Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2018/September

Reviewing a DRV close.
A parting question following the pisspoor close of the Kane Tanaka DRV and the failure of my attempt to get ANI to review that close,which got closed as not going anywhere. So, when a closer ignores canvassing and accepts personal attacks as valid contributions, how do we review a close and change it if it is clearly wrong? It doesn't feel right that there is no mechanism for that. Perhaps working that out will lead to at least one positive outcome from this whole debacle? Spartaz Humbug! 18:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have not heard of the DRV you are talking about but if you are alleging administrative misconduct, ANI/AN is the proper venue to get that reviewed. If something was discussed at ANI/AN and did not lead to any sanctions or reversals, ARBCOM is the logical next step. If you merely disagree with the outcome itself, you can start a new AFD to re-request deletion. So there are sufficient mechanisms in place imho. Regards So  Why  19:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * AfD, DRV, ANI. Thincat (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that AN/ANI is the logical next step after a DRV, although we should be grateful that it very rarely comes to that. This whole affair has been such a waste. Kane Tanaka stayed open weeks longer than it should have done, because it was very contentious and difficult, if not impossible, to close. I deliberately didn't attempt to do so myself because I'd previously closed Chiyo Miyako and gotten flak for it. With some discussions, the closing admin can't win: whatever call they make, someone will take it badly. In an ideal world, we'd recognise that no article is worth this level of aggravation, all cut our losses, and leave it be. Instead, we seem to have lost two highly valued editors over this trivial dispute. What a mess. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * While they can be appealed to AN, it rarely happens and it's even more rarely worth it. At that point you're requesting a review of the closure of a discussion which is itself a request to review the closure of a discussion. Sometimes these discussions don't go the way we want them to and the fact that Wikipedia has an article on this woman is hardly worth resigning over.  Hut 8.5  22:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)