Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 January 25

Ryu Seung-Woo – life moves on.... – Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Played today for Bayer 04 Leverkusen in the Bundesliga, so he is now notable (WP:NFOOTBALL) [1]. Neojesus (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this one looks moot. Recreated. I say we restore the deleted revisions as well. -- Y not? 01:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- another sysop has restored... -- Y not? 16:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Technically Neojesus should have approached me on my talk page before listing here. That said, WP:CRYSTAL is not in play anymore which was the basis of the AfD. Allow recreation seems appropriate and I see it already has been regardless of this process. Mkdw ^talk 02:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Murder of Jeff Whittington – Endorsed. No Consensus closes are overturned at a lower frequency then hens are born with teeth. The trend is for SNGs to become more subordinate to the GNG then previously and this means that a very strong consensus is required to delete an article which fails an SNG but passes GNG. The absence of such a consensus invariably means that a no consensus or keep close is appropriate. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

closing admin says GNG is met. But consensus in murder AfDs is that WP:EVENT should be met. Out of the 3 keep !voters only one produced a decent argument and the other 2 were weak. The overwhelming consensus is for delete. LibStar (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Simply disagreeing with the closer's weighing of arguments, without providing any policy- or guideline-based analysis, is insufficient for reversal by DRV. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

in that case the closing admin has applied a supervote. He believes GNG is met when he should be closing on this basis of consensus. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there was consensus that GNG was met. There was no consensus on whether the article needs to be deleted nevertheless -- Y not? 16:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was not consensus GNG was met. GNG excludes WP:ROUTINE coverage. If the majority of !voters thought GNG was met then most would !Vote keep. Again you are applying your own super vote, you think GNG is met, therefore the delete consensus doesn't outweigh the keep arguments, noting 2 of the 3 keep !voters presented weak arguments. LibStar (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. This is not AfD2. See Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. Closer applied own preferences which should properly have been expressed as a !vote. Stifle (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I am very reluctant no overturn a no-consensus close. In particular, I rarely see a reason why someone who wants to delete an article should even bring one here. There is the much simpler method of waiting a few weeks and bringing a second AfD to try to find consensus. Technically, one could be brought immediately, but it usually helps to wait a few weeks to decrease the likelihood of a second non-consensus. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There doesn't seem to be a procedural problem here. A finding of no consensus is not a supervote because it is the opposite of a definite conclusion. Andrew (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No concrete evidence of a supervote. Taking it to DRV because you disagree with the outcome is discouraged if no new evidence is brought forth. Mkdw ^talk 02:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Endorse This is a decent close, and were the refuted and empty arguments analyzed closely might justify a Keep. The XfD nomination does not present any argument or evidence that EVENT is at issue, just a wondering out loud. The only technical reference to EVENT is by a Keep !voter, and that !voter has added a reference to the article, so the consensus, such as it is, from both keep and delete sides, is that EVENT is not at issue. Unscintillating (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - closers should explain why they closed how they did, in any case where it ain't blatantly obvious. In this case, that it meets WP:N is an important consideration, in weighting the policy based keeps against the policy-less "I don't like it" arguments for deletion. WilyD 10:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for articulating that, your views closely match my own. -- Y not? 15:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, good on you for doing it, though it's certainly own experience that doing so makes it more likely that a DRV will suggest you closed on your own view, rather than by reading the discussion and distilling the consensus. Whether it makes a DRV any more likely, I dunno. It's probably just a spaghetti approach - if you're unhappy with how the XfD went, throw every argument at the DRV and see what sticks. WilyD 09:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The good news is that I do not feel wounded when people bring my decisions to DRV or any other forum. The little bit of work that I do here on a volunteer basis I just try to do correctly and constructively, rather than trying to be #1 dog on wikipedia. Though I have to say, there has to be a better use of one's time than to DRV a freaking no-consensus close. Back to my day job. -- Y not? 19:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, no consensus seems appropriate here since there is obviously, well, no consensus that the article doesn't meet the relevant inclusion guidelines. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 January 2014[edit]