Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2011/December

Time limit on review
Came across an article that had a previous AfD which was closed as no consensus, IMO a strange decision by the closing admin, the AfD was closed in May this year, would a deletion review be appropriate or would a second AfD be the best option? Mo ainm ~Talk  16:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * After more than a couple of months it's probably better to just relist the article for discussion at AfD. It is rarely worthwhile to list a "No Consensus" close at DRV.  Waiting and starting a new AfD, which is probably what DRV will recommend, is usually better.  There is no hard and fast time limit on successive AfD listings, but over 6 months is unlikely to spark much opposition unless the article has been listed multiple times already.  Eluchil404 (talk) 11:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

What should be done about a disputed merge summary?
At Talk:Climate_change_alarmism the merge template put in by the admin closing Articles for deletion/Climate change alarmism (2nd nomination) was removed and there is a bit of a dispute about it all. What should be done where the article is not deleted but the close of merge is disputed please? Dmcq (talk) 12:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have decided to raise this as a deletion review. Dmcq (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 December 2. Flatscan (talk) 05:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Improving_AFD_debates
Appreciate any comments/opinions on this. I have asked Snottywong if snotbot can compile a list of the 20 most active AFD closers/relisteres to get them interested in this. Spartaz Humbug! 11:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Is a DRV appropriate?
More of a procedural question. This AfD had a messy close. Initially User:Tom Morris closed as delete, following several comments on his talk page he re-opened it. Then User:Causa sui closed it as keep on the basis that it should have been taken to DRV rather than a second nomination. After explaining the second nomination arose from the discovery that the group OccupyMarines claimed a relationship with wikipedia it was changed to no consensus. I don't consider either admin as being at fault here.

Rather the problem is that the AfD was subjected to on and off-wiki canvassing with the call going out on Facebook to save the wikipedia page, there was also adversial discussions with some fairly unpleasant accusations levelled at wikipedia's editors. Any admin who stepped into such an environment would be extremely brave indeed.

So at the moment we have an article dedicated to what is effectively a non-notable group, maintained on wikipedia by a vocal and aggressive campaign, with wikipedia used to raise the profile of a non-notable group. I have prepared a DRV here but I'm really wondering if its appropriate. I would appreciate some independent comment as I'm in somewhat of a dilemma here. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The actual relevant debate over the article subject at AfD was whether it met WP:GNG. Reasonable people disagreed and reviewed the sources, and a no consensus close was appropriate and wholly within the close admin's discretion.  Thus I think a DRV would be pointless.  I know you feel strongly about this article, so please think hard before starting this.  What you see as grave problems are everyday affairs here.--Milowent • hasspoken  21:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Its not the article I feel strongly about, its the abuse of wikipedia for promotional purposes I object to. Not to mention the claim to be working with wikipedia.  Wee Curry Monster talk 22:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Renominate at AfD in two months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)