Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 July 5

List of NCAA Division III independents football records


I'm not sure what should be done here. If the closer really felt that the keep votes should have been discounted as mentioned and that there was "a clear consensus to delete", then it should be deleted. The given merge target was only suggested by one person and thus feels like a supervote. Moreover, the given target very clearly won't support the giant off-topic stats dump that this would bring to it. As desperate as relists can be sometimes, maybe that would be better here to get some more eyes on this. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment as the closer: if the appellant isn't sure what should be done, what is the remedy being sought here? When Delete is a valid outcome, and the content isn't in violation of policy, then both Redirect and Merge are valid alternatives. My use of "selective merge" in the result makes it clear there is no intention to include all, or even any of the content in the target, which may simply degenerate into a Redirect. The choice of what, if any, to merge is an editorial--not an administrative--one. There's no harm in relisting, and I had likely done so myself had the appellant contacted me directly prior to filing this DRV. But as said, it's not clear this is what they want, and I don't believe an outright deletion is correct with a valid ATD. Owen&times;  &#9742;  13:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was being generous with the relist suggestion. ATD doesn't require that you avoid a "delete" outcome if it's called for. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * True, ATD doesn't require avoiding deletion, it merely allows it, and I exercised my prerogative to pick an ATD that was minimally destructive. If you are arguing for deletion, as you now seem to be, please show us which part of the article's content violates policy to the point where it requires deletion. Owen&times; &#9742;  14:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse-ish, I personally would have closed it as N/C, but a merger is an editorial action and not an admin one so it's one anyone could have taken, including OwenX following the close. While there wasn't support for retention as a standalone, nor was there a case that the information needed removal-just relocation. I don't see this as a super vote so there's nothing wrong with the close which certainly falls within closer discretion. Star   Mississippi  14:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Overturn - not a single participant !voted "merge". This wasn't a close, it was a super vote. Absolutely unacceptable close. Sergecross73   msg me  17:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you may have missed Jweiss' unbolded merge suggestion (I did too at first) Star   Mississippi  17:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I saw that. But it wasn't even their preferred stance, let alone the consensus of the discussion on a whole. Sergecross73   msg me  17:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse. The closing statement correctly dismissed the keep votes, which were primarily based in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, showing a policy-based consensus to not keep the standalone article. Merging was suggested by one user and there was no stated opposition to a merge from the delete voters.  Frank   Anchor  02:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Overturn (to Redirect, with history available to optionally merge‎ to NCAA Division III independent schools). Unless the closer immediately performs the merge.  AfD consensus to merge requires a strong proponent of the merge who has a plan for how to do the merge.  Leaving the article with that tag on top is a pretty poor presentation to readers.  AfD should not be used as an alternative to Requested merges but with imaginary fairies who will complete the merge.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse. It doesn't matter. AfD "redirect" (the usual "redirect" outcome whereby history remains accessible) and "merge" are the same. If the outcome is "redirect" the content from history can be copied, and if someone does that, that will constitute a merger. If the outcome is "merge" and the page is not initially replaced with a redirect, the would-be performer of the suggested merge can decide to replace the page with a redirect saying "there's noting to merge after all, as this content according to my independent editorial judgement does not belong on the suggested target page". The latter can be followed by someone copying all or some of the content from history and adding it to the suggested target article, and this can be contested by reverting that addition, and that makes for a regular content dispute which is resolved by identifying the minimum of transferable items, and through incremental editing. No need for a DRV.—Alalch E. 21:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It does matter. “Redirect” means the page is no longer live.  “Merge” means that the page remains as before, except with a variation of a mergeto tag, indefinitely.  The “Merge” result is functionally the same as a “No consensus” result.  If it was a “no consensus”, it should be closed as “no consensus”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How is it functionally the same as "no consensus", when, in the end, an AfD "merge" equally turns the page into a redirect as the "redirect" outcome, with the only difference that there is not a set time for doing it after closure and tagging. But there is a general expectation that it will be done. It's not like someone can say "okay, well, this shouldn't be merged after all, in my opinion, so I will remove the merging tag, and the AfD should be interpreted as a 'no consensus' discussion from now on"; or: they can unilaterally remove the tag but only if something significant is done with the content while the page is tagged, which is claimed to address the cause for the AfD's outcome -- equivalent to how an article can be restored from a redirect, given a reasonable effort, which can be contested in a new AfD. —Alalch E. 22:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * “Merge” doesn’t turn the page into a redirect. It leaves the page as it was but with a new tag on top. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Which has to resolve into the page being turned into a redirect. It can't resolve into the status quo ante with the article staying the same as it was sans tag. (It can however, resolve into the article being relevantly changed and kept, which is the same as restoring the article from a redirect; that's a rarer scenario, not the primarily intended thing to happen.) —Alalch E. 23:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it does not have to resolve. And with not a single editor having expressed a wish to do the merge, it was a bad close. I read a consensus as per by bold !vote. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If I do a zero-byte merger now by copying the content over to the target article and self-reverting and redirecting the source article (one way to do it; another way would be to say in the summary at the source article: "redirect - nothing to merge as none of this content makes the target article better, and no one else has identified any such content"), that redirection can't simply be undone, and has the same status as a redirection from a "redirect" AfD. —Alalch E. 23:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You could do that zero byte merge, but it would be an independent editorial action. It would not reflect the close and could be reverted at any time on that basis. A zero byte merge is called a redirect, and the close does not say redirect. The Keep or Merge !voter, or anyone agreeing with them, would be justified in reverting you. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A merger is at least two actions, one on each side. Anything that happens at the target side is an independent editorial action but the redirection at the source article isn't: the page stops being a live article per the AfD consensus that the page should not be retained as a standalone page; that's one part of the "merge" outcome. That part of the merger is fixed. The variable part is what exactly happens to the target article. That's the area of normal editorial decision-making. The editor unhappy with what if anything was merged can make the desired changes themselves by copying the content over from history under the redirect and by simply editing it. There's never a need to undo the redirection. —Alalch E. 12:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Relist – I intend to participate – or overturn to no consensus and allow renomination. Closing as merge was a WP:Supervote (essay) with aspects of both "Forced-compromise" and "Left-field".
 * The AfD was relisted once, and two relists are permitted by WP:Deletion process (guideline, shortcut WP:RELIST).
 * As 35.139.154.158 and Sergecross73 wrote above, Jweiss11 suggested merging without justification or bolding. The recommendations of WP:Merge what? (essay) were not followed.
 * Since OwenX gave merge extra weight, I expect them to have checked that it was reasonable or, in their words, "valid". I skimmed the articles and identified obvious issues in two minutes, and I confirmed them in a few minutes more.
 * List of NCAA Division III independents football records is a historical list of season records going back to 1973. Very few schools are included in recent years: 2024, 2023, and 2022 each list one or two teams.
 * NCAA Division III independent schools is the current list of independent schools. The Football section contains only Maine Maritime Academy, which is highlighted in pink because it will join the Commonwealth Coast Conference in 2025. No records are included for any sport. There is a historical list of former full (all sports) independents under Former members.
 * A comprehensive merge would create WP:WEIGHT (shortcut to WP:Neutral point of view, policy) problems. Merging only 2024 would have the same problems, only less pronounced.
 * If no content is merged, I believe the redirect would be deleted at WP:Redirects for discussion as "not mentioned at target".
 * If the merge outcome is not overturned, a merge discussion to reject merging the content and another deletion discussion will be required.
 * Deleting List of NCAA Division III independents football records has a low cost, as recreating it from scratch would be easy. It's boilerplate and transcluded Category:NCAA Division III football independents standings templates formatted in a table. Side note: template transclusions are not creative content requiring attribution per WP:Copying within Wikipedia (guideline, shortcut WP:NOATT).
 * Flatscan (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Two follow-up comments:
 * This is Jweiss11's recommendation at the AfD: Keep per Thetreesarespeakingtome. At the very least, this article could be merged to NCAA Division III independent schools. It includes no details beyond the destination's title and makes no argument for merging, so it should be given very little weight toward a merge outcome.
 * Regarding WP:Deletion policy (policy, shortcut WP:ATD), I wrote a policy and consensus analysis that Alternatives to deletion are not preferred over deletion in July 2022. There have been subsequent discussions, but no material policy changes.
 * Flatscan (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse Admins making ATD decisions consistent with the points made, rather than bolded !votes, in a discussion are not supervoting. They're doing their policy-based job by determining the rough consensus. Jclemens (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse - As Jclemens says, Merge is a valid alternative to deletion based on the comments in the AFD. It is true, as SmokeyJoe implies, that Merge can be a problematic ATD because it leaves the merging to be done by gnomes.  (We don't know whether to believe in fairies, but we know that gnomes are very real and do a lot of useful work.)  That is, closing admins are given an option that can be incomplete.  That is a policy issue that doesn't need to prevent admins from following standard closing instructions and selecting Merge.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Relist (or overturn to redirect) - there is no explanation for how anything other than a "zero-byte merge" would be appropriate. A merge isn't just a "compromise" between keep and delete, it is actively making a different article worse, in a way not considered by discussion participants. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Relist or overturn to delete - although in general I think closers should be able to implement reasonable ATDs, merging here is not desirable because the content would be undue for the target, and a redirect would violate WP:RASTONISH. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 17:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Overturn and delete. Supervote. WP:ATD is not a carte blanche to ignore a consensus, and merge closure is effectively equivalent to keep because nobody actually performs the merge. Stifle (talk) 11:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Relist or overturn to delete (involved). This is a supervote as others have already mentioned. WP:ATD does not override other notability guidelines since editing does not address the reasons for deletion, the merge wasn't even the first option of the one user who suggested it, and it is problematic as is per the points made by Flatscan. Let&#39;srun (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)