Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 26

SiIvaGunner (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Reason 5... Just take a look at the reasons for Keeping that a non-admin unfortunately bought into. "I've listened to his videos while editing Wikipedia", "He popularized We are Number One, The Flintstones: The Rescue of Dino & Hoppy among other things. He deserves credit", "Is an extremely active channel with its almost hourly posting schedule, which is what differentiates it from other parody Youtubers without Wikipedia pages (even the more popular ones)", etc. Nuff said. Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse By my reading of that discussion - and it wasn't a great discussion - there wasn't a single user who !voted there who agreed with your nomination. There's no way we're going to overturn this. SportingFlyer T·C 07:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Could not possibly have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm afraid that a consensus like that is unassailable.—S Marshall T/C 10:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So just to be clear, it doesn't matter how invalid the rationales for keeping are? This is my first time on DRV--I'm just asking for the !votes to be scrutinised. Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've got a lot of sympathy with you. In a discussion that was flooded with votes that didn't contain much detailed analysis, you rightly persisted in trying to focus on the sources. But where you've got a unanimous "keep" response at a well-attended discussion, DRV expects a "keep" outcome. I might suggest renominating it for deletion in a few months' time.—S Marshall T/C 14:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Same boat as S Marshall here. Unfortunately, even if we invalidate all of the keep !votes, that leaves us at a no consensus, but we can't have a soft delete here since this was a well attended if poorly argued discussion. Anyone who has spent time at AfD has had articles kept that should clearly be deleted, which is the result of a consensus-based process. Also note I'd be more willing to overturn if you were arguing for keep against a bunch of terrible delete !votes. SportingFlyer T·C 21:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I was almost ready to say that, despite the overwhelming nose count, none of the keep votes cited any policy-based arguments. Then I found where User:OmegaFallon pointed out how the subject specifically meets WP:ENTERTAINER, and found a source (a PhD thesis) which discussed the subject. So there's at least some defensible reason to keep this. And, despite the fact that there's some controversy here, I think this was a perfectly acceptable WP:NAC. My suggestion is to, per WP:RENOM, bring this back in a few months for another look. On the other hand, I don't know what argument you could make in a few months that would be better than your point-by-point refutation of the existing sources. So, maybe just accept that editors at AfD have a fair amount of latitude on what they consider notable, and in this case, they disagreed with you. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse you can certainly submit this for AfD again hoping for a new WP:LOCALCONSENSUS but I would have you read WP:DELAFD first. This was a clear snow keep where no other result was possible. Lightburst (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I agree with the appellant that the article appears to fail to satisfy Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but this is a clear case of consensus, and the closer was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This is unusual in that it is an appeal of a Keep rather than an appeal of a Delete, but consensus is consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Couldn't have been closed any other way. The AfD nomination was woefully poor. See advice at WP:RENOM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Several users !voting keep and basing it on Wikipedia policies such as GNG. Clearly the keep side presented the persuasive arguments. —C.Fred (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All Lights Fucked on the Hairy Amp Drooling (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Reason 5: Article was deleted for failing to meet notability requirements (WP:NMG), however discussion centered on the question irrelevant to notability of whether the subject ever existed. The discussion should have been relisted at 7 days (WP:RELIST) so that relevant discussion from more users could occur and a consensus could be reached. Instead discussion was closed on the 8th day. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 01:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm somewhere between relist and weak endorse. I originally typed out a relist considering the discussion was poor, the close valid, and the outcome probably correct. A relist here is probably the optimal solution considering the request from a non-participating user and considering how poor the discussion was, but I don't think there's anything technically wrong with the close. I'm putting weight on the fact WP:GNG was not clearly argued for. Also, it's not a good look to edit war a redirect after a close. SportingFlyer T·C 01:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been involved in the edit war, so I'm not sure why that would reflect poorly on me or this discussion. It is unfortunate that these users can't funnel their frustration into the proper discussion, but I believe my actions should stand for themselves. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AquitaneHungerForce: That comment was not aimed at you by any sense of the imagination! I wasn't replying to you but rather commenting as usual per the DRV, but because I don't have a firm vote I didn't bold anything. I looked at the page's history, and there's been an edit war because another user did not agree with the close - my assumption is that they will make their way here at some point. SportingFlyer T·C 07:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, was this discussed with the closing admin before you listed here? This is a prerequisite as listed in the DRV instructions. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added the template to the closing admin's talk page as per step 3 of WP:DRV, however this notice was posted during step two i.e. prior to adding to the discussion page. If I am misunderstanding the protocol or the steps I would like things to go in the right order. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. I'm in agreement with SportingFlyer's arguments, there—nothing technically incorrect about the original action, I don't think, but the discussion was certainly not enough to show consensus of any form thanks to its weak nature. The lack of relevant arguments, the sparse discussion present, and the lack of relist in the first place really strike me as reasons to relist this AfD and attempt to find a reasonable action to take here. Moonwater21 (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. There was no serious evaluation of the sources in the AfD. Whether or not the AfD outcome would have ultimately been correct is irrelevant, since DRV isn't for relitigating the AfD. Relist it and let it develop a consensus. Spicy (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No Consensus with no prohibition on an immediate renomination, but no mandate to relist either. No one but the nom favored deletion, and the only argument given was "Does not appear to meet notability requirements" with no details, and no mention of a WP:BEFORE search. Much of the brief discussion was about whether the album exists or not. Tothebarricades.tk and Chubbles pointed out that there are published sources, and those favoring a redirect, Lugnuts and Superastig gave no policy-based reasons for this view. There was no policy-based consensus here to do anything with this article, and so the closer should have found. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were doubts cast of this release even existing, hence the redirect. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there are sources that discuss it, that is no bar to an article. Consider The Last Dangerous Visions, which famously does not exist, never did and never will. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another example is Paul McCartney's Cold Cuts, which remained unreleased, even after bootlegs got in the way. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 17:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same thoughts with Lugnuts. I could've voted to keep the article since there are some sources about it. But, the existence of this "lost work" or fan-exclusive remains in question. Therefore, with the analysis from Chubbles, I was left no option, but to vote for a redirect. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 17:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist: Though I was one of the 2 participants who voted for a redirect, it'd could've helped if it was relisted for other users to participate. That could've given me some time to reconsider my vote. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 17:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Happy for a re-listing. Per the above and the AfD, there were concerns about it even existing, but a relist can't do any harm. And to flag up any possible conflict of interest, Godspeed You! Black Emperor are one of my fave bands. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I still think AfD is the wrong venue for this discussion to be occurring; the original nominator is the only one who actually thought the article should be deleted (as in, the blue link turned red). But the close of this discussion did feel premature at the time. Chubbles (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse this was a proper reading of the !votes and a proper close. Lightburst (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Proper close. Do not relist, because the AfD failed WP:BEFORE, and could have been closed as Speedy Keep. Failing WP:Notability does not mean deletion if there is a merge target. The merge should be carried out, subject to consensus at Talk:Godspeed You! Black Emperor. Consensus at Talk:Godspeed You! Black Emperor is enough to reverse the redirect, if that's how the discussion goes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• ‘’Oppose deletion‘’, as earlier; merging is non- optimal but it makes so much more sense than outright deletion. I deeply regret getting so upset about this a few weeks ago (is “quarantine rage” a thing?), for the childish name calling and for the unilateral undeletion (I only did this once and was thinking of it as a mild sort of civil disobedience because no one listened to what I thought was an air-tight defense on the grounds of the GNG.; I had no intentions of fighting an actual edit war) Apologies. Unacceptable behavior all around, but I think I’ve been right on the merits here. The GNG should supersede other considerations and on those grounds the notability of the article is literally beyond dispute, as it has been discussed by major magazines and standard books of reference. Tothebarricades (talk) 10:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]