TheFancyFedoraWielder: I was about to tell you something similar to what Purplebackpack89 just informed you, but they beat me to it. Steel1943 (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: I'm sorry then, I didn't read deep into this... --TheFancyFedoraWielder (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eyh, this DRV is why early closes and SNOW closes are usually bad ideas; if this had just been allowed to run to its conclusion, it would have been dealt with much quicker than is going to be the case now. Probably the existing close will stick, as it was the direction the discussion was inevitably moving towards. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

IMO, that's on Steel1943 for it taking so long. This entire DRV is ridiculous, disruptive and should be closed immediately. There is no way the RfD was going to get closed any other way than the way I closed it. There is no way this DRV is going to overturn it. Steel1943 is way too hung up on process and seems to be willing to waste a lot of other peoples' times to make some sort of point about it. p b p 15:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplebackpack89: Changes were still happening with the related pages. That, and I don't feel like I need to repeat for a third time the three reasons why you closing the discussion is questionable ... and itself disruptive enough to have at least two editors (including myself) want your close overturned. Steel1943 (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: The whole "Changes were still happening" argument holds no water at all, because:

The discussion was closed after the Donald J Drumpf AfD was closed (by an admin) as merge
Because that discussion was closed, there was really only one way to close this discussion.

And I hate to repeat it, but if the closure is correct but the closer is wrong, it is a waste of time to have a DRV. DRV isn't about chastising closers, it's about changing outcomes. Except for this DRV, which is about you wasting a lot of mine and other peoples' times because you want to teach me some sort of lesson or make some sort of point. Be the better man and withdraw this DRV p b p 15:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplebackpack89: I find it rather amazing that you are accusing me of "wasting a lot of ... [time]" when you were actually the one who intiated this "waste of time". Let's do the math here. If you had just reopened the discussion like Godsy and I requested on your talk page (after you closed the discussion only 4 1/2 days after it was opened, I might add,) the RFD would have probably have been closed after the 7-day period had elapsed. Instead, you chose not to reopen the discussion, resulting in this DRV. So, here's the timeline you chose for this: Instead of the RFD playing itself out after the 7-day period, if you add the 4 1/2 days the RFD discussion was open, plus the 7 days this DRV will be open before it will be closed, plus the 7 days the RFD will have to be open again if the result of this DRV is to "overturn", the RFD will have to be relisted, which will require it to be open for another 7 days. So, right there, that's a grand total of 18 1/2 days ... and a whole 11 1/2 of those days could have been avoided if you had just reopened the discussion as asked. Steel1943 (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand @Steel1943:, 14 days could have been avoided if you hadn't started this. 14 > 11 1/2. 7 days of your 11 1/2 will be avoided as you will not have a consensus to relist. And you will not get a consensus to relist because you have not provided one iota of evidence that a closure different from the way I closed it was ever going to be in the cards. Stop being disruptive. p b p 16:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Purplebackpack89: What's disruptive (apparently based on your last statement) is your lack of ability to know when you should not take an non-admin administrative action, especially when this DRV is a direct result of you refusing to reopen the RFD (since, after all, Wikipedia is a community-focused project.) And as already proven, if I hadn't opened this DRV, some other action would have still happened in response to your questionable close. At this point, the quickest way to get this off both of our plates is for you to reopen the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Purplebackpack89: ...And about your inquiry for me to "prove it could have been closed differently." Yes, it could have been closed by an uninvolved administrator after the RFD's 7-day recommended discussion time. I have already stated a few times in this discussion that my concern isn't your assessment of the consensus (I honestly couldn't care less about that), but the fact that you WP:IAR'ed three separate guidelines that went against you closing the discussion and when you did. I think that this discussion should not have been IAR closed in the matter which you closed it, or for that matter, IAR'ed at all. Steel1943 (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a different outcome. A different outcome would have been if the closer had deleted it, turned it into a disambiguation page, or redirected it to Donald Trump. The reason I closed early was because I consider it unlikely that it would've been redirected anywhere else. p b p 17:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close While the full 7 days should have been allowed to occur, there is no doubt in my mind that this would have ended up the same way. While the closure was premature I see no reason to overturn it. HighInBC 16:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's something about US presidential elections that seems to drop Wikipedia discussions over the event horizon into a black hole made of pure, 180-proof stupid. I'm going to use some of the most emphatic language I've ever used in the seven years I've been a regular at deletion review, and I make the following very strong statement with all due forethought: I have never seen a case that so thoroughly satisfied WP:DRVPURPOSE point #5. It is completely impossible for deletion review to endorse an early snow close by a non-admin who participated in the debate. We have absolutely no choice except to overturn this. I express no view on whether it would be appropriate for an uninvolved sysop to snow close the debate, but this close simply cannot stand.—S Marshall T/C 17:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for the part where you prove that it could have been closed with the result being different than mine, @S Marshall:. The fact is, it would have been closed the exact same way had it run its course, and you, like Steel1943, have not proven otherwise. p b p 17:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Castle Point Anime Convention – Recreation allowed. – Sandstein 10:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Castle Point Anime Convention (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) The AFD was five years ago, and since then the event has gotten larger (almost tripled in size according to the website) and gained more third-party news coverage. I believe the event might be notable enough and have enough reliable sources to have its article restored (or at least rewritten in some form, since I cannot see what was deleted). — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 05:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] What's here for DRV? It was a pretty straightforward deletion which hasn't resulted in protection, so if you think an article can be written that meets the standards, then please go ahead and write it. If you really need the text of the original article back (which I can't see why you would assume you would since as you say a lot can change in 5 years) then WP:REFUND to userfy or indeed any friendly admin should be able to do that for you --82.14.37.32 (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Maybe I misunderstood policy then. I didn't realize DRV was not needed. I guess this can just be closed and I'll work on rewriting it? — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 20:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Absolutely you can, as I said if you want the original text then WP:USERFY is an option to work on it before moving back to mainspace. Or as SmokeyJoe says it can be restored into mainspace if it's going to be promptly improved (there are plenty of people with itchy fingers who will likely list it for CSD or AFD if it doesn't get improved) --82.14.37.32 (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Awesome. I'd probably opt for userfication until I can get the article into a better state, since I'd imagine the old article will either be completely useless or really outdated. At least in the latter case I'll have something to go off of. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 21:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Enough has changed. Allow recreation or undelete in mainspace to be promptly improved. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] allow recreation. If anyone then wants to challenge it , they can. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Castle Point Anime Convention – Recreation allowed. – Sandstein 10:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The AFD was five years ago, and since then the event has gotten larger (almost tripled in size according to the website) and gained more third-party news coverage. I believe the event might be notable enough and have enough reliable sources to have its article restored (or at least rewritten in some form, since I cannot see what was deleted). — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 05:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's here for DRV? It was a pretty straightforward deletion which hasn't resulted in protection, so if you think an article can be written that meets the standards, then please go ahead and write it. If you really need the text of the original article back (which I can't see why you would assume you would since as you say a lot can change in 5 years) then WP:REFUND to userfy or indeed any friendly admin should be able to do that for you --82.14.37.32 (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I misunderstood policy then. I didn't realize DRV was not needed. I guess this can just be closed and I'll work on rewriting it? — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 20:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Absolutely you can, as I said if you want the original text then WP:USERFY is an option to work on it before moving back to mainspace. Or as SmokeyJoe says it can be restored into mainspace if it's going to be promptly improved (there are plenty of people with itchy fingers who will likely list it for CSD or AFD if it doesn't get improved) --82.14.37.32 (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Awesome. I'd probably opt for userfication until I can get the article into a better state, since I'd imagine the old article will either be completely useless or really outdated. At least in the latter case I'll have something to go off of. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 21:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Enough has changed. Allow recreation or undelete in mainspace to be promptly improved. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
allow recreation. If anyone then wants to challenge it , they can. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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