Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 12

12 October 2020

Fiction set in the 21st century – Socks don't have standing to start DRVs.—S Marshall T/C 10:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
:Fiction set in the 21st century (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This article was written like a now-past fiction, which means a subject of time which is normally set in the 21st century between 2001 through 2100, which means a little of WP:FANCRUFT. The Houndsworth (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC) *I am not entirely sure what you are asking here, The Houndsworth, but as far as I can see the closer interpreted the consensus of the deletion discussion correctly and there are no procedural errors so I have to endorse the closure. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC) ::What about some science fiction works like 2001: A Space Odyssey, which is initially set in the year 2001, which looked like a past year in science fiction, so overturn. --The Houndsworth (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC) That’s not relevant to this discussion. Please see WP:DRVPURPOSE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Endorse the consensus was crystal clear and no way the AFD could have been legitimately closed any other way.--76.67.169.43 (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC) *Overturn it has no consensus between real or fantasy through the far future, for example, Harry Potter, Star Wars and Star Trek had different years in a same time. --The Houndsworth (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Endorse- It is completely unclear what the rationale for this DRV is, but the deletion discussion obviously had consensus to delete. Reyk YO! 08:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Endorse The deletion discussion had a clear consensus to delete, and I can't work out any policy-based reasons why this might not be the case from the nomination (or just generally.) SportingFlyer T·C 10:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Endorse. Per the comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Endorse no choice here. Lightburst (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I don't understand the nomination statement here. Could the nominator please clarify: on what grounds do you think we've reached the wrong outcome here?—S Marshall T/C 20:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Endorse the decision of the closer, but, like User:S Marshall and User:Malcolmxl5, I don't understand what the appellant is saying. About the only conclusions that I can draw are that the appellant is acting in mistaken good faith and that topic of the article is ambiguous. The ambiguity about the title of the article is certainly not a reason to overturn the deletion, but it might have been a reason for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Comment Added strike to text of banned or blocked SOCK editor. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Comment - Can this filing be administratively closed as something equivalent to G5, filed by a sockpuppet of a globally locked user? Purely disruptive nominations would seem to apply, but is there a rule specifically about block/ban evasion? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.