- Pet Smart (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
- Previous discussion: Wikipedia:ANI#Inappropriate AfD closure
Kinu (talk · contribs) has closed this Afd as delete ([1], log), after he voted for the deletion of the article. According to WP:NotEarly AfDs should be closed by "uninvolved (i.e. one who has not participated in the deletion discussion) admin or editor". And he was cleary involved. Other concern is that this Afd was open for just 92 minutes and was snowed after just 3 delete votes (without the nomination). Armbrust Talk Contribs 17:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted per WP:CHILD, WP:SNOW, and WP:NOTBUR. Obviously doesn't meet inclusion criteria. It's an article about a book written by a minor published by a DIY/vanity press. No reliable sources. –xenotalk 17:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Yes it was out of process but I'll only !vote to overturn an out of process deletion if it can be shown that the outcome had any real prospect of being different had the process been followed properly. I'm not seeing that here. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per Mkativerata. Any other outcome would have been objectively unreasonable, so involved administrator closure, while it is an appropriate cause for outside review of the closure, isn't inappropriate. Jclemens (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't see the article, but assuming it was a valid speedy, this is fine. If it wasn't, I'd !vote to overturn. Hobit (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Xeno's description of the deleted content is accurate. The same account also wrote a (largely empty bar some templates) biography for the book's author in another article, which was also speedily deleted. I'm being circumspect in naming that second article because the deleted content in both articles identified this living person as a minor — not in a problematic way, I add, but entirely without any sources at all. Uncle G (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist if this wasn't closed as a speedy (and per closing admin's comments it wasn't) I A) don't know that WP:SNOW was the best call here so quickly and B) don't think that it should be closed by an admin after commenting. Is it notable? I very much doubt it, but a full discussion might yield something, that's why we have them. Hobit (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kinu came close to breaking the spirit of the rules about uninvolved action, but I don't think he did. It looks like on continued investigation, he reviewed his !vote in favour of the close. I suggest that in such a case, he should strick his !vote. No slap required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, but with a due sense of mild exasperation. It's out of process deletion, and I can't condone that, but at the same time it was a mercy killing and the discussion was clearly not going to go any other way. I would suggest to the deleting admin that it's usually a good idea to wait more than 90 minutes before mashing delete on articles like this. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Relist and let it be closed properly ss delete by someone else. The article is about an self-published novel with zero holdings in worldcat and no discernable references to it. The closing was so blatantly improper that endorsing it sends the wrong message. The closing admin didnt break just the spirit of the rules, he broke the letter--and quite unnecessarily, for any other admin would have closed it in the obvious way. It was not a valid speedy candidate: it was speedied as A3 and A7. There is no reason to think it does not exist & is consequently not a hoax, or nonsense, or vandalism, and A7 does not apply to books, though it did apply to the article on the author. This is one of the basic rules, and it should not remain as the action on the record. DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: while I have chosen to recuse myself from this discussion, I do find it imperative to jump in and point out that none of the CSD criteria were cited in either my recommendation or my closing rationale. --Kinu t/c 18:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll note that my rationale was keep deleted rather than endorse. While I agree that the admin should not have been the one to close it, what's done is done and going through process for process sake doesn't seem like a good use of time. –xenotalk 14:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist, too early and inappropriate closure after commenting. Stifle (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
