Procedural close - There is an RFC in progress which is functioning as a deletion or inclusion discussion. Deletion review should not be held when there is a de novo deletion discussion in progress, whether by a new AFD or by an RFC. Let the RFC run. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think a recital of the history here is in order.
Where does that leave us? I don't think there can be any reasonable suggestion that the AFD was closed improperly. The redirects are uncontroversial, albeit I would say from rather unlikely search terms. The talk page RFC is tending towards leaving the matter as-is, that is to say, covering the offending tornadoes in Tornadoes of 2023. I cannot foresee what this discussion will conclude, but my recommendation is that we endorse Liz's closure of the AFD and refer Elijahandskip to WP:STICK. I am minded to nominate the two above-mentioned redirects for deletion as implausible search terms with no merge history, but I will leave that particular task for a week or two until everything has calmed down. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Stifle: One important detail was left out. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Canvassing at an AfD, which is an ongoing AN/I. It started on a seperate page, but this AfD was mentioned in the article and was requested to basically be “redone” over canvassing concerns. The (no longer RfC) is doing that. Basically, the AfD is invalid and void. The procedural close makes sense as we should wait for the outcome of the discussion. Either way, a formality deletion review will have to chance the outcome over canvassing concerns. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the missing detail. I disagree with the conclusion that "the AFD is invalid and void" and maintain my previous recommendation. Stifle (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse this request seems rather exaggerated. The linked ANI discussion is about another AfD which it was claimed was canvassed. This AfD was only referenced in passing in one comment which said that people who contributed to the other AfD also contributed to this one. There was no actual accusation of canvassing, much less any evidence. The AfD couldn't have been closed as anything other than Delete or Redirect as nobody supported any other outcome, and it doesn't look like anybody else has since. Hut 8.517:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close because the nominator does not materially challenge the delete outcome, considering that the situation of "deleted but contested" translates to nothing other than 'delete'. If there was canvassing but the proper outcome would still have been to delete, according to the nominator, there's nothing to discuss in this DRV. —Alalch E.18:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think I understand the purpose of this review if Elijahandskip initiated this deletion review. You voted "Delete" in the AFD and the AFD was closed as a consensus to "Delete". What are your objections to a close that was in line with the opinions you expressed in the discussion? Are you saying that you've changed your mind and now want a different result? That doesn't nullify the consensus that came out of this particular discussion. I don't see how you can say the close was improper. I am usually not defensive about AFD closures I've made and am very open to relisting or reviewing decisions I've made. But I don't understand the basis for your objection here.
I will say that I've read about half of the comments on that ANI thread but I'm not sure of how that discussion relates to the closure of this particular AFD discussion. Usually reviews lead to reverts if there was an error in assessing consensus but I don't think that is in question here even if you are now no longer happy with the results of this AFD or you now disagree with the reason that an article was nominated. LizRead!Talk!07:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
