This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Our DRV closing instructions allow WP:NAC, where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time. We had a recent WP:NAC which was objected to because it wasn't completely uncontroversial, but at 20 days old, it did meet the not been closed in good time requirement. Should we change the wording in the instructions to be patently obvious ... and ... not been closed in good time? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• We rarely have NACs here. I think the closer handled everything about perfectly. He was fine closing it per policy as written but didn't make a big deal out of it, which was generous. I support the language as written, but as always with NACs, bad closes can be overturned by an admin. This certainly wasn't one of those. Hobit (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Better to simply remove “where a discussion has not been closed in good time“. Old difficult discussions closed poorly by an NAC-er on the basis “it was old” is not good. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Eh, as always an admin can reclose or unclose a bad NAC. Hobit (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
    • True, but not a good idea to imply that the good advice of WP:NAC can be overcome due to the discussion being very old. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I don't really see that overriding said advice--it does link to it after all. But I can see your concern. Hobit (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• essentially we should not encourage nacs although admin closes can be more problematic and the issue is that a drv regular should close them. Roy does a fine job closing DRVs but I'd suggest that when he has commented on a drv one of the regulars holds back so they can close at the end of the discussion, admin or not we will get better closes that way. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Paradisus Judaeorum, renamed per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews is currently in discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 December, and may interest watchers here.Icewhiz (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)