Cardiak – Endorse, but Relist. It's clear that the AfD close was correct given the existing discussion. There is, however, some feeling that the discussants didn't properly cover the notability issues, so it seems like this is worth another look (new AfD here). The worst that happens is we spend another week talking about it and end up deleting it again, but at least then we'll have a more definitive statement. BTW, this was a very confusing discussion to read. Edits like this one make it look like the wrong person made that comment; I needed to grovel over the history to understand what was going on. I suspect the intent there was to direct the comment at a particular editor. The best way to do that is with template:ping. -- RoySmith(talk) 15:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC) – -- RoySmith(talk) 15:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Carl 'Cardiak' McCormick is a known and accredited producer for high-profile artists. This wiki should not have been deleted. I reached out to the admin User:Nakon who originally deleted the post and was informed by User:JJMC89 to request a deletion review in restoring the page. Carl 'Cardiak' McCormick's name can be seen accredited in the production of song "With You" of artist Drake's album credits.
I am challenging this deletion as his verified work is listed on "Genius" as a notable producer within the entertainment industry. tav 19:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC) tav 19:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvirgil (talk • contribs)
Endorse deletion - the result of the discussion was clearly delete; there is not an error in admin judgement here. However if you have new information and think you can recreate an article which satisfies our notability criteria, you can ask at WP:REFUND for the article to be restored so you can work on it. From the link you provided it seems to me like you have a way to go. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion – Tvirgil has not demonstrated that the close was incorrect or that significant new information has come to light since deletion that would justify recreating the article (meeting WP:MUSICBIO/WP:GNG). — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is not new information. Those are from 2013, and the deletion discussion was in 2016. Credits do not establish notability; significant coverage of the subject in third-party reliable sources is required. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
relist the claim at AfD was that this didn't meet MUSICBIO and that claim wasn't contested. It also isn't true. I'd say that makes the AfD flawed (assuming the above claims are true) and worth a relist. It may be that we'll still delete it, but then at least we'll delete it for valid reasons. Hobit (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The subject meets this criteria as requested in WP:MUSICBIO as he is clearly an artist who was nominated twice for production on albums for the "2015 Grammy Awards" in reference to "Compton" and "2014 Forest Hills Drive". This notoriety is also published in an article for the "LA Times" The claim was that his bio showed no reference of being a producer for high profile artists User:Hut 8.5.tav (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't my subject, but a close is only correct if it comes to a reasonable result. If there's evidence he does clearly meet the standard, the article should be relisted . DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: From what I can tell it meets the SNG (which the AfD said it did not), but the GNG is a lot less clear. So the result of deletion _may_ be reasonable (or may not be) but the method it got there is incorrect. Hobit (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Naxuan – speedily send back to RfD. We're being a bit too trigger-happy given the large volume of work surrounding WP:X1 and WP:RfD. There's no evidence of bad faith from any involved editor. The WP:SNOW consensus is to not touch the redirect for now and let the ongoing discussion at RfD continue. – Deryck C. 19:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This is a redirect. It was nominated at RfD and for the two days that the discussion was running, it received one "speedy keep" !vote and two "retarget" ones. Then suddenly it got deleted per WP:X1 by an admin who wasn't aware of the deletion discussion, and who, when pointed in the direction of it, didn't undo their deletion.
This is the deletion I'm challenging here. I wouldn't have caused everyone the trouble if that odd deletion hadn't led to further oddness: the RfD discussion was closed as "speedy delete" and, when following a suggestion made by the deleting admin, I recreated the redirect, it was nominated for speedy deletion per WP:G4. – Uanfala (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed the G4 speedy request and explained at Talk:Naxuan. I think is has been the G4 rather than the X1/G6 which was the problem. I suppose this can be closed now. Thincat (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Champion incorrectly applied a G4 tag and it was removed. Note that G4 is only for recreation of something that was deleted in a discussion. This was speedy deleted, so the only way it could be speedy deleted again would be via that same speedy criterion. The one used was X1, and since it was recreated by someone other than Neelix, that criterion can't be used again. I don't see this happening again, so the situation should be fully resolved. --Tavix(talk) 13:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Context for my close: it's not uncommon for an item at RfD to be deleted through CSD. When I see a redlink being discussed, I procedurally close the discussion unless I see something suuuuper egregious. I try to always mention who performed the deletion, figuring that user is the better one to discuss the matter with. But I don't think my close is exactly the thing that's being discussed here. I don't have further comments at this time. --BDD (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - probably shouldn't have gone X1 but was probably just a good faith error. However, that deletion should be overturned - if we're deleting redirects and then just recreating them, we're breaking attribution (the redirect's original contributor is not credited). It should be relisted to allow the debate to run its proper course. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not technically a valid X1 because the redirect wasn't likely to be deleted at RfD (the discussion was definitely going to go to Retarget) However as it's now going to a different target we don't particularly need the history either. Hut 8.5 16:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
