Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:40, 9 May 2019

Revision as of 17:47, 9 May 2019

Line 95:

===There was no strong consensus against recreation===

# [[Special:Permalink/881753320|The first AfD, after 9 hours]] (in February), was 6 keeps and 1 redirect, but it was not speedy closed.

# Consensus that an article should not be recreated does not mean consensus that an article should ''never'' be recreated. In the right circumstances, it is not "going against consensus" to later recreate articles; articles recreation is normal, and we have policies for how it's done.

# [[Special:Permalink/881753320|The first AfD, after 9 hours]], was 6 keeps and 1 redirect, but it was not speedy closed.

# [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 11#Clarice Phelps|The first DRV]] was endorsed, but had !votes like "sad endorse" or "reluctant endorse", and comments that while a delete close was within discretion, a no-consensus or keep close would also have been within discretion.

# [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarice Phelps (2nd nomination)|The second AfD]] (in April) was speedy closed after 9 hours. It had two keep !votes and one userfy vote, plus my request for undeletion of the first article so it could be compared to the recreated article before !voting. The second AfD was started by the same editor as the first AfD and closed by the same admin, who salted the article.

# [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 May 1#Clarice Phelps|The second DRV]] was also endorsed and the closer wrote "{{tq|There is no explicit consensus about whether the protection against recreation ('salting') was appropriate.}}"

# The second DRV was started ''after'' this case request.

==Evidence presented by Winged Blades of Godric==