Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 February 4

4 February 2016

Plowback retained earnings

Plowback retained earnings (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe the closing administrator interpreted the consensus incorrectly and I would like to request that his/her closure be reviewed.

The way I see it, there was a clear consensus to delete. The arguments in favor of deletion clearly outweighed the ones against it. The redirect was determined to be in violation of our policy on page names. It was recognized as a nonsensical misnomer that has never been used outside Wikipedia and that escapes WP:R3 on nothing but a technicality. It was also noted that the redirect's existence cannot be justified using any of the generally accepted reasons for keeping and maintaining redirects. These arguments were not addressed by those in favor of keeping the redirect; rather, they were simply disregarded in a manner akin to covering one's ears and pretending not to hear what is being said, which is largely consistent with what occurred during the redirect's previous two RfDs.

Another problematic thing about the closure, which in my opinion should warrant the discussion's relisting on its own, is that it was performed by an administrator who had also closed the previous discussion of that redirect.[1] This is not the first time this has happened; a similar problem occurred during Plowback retained earnings' previous RfD, which was also initially closed by an involved administrator, though a different one; the closure was taken to DRV and overturned, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 March 9. User:Deryck Chan clearly shouldn't have effectively repeated User:BDD's suboptimal action which was later on nullified by consensus.

Note: The matter was discussed with the closing administrator prior to the opening of this review, see User talk:Deryck Chan#Plowback retained earnings.

Note: There were two previous DRVs of two other discussions related to the Plowback retained earnings redirect; they're not directly relevant to the matter currently under discussion, but, should anyone wish to review them, they can be found here and here. Iaritmioawp (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Overturn The closing administrator clearly failed to consider the strength of the arguments used during the discussion; it would seem s/he simply counted the number of "votes" on each side of the argument without considering the merits of the comments that followed them; such is in direct violation of what WP:CONSENSUS would have him/her do. Iaritmioawp (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Note: This editor is the nominator and creator of this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Comment: Here we go again. This is now the 3rd time this redirect has been nominated by the same nominator, and the 3rd that aforementioned nominator didn't like the close result (yes, didn't like; the fact that this is the 3rd DRV for this proves, to me, the lack of the nominator liking the result.) As stated above, the situation regarding the previous two nominations is why BDD basically had to avoid this one completely. In my very honest opinion, this DRV should be speedy closed and the nominator/DRV creator should be WP:TROUT-ed for this disruption. (Also, the nominator seemed to recently take an almost-year long break from editing Wikipedia ... and what was essentially the first thing they did? Yes, nominated this redirect again. This editor seems to now have some sort of WP:SPA mentality with this redirect.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)