List of REITs in Canada – Non-admin closure undone. To be reclosed by an administrator. People here disagree about whether there was consensus or whether this was a WP:BADNAC. That, in and of itself, is evidence that it was a BADNAC ("close call (...) or likely to be controversial"). Sandstein 21:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The closure meets WP:BADNAC as "the outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial". I am not even sure that this was a no consensus case, but at minimum this should re-closed by an admin. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn close This should have been deleted. The delete votes actually had substance based in policy. Praxidicae (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Looks more like a delete, especially if considering that the sole “keep” !voter has a 22% error on their AfD “keep” votes. [1] —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing after reading the comments below ...
I read a defensible consensus to delete. Rough consensus, not clear consensus. The nomination was strong and on point. User:SMcCandlish was being hypothetical and didn’t want to be there, and provides a very weak “keep (for now in the hope of a cleanup)”. User:Piotrus is on point with a simple strong “delete” !vote. User:Dream Focus gives a flawed “keep” rational reaching out to WP:CLN, but the list clearly fails CLN. Why should Wikipedia have a list of selected Canadian RIETs, a commercial directory, when they fail LISTN and the vast majority are not notable? See NOTDIR as per the nom statement. I’m not quite sure what User:Uhooep said, but he’s read the nomination and beyond and has not come up with a “keep”.
A “no consensus” is defensible, but it is not for an NAC to call.
If i were to have tried to close it, I’d have !voted instead. The closer’s WP:Supervote doesn’t even hint at a valid !voting rationale. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete per DRV nominatorJovanmilic97. As nominator of this AfD, I supported its deletion and hadn't followed it through to closing. --Doug MehusT·C 04:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think that's a reasonable close. SMcCandlish was advocating keeping the list and trying to improve it, which should be counted against deletion, so the numbers are 3 against 2. The main issue is how much value that list adds to the encyclopedia, which is mostly a judgement call. WP:LISTN does say that lists with recognised navigational value are often kept regardless of notability, so that isn't a knockdown argument. Most of the nomination is devoted to arguing that we should delete the list instead of addressing problems through editing, which contradicts WP:ATD. I don't think how often Dream Focus agrees with other people in general is relevant here. Overall I don't see a clear consensus for deletion. Hut 8.5 07:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hut 8.5, I think we need to avoid reading too much into SMcCandlish's position on the matter. I pinged him, in error, because of his expertise with respect lists and potential knowledge on what constitutes WP:LISTCRUFT, to which his response was more about declining to participate and questioning why he was pinged. So, we have to treat his comment as a neutral and/or procedural comment than anything else. We had three "delete" !votes with solid policy- and/or evidence-based rationales and only one "keep" !vote from Dream Focus, which seemed more of WP:VAGUEWAVE to me. To be perfectly honest, I think this is a clear cut example of a non-admin trying to good faith close an AfD log day by closing as "no consensus" since they can't close AfDs as "delete." It's frustrating to me when I can't close XfDs as "delete," but what I do then is add my !vote. In this case, it would've been more helpful for the AfD closer to have simply weighed in one way or another. If they had weighed in as a "keep," then we'd be closer to a "no consensus" close or a third relisting. If they had weighed in as "delete," we would've had near-unanimous "delete" consensus. Doug MehusT·C 14:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish did offer an opinion on the article in addition to discussing why he was pinged, and we should take that into account. You don't need to stick a bold !vote in front of your comment to participate in an AfD. I don't agree that the delete side offered "solid policy- and/or evidence-based rationales", certainly you'd have to agree that I feel putting blue linked articles into would be sufficient. Not every category needs to have a list doesn't articulate anything like that. This seems to be a case where some people think this list is encyclopedic (possibly after a bit of cleanup) and some people don't. That sounds like a no consensus to me. Hut 8.5 18:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hut 8.5 I know you don't have to bold your !votes and it's not a vote. I also took into account that SMcCandlish did offer somewhat of a soft opinion in one way, but in other deletion discussions in which I've seen him participate, he's pretty consistent about bolding his !votes where he has a strong opinion one way or another. His comment does suggest, to me, an indifference or, at minimum, not being particularly strong in favour of "keep." Regardless, even if you count him as a "keep," there were solid, grounded arguments, based largely on circumstance, non-precedent-setting evidence (which counts; deletion discussions do not need to cite a specific policy, particularly with respect to portals and lists, which are less grounded in policy). This was definitely not a "no consensus" close. Moreover, even if you wanted to weight SMcCandlish's and Dream Focus' opinions more heavily enough to consider this a borderline call, it shouldn't have been closed by a non-admin per WP:BADNAC. Doug MehusT·C 19:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus:, Your comment above, It's frustrating to me when I can't close XfDs as "delete," but what I do then is add my !vote caught my interest. Perhaps I'm reading more into that than you intended, but it sounds like you're confusing two entirely distinct roles: AfD closer and AfD participant. The job of a closer is to be entirely dispassionate and simply distill the comments of the participants. If you've formed enough of an opinion to add a !vote to the discussion, than you're probably not dispassionate enough to be executing a close at all. -- RoySmith(talk) 22:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: That's a good point, but to be clear, when closing, I haven't formed an opinion or if I have an opinion, I set that aside. I'm sure many non-involved closers have had opinions on a particular discussion but simply set those opinions aside. I know there's a Wikipedia essay, which is what I was referring to, that offers suggestions to avoid certain pitfalls as a non-admin closing, and one of those is to simply give it more thought and form an opinion and weigh on. Hope that clarifies. Doug MehusT·C 22:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dmehus - Maybe I need to read the above interchange a third time, but I find the apparent willingness either to !vote Delete or to close the XFD as Delete to be troubling, just as User:RoySmith did, and I don't think that you have addressed his concerns satisfactorily. We have just had a DRV in which it was alleged that an editor had refrained from !voting Keep so that they could "stick a fork in it" and close it as Keep. It sounds as though you are willing to close an XFD as Delete or to !vote Delete. I am not an administrator and maybe should not express an opinion, but I perceive an involvement problem. It is not enough that justice be done. It must also appear that justice is being done. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, thank you for your response. I'm not suggesting that I would close a discussion in which I've already formed a strong opinion one way or another. Per WP:BADNAC and related essays, where a deletion discussion is close or otherwise needs administrator involvement, I stay away from it, just as this non-admin closer should've done. Hope that clarifies. --Doug MehusT·C 23:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, to add to what I've said above, I think in re-reading what I've written above, it's not clear what I meant. It sounded like what I meant is that if I had formed an opinion one way or another, I would either close (assuming there was clear consensus to do so) or !vote. That's not what I meant, if that's how it came across. What I meant is...in the course of reading through a deletion discussion, obviously, one has thoughts in either direction but one has not yet formally made up their mind or taken a position. I think that's fine. Where it's a close call, though, per WP:BADNAC and related guidance essays, I would personally opt to either (a) not participate or (b) formulate a position in one way or another. While I contemplated closing, since I hadn't yet taken a formal position in one direction, I don't see involvement here and, crucially, I did the right thing in leaving for an administrator to close. Moreover, I do not close TfDs as "delete" as I've been kindly asked not to do so until I've developed a better understanding on the process. Other XfDs, as far as I am aware, cannot be closed as "delete" by non-admins. So what I'm saying is, since there was a rough consensus (a good phrasing) as you say below, to "delete," the editor should've just left it or, if they had not formed a position, they could've weighed in per the established guidance essays. This is not to say the closing editor had been involved in some way or had formed a position in...I'm not suggesting that at all, I'm just saying that they shouldn't have closed because there was a rough consensus (to borrow your phrasing) to "delete" and it appears to me they were trying to be helpful in a good faith attempt to help clear AfD backlog, which only made things worse in necessitating this DRV. Doug MehusT·C 00:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate close I think this is more of a delete conversation than a no consensus, but I think both are possibly valid outcomes depending on how SMcCandlish's comment is read. It's not a terrible close, but WP:BADNAC applies, and I think this should be vacated and re-closed by an administrator. SportingFlyerT·C 10:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate Close - There appeared to be a rough consensus to Delete. Since No Consensus was a contentious close, this was a case where a non-admin should have left the close alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I disagree with the comment by User:SmokeyJoe. Inclusionists are people too and have the right to hold minority opinions both in order to influence other editors and in order to shift consensus. (Stubborn deletionists have the same right.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
not sure what this is in reference to but the closer is not an inclusionist, they’re really bad at AFD. Praxidicae (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Praxidicae - User:SmokeyJoe may have been discounting the Keep !vote by User:DreamFocus, and provided a table from the XFD analysis tool showing that DreamFocus frequently votes Keep on pages that are Deleted. I wasn't referring to the closer. The closer is a different issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus provided a very dubious keep rationale, 12 blue links. He failed to mention what a low proportion that is. For a list to be justified as a navigation page, WP:CLS, it needs all items to be bluelinked, with some allowance for red links. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, thank you for mentioning that. Lists, like navboxes, should be predominantly blue links (with you a few red links for potentially notable organizations or corporations) as that is their primary aid—for navigation. As this was created predominantly from a listing of the TSX's Listed Company Directory for REITs, with a few private REITs like Skyline which have no prospect of notability, there's nothing in this article worth keeping. Moreover, I did do a check for similar lists of REITs in other countries, and I think there was only one other one that was not inordinately long and which could be merged and renamed. Given the few blue links of this article, I see no reason for keeping this bulleted list, which isn't even in a table format or anything that couldn't easily be re-added to a combined list in the span of five minutes. In many respects, it reminds of the bot-created portals of years ago that I've been told about. Doug MehusT·C 16:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate so an admin can close this as keep or no consensus. The nomination and deletes all suggest if the list is pruned down to its blue links slight copy editing could put it into a fit state; SMcCandlish and the keep voter likewise. However, I generally support the idea that the closer should accept how people boldly !voted rather than the implication of their comments so the close was controversial. Thincat (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thincat I'm not sure how an administrator could reasonably re-close that AfD as "no consensus," let alone "keep." Looking at the AfD discussion, the "deletes" had both the numbers and, crucially, the stronger argument(s). Moreover, even if this list were pruned down to the blue linked articles, some of which have questionable notability as to whether they meet WP:GNG and/or WP:CORPDEPTH, you still have to consider that we generally don't maintain country-specific lists of real estate investment trusts. It's possible we could boldly "merge" the contents of this list into a single, global list of blue-linked real estate investment trusts, but given the potential copyright violations of this list being literally a predominantly cut-and-paste listing of the TSX's Listed Company Directory for the real estate investment trusts sector, I see no reason to preserve attribution in this case. So, you're right that the close should be vacated, but I have to completely disagree with your proposed remedy. Doug MehusT·C 16:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, I just considered your AFD nomination and then used our policies and guidelines to draw a conclusion. So it's a good thing I've never closed an AFD! Thincat (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we didn't do credentialism on Wikipedia? The wisdom of Solomon isn't one of the tools that sysops get when they pass RfA. We have sysops who're children, or who admit to closing important discussions while under the influence. We also have non-sysops who consistently display all the necessary qualities for closing XfDs, and I think it's unwise and un-Wikipedian to have a chilling effect on this. This outcome should be overturned if-and-only-if it was wrongly closed. Whether the closer has passed the popularity contest at RfA is not a good basis for overturning.
And, I don't think you can show it was wrongly closed. SMcCandlish's contribution is coherent, succinct and well-argued but does not include a pithy word in bold. It shouldn't need to. He clearly means "keep and clean up per WP:SAL".
Dream Focus is a highly inclusionist editor who's never knowingly voted to delete anything, and he does often show poor judgment at AfD, but that doesn't mean "always ignore Dream Focus". In this case he's come up with a solid rationale based on WP:CLN.
I would say that Uhooep's "delete" !vote is not deserving of any great weight. It's not based on any kind of policy, it's a simple statement of opinion.
Even giving full weight to DMehus and Piotrus, I'm still unable to find a "delete" consensus in that debate. Endorse.—S MarshallT/C 16:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall, You may not have been directing your comment about credentialism towards me, but I think those that have called for the close to be vacated and closed by an administrator are just referencing WP:BADNAC, which advises that editors are well-advised to avoid closing borderline calls. If you consider this AfD to have been borderline no consensus/delete, then that's an accurate DRV recommendation, no? No one is suggesting that Nnadigoodluck hasn't made some positive AfD contributions and even closes, but given the parallel discussion at ANI in which Nnadigoodluck literally did the research by referencing all of his closes, most of which were questionable or incorrect, there is merit to the argument that he at least needs to be restricted from closing or relisting AfDs pending a re-reading of the closing and consensus policies. It's true that SMcCandlish or anyone else doesn't need to have a bolded !vote, but SMcCandlish also mentions deletion as a possibility, including as a last resort. Given the potential copyright violations and that this list is just a simple bulleted list that could be re-created or merged, I see no reason to need to preserve attribution in this case. But, that's all a discussion for an AfD, not the procedurally-focused DRV. I'm still having trouble figuring how you could endorse this as an accurate close. In the same way one does not need to have a bolded !vote, how can you discount Uhooep's "delete" argument simply because they've not expressed their point as clearly or cited a specific wiki policy? As far as I'm aware, deletion discussions can cite policies, but they can also cite matters of common sense or circumstance-based evidence. Even in my own nomination for deletion, not being familiar with the keep/delete criteria for lists, which was my whole reason for pinging seasoned editor SMcCandlish for his expertise on lists even though he rarely edits corporation/organization articles, I cited general criteria re: navigation, usefulness, and potential copyright violations, rather than any specific policy. Doug MehusT·C 17:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. By what possible stretch of the imagination does this discussion look like a "delete"? The nominator randomly pinged two editors into the discussion, for unknown reasons, one of whom (after questioning why they were pinged) said this is basically a valid list but should be pruned down. The other of whom said delete, but with a rationale of "no companies there appear notable" - despite the rather obvious fact that many of the entries are blue links. After that there were two more !votes, also split between delete and keep, with the last delete saying "I feel putting blue linked articles into would be sufficient", which is actually basically another "keep but prune down" !vote. To be honest you could make a case for an outright "keep" here, but certainly at the very very least it's a no-consensus. I think there is a place for arguing WP:BADNAC, if it looks like the non-admin is out of their depth or the call is genuinely a line-call, but this isn't it and I think the closing line is perfectly defensible. S Marshall also makes some very good points above. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, did you see SmokeyJoe added to his original comment in this DRV with further explanation to his !vote? Dream Focus' application of WP:CLN was misapplied and flawed. Similarly, SmokeyJoe more succinctly, and in a better way, synthesizes SMcCandlish's views that it is not a strong "keep" case. The main focus of SMcCandlish's comment was questioning why he was pinged, which I neglected to answer with the Christmas holidays but it was because of his expertise with regard to lists, not because he edits regularly companies or organizations. I also think your interpretation of Uhooep's comment gives undo weight to a particular direction. It's definitely not a strong "keep". Sure participation was light, but as I said in the AfD, or at least I meant to say, we don't create lists of publicly-traded REITs anywhere on Wikipedia, which SmokeyJoe mentions in his added !vote rationale. We do have some "dynamic lists" of alphabetical listings of mostly blue-linked real estate oriented companies, such as List of real estate companies of Canada, so you could also argue this is an unnecessary content fork and a highly duplicative list. Doug MehusT·C 23:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Doug Mehus: sure, you could argue things like that, but it wasn't argued in the discussion and that's the only thing the closer has to go on when they close the discussion. I didn't say it's strong keep, but it's clearly somewhere on the border between no-consensus and weak-keep, given the discussion that transpired. I get that as the nominator you're disappointed with the result, but honestly it was the absolute correct close based on the debate that transpired, given that it had already been through three listing periods. My suggestion would be to prune down the list, concentrate it on companies that are clearly notable, and if you still think there is a case for a deletion, then come back with fresh evidence and fresh arguments in a few months. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, did you see my post 30 minutes before yours? Is your opening question directed at me? While of course “no consensus” is defensible, and I would not have closed as “delete”, because I think it was not ready to be closed, a LISTN-failing List article is not justified by CLN due to “many” blue links. A CLN list needs to be “basically all” blue links. Like a template or a category, you don’t populate it with non-articles. And when pruned of non-bluelinks, what’s left but a company directory? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: no, I wasn't intending to speak to you in particular. I was simply wondering why this was brought to DRV when there's pretty much no way the discussion could be interpreted as a consensus to delete. And yes, people can always !vote rather than close if they feel they have something to offer, but this discussion was ripe for closing as it had run for such a long time and it doesn't bother me that a non-admin made the obvious no-consensus call rather than an admin. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dmehus, as a matter for decorum, as AfD nominator, I recommend that you ease up on posting threaded arguments. Also, I recommend that you do not again ping selected individuals to your AfDs. It is canvassing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, oh it wasn't intended to be canvassing. I just pinged Uhooep because they hadn't been pinged yet, as far as I'm aware, and you were already here so was meant to be a courtesy. Nevertheless, since everyone has been pinged or is already here and likely monitoring this DRV, I will not ping anyone again, and will ease up replying to everyone as you suggest. It's not my intention to bludgeon every point made. Doug MehusT·C 23:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close I just got a ping to this. I see my name was mentioned throughout this discussion so someone should've told me. My rational was solid. There are enough blue links to articles, then the list article serves its purpose of being useful for navigation. One of the deletion votes was responding to a ping by the AFD nominator which as others have pointed out is canvasing, and the other delete vote was from someone who used an invalid argument which violates the English Wikipedia editing guideline of Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates which clearly states you don't delete a list because you prefer categories, or vice versa. DreamFocus 00:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, what I intended to type didn't display properly in the original AFD as I missed out an all important semicolon ":". I meant to write:
Endorse I don't see how you get anything other than NC out of this discussion. That fact that experienced editors seem to think there is a possible delete outcome surprises me, but I don't think it's reasonable for anyoneto expect any given closer to see that here. It looks like as clear a NC as you could get, and if a non-admin is going to close things as NC, this seems like a darn reasonable choice. Hobit (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – I think all the !votes deserve roughly equal weight, but I see the discussion as no consensus because there was very little attention paid to the point. Everybody was talking about the state of the article; much less was said about the notability of the topic. – Levivich 21:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich My understanding, though, is that list articles aren't governed by WP:Notability like articles are. They're primarily a navigation aid to existing blue-linked articles, with a small percentage allocated to redlinks. So, that's why notability wasn't discussed. As well, as Uhooep and others have noted, both in the original AfD and clarified in this DRV, it's highly duplicative. As it stands, we now have a list of Canadian REITs (most of which don't have articles because they aren't notable), a category of Canadian REITS (which serves the same purpose as the list), and a perfectly valid alphabetical list of Canadian real estate companies (which includes the REITs). --Doug MehusT·C 21:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: Well, not exactly. The WP:N guideline has a section about stand-alone lists, WP:NLIST aka WP:NOTESAL. This is not to be confused with our guideline about stand-alone lists, WP:SAL, and the part of SAL that would cover a list of REITs is WP:LISTCOMPANY. SAL also contains WP:LISTCRITERIA, which mentions aiding navigation as one possible purpose of a list, but not the only one. Two common LISTCRITERIA are the "complete list" (every known example is included on the list) and "notable list" (every entry is a blue link or could be). All of that is separate from yet another guideline we have (we have too many guidelines) about categories, lists, and templates, WP:CLT, which doesn't say "you shouldn't have a list if you have a category" (or vice versa), but basically says there are advantages and disadvantages to categories, lists, and nav templates, and editors will basically need to decide case-by-case which one(s) makes the most sense.
So, one delete !voter basically said delete because of lack of notable entries – well, that's not really a reason to delete a list, since we can have lists with no notable entries. A keep !voter said to keep because it has notable entries. Again, not really in and of itself to keep a list. Another delete !voter said not every category needs to have a list – that's true, but it doesn't address whether this category should or should not have a list. Smack made basically the same point I and others have made here (he gets credit for making it first)–which is that it may be possible to create a notable, policy-compliant list of Canadian REITs (perhaps only notable ones, or perhaps all of them), and that should be explored before deleting the list altogether. Your nomination statement was aimed more at critiquing the state of the article than eliminating the possibility that any proper list can be had at this topic. I happen to agree with you about your critiques, but if the list were changed to just notable entries only, it would answer almost all of your critiques...though it would also raise new questions that were not addressed (like whether the collection of notable Canadian REITs be listed on a list or in a navigation template).
Don't interpret "endorse close" to mean "endorse the list". It doesn't mean the list is fine as it is. It doesn't even mean the list should exist. It just means in that particular discussion no consensus was reached, and having been relisted twice, a no-consensus close was properly within a closer's discretion (even a NAC in this case, in my opinion). I would still think that the list could be–and should be–edited. Either a LISTCRITERIA discussion should be had on the talk page, and the list edited in accordance with the criteria, or perhaps even another nomination, but one that is focused on why we should not have any list about this topic (for example, if there are too many members to make it a "complete list" but not enough to justify a "notable list", or perhaps the category or a nav template would be preferable to a list for some reason). But as a no-consensus close, it can always be renominated. – Levivich 22:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, thank you for that exhaustive and thorough explanation on our many policies, some of which appear to contradict each other, on lists. I suspect Piotrus, the "delete" !voter who referenced notability policies, may have been referencing the notability policies because, like me, he had less knowledge with respect to lists. This is just my own supposition, of course, and he's most welcome to correct me, but it's certainly plausible. Nevertheless, I'm still not sure how it was a correct close, perhaps this could've been a case where an additional relist to bring in a more participants following the typically light Christmas holiday participation? I know it can be renominated, and probably should, as I really don't think it's necessary to have two lists Canadian REITs of essentially the same thing (most, if not all, are listed at the list of Canadian real estate companies. I could potentially see this list deleted and made a navbox of only notable blue-linked Canadian REITs (potentially titled Template:Canadian REITs), so regardless if this DRV decision is overturned and/or closed as delete or we have to go through a renomination, can I ping you for expertise and assistance in creating such a template? --Doug MehusT·C 22:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the invitation but I'll have to decline; I know about the policy pages, but I don't know anything about creating nav templates. – Levivich 23:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete in line with the clear consensus at the debate. Stifle (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Um, except there isn't one. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 12:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The premise here is entirely faulty; an NAC closing as no consensus is not controversial at all when there isn't a clear consensus, and in this case there is very clearly not a clear consensus, as it were. The respondents are about evenly split (yes, my !vote did qualify on the keep side, despite attempts above to dismiss it or reinterpret it; while I forgot to boldface the word, there's nothing ambiguous about "deletion as a last resort" only after two scope-limitation ideas are tried but do not work). And the claim that just one side has good policy arguments is obviously bogus. This really comes down to a judgement call (which is why the response was so split), and I stick by my original comment in the ANI. While there is clearly a potential for spammy abuse of an article like this, deletion is the last resort when we have at least two other resorts to try: First, limit the scope to encyclopedically worthy entries (i.e., they pass WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE) including some that don't pass WP:N muster for stand-alone articles; as an example, List of cat breeds takes this approach, and includes entries for some that don't merit their own articles (e.g., are covered in more but still stubby depth as entries at List of experimental cat breeds – RS are required to provide enough depth for encyclopedically meaningful coverage and evidence of encyclopedic importance). Second, if the first approach fails, explicitly limit inclusion to blue-linked notable entries (e.g. List of horse breeds does this, specifically to thwart commercial promotionalism of alleged new "breeds"). Dream Focus's observation in the original discussion is also important: there are at least a dozen bluelinks in the list already, so the list does already serve a navigation function, even if it needs cleanup to remove unencyclopedic entries. At any rate, the question before DRV is whether the close itself was faulty, either through procedure or assessment of consensus, and it definitely was not. If you just hate that this article exists, you can re-ANI it with a better deletion rationale, though expect the same objections to be raised. If we have not tried scope limitations first, I would expect another no consensus or even an outright keep. PS: I say all this as someone leaning toward the negative and suspicious side when it comes to business-entity, product, and service coverage on Wikipedia, as frequent magnets for promotionalism. If even I think this page has potential, then I think the bar to getting it deleted is higher than some people here think it is. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 12:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC); rev'd. 21:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further observation: In more closely reviewing the original !votes in the AfD, some curious facts emerge, and which matter a lot for this DRV: At least one if not both of the delete !votes are nullified by the facts pointed out by the second keep one, and there is a clear consensus to limit the scope to blue-linked entries. The first delete !vote, by Piotrus, offers only a single rationale, that "no companies there [in the list] appear notable". The second keep (after mine), by Dream Focus, directly disproves this statement, by noting the 12 bluelinks in it. That is, Piotrus's claim cannot possibly be true unless every single bluelink in it is bogus NN trash that should be deleted, and that's obviously not the case. Dream Focus also echoed my suggestion (no. 2 of 2) to constrain the scope to bluelinks only, which would also comport with Piotrus's concerns. Next, the second and only other delete, by Uhooep, has a grammar error and other ambiguity in it, but appears to offer a conditional delete, with "putting blue linked articles into would be sufficient", which seems to mean "putting [only] blue linked articles into [the list] would be sufficient"; and closes with the observation that not every category needs a list, which seems to mean in this context that this list is not needed if it's not bluelinks, because the category doesn't need to be supplemented with questionable non-notable listing of businesses, though it's not entirely clear. So, either this second delete is provisional and is also nullified by Dream Focus's and my idea (an apparently Piotrus-compliant idea) to constrain the list scope to notable entries, or Uhooep's input is too ambiguous to make sense of. In short, if the closer could be said to have erred at all, it would be in not closing with a consensus to keep, but limit scope to blue-linked, notable entries, but such an assessment might not actually be "NAC-certain" due to the inclarity of Uhooep's !vote. And I would not fault closer Nnadigoodluck for not having walked through this exact parsing chain. Even aside from the Uhooep clarity issue, the nullfication of Piotrus's sole delete-supporting claim it tied at 2–2, counting the nominator, Dmehus, as delete and counting (rather unreasonably) Uhooep as a pure delete despite what can be made out of that post. If the current DRV closes with an affirmative endorse or a no consensus that defaults to an effective endorse, I believe there is still a solid consensus to pare the list back to notable entries only, with that as a specifically stated inclusion criterion, since it would appear to satisfy the concerns of every AfD respondent other than the nominator (or possibly nom plus Uhooep). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 21:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: thanks, as always, for your reply both at DRV and the original AfD. I never got a chance to properly thank you for your comments on our list criteria when I pinged you. So, I appreciate that. Nevertheless, while I agree a non-admin can close as "no consensus," I disagree that this was the correct result in this case. I appreciate you clarifying that your comments were to be construed as a "keep" as opposed to just general, informational comments and helpful information on our list criteria; however, even when you factor you in your !vote, there's still no "no consensus" result. Perhaps some of the "delete" !votes were short on explanation, but they've since clarified what they meant in this DRV, so since Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy and notionally has no rules, I think we can comfortably take into account their expanded commentary here—just as we're taking into account your clarifying that your !vote can be construed as a "keep." The obvious original cut & paste from the TSX' Listed Company Directory for the REITs sector suggests one or more soft copyright violations(s), which, combined with the lack of intellectual input, negates the need for history preservation. As well, as Uhooep aptly noted, and clarified in this DRV, we had an entirely redundant category which did the trick. SmokeyJoe, likewise, independent of the original AfD, concurred that lists should be most blue-linked entries. Finally, we also need to consider that the only way the non-admin closer could've gotten to a "no consensus" result was either by a WP:SUPERVOTE or by heavily discounting the "delete" arguments, for which they provided no rationale for that thinking. Thus, at minimum, the close should be vacated and reclosed, preferably by an administrator. Doug MehusT·C 19:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't think any of that is objectively "wrong", I'm not sure I agree with all of those interpretations, or their synthesis. But that's really beside the point. The purpose of DRV isn't to relitigate the "case", but only to review whether the closer screwed up in assessing the consensus of the arguments and evidence as they were presented at the time, or screwed up procedurally in some way ("broke the rules"). Neither kind of screw-up happened, so it's a wrong to pillory the closer. If this list is innately problematic (or we're sure it more-or-less inevitably will be, despite at least two ways I outlined to mitigate the possibility), then it's perfectly fine to seek its deletion again with presentation of new/refined arguments to make that case. But that new deletion proposal isn't something that DRV does. This is just the wrong venue for such a thing. Innumerable articles go through multiple AfDs (after CSD examinations and PRODs, sometimes) before being ultimately deleted; it isn't necessary to make a reasonable closer out to be a bad guy in DRV to get at a deletion result; a no consensus or even a keep is not forever or immutable. And I'm not entirely convinced deletion is the correct result until what I suggested as scope limitations have actually been tried (despite me being more skeptical and "deletionist" than average when it comes to potential/alleged promotionalism). In short, we have other (actually appropriate) ways of getting rid of an article if we need to, without harming another editor's reputation via DRV without just cause. Misuse of DRV as a "put the page I don't like in double-jeopardy regardless of the cost to a good-faith closer" blunderbuss is the reason I virtually never close XfDs, only RfCs, RMs, and other non-deletion discussions. Misuse of DRV has a chilling effect even on (perhaps especially on) long-experienced editors who are actually in a good position to perform deletion closes. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish Thanks, as always, for the further reply, but I really don't see how having an overturned AfD close would have a "chilling effect" on the closer's reputation. I don't know the statistics, but even excellent closing administrators have had their XfD closes overturned. A DRV overturn decision, or even multiple DRV overturn decisions over a multi-year timeframe, are just saying that the specific close was either improper, improperly applied the weights to certain arguments, used a WP:SUPERVOTE, or some other reason. As long as an editor or administrator maintains a very high rate of XfD closes that either don't go to DRV or are supported by "endorse" decisions, I think a rational, common sense community of the vast majority of Wikipedia editors would not unfairly tar the editor. As far as I can tell, Nnadigoodluck has a solid history of creating and substantially creating articles for notable, principally African, individuals, but I would just prefer to see him or her participate more at AfD and then, in partnership with an experienced editor or administrator, resume clerking less critical XfDs like RfD with much lower stakes. It is very easy to fix a bad RfD close; that is, one could simply avoid DRV altogether and boldly re-create the redirect. I just don't see how you can arrive at a "no consensus" result here without (a) incorrectly discounting the "delete" arguments, which have been expanded on and clarified here by those that made them, or (b) by the closer using his or her WP:SUPERVOTE, which, as I understand it, would not be correct. Doug MehusT·C 16:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having several DRV overturns on an NAC's "record" could easily be used against them in a number of contexts, from disbarring them from closes via ANI waterboarding I mean noticeboarding (I have seen this happen, more than once; I'm pretty sure there's a still on-going ANI right now trying to get that result against an alleged excessive inclusionist), to harming their chances at RfA, etc. Assessment of NAC performance is more harsh than of admin performance, because the latter class have already been through the "we give you blanket trust" RfA gauntlet. But it doesn't matter how much harm the wrong does, doing the wrong is still not what this process is for. If the closer did not in fact screw the pooch, we shouldn't accuse (much less convict) them of pooch-screwing. Especially when it will be easy enough to get the article deleted on another pass with more-convincing arguments (if those arguments are in fact more convincing and not just rehash of course). Speaking of which, I'm not inclined to re-re-argue this any further. I've said my piece with about as much clarity as I can muster, and am not trying to dominate the discussion, which is an easy effect to give off if one isn't exactly Mr. Concise. It's okay if you and I don't agree on the all philosophic/procedural questions that can arise here. I will repeat one thing though, re'the "delete" arguments, which have been expanded on and clarified here' – DRV (like WP:MR) is not for relitigation, which includes presenting and assessing "expanded and clarified" or all-new arguments; it is only for assessing the performance of the closer in their assessment of the discussion as it existed at the time of the close (and, as applicable, the properness of their following close procedures). I'm not sure how to make that clearer, and all the regulars here know it already (even if some pretend otherwise and try to re-litigate anyway). This is why, for example, I reiterated my two original rationales for keeping (provisionally), rather than introducing new reasons, and cited someone else's original comment about bluelinks and the navigational use of the page, rather than citing anyone's new keep argument introduced in this DRV. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 16:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, SMcCandlish has hit the nail on the head here. Doug, you say yourself below that "That's outside of this DRV with respect to the close" and that same logic applies to many of the comments that are being made here arguing for an overturn. The points you make are very interesting, and could no doubt form the basis of a future re-nomination of the AFD. But none of those points were in evidence at the time of the close, and based on the evidence and discussion which the closer would have evaluated, there was no other course of action but to declare it a no-consensus. The point about reducing the list to blue links, which looks like it's within guidelines, was made by two participants at the AFD, and no real counter-arguments were made within the 3+ weeks it was listed. As such, the correct course of action is not to slap the closer on the wrist and tarnish their reputation by accusing them of a WP:BADNAC, as this DRV seeks to do, but to endorse the close and move on, with a possible re-nomination some months down the line if you can marshall together further arguments. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish and Amakuru, I respectfully disagree that a WP:BADNAC would tarnish the editor's reputation, but rather, just remind the editor that they need to take a step from closing and, possibly, engage in a mentorship and restart clerking in a lower profile XfD (i.e., RfD mentioned above). Moreover, if DRV cannot consider the clarified arguments of either said, it is equally true that the DRV closer cannot consider SMcCandlish's clarifying remarks above that his comments can be construed as "keep." Whether the DRV closer construes his AfD comments as a "keep" does not make this "no consensus" close. Even though we notionally do not merely count !votes, without discounting the "delete" !vote arguments significantly, there was absolutely no consensus to "keep" and no consensus to a "no consensus" close. A three-to-two, or three-to-one, depending on the DRV closer interprets SMcCandlish's comments, can still be interpreted as a consensus to "delete." Without a closing rationale, the close is also problematic in that implies the closer used a WP:SUPERVOTE, and the closer has provided no justification at WP:ANI for their "no consensus" determination. This is the principal premise behind the arguments of those arguing to vacate close, which could see an experienced DRV closing editor or administrator who is non-involved re-close the AfD, potentially, the same way, but with a proper justification and rationale. Moreover, I believe WP:BADNAC also advises less experienced non-admin closers to avoid closing close results, which, I think we can all agree, this definitely was. As far as waiting two or three months, I see no reason why this list, an unnecessary content fork that is unmaintained, which was presented in my nomination, cannot be renominated immediately as a highly duplicative and unnecessary content fork (even if removed of redlinks and unlinked REITs). --Doug MehusT·C 17:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is wading too deep into WP:Wikilawyering territory, on multiple levels. There's no such thing as no consensus for no consensus, by definition (well, not in the original discussion and assessment phase; it's possible for a subsequent discussion like this one to come to no consensus about a no consensus result in the previous discussion, of course). Just the fact that we're talking about a 3–2 headcount is pretty much proof of no consensus, since the numbers are too small to be statistically meaningful when they're not either in tight agreement or mostly in tight agreement with opposition that is simply WP:AADD bollocks. Heh. And a supervote is picking one side for personal PoV reasons, against a clear consensus in the other direction; just being not firmly convinced that either/any side has clearly trounced the arguments of the other[s] isn't a supervote, or any kind of vote, but rather the opposite. Re: 'the DRV closer cannot consider SMcCandlish's clarifying remarks above that his comments can be construed as "keep.'" – Nope; my actual !vote in the original AfD discussion said keep, though with some provisos (which makes it specific, not "weak"; if I'd meant that, I would have said weak keep or leaning keep). My "clarification" post wasn't to the closer, it was to those (including you) playing mind-reader and arguing up near the top of this page whether I meant to keep (with caveats) or was just being "hypothetical", without actually bothering to ask me. (To address a side matter of those early posts here: my wondering why I'd been pinged to the AfD has nothing to do with my rationales in the AfD. I address the merits in any such discussion. I do not make WP:POINT pseudo-!votes in them. Does anyone do that?) I think the rest of this is circular re-argumentation, so I'm content to just agree to disagree on those matters. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 20:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish Thanks for your clarification. As I don't want to belabour these points any further, I won't bother with a further point/counterpoint debate, but since you referenced my "no consensus for no consensus" point, that's exactly what I was potentially referring to in this discussion. The fact that there are so many editors and administrators arguing, with equally valid points, a no consensus to overturn, vacate, or endorse the original decision is very possible. Practically speaking, what does this have the effect of in terms of the difference between an overturn, vacate, or endorse result? Not much in that the article would be retained, the AfD result would stand (albeit without endorsement), and the list of REITs could be re-nominated in the future. In short, to those that even care (which, I suspect, is only a few of us) about this result, no one would be pleased but would be at least be satisificed: AfD decision stands, unendorsed; no "blemish" on the editor's record (though I don't think one overturned or vacated closing decision would do that), and the article lives, for now. Doug MehusT·C 20:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See my just-now addendum to my actual DRV !vote above; I think we're actually coming to agreement on some points (e.g. that this DRV could itself fail to come to consensus, and that if the list is kept, there is nevertheless a clear consensus to greatly reduce its content, to notable entries only). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 21:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish, I would be satisficed with a "no consensus" result at DRV, but would still be opposed to reducing this list to blue links due to it originally, very likely, being a copy+paste dump of the S&P TSX Capped REIT index, and that it is literally a duplicate of the much better, and slightly broader, alphabetical list at List of real estate companies of Canada. There are some improvements we could make to that article, potentially by sub-arranging by trusts and corporations, if that distinction is needed, but that article is much more consistent with our editing and content standards for other countries' real estate owner/operators. I'd also satisfice with subsequently redirect-ing this article to the target article, but seeing the likely copy+paste dump and zero intellectual effort in creating it, I see no need to preserve attribution history here and such a redirect is a less plausible redirect term. --Doug MehusT·C 21:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish To add to what I said about not needing to preserve attribution history, I noticed on the subject list creator's talkpage that the list was previously PROD'ed by MrOllie and, following that, reviewed by DGG that it was kept on the provision that the creator improve it. This suggests it was barely worth keeping 10 years ago, and still isn't, particularly since List of real estate companies of Canada accomplishes the stated goals of the bluelinks in a much better fashion, free of any likely copy+paste dumps. I noted, too, that Ggr68 last edited on Wikipedia that same year. Doug MehusT·C 21:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good talk-page discussion after closure of this brouhaha (which is really about whether there was a BADNAC, not what to do with the content, if anything). Even AfD pretty often results in mergers, and I can see that being a reasonable approach to take here. I would want to see the REIT-related title and some similar redirects get people to a sublist or something at least, or maybe have the bigger list sortable by type, or whatever will work to get people to what they're trying to find. That said, we have various "redundant" lists that are permissible (often in embedded and summarizing versus stand-alone and detailed form, or broad in scope versus narrowly sub-topical), if it helps the reader. With sectional transcludes they can even be auto-combined in various ways. So, there are multiple options to look into. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 21:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe That's outside of this DRV with respect to the close, and while I don't have a problem with cutting back to the bluelinks, that also ignores the fact that this list would then be an entirely duplicate list of the alphabetical list at List of real estate companies of Canada, which is more extensive and better in its arrangement. Note, too, that the alphabetical list is consistent with other countries' list of real estate-oriented companies, including those in the U.S., Bangladesh, and elsewhere. It also, appropriately, includes all or nearly all bluelinks (as a list is supposed to do). This list includes both real estate corporations and real estate investment trusts, but distinguishing based on their legal corporate structure is not a particularly encyclopedic distinguishing factor. Moreover, if editors felt the need to distinguish their legal method of incorporation, Category:Real estate investment trusts, serves that purpose. --Doug MehusT·C 16:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]