Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 9

:{{DRV links|Template:Infobox spacecraft|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 20#Template:Infobox spacecraft|article=}}

Closer voted !delete in this TfD. However, he also relisted and closed as delete this discussion. So this closure is in questions and violates WP:INVOLVED. I did not leave messages/discuss about this on his talk page. Because there is already a DRV about his closure which opened today Hhkohh (talk) 08:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• Just note Gonnym is a nom of this TfD Hhkohh (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse - Two editors opposing deletion - one claiming it is still being used, which is a non-argument, as the proposal was to replace current uses with another template. The second opposed as it wasn't stated by the user adding the deprecation notice, why it was done. I found the discussion that resulted in consensus for that decision but the editor opposing ignored my finding (he commented later on that same discussion). A pretty much non-controversial closure, which was re-listed twice and the second didn't get any other comments. --Gonnym (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• {{ping|Gonnym}} I think we should leave other editors close it not by himself. He is an involved editor. No matter whether the outcome is keep or delete, he should not close the discussion Hhkohh (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• {{ping|Gonnym}} You should read WP:INVOLVED. Closure is an administrative action. So WP:INVOLVED applies here Hhkohh (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• I'd probably leave it for other people to close, but I'd also never close any disscussion as I just don't want to deal with any backlash of any kind. There is enough drama even from regular editing. However, if you want to get technical, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions does not mention WP:INVOLVED. Maybe it should, but currently it doesn't. Also, I don't appreciate using Wikipedia bureaucratic tools as a means for warring with another editor, which to me seems to be the case, after he yesterday took you here, you opened two cases against him. --Gonnym (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• {{ping|Gonnym}} Per WP:NACD: {{tq|Do not close discussions in which you have offered an opinion, or for a page in which you have a vested interest (i.e. a page that you have edited heavily).}} So he is still not allowed to close this TfD Hhkohh (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn. WP:INVOLVED is fundamental (and a policy). Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions is a helpful guide for people who understand all the policies and guidelines which inform the actions they're about to take. Zackmann commented in the discussion; even if he were an administrator it would be improper for him to then close it. While we're on the subject, he shouldn't have relisted it either. I wouldn't consider that discussion a good candidate for NACD either. Mackensen (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn and WP:TROUT. I don't work with TfD much, so I don't know what culture has developed there, but this looks like one of the worst WP:NAC's I've seen. It violates WP:INVOLVED (regardless of whether the closer is an admin or not), and violates WP:NCD in multiple ways. The close should be reverted, and left for an uninvolved admin to re-close. I'd revert the close myself, but not being a TfD regular, I'm not sure what the right process is to do that.

::I see that WP:NAC#Templates for discussion allows NACs at TfD to be closed as delete. But, still. WP:INVOLVED is pretty basic. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn closing a discussion that you participated in with the result you advocated is blatantly inappropriate and clearly violates WP:INVOLVED and WP:NACD. Relisting it was also not a good idea. An admin closer would be expected to know this and frankly if you consider yourself experienced enough to close these discussions then you should know it as well. Hut 8.5 21:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn Clear bright-line violations here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Template:Nippon Professional Draft by year|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 23|article=}}

:{{DRV links|Template:NGC Series banknotes and coins|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 23|article=}}

:{{DRV links|Template:Philippine peso NGC coins|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 23|article=}}

:{{DRV links|Template:Philippine peso NGC bills|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 23|article=}}

:{{DRV links|Template:Philippine Piso NGC series|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 23|article=}}

The closer has supervoted as WP:NENAN in Template:Nippon Professional Draft by year discussion while closing and even commented in one discussion in a discussion and then closed those discussions. Since he is involved, he should not close those discussions by himself Hhkohh (talk) 05:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• See also WT:TFD (Frietjes and Primefac raised this concern), closer has replyed there, but he did not unclose it Hhkohh (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• {{ping|Frietjes|Primefac}} Hhkohh (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• Those discussions have one !keep vote separately. Additionally, for example, in Template:NGC Series banknotes and coins, closer commented {{tq|your comments on this and other TFDs show you are completely missing the point. No one is saying to delete the content, there is just no reason for there to be a template. Place the image and the link on the one article in question directly, no reason for a template.}}. That is regarded that you give your own opinion in TfD. Therefore, it is WP:INVOLVED case Hhkohh (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn at least Template:Nippon Professional Draft by year and probably all the others as well. Did you ask the closer to withdraw their close? Neither the nomination nor the keep argument had anything to do with what is said in WP:NENAN so that was an incorrect closing rationale. Anyway, NENAN is an essay (and, after its first sentence, a very poor essay) which does not mention deletion. In NENAN's (monstrous) navbox it is included under "construction" – it is offering an opinion on how navboxes could be constructed and used, not how they should be deleted. If used at all, NENAN should be a starting point for discussion about a template, not a conclusion. Thincat (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• :I've only now looked at the 8 March DRV for Template:Puke and I see there has been irresponsible behaviour at TFD. That aspect is outside the purview of DRV and may make any policy-based deletion review impossible. Thincat (talk) 07:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• :Ah, seeing {{U|Hhkohh}}'s later comment above, the matter was discussed. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ATemplates_for_discussion&type=revision&diff=886182073&oldid=885980898 Here] is the best diff I can provide. Thincat (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• overturn the Template:Nippon Professional Draft by year discussion. in the other cases, the content was kept (just merged with the article), so I don't see this as serious of an issue. Frietjes (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn all of them. Inappropriate non-admin closure. Only one editor expressed an opinion and it was directly contrary to the close. Consensus was not reached in any of these discussions. Mackensen (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• Re-open As the closer I agree that this should be reopened for further discussion. Should be noted that {{u|Hhkohh}} made NO attempt to contact me and ask me to reopen the discussion or withdraw my closure. This is also clear retaliation for me opening a DRV against their closure which is pretty lame. That being said, if others feel this should be re-opened, I have no issue with that. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn as above. In particular, Template:NGC_Series_banknotes_and_coins, which has the closer commenting in the discussion, with a clear opinion on the matter, then closing 24 hours later. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)