- Reem (singer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I don't think this AFD close reflects consensus. The discussion was weakly participated and the borderline close appears to side with one argument. I realise that admins have discretion and can IAR in some cases, but am failing to see how this isn't a supervote. I wouldn't have an issue had the closer made that opinion as part of the discussion, or had more editors agreed that in this case the general notability guideline would trump the music notability guideline. But neither of these occurred in this situation. I have asked the closer to reconsider, but the only response has been a reiteration of the close rationale. Fuebaey (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, it looks like this one was explained very clearly: the presence of one song low on one chart is an indication that an artist may be notable, it doesn't guarantee an article. This was explained by the closer as well as two other participants. It also looks like the article was something of a trouble magnet, with vandalism, sockpuppetry and the like--while that isn't cause to delete on its own, people are less likely to want to keep an article that's going to need constant monitoring and waste time for admins if it also has a very minimal (at best) encyclopedic value. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist subject meets a SNG which is usually enough to keep an article in this area. The discussion was split after the SNG being met was found (1 keep, 1 delete). As an aside, if it's common that people meet the SNG and not the GNG in this area, we should take a deeper look at the SNG. Hobit (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from closing admin - I believe my brief closing statement at the AfD speaks for itself. The keep voters unanimously argued that the article should be kept because it meets one of the criteria in the SNG. However, as we all know, SNG's are simply convenient measuring sticks which are used to quickly estimate whether a subject is likely to pass GNG. They are not the ultimate measure of notability, and sometimes they are wrong. I'm not aware of a systemic problem with this particular SNG that would require it to be modified, but it's possible that it needs to be looked at. Ultimately, the 3 delete/redirect voters argued that it doesn't pass GNG, and the 2 keep voters did not provide an adequate refutation of that argument. If the community believes that the AfD had insufficient participation, then I'm ok with relisting it. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 02:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Good close, that correctly discounted arguments based on the faulty presumption that meeting an SNG allows one to not have to worry about demonstrating that there are sources out there that get it past the GNG. Article could be restored if any of those sources that some are so sure are out there are actually presented. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- Per GNG:
- A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
- It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
- It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
(my emphasis). If you don't discount them it would fall as no consensus due to lack of participation. Even if we were to discount them, only two (including nom) out of five editors called for deletion, and it was not the person who made a strong argument for GNG > SNG. How that can be construed as a consensus is beyond me. Your second point doesn't make sense (typo?). Fuebaey (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well spotted, I meant "restored", not "deleted". Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- Endorse close - The closing admin correctly assessed the arguments in place when the discussion was closed. While relisting the debate to allow more participation would not have been undue, deletion review is not appropriate simply because someone else would have reached a different conclusion had he or she closed the discussion,
nor is it a venue for raising new arguments that were not in place when the discussion was closed. Deletion review is in place to consider allegations of a defective close where errors the closer had made can be demonstrably shown. The burden to show that errors did occur rests solely on the editor requesting the review and this burden has not been met. With no error linked, and no glaring mistake gleaned in the discussion as closed, this review begs for a speedy close endorsing the logged actions of the closing admin, as logged.--John Cline (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- We ended with a delete because the GNG wasn't met even though the SNG was. We now have sources that seem to meet the GNG. So the right outcome is delete because those sources weren't known during the AfD? WP:BURO would seem to apply, yes? Also, please read WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 which would seem to contradict your point. Hobit (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I yield to drvpurpose#3. Thanks.--John Cline (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you standing by the rest of it then? Your argument seems based on the part you struck. Do you feel that the new sources should play a role in keeping or deleting this? Hobit (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what we're looking for is "Endorse but Relist". Closing admin made a valid call based on the information available to them, but new information justifies taking another look. The closing admin can't be expected to factor in arguments not made during the discussion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- Thanks for the clarification. Hobit (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for this delay, I have been away for a spell. Yes, I am fine with saying Endorse but Relist, although I do have some reservations with #3's wording; where it speaks of "recreating the deleted page".--John Cline (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist Consistent practice at WP has been that meeting the SNG is enough in this field. Guidelines are what we do, not just what we say, and if there is conflict between the two, it's what we do that matters. WP is not run primarily by rules, but primarily by consensus--rules are attempts to codify the usual consensus, and are valid only to the extent the community in practice supports them. re ambiguous, The rule on charting has an enormous advantage: it produces unambiguous results. Except for the need to define just what charts it is that count, there's not much room for dispute and decisions can be easily made,. Following the GNG is another matter entirely:the specifications that coverage by ""reliable"", significant coverage, independent and secondary and in sufficient number, can be endlessly debated, and in all fields where we rely on the GNG they are endlessly debated-in most cases that reach AfD they can be plausibly debated in every direction, and people in practice pick what side to argue by some sort of global judgement about whether the article should belong in WP. Thus our hundred or so FaDs a day where the main discussion is the opportunity to show skill in quibbling, and the result depends on just which skilled quibblers appear at the discussion. I don't care about the individual results in this subject field, but I do care they our decisions be consistent and rational. The SNG does that--the GNG guarantees the opposite. DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @DGG: your argument appears to be for overturning this, but you bolded "endorse". Could you clarify? Hobit (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- thanks, fixed. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse--WP:GNG generally prevails over other policies.That's a good close.Winged Blades Godric 06:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist SNG's are a practical application of WP:NPOSSIBLE, which are part of WP:N, the guideline that GNG falls under. Meeting a SNG means that the community has reached a consensus that it is likely that this article would pass GNG if someone had access to the sources, which as Cunard pointed out is probably true in this case. Relist pending the above sources and passing of an SNG is appropriate. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
