Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 June 30

30 June 2025

Vittorio Mancini (wrestler) – Closure endorsed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Vittorio Mancini (wrestler) (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Closed by a non admin as redirect, discussed here. I believe the consensus here is delete not redirect. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC) Pinging AfD participants: @Let'srun, @UtherSRG , @Gjb0zWxOb , @Kingsif LibStar (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC) Revert and delete - consensus was to delete. Closer should get a trout. I haven't checked, but if this is has happened before by them, upgrade the trout to a haddock and pban them from AFD. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC) This is not the only controversial close I have seen from this non-admin. While I believe they are working in good faith, I would encourage them to step back from closing close AfD's. Let'srun (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC) Endorse. Redirect is a valid ATD for Olympians and this outcome has occurred probably over a thousand times by this point. I don't see why this is necessary, or why it shouldn't be redirected. And suggesting the closer deserves a pban for this is utterly nonsensical. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC) Revert and delete (involved): Consensus was clear to delete the article based on a lack of significant coverage. Let'srun (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC) I would also be okay with a revert and relist. Let'srun (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2025 (UTC) Endorseish. No reason for not redirecting was articulated, so the outcome is correct. But a relist or an admin closure would both have been preferable to a borderline NAC. Jclemens (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC) Weak Endorse as per Jclemens, because this would have been a valid close by an admin. However, as a non-admin close, the optics are wrong. It looks like the non-admin is trying to make a close that they can make. A Relist, which they also can make, would have been more prudent. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC) Comment from closer: Unless someone can explain why the redirect is invalid, I see no policy-based reason to delete and then create a valid redirect. That is needlessly hiding page history and obstructing editors looking to re-create the article should the subject become notable in future. I would have closed this the same way even if I had the ability to delete, and I believe any responsible admin should have done the same. Toadspike [Talk] 06:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC) Since you are not an admin, you should not be making any controversial closures (especially since you couldn't close it as delete). There were 4 votes to delete while only one to redirect, so closing as redirect is effectively a supervote. The redirect vote came after the 4 delete votes, thus either a relist (to ask the other delete voters regarding how they felt about the proposed AtD) or a delete closure by an admin should have been the only considerations here. Let'srun (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC) Not so. There's no consensus for delete there, just a nose-counting plurality. That's not how a rough consensus works. Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC) Endorse Where a valid alternative to deletion is presented, it doesn't need to have the highest !vote count - any closer can determine that. Kingsif (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC) Endorse. Technically, this was a BADNAC, since deletion was a possible outcome, therefore it should have been left to an admin to close. That said, with a valid ATD proposed, those calling to delete must provide a compelling reason to erase the history, not merely outnumber the minority ATD !voter(s). I see no argument about the page history violating policy, nor any argument that would stand up at an RfD to remove this useful redirect. Toadspike shouldn't have closed this, but the close itself is correct. Owen× ☎ 09:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC) Shouldn't it have been relisted at the very least to ask the four delete voters how they felt about the AtD, especially since the redirect vote came very late in the discussion? Especially since, as you noted, this was a bad NAC? Let'srun (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC) Not necessarily, because consensus is not required to perform an ATD instead of deletion. If the four delete !voters strongly feel the ATD is inappropriate, then they are welcome to list the redirect at RFD. Frank Anchor 15:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC) @Let'srun: fair point; a relist would have also been acceptable. Personally, I don't see any valid reason to erase the history behind the redirect, but if any of the AfD participants (all of whom were pinged here) can see such a reason, they (or anyone) are welcome to present their argument here, or as Frank Anchor said, start an RfD. I see no harm in keeping the history behind the redirect in place while we debate this. BADNAC or not, I see no reason to undo a close just to redo it by an admin. While I respect the process, the correct outcome takes precedence. Owen× ☎ 16:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC) Sure, but that decision could have simply been made through a relist and (at least temporary) restoration of the article. It appears that the community wishes to endorse the close, and I respect that, but I hope that the closer understands WP:XFD#CON when closing discussions. Let'srun (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC) Endorse per the above. Redirects are pretty much standard for Olympians at this point and no compelling reason for deletion of the history was presented. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC) Endorse. No argument was made against redirecting and consensus is not required to use an WP:ATD as opposed to deletion. Frank Anchor 13:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC) Endorse. WP:ATD is policy, and the AfD nominator was at fault, failing WP:BEFORE for not explaining why a redirect should not be done. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC) Endorse probably best left to an admin, but absolutely the correct result. SportingFlyer T·C 15:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC) Endorse The close should have been left to an admin, but WP:ATD is policy. As OwenX says above "I see no argument about the page history violating policy," so there is no need to delete the underlying history. --Enos733 (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC) Endorse - not seeing the problem here. JMWt (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC) Endorse unless anyone can elaborate on why they need the history revdeled. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC) Endorse No delete !vote discussed why a redirect was inappropriate. If there is some reason, bring it to RfD. Hobit (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC) Endorse. I would have closed this as redirect, and I'm honestly pretty irritated to see people calling this a WP:BADNAC. Let non-admins do things they have the tools to do. -- asilvering (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC) Comment. With regards to this close being a WP:BADNAC,I didn't call it one in my initial comment above and I don't think it is one under policy, but it is a close that I probably wouldn't make myself as a non-admin and wouldn't really encourage other non-admins to make. Partly, that's because of the (unfair) criticism that comes with making even clear calls against pure numbers at AfD or non-admins exercising even correct judgement when deletion is a possible (but clearly inferior) alternative close, but mostly it's because closing this kind of discussion as a non-admin is actually often counter productive. It's bound to be challenged and brought to DRV even though you were perfectly correct, so closing it actually creates more administrative backlog than leaving it open for a admin to evaluate would. It is a frustrating part of wiki culture, but it is definitely real and worth understanding. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC) Endorse - Even speaking as someone who tends to disagree with "everything gets a redirect", I honestly don't see the point of this review. FOARP (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Vittorio Mancini (wrestler) – Closure endorsed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Closed by a non admin as redirect, discussed here. I believe the consensus here is delete not redirect. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Pinging AfD participants: @Let'srun, @UtherSRG , @Gjb0zWxOb , @Kingsif LibStar (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Revert and delete - consensus was to delete. Closer should get a trout. I haven't checked, but if this is has happened before by them, upgrade the trout to a haddock and pban them from AFD. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
This is not the only controversial close I have seen from this non-admin. While I believe they are working in good faith, I would encourage them to step back from closing close AfD's. Let'srun (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Endorse. Redirect is a valid ATD for Olympians and this outcome has occurred probably over a thousand times by this point. I don't see why this is necessary, or why it shouldn't be redirected. And suggesting the closer deserves a pban for this is utterly nonsensical. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Revert and delete (involved): Consensus was clear to delete the article based on a lack of significant coverage. Let'srun (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
I would also be okay with a revert and relist. Let'srun (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Endorseish. No reason for not redirecting was articulated, so the outcome is correct. But a relist or an admin closure would both have been preferable to a borderline NAC. Jclemens (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Weak Endorse as per Jclemens, because this would have been a valid close by an admin. However, as a non-admin close, the optics are wrong. It looks like the non-admin is trying to make a close that they can make. A Relist, which they also can make, would have been more prudent. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Comment from closer: Unless someone can explain why the redirect is invalid, I see no policy-based reason to delete and then create a valid redirect. That is needlessly hiding page history and obstructing editors looking to re-create the article should the subject become notable in future. I would have closed this the same way even if I had the ability to delete, and I believe any responsible admin should have done the same. Toadspike [Talk] 06:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Since you are not an admin, you should not be making any controversial closures (especially since you couldn't close it as delete). There were 4 votes to delete while only one to redirect, so closing as redirect is effectively a supervote. The redirect vote came after the 4 delete votes, thus either a relist (to ask the other delete voters regarding how they felt about the proposed AtD) or a delete closure by an admin should have been the only considerations here. Let'srun (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Not so. There's no consensus for delete there, just a nose-counting plurality. That's not how a rough consensus works. Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Endorse Where a valid alternative to deletion is presented, it doesn't need to have the highest !vote count - any closer can determine that. Kingsif (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Endorse. Technically, this was a BADNAC, since deletion was a possible outcome, therefore it should have been left to an admin to close. That said, with a valid ATD proposed, those calling to delete must provide a compelling reason to erase the history, not merely outnumber the minority ATD !voter(s). I see no argument about the page history violating policy, nor any argument that would stand up at an RfD to remove this useful redirect. Toadspike shouldn't have closed this, but the close itself is correct. Owen× ☎ 09:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Shouldn't it have been relisted at the very least to ask the four delete voters how they felt about the AtD, especially since the redirect vote came very late in the discussion? Especially since, as you noted, this was a bad NAC? Let'srun (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Not necessarily, because consensus is not required to perform an ATD instead of deletion. If the four delete !voters strongly feel the ATD is inappropriate, then they are welcome to list the redirect at RFD. Frank Anchor 15:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@Let'srun: fair point; a relist would have also been acceptable. Personally, I don't see any valid reason to erase the history behind the redirect, but if any of the AfD participants (all of whom were pinged here) can see such a reason, they (or anyone) are welcome to present their argument here, or as Frank Anchor said, start an RfD. I see no harm in keeping the history behind the redirect in place while we debate this. BADNAC or not, I see no reason to undo a close just to redo it by an admin. While I respect the process, the correct outcome takes precedence. Owen× ☎ 16:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Sure, but that decision could have simply been made through a relist and (at least temporary) restoration of the article. It appears that the community wishes to endorse the close, and I respect that, but I hope that the closer understands WP:XFD#CON when closing discussions. Let'srun (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Endorse per the above. Redirects are pretty much standard for Olympians at this point and no compelling reason for deletion of the history was presented. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Endorse. No argument was made against redirecting and consensus is not required to use an WP:ATD as opposed to deletion. Frank Anchor 13:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Endorse. WP:ATD is policy, and the AfD nominator was at fault, failing WP:BEFORE for not explaining why a redirect should not be done. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Endorse probably best left to an admin, but absolutely the correct result. SportingFlyer T·C 15:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Endorse The close should have been left to an admin, but WP:ATD is policy. As OwenX says above "I see no argument about the page history violating policy," so there is no need to delete the underlying history. --Enos733 (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Endorse - not seeing the problem here. JMWt (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Endorse unless anyone can elaborate on why they need the history revdeled. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Endorse No delete !vote discussed why a redirect was inappropriate. If there is some reason, bring it to RfD. Hobit (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Endorse. I would have closed this as redirect, and I'm honestly pretty irritated to see people calling this a WP:BADNAC. Let non-admins do things they have the tools to do. -- asilvering (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Comment. With regards to this close being a WP:BADNAC,I didn't call it one in my initial comment above and I don't think it is one under policy, but it is a close that I probably wouldn't make myself as a non-admin and wouldn't really encourage other non-admins to make. Partly, that's because of the (unfair) criticism that comes with making even clear calls against pure numbers at AfD or non-admins exercising even correct judgement when deletion is a possible (but clearly inferior) alternative close, but mostly it's because closing this kind of discussion as a non-admin is actually often counter productive. It's bound to be challenged and brought to DRV even though you were perfectly correct, so closing it actually creates more administrative backlog than leaving it open for a admin to evaluate would. It is a frustrating part of wiki culture, but it is definitely real and worth understanding. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Endorse - Even speaking as someone who tends to disagree with "everything gets a redirect", I honestly don't see the point of this review. FOARP (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.