Jeff Deyo – No Consensus. Like so many DRV's, this discussion is a mix of re-arguing the merits of the article itself and arguing about the process. We're supposed to be evaluating only the process here. In any case, there's no clear agreement here, so I'm closing this as NC. My suggestion is to let this be for a while and if somebody still feels it should be deleted, WP:RENOM provides guidance on that. Likewise, if somebody feels it should be redirected, WP:BOLD seems like the right advice. – -- RoySmith(talk)11:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
It is regarding the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Deyo. WP:CONSENSUS is not a !vote count. There were two keep !votes & one of them was WP:ILIKEIT. Second keep !voter provided few sources which mention the subject in passing, along with giving a link of an album's promo. None of them even remotely proves the subject's notability. In fact, it was wrongly relisted for the second time, as there was consensus to redirect it to Sonicflood after the first relisting. And then it was wrongly closed. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. There were only two !votes in favor of Redirection, which in my opinion is never enough for any consensus whatsoever. Also, Walter Görlitz's !vote was not "I like it", though his comment was in my opinion an improper use of Arguments to avoid. This needs to be relisted. We need more input. There really was no consensus. —Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there were three redirect !votes before the second relisting, and each one of them explained their rationale quite clearly. - NitinMlk (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to redirect bad NAC and an example of why WP:Relist bias is such a horrible thing at AfD. The final relist was pointless as there was already consensus, pace the bludgeoning, that the article shouldn't exist as a standalone article (the nom's rationale counts too). The no consensus close was likely based on no further discussion happening after the pointless final relisting. The consensus was that there shouldn't be an article, and there was no consensus between deletion and redirection, therefore we go with redirection since it is the more conservative option. Problem solved. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
endorse NC Not much of anything solely on this guy I'll grant you, but there is probably enough to support a NC outcome. From a "re-argue the AfD" viewpoint, a lot of decent sources seem to take it for granted you'll know who he is ([1], the Christian Today article and a few others). He also appears to have charted (https://books.google.com/books?id=hA8EAAAAMBAJ) on Billboard on his own which may meet WP:MUSIC. It could probably have been closed as a redirect, but I don't think it is wrong to call it a NC. And the charting on his own may make a difference? Hobit (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The points you've made are relating to Sonicflood. As already discussed at the AfD, he is just known for Sonicflood, and that article has already his relevant details. Few more relevant lines might be added there, if you have the relevant sources. But there isn't enough coverage of him for a standalone article, even if we ignore the normal standards of WP:GNG here. In spite of some attempts to source the BLP, there are just four sourced lines as of now. In short, the BLP will remain mostly unsourced & might get bombarded with different tags in the future. In fact, at least one of the tags was wrongly removed recently – [2]. BTW, I have nothing against the subject or religions. But we have to think it from the perspective of an encyclopedia. Rest of the stuff is nicely explained by TonyBallioni above. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? The listing on Billboard was with his name, not Sonicflood. I don't know the area very well and I'd never heard of this guy before, but it looks like he had a successful solo album that made the charts. Hobit (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know which solo album you are talking about, but the few mentions he received here & there are mostly in relation to Sonicflood. And he fails every notability guideline for a standalone BLP. So it all comes down to ATDs and, as exhaustively discussed at the AfD, redirect is the only plausible ATD here. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Overturn/re-open NAC was clearly inappropriate as it was performed by the article creator, who had also opined in the discussion, and the Speedy Keep rationale given was not in line with WP:SKCrowCaw18:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
