Angola, Delaware (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This AfD was closed early by an involved non-admin participant less than twenty-four hours after nomination and after only two editors had weighed in. Most obviously, this violates WP:NACD, which states in relevant part "Do not close discussions in which you have offered an opinion". On his talk page, the closer attempted to justify his closure by invoking WP:IAR, but this is precisely the case that the "rules" were made for: involved participants should not close discussions in their favor, particularly when a clear consensus hasn't yet formed. Not only is that supported by the guidelines, it's also common sense. See WP:NOTIAR. This is a textbook WP:BADNAC, so the AfD should be relisted, perhaps speedily. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy overturn - WP:INVOLVED BADNAC closed less than 24 hours after the AFD was open. This should not stand. Hog Farm _Talk 03:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• There's no way this can stand. Summary overturn please.—S Marshall T/C 07:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, there is a way it can stand, since it meets WP:SK Clause 1: The nominator advances no argument for deletion, and no one else argues for deletion, either. Now, WP:INVOLVED applies, but the result itself is actually correct as I read the discussion. Jclemens (talk) 07:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD nominator advances an argument for deletion. One might quibble whether the argument offered is adequate, but for SK ground 1, there's no test of adequacy: it merely has to exist.—S Marshall T/C 08:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy overturn - clearly well meaning but also well short of community expectations. Maybe an experienced admin or non-admin would like to mentor this particular closer if they plan to spend more time at AfD? St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]