Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Pretty Nose (2nd nomination)

Close?
Opened this up given its place at Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs. you indicated 6 days ago you were going to close. Are you still doing that? you placed a closing template 4 days ago. Was that for DGG or are you contemplating your own close? I haven't read this AfD as it seems long and if one or two sysops are already ready to close it, why spend the time. However, I'm unclear about what the status of this AfD is. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * as mentioned elsewhere,  there are personal reasons for the delay., e.e my first grandchild was born two days ago. I may get back to earth enough to do it tonight or tomorrow. This is intended as a relatively extensive close, discussing the whole range of issues;   DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , how wonderful! Congratulations. However, I don't quite understand why this needs an extensive close and to the extent that it does I'm not sure why it would need to be you as the closer as opposed to some other UNINVOLVED admin who works AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I needs a fairly detailed close because many assertions were made concerning what is our policy, and since a close is based on the consensus of policy-based arguments, it is necessary to discuss which ones are correct; the reason for waiting for me is that I have it mostly written in my head, and I mainly need to set it down.  DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I certainly understand prewriting in your head - I do that too. 16 days isn't an inordinate amount of time for an AfD to be open, but waiting on a close for 7 days is. Given the tenor of conversation today I think it needs action sooner rather than later. I certainly want to respect the energy, time, and thought, you've put in already, however, out of respect for the participants and for the sake of comity, I don't think you have to be the closer. I have not read this discussion all the way through, but if it's open tomorrow when I look at AfDs (which is generally about this time) will likely do so with an eye to closing it. I might read it and discover I'm not the right closer (as happened with another overdue AfD) but that's my plan. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I put the closing template on there because I saw DGG's comments that a close was forthcoming. I don't intend to close it myself. can you clarify your intentions with this AfD?  ‑Scottywong | [soliloquize] ||  23:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * He did. You accidentally erased it with your reply :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops! My bad. ‑Scottywong | [confabulate] ||  18:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Like most people, I react very poorly to being hounded to finish something I should have finished earlier. It tends to awaken atavistic feelings.
 * I would have closed as Move to draft for repurposing as "Photograph of Pretty Nose". However, instead of challenging the close, I adjusted the wording of the article to match the existing close, which said "there is a consensus that the information in the article is verifiable. " I removed a key phrase on which there was certainly not consensus from the lede, and treated it the way not just oral but all primary sources should be treated at Wikipedia--included it in the article, with an indication of the source. Those who want to believe it accurate can do so; those who think it has never been verified by anything oral or otherwise contemporaneous to the event can think that. Wikipedia  should not be making judgements about the actual events of history. The only judgements should be those made either by reliable secondary sources or by the reader themselves.
 * There was an alternative close I considered, and could have done immediately: Close as technical non consensus on the basis of unacceptable arguments that contaminated rational discussion. Allow reopening, with a warning that actual or implied charges of racism are against the code of conduct. Or I could simply have blocked those making such charges for NPA, because they are the sort of attacks for which no warning is needed. But I would not have considered it correct to both block and close.
 * I had another choice to make just now. Instead of editing the article to reflect the close, I perhaps should have blocked those who had made such charges. But I can't do that and also edit the article. I'm one of the admin who take this sort of limitation seriously.
 * I'm  asking everyone involved to not involve me further for this or related articles.  DGG ( talk ) 07:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)