Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 February 21#Template:Infobox medical condition

:{{DRV links|Template:Infobox medical condition|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_22#Template:Infobox_medical_condition|article=}}

The TfD closed as merge, but the reality of the situation obsoleted the outcome. Discussions on Template talk:Infobox disease are going forward constructively and have more input than the original TfD. Vacating the mandate to merge will ease going forward with improving the involved templates Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse. Perfectly reasonable summation of the discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
• Yes vacate the merge. Was only one support to merge during the disussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_22#Template:Infobox_medical_condition] with one support to delete. Unclear how merge become consensus in the first place. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
• To clarify Delete the old Template:Infobox medical condition and replace it with the old Template:Infobox disease which has already been done. There was never consensus for the use of the old Template:infobox medical condition. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I'll whisper endorse because the close was within discretion, particularly when prolonged TfD discussions involve tagging templates in a way that is so annoying to readers. However, consensus decisions being reached now should not be constrained by TfD discussions in the past. In this case allow the template to be recreated, if that is helpful. Thincat (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
• Yes vacate the merge. Agree with comment above by {{u|Doc James}}, appears to have been quite a thin basis to close on that rationale based upon that degree of participation in the discussion. — Cirt (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• Unmerge. The discussion is still going on constructively; the close may have beech technically correct, but it seems it was premature. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• I think you've made a mistake here (or I have and don't understand your comment), the TFD closed 18 monnths ago, the current ongoing discussion only started 5 days ago. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• There is nothing to unmerge; the merge of the two templates was reverted. The matter is still in dispute. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
• The decision seems fine to me, one person says explicitly merge, the others say that the template should be replaced by the ultimate target of the "merge", it seems splitting hairs to say the close was wrong since only one person said merge, the only other possible outcome from that discussion was a replace and redirect, which if there was nothing to merge would be the effect of merge anyway. Even if it had been a straight delete outcome, in all cases we'd be here now with this discussion. If things are moving forward on the discussion elsewhere a new consensus to restructure the templates can emerge making this required again, the original TFD doesn't constrain that. So endorse the original outcome, but let the new discussion form a new consensus --86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• I originally had similar thoughts, as a merge can be discussed on the template's talk page, but the discussion is going way beyond the merge, so undoing the merge may actually simplify discussion, at this point. —PCUser talk:PC-XT

:::# It was decided that Template:Infobox medical condition was to be merged into Template:Infobox disease.

:::# So, Andy redirected Template:Infobox medical condition to Template:Infobox disease and added the former's parameters to the latter.

:::# His additions were reverted twice by User:Doc James. Other contributors to the template were in agreement with the Doc.

:::# Therefore, the merge could no longer proceed, and Martijn asked for the merge decision to be overturned, which would mean that the (original) Template:Infobox medical condition would have to be reinstated.

:::# In the meantime, a RM was initiated at Template talk:Infobox disease.

:::# User:MSGJ deleted the template under discussion and moved Template:Infobox disease in its place, as per the RM outcome. Alakzi (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I think this DRV may have reached a condition in which palliative care is indicated. Could someone call a doctor? Thincat (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Apologies if I have complicated this matter further. I acted on the apparent clear consensus for a move to Template:Infobox medical condition. Nothing I read here or on the template's talk page suggested that this would obstruct any of the options currently being considered for this template. Is anyone actually still arguing that there should be two separate templates? One was redirected to the other on Jan 16, more than a month ago, and was not reverted. Anyway I am happy to revert, but perhaps it would be safer to wait until this discussion is closed to avoid unnecessary log entries. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

::What you did was fine User:MSGJ. There is no discussion regarding having two separate templates. Support is to move the template to the name you moved it too. Discussion is ongoing regarding changing this one template. Lots of work is required before these changes take place though, including developing consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

:::Sure there is a discussion regarding having two separate templates. This, for example, is a discussion regarding having two separate templates. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Matthew_T._Ryan|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew_T._Ryan|article=}}

This biographical article was clearly mostly written by the subject of the article himself. He doesn't even try to hide it, with the username being "mayormatt51" which happens to be his former title (mayor), first name (matt) and his birth year. The article is CLEARLY biased in favor of the subject, leaving out any negative aspect of his two terms, including a 60% increase in violent crime in just 8 years, and an increase in poverty and unemployment greater than the state of national average. He also has had no media coverage outside of the city. The only thing quoted in the previous deletion discussions would be that he was mayor during two floods and a mass shooting in the city. But aside from a brief quote, he was never mentioned in any articles or news broadcasts regarding those incidents. He certainly had no accomplishments that ever merited national news. Or a Wikipedia article. In fact, the only times he may have been mentioned outside his city media was when he tried to donate Binghamton city drinking water (against the wishes of the Binghamton residents) to residents of a city in a different state (Pennsylvania) whom he felt were "victims" of fracking. And ironically, there is no mention of that in the biography since it made him look bad when the residents of that city told him to go to hell and he had to take the water back him with his tail between his legs. Actually, it is not ironic at all that the Wiki bio doesn't mention that since it was negative and again...Matt Ryan wrote the article HIMSELF, making sure to leave out anything negative. If that is not grounds for deletion, then what is? Lakawak (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse this isn't afd round 2, being written by the subject may indeed lead to a problematic article (such as not being NPOV), but it isn't a deletion criteria. The problems caused by that can be fixed by further editing. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
• Speedy Endorse - The AfD was in 2009, for goodness' sake. As much as anything else, that renders this 5.5-year-late DRV as being completely invalid - particularly as Lakawak had not edited in five years before raising this! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
• I have stubbified the article, taking care of Lakawak's entirely valid concerns. Even the historical versions of the article were problematic. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Muhammad_Sex_Simulator_2015|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad_Sex_Simulator_2015|article=}}

Regardless of the outcome, there was no consensus, so it should not have had a non-admin closing the debate. The issue at hand is whether 3 sources on the issue establish notability, not WP:Censorship or otherwise. Magedq (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

:I have addressed the concerns on my talk page already, and linked to them from the AfD. In short, the clear consensus at the AfD was that the sources given did establish notability. ansh666 03:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse It's difficult for me to see how this could be closed as anything but a clear consensus to keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse - The signature on the close ain't important when the close is transparently right. WilyD 14:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse, and strongly suggest that those who didn't get their way drop the stick. There were far fewer delete votes for starters (discounting all SPA voters here, but then, those were generally voting keep), and of those votes, one had nothing to do with Wikipedia policy at all, one of them was a misinterpretation of policy, and the remaining votes were out-of-date, as more coverage was found and they specifically referred to a lack of sources. This is one of the clearest consensuses in any AfD that had delete votes, and this DRV is just a waste of time. Asserting "no consensus" is just lame, and downright misrepresentative. It's a pretty strong sign that the article should be kept when a (weak) delete voter changes their vote to keep, and no-one else goes the other way. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here)
• Endorse. After reading over the AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015, it appears the closer correctly assessed a clear consensus to Keep. — Cirt (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse - and remind participants that not liking the outcome is not the same thing as there being something wrong with the close. You're entitled to disagree with the outcome in perpetuity, but that doesn't make the outcome wrong. It just means you were on a different page to the majority of the community and that's nothing the closer can assist with. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• If it would make the nominator happy, I would be pleased to vacate the non-admin close and reclose the AFD myself, also as keep. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• Well, (1) it definitely should not have been closed by a non-admin and (2) it should have been called "no consensus", not "keep" (while there are no binding precedents, calling it "keep" has more of an effect of discouraging a possible future AFD than calling it "no consensus" does - since it was clearly no consensus, not a consensus to keep, it should be called "no consensus"). I could go for relist or keep kept but wet trout the non-admin who closed it. --B (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
• Ok, I don't mean to be hostile, but why would this be no consensus? I understand that you would have supported deletion, but put that aside and assess the consensus as if it were something else. Several other uninvolved admins have vouched that the close was on the mark. ansh666 02:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
• Throw out the SPAs and the invalid arguments (like "Strong Delete -This article is against religion faith") and counting heads, I see 7 keep and 6 {delete or userfy or Sam Walton, who didn't !vote, but opined in English that based on the available sources, it should be deleted}. Sure, we don't resolve things just by counting heads alone, but there's no way that's a consensus. --B (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
• Userfy isn't really delete, IMO, and Sam said he would !vote delete if sources were provided, which they were. The other deletes didn't take into account the additional sources introduced, and one was based on a wrong reason (WP:TOOSOON). Plus, the last half of comments is a generally good indicator of which way consensus is going in cases like this - for this one keep. ansh666 06:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

:*I'm going to be blunt. Closing it as no consensus requires a spectacular disregard of most guidelines and policy. Why? Because most of the delete votes were not even remotely policy based. We do not go on weight of numbers, we go on the weight of the votes. One vote (Njam22's) was nowhere near being policy based. Hirolovesswords' vote wasn't policy based either, since we're not discussing an event. Magedq's was out of date, but was policy based. Ditto Edison. FreeKnowledgeCreator never gave any rationale whatsoever. Also, where did you get 7 keeps from? I see BrxBrx, myself, Gamaliel, Soetermans (who changed to keep), Eddymason, Thibbs (weak), Dezidor, Lurkaccount, Kymako, and Hans Adler. That's 10. Now, some of those aren't great votes either (Gamaliel, lurkaccount), but on sheer strength of votes, the consensus is blindingly obvious. Relisting the debate based on a clear consensus like that would be both POINTy, and a total waste of time. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)