- Polite Sleeper (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I believe the band has more than enough notoriety to meet the notability criteria in WP:BAND. Some notable reviews for their latest album are here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and several others.
Their latest album reached #177 on the U.S. national College Music Journal charts.
All three of their albums were released on Sabotage Records, which has existed since 2002 and has released albums by Japanther, Team Robespierre, and Autistic Youth. Mcurtes (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn: The reviews show that the band meets WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist This should be treated as a contested PROD, as the AfD was closed with only two users expressing an opinion – hardly enough for a definitive consensus, particularly given the sources identified above, which were never mentioned in the debate. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, Userify, Work on, Restore, and (if anyone feels like it) Relist I'm not seeing any other way Coffee could have read that debate- strictly be the numbers it is 2 for delete to no other opinions- and this is after 14 days of listing. Since the lister here is the original author of the article, and some of these sources were published before this article ever went to AfD, why wern't they included in the original article? Bottom lining this, the close is not erroneous. Move it to Mcurtes userspace, let him add the sources identified above, and rework the article to clearly establish notability, and then it can be moved back into mainspace. If this is done, when it returns to mainspace, I doubt anyone will bother going back to AfD. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Close, since it went two weeks and nobody spoke up to say they were notable. It's hardly unreasonable to close as delete under those circumstances. That said, I think this could benefit from being Recreated if an acceptable draft can be presented. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- overturn close to no consensus as there wasn't any. Further, the band likely meets our inclusion guidelines at this point. Hobit (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, but allow recreation - It's the norm for AFDs like this to be closed as delete (as I'm sure any administrator would agree), as they're basically expired PRODs when there's no discussion for the inclusion. However, this does not mean that the article can not be recreated, and I'm fine with that being the outcome. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PROD deletions are, and should be, undeleted on request. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True, don't get me wrong I don't have any problem with this getting relisted or anything, I just closed it per typical procedure. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Two questions: #1 if you feel this should be treated as a contested PROD, why haven't you undeleted it at this point? Secondly, can you point me to a policy, guideline or generally accepted essay that says we should delete things as PRODs in this case? At the least shouldn't your closing statement provide guidance explaining your logic (and that you are willing to undelete upon request)? Hobit (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just looked at your talk page. You send the person to DrV even though you felt it was a PROD? Could you explain that? Hobit (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When I say "like a PROD" I don't literally mean a PROD, it's still an AFD and the editor should go through the proper venues to get it undeleted. As far as where the consensus for closes like this is: there was a discussion on WP:AN a few weeks ago that discussed AFD relisting, and from what a lot of the people said there, when closing AFDs with no !votes for inclusion that have been relisted, they should be deleted. If you look at AFD, a lot of AFDs have been closed like this recently. I'm not trying to be a "rouge admin" or anything, just trying to follow common procedure. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- hummm, the one discussion I saw on WP:AN was about relisting. I'm guessing there was an older one. Could you point me at that one? If we are going to have that big of a change, I'm going to probably start an RfC to get wider input. In any case, I certainly object to "treating it like a PROD" but not restoring like a PROD. But I may be in a small minority. Hobit (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close per the other endorse !voters' rationale. Userfy, improve, restore. I had a quick look at the sources given by Mcurtes, and they ought to pass muster IMO. ReverendWayne (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist per A Stop at Willoughby. --Cyclopiatalk 22:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete. Fair close, but Mcurtes (talk · contribs) appears to have missed the discussion period. He seems to be new, so let's make sure he is made to feel welcome. Undelete for Mcurtes to edit and improve. It looks like he can readily bring the article up to standard. If he can't do it in a short time, userfy (move to User:Mcurtes/Polite Sleeper), or relist at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy to allow the DRV requester to improve the article. Otherwise, I don't see much a reason to either continue the AFD or to find error on the closing admin on the close. –MuZemike 00:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore. Close is reasonable, but since it would never be deleted had the sources been presented, it should be restored. I disagree with requiring userfication – the editor is entitled to work on it in mainspace, as the deletion was in error. A second AfD at editorial discretion. Timotheus Canens (talk) 06:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As SmokeyJoe suggested, I am a new editor so everyone's patience is appreciated. It looks as thought the article has been relisted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Polite_Sleeper but I don't see any of the original article. It's not clear to me whether I should begin recreating the article now or wait for further discussion here, as it sounds like there are some people who believe that the article should be restored without me having to recreate it. Any guidance is appreciated.Mcurtes (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, but restore. Incubation or userfication would allow Mcurtes to work without drive-by tagging. I've watched the page and will help with minor cleanup. Flatscan (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Like [1]? Wish to chew the drive-by tagger out? –MuZemike 17:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer the term new page patroller, thank you very much. Oh, also Endorse, but restore. If it can be improved with the sources above, great, otherwise, AfD again. Bonewah (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added more references to "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable", more information on their album "appearing on any country's national music chart", and more details on "two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).", per the Wikipedia:Notability_(music). Mcurtes (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
