Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 September 27
2009 September 29 >

28 September 2009[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mark Formosa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No consensus was reached on the discussion page. Views on both sides were expressed, but two people (myself and an administrator by the name of C.Fred) supported its retention. In this case the proper procedure is to revert to keep. Please undelete this page ASAP. QuantockWarrior (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion AfD is not a vote, and the "delete" arguments there were stronger than the "keep" ones. And in your statement above you haven't explained why deletion was "improper", other than because you say so. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I see no clear error in the close. Tim Song (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The last year's worth of Google News hits are all talking about his aspiring candidacy -- no showing of notability outside that context.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Rjanag, this is what the guidelines on deletion state: "After seven days have passed, the discussion is moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, and a disinterested (i.e. one who has not participated in the deletion discussion) admin or editor in good standing (observing the recommendations for non-admin closure) will assess the discussion and make a decision to Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, or Transwiki the article based on a judgment of the consensus of the discussion. If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept." There was no consensus. Therefore the person closing the AfD should have stated "No Consensus". That is why the deletion was improper. As for you, you haven't explained why the arguments for deletion were stronger than those for retention, other than because you say so. QuantockWarrior (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. As noted above, mine was one of two keep-type !votes in this discussion, although mine was a "weak keep". However, I agree that the points put forward by those !voting to delete were stronger than the reasons for keeping the article. Black Kite shows all signs of independence in the discussion process, and I accept his decision to delete the article. AfD is not a show of hands; the merits of the arguments are considered more than the number of people on each "side" of the issue.
I believe that the correct next step is that, if QuantockWarrior feels strongly that Formosa deserves an article, that he crafts a completely new article with stronger claims of notability and less weight to campaign platform planks. However, that should be done in user space right now - there is consensus that Formosa not have an encyclopedia article at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my own close; simply doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN, not to mention the fact that the article is being used as a campaigning tool. As I said in the AfD close, if he wins the 2010 election, then fine - at the moment, no. Also, if I was assuming bad faith, there is a hint of COI here. Note: I salted this article after the user who brought this to DRV recreated it immediately after the AfD. If this is overturned, clearly unsalting is appropriate. Black Kite 17:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - (Full disclosure, I nominated the AfD), Black Kite correctly gauged consensus on policy - that WP:POLITICIAN was not met. I hope I wasn't out of line, when I suggested to User:QuantockWarrior that they may be too close to the subject to disinterestedly compare our policies with reality. --Saalstin (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC) In addition, this DR appears to be premature anyway, given that they're supposed to take place after a user has already discussed the issue with the closing admin and failed to reach a resolution with them, and there is no evidence that happened--Saalstin (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that didn't take place (the user merely re-created the article only for it to be deleted again under CSD#G4, and has since created it again under Mark Formosa (PPC)), although in reality my reply would merely have been that I believed my close to be correct and that the user should proceed to DRV, so no harm done. Black Kite 17:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, valid reading of consensus. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I see no error in this close. Kevin (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - closing admin's decision reflected consensus. -- Whpq (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse If I had seen this I might have favored weak keeping per my general attitude about local politicians but consensus and strength of arguments seem to both point in the same direction. Closing was reasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, even if the close hadn't been a correct reading of consensus in the deletion debate, there is a long consensus that Parliamentary candidate in itself is no claim of notability. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (lone voice in the wilderness) easily meets WP:N. [1]. The !votes to delete didn't address policy in any meaningful way. Not meeting a specialized notability guideline isn't relevant if WP:N is met so all those arguments should have been discounted. Hobit (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't generally hold with challenging the basis for other people's votes, but I do think that a Google News search showing 9 mentions in the local press or online write-ups of his press release does not really establish notability. WP:N requires multiple independent sources which are on the subject, not ones that mention it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Striking !vote. There were a bunch of articles that came up in a news search, but looking closer they were largely PR releases or non-RSes with the rest being in-passing. My bad. Endorse Hobit (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, the discussion was closed properly, and we don't want Wikipedia silting up with promotional campaign fluff by wannabe politicians. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gatehouse Gazette (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was deleted a second time around because it was presumed to be no more than a recreation of the first version. This was not the case. The second version, I believe, sufficiently demonstrated notability. Ottens (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That deletion was in November 2008. Why are you suddenly bringing this back now? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because I believe that the notability of the subject has significantly improved since and that now, it is actually eligible for an entry. Ottens (talk) 12:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the notability has improved, there is no need for a DRV; just re-create the article with references to show the notability (and enough to demonstrate why it's different than it was when it was deleted). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, just go ahead and recreate it. This is, of course, without prejudice to another AfD at editorial discretion. Tim Song (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Tubefilter – Closure endorsed. Relisting is permitted (preferably by an uninvolved editor), but not mandated. – IronGargoyle (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tubefilter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No sources were ever added that weren't trivial and complied with WP:N. The article failed WP:N and WP:WEB, very poor arguments were put forward. The notability concerns weren't disputed or addressed. AFDs are not supposed to be closed by numbers but by strength of arguments. So easily should've been a delete. Otterathome (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Related Discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive202#AFD_closing, also see changes to article since AFD nomination. [2] --Milowent (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since Otter didn't mention it, this matter was 'discussed' between us prior to the DR getting started. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 13:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse because no admin would have delete that against unanimous consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- There was no delete rationale offered in the AFD aside from the nom's. Closer could have closed no other way. As an aside, recomend nominator to have a nice cup of tea and relax. This article remaining on wikipedia, no matter how much you think it doesn't belong, is not a planet ending catastrophe. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. It's impossible to close it any other way. Tim Song (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Note: I have no objections to relisting. Tim Song (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakly endorse but allow reAfDing. Impossible to close any other way, as mentioned above, but this is an awful AfD, practically all of the !votes were WP:ITSNOTABLE. It may well be notable, but no-one explained why. Black Kite 17:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakly endorse, would have been impossible to close as delete, but I'd recommend re-listing in the hope of generating a real discussion that actually addresses the points raised by the nominator using reliable sources rather than unverifiable assertions. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - not the world's greatest AFD discussion, but there is no egregious failure of process. The nominator of an AFD should bear in mind that their particular interpretation of policy is not necessarily the only one. Ben Kidwell (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse with leave to renominate immediately; had it been closed any other way, we would be here overturning it. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - For all the reasons mentioned above.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and renominate, after 6 months to see if consensus will have changed. i didn't comment at this AfD, but the community makes the requirements for sourcing, and can interpret them as it decides to do. Since IAR always applies, a community decision can always be given as an exception to almost any policy. It this case, the people seem to have felt that in this particular case, the level of sourcing was adequate. Who else gets to decide? DGG ( talk ) 11:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - Of the four responses given in the AfD, three were accusations against Otter, not actual reasons given that the article satisfies WP:N. The fourth was WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Relisting for a better consensus seems the practical thing to do. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The Keep !votes were pretty much "I like it," "It is notable,""Other crap exists," and especially "I don't like the nominator." More time is needed to see if editors will make keep or delete arguments properly based in policies and guidelines. Edison (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It's not the greatest article, but consensus was clear at AfD that the article should be retained. Alansohn (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow relist and troutslap commenters for making the discussion about the nominator rather than the article. There's no call for that, whatever the previous disagreements have been. DRVs have been closed in the past as "endorse but the usual expected waiting time for renominating is waived," and that would be appropriate here. Chick Bowen 01:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - There were basically 4 comments opposed to the nominator (not the nomination), and one that argues that other stuff exists which really doesn't do anything but justify Otter's deletion campaign (for good or ill). An argument like "I'm not sure how this doesn't qualify for WP:NOTABILITY" isn't a valid argument; in a deletion discussion the burden is on those who are trying to prove that the subject is notable, not on those saying it isn't. Otter has also gotten on my nerves before but people shouldn't be taking personal disputes to AfD. -- Atama頭 21:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, mostly per Black Kite, and allow relist. Mind you, when 3/4 comments are accusing the nom of bad faith, that's a sign that something is seriously amiss. Furthermore, Otterathome lacks clean hands in the matter--his active participation in response clearly fueled the fire and distracted from the AfD. Had he not participated, and simply let off-topic comments remain unanswered or answered only once, his desired outcome may have been reached. Jclemens (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close was valid, but if it's not significantly improved in short order there's no reason not to try again. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete I just read that article and every single cited reference. I know this opinion goes against the current standards and practices of reviewing deletion. Deletion is broken if referencing this bad is standing up simply because a lot of people like it and closing administrators aren't willing to judge it. You can just throw all of our content policies out the window when mobocracy is the end result. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Endorse. If the closer had latitude to disregard so high a proportion of "keep" !votes from editors in good standing, then there would be no point in the AfD process at all and we might as well just let an admin decide without anyone else's input.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and no immediate relist. Per DGG. Hobit (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:German-American politicians (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The deletion of Category:German-American_politicians, while Category:Italian-American politicians, Category:Irish-American politicians, Category:Polish-American politicians, Category:Jewish American politicians, Category:African American politicians and other American politicians by ethnic or national origin are not deleted, constitutes both POV and obstruction of the category system. Either the category and its content must be restored, or the other categories must be deleted. Urban XII (talk) 00:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse close. I don't understand the "all or none" argument. Why couldn't consensus be in favor of keeping one but also be in favor of deleting the other? Why does consensus have to be internally logical across all cases? I can point to countless examples where it has not been. I can also easily imagine some arguments as to why being an Irish-American politician is defining but being a German-American one is not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I notified the closing admin, as the nom should have done. Tim Song (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, agree with the delete voters that being German-American is not as defining for politicians as some other backgrounds are. The nom's pushiness italicize "must" in the nom statement also has not left me with a good impression. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing wrong with the closure, but the discussion was wrong Of course, this is not XfD2 - but #1, there were times in American history when German ethnic heritage was a career killer. #2, there should be a wider range of discussion involving ethnic-American categories and not one-offs. Miami33139 (talk) 03:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lack of consensus. My reading of the discussion was that there was a lack of consensus (then again, I was in favor of keeping the category, so though I think that is a fair summary the possiblity exists that I may be looking at this unwittingly through POV-glasses). For that reason (as well as the substantive points made in the underlying discussion), I believe it would be helpful for an admin to take another look at the record.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh, another broken CFD. We have no binding precedents on Wikipedia, so there's no reason why if X-Z is deleted, Y-Z should go too. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has officially become tiresome. Every CFD that gets brought here, you feel compelled to point out how wrong the entire CFD process supposedly is. And you base this on a sample size of practically zero. We all get it, you think CFD is broken. We really don't need to hear it from you again. Otto4711 (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per CFD and other arguments here pointing out how "all or none" doesn't apply. --Kbdank71 13:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - no indication that the close was in error, no new information presented here indicating that anything's changed. Otto4711 (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Lack of consensus describes it--it's absurd to delete one of a series of categories at AfD, without general discussion of the concept as a while. There has to be a way of appealing these. We have no precedents, but this sort of inconsistency is a sign of a very immature enterprise. Sure, we're chaotic, and immature, but we should try to be a little less so. Otto, I strongly object to your attempt to blame people for bringing appeals here. Consensus can change, and bringing obscure processes to general attention is one of the good and proper ways of accomplishing this. I look at CfD more frequently now, and perhaps others will do so also. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me? I have no idea how you can possibly misinterpret my endorsement comment as blaming anyone for anything. It's ridiculous to the point of non sequitur and I strongly object to your unsupportable claim. You are also mistaken about the supposed need to discuss each of a series of categories before being able to discuss any of the series, as CFD discussions have shown time and again that some categories within a series are fine while others are not. The idea that any time a category is nominated all similar categories have to be nominated along with it is nonsensical. Otto4711 (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "We really don't need to hear it from you again " certainly sounds like personally blaming someone to me. DGG ( talk ) 12:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for lack of broader consensus. WP:CATGRS, the relevant guideline, specifies that "an American politician of Native American descent is a very different context from an American politician of any European background. Thus, Category:Native American politicians is valid, but Category:German-American politicians and Category:Italian-American politicians should not exist". Not only was this guideline partially invalidated by consensus, but the notion of "categories for important ethnic groups, but not for others" is, in my opinion, deeply disturbing, because it essentially means that we will keep the "Ethnicity-Nationality occupation" categories only when said ethnic group is adequately represented in a single CfD. Now, now, if this had been an AfD, a future layman editor could have simply bypassed the bureaucratic process by gathering sufficient sources and recreating the article...but there is no such recourse for counterintuitive CfD conclusions, because all deleted categories are inadvertently salted by WP:CSD#G4.   — C M B J   19:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin: I formed the decision based on the consensus available in the discussion. If you think that the other categories should be deleted, then nominate those for CfD as well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus I'm not sure how the closing administrator determined that the consensus was delete, when it seems clear that this is a classic no consensus. CMBJ hit the nail on the head as to how there is no means to bypass DRV once a category has finally been deleted. Alansohn (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closing admin made good judgement of consensus in discussion. Admins closing Cfd nominations, except in very rare situations, will only ever take action on categories actually listed for discussion. Accordingly, in this case, that is exactly what the closing admin did - it is unreasonable to conflate this discussion with the merits, or otherwise, of a tranche of other categories which were not themselves nominated and which themselves may have far stronger claims to exist. Nominate them and see what consensus is for deletion or retention, but the idea that this category tree merits an all-or-nothing approach does not bear close examination.
Xdamrtalk 11:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – Category:Italian-American politicians was discussed at length on the same day and was not deleted. We have Category:African American politicians but not Category:Kenyan-American politicians, because Fooian-American is thought to be relevant to the career of the politician for some Foos but not for others. Occuli (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think deciding that ethnicity only affects some politicians is a great example of modern bias. The world wars of the previous century demonized German-Americans in actual US Government propaganda, and some Germans were interned under the Alien Enemies Act. This basic knowledge of American History is being ignored in deciding that this ethnicity is not, and has never been, an issue in politics. Miami33139 (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - this isn't AFD2, the only question is "did the closer correctly interpret policy-based consensus" and in this example they did. Most of the opposing arguments were per WP:ALLORNOTHING - so nominate those categories too.... Black Kite 20:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, this is CfD2 until an undeletion policy is established for categories.   — C M B J   06:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Occuli. The existence of one Fooian-American category for a particular occupation by no means warrants the existence of ALL such intersections. Some certainly have received significant historical attention, such as African-American politicians, but there was no good argument made for German-American politicians, and the valid deletion arguments pointed this out. Given that the Fooian-American category structure really has no meaningful inclusion threshold (I suppose find one source identifying one ancestor, no matter how far back), do we really want every such ethnicity/nationality category intersected with every occupation? Postdlf (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Shells (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Disagree with the closing administrator's "no consensus" close: while the number of keep and delete votes may be more or less split, most of the keep votes seem to hinge on the band's nomination for an MTV-related award which is not notable (its article on WP was redirected, the award itself was not shown on non-local TV and was not mentioned anywhere on MTV's website)—voters such as Charles Gillingham said that fills the "won or placed in a major competition" criterion of WP:BAND, whereas I think a non-notable award doesn't count as a major competition. As far as I know, no other criteria of WP:BAND or the GNG have been met, as they have no albums released and no non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clearly fails Notability, but this is not AfD2 Maybe you should wait a month and re-nominate when the teenyboppers have stopped paying attention, or the band will release a major record that shoots up the charts making the suggestion moot. Miami33139 (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I understand that this isn't AfD2 and I've never done DRV before partly because I always feared it would be like forum-shopping...but in this case I went ahead because it seemed ok per the second criterion listed at WP:DRV#Principal purpose – challenging deletion decisions: "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly." rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close as no consensus (the admin’s holding to keep the article). For the reasons discussed extensively on the review page.[3]

Even that discussion may not have reflected fully editors' support for keeping the article. That is because when looking at the article page during the discussion, they did not see all indicia of notability. Because even as the discussion was ongoing, editors deleted material from the article that supports the article's notability.

Had all of the editors seen all of that information in the article, the views expressed in favor of the article being notable may well have been even greater in number and stronger.

MTV Video Music Award and Competition. Particularly troubling is that in the middle of a discussion as to why the article is notable, with one reason being that the band was nominated for an MTV VMA, Psantora repeatedly deleted mention of the fact that the award was an MTV VMA. For example at [4] and [5]. Despite that clearly being part of its official name, as reflected in the sourced references (including MTV's VMA Best Breakout New York City Artist Award Contest Official Rules and the award's MTV VMA logo).

I requested at [6] that he not delete such pertinent information from the article – especially when the article was under deletion review. To no avail. He followed my request with further deletion of the fact that the award was an MTV VMA -– see [7] -- and deletion of descriptions of the award and the nomination/selection process, the fact that the band was the top three of 190 bands considered, the battle of the bands taking place at a major NY venue (Fillmore at Irving Plaza), the judging being by MTV and prominent VMA singers, the fact that this VMA was awarded at the actual VMA Ceremony in NYC, etc. (see [8]. Concurrently, Rjanang misleadingly characterized the award as "a little award" and incorrectly stated that it "was only tangentially related to MTV" and that it is not "a real VMA" -- coupled with the deletions, one's understanding that the band was nominated for an MTV VMA could have been impaired.

This is especially troubling as nomination for a major music award (criterion 8), and placing in a major music competition (criterion 9), are two indicia (each sufficient in its own right) of notability under WP:BAND. Yet Psantora deleted this properly sourced information during the notability discussion.

Reviews from reliable sources. Psantora also, during the discussion, deleted reviews of the band and its work by magazines of long-standing (each over 30 years old) with large readerships (ranging from the hundreds of thousands to the millions) -- specifically Seventeen Magazine and Queens Chronicle (which still remains deleted from the article), and also deleted the magazines as references – see [9].

This is troubling as reviews by reliable sources is by itself indicia of notability under criterion 1 of WP:BAND. Yet Psantora deleted this material during the notability discussion.

Discography. Similarly, Psantora deleted album information from the band article, describing his rationale with the following edit summary: “remove discography section, they only have one album and its track listing is covered sufficiently on the album's page”.[10] Psantora invited Rjanag to join the discussion.[11] Rjanag then had the album article deleted. But Psantora did not then restore the discography information to the band article. In fact, Psantora himself then again deleted the discography information (see [12]).

Voting advice. I also note that Rjanang wrote to OhConfucius (an editor with whom he had worked closely on another matter, and who supported him here) “Voting -- As they say, "vote early and often" ;) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)” Whether he is advising inappropriate voting, or merely chortling in the proposed deletion of the article, I can’t say. But I found that to be curious behavior by a fellow editor.[reply]

Sheesh, it was a joke. If you actually looked at the diff you would see that OhC accidentally left the same message twice and I was teasing him about it. What the hell does my "voting advice" have to do with DRV discussion, and why do you feel it necessary to go back weeks and weeks to try to dig up random crap to discredit me? Next time, try actually reading the diffs that you're presenting. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 11:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In short, I commend the admin who closed this out as a "keep" for doing so despite the process having been poisoned as reflected above.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The admin didn't close it as keep, he closed it as no consensus. But nice try.
To whoever's reviewing this discussion: I should point out that Epeefleche, the writer of the TL;DR comment above, is the same person as User:VMAsNYC who was blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Epeefleche/Archive. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 11:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close as no consensus. Although I felt that the article should be deleted, or more specifically userified until notability can be demonstrated, the no consensus close was absolutely correct. This really isn't AFD part 2, and unless the nominator believes "no consensus" does not reflect the AFD discussion, then there's nothing to discuss here.--Michig (talk) 06:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close as no consensus. The admin who closed made no errors. This is not the place to reargue the merits of the AfD. Simple question to be considered, is it a reasonable decision based upon the arguments? Yes. If User:Rjanag wishes, he is certainly allowed to wait a few months and bring the article back to AfD is he feels it had not been improved. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you see my response to the same comment by Miami above? I understand that DRV is not AfD2, but as I explained above I think the closing admin missed an important part of the discussion. And I've seen other people come here for blatant forum-shopping and still get a full hearing, so I don't see why this should be dismissed so easily. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 11:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't want to criticise MuZemike but I do feel that we have been gamed here. The author(s) of the article wrote it in a highly misleading way to make it seem more notable than it was and then used sockpuppetry to make it look like it had more support than it did. I hate the fact that they have been successful. I do note that near the end some people who had initially voted to keep were realising that they had been tricked and were changing their votes but I realise that MuZemike had limited scope for interpreting the result to take this trend into account while there were still keep votes that had not been retracted. We can afford to be charitable and wait until the album does, or does not, get RS reviews but I would not be at all surprised to see this back at AfD quite soon. In the meantime I strongly endorse the decision to cut the article down to a few verifiable paragraphs. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no-consensus to keep or delete. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Ok, I accept that nothing is going to come of listing this now; I'll wait until after their one album comes out and then re-AfD this assuming they don't suddenly get famous. Feel free to roll up this DRV. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_September_28&oldid=1144514295"