File:Harriet Wistrich, Julie Bindel and Emma Humphreys, Old Bailey, 7 July 1995.jpeg (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

On 3 December 2017 at 17:34 (UTC), Whpq (talk · contribs) listed for discussion the file in question saying, "Non-free image with no significant sourced commentary to satisfy WP:NFCC#8." On 28 December 2017 at 10:12 (UTC), Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) relisted the discussion. On 5 January 2018 at 07:05 (UTC), Killiondude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) relisted the discussion, but did not close the entry from 28 December, where discussion continued. On 13 January 2018 at 06:58 (UTC), Killiondude closed that fork of the discussion as "no consensus" without having seen the seven further comments on the 28 December listing. On 23 January 2018 at 00:37 (UTC), SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) closed the more-comprehensive 28 December listing on the basis that it had been relisted (incompletely) and closed already.

Yes, I am involved in this discussion, and yes, I have an expectation for how it should be closed IAW policies, but I'm not asking for a review because the discussions were closed against those expectations. I'm listing it because its closures were (probably, accidentally) improper. (a) Killiondude relisted the discussion incorrectly, causing them to then close the discussion in which the interested parties were not participating. (b) SlimVirgin closed the more-active discussion, pointing to the incorrect and unrealized now-closed discussion as cause. I hope none of the parties mentioned here take offense, and that my intentions here are not to slap anyone's hand, but to just fix a malformed sequence of events. Thanks — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. "No consensus" is the right result whether the closer considered just one of the discussions or both of them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist because of procedural irregularities which materially affected the result. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Fourthords, Killiondude did close the discussion as "relisted", but then it got reverted, causing two discussions to occur. George Ho (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I had not realized that! My apologies for not delving deeper; the situation looked clear-cut on its face. This doesn't change the irregularity itself about which I'm concerned, but it begs to ask why SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) restored the discussion when it'd already been relisted elsewhere. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The outcome of both discussions was the same. Here is what Fourthords calls the more comprehensive discussion: the outcome is no consensus. Fourthords was the only person who wanted to delete it apart from the nominator, who nominated it then disappeared. Continuing to discuss is not a good use of anyone's time: it's a very low-quality image of historical importance (WP:NFCI), relisted twice and now this. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I'm not sure if it's appropriate to comment since I relisted and then closed one version of the discussion as "no consensus". However, I agree with what NY Brad and Sarah said. Killiondude (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. The procedural irregularities affected the outcome of the AFD. Szzuk (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, which AFD? Killiondude (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Your question is also the answer. Szzuk (talk) 08:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  You mean FFD, right? George Ho (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  No, confusion :) Szzuk (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Government shitdown (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Government Shitdown (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

redirect deleted without a discussion, while Shitdown, 2013 government shitdown and 2018 government shitdown are being discussed at WP:RFD. Jax 0677 (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Links to those RfDs: Shitdown, 201x government shitdown -- RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn both not just "attack" pages (if that - and rules are different for redirects) - both a reasonably common typo for "shutdown" and an occasional satirical usage. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Endorse for now, without prejudice to re-creation if the related RfDs close as Keep. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse for now, pending the result of the related RfD. If the RfD is closed as delete, then this should remain deleted. If it closes as keep, however, then I have no prejudice against recreation (though I wouldn't personally like it). SkyWarrior 19:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - this simply isn't a thing, nor is it a plausible search term. Additionally, if you check the examples listed above, you'd see that they're all strong heading towards a delete close. There's no reason to think this one would go any differently. Someone just cut to the chase with this one. Sergecross73 msg me 21:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per WP:APPLYCOMMONSENSE. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Just watch the above cited RfC's, and do whatever they do. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: endorse -- RoySmith (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. G10 is not appliable, but R3 certainly is. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse- per the obvious consensus emerging at the related RfD. Reyk _YO! 08:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]