I am disputing this close on the grounds that there were policy based reasons were given for deletion, yet no policy based reasons for keeping. I contended that the song fails both the SNG and GNG. I brought this up in the nomination statement. There were two other comments at the AFD. The first was more a continuation of a talk page discussion on whether we should just redirect good articles and was not really related to whether the article meets our notability criteria. The second comment refereed to 2012 deletion discussions as to why they were reluctant to !vote delete. In short no one disputed the SNG or demonstrated GNG. AIRcorn(talk) 05:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Richhoncho and Szzuk: This has been discussed at the closers talk page and they have been linked here. AIRcorn(talk) 05:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bearing in mind that this had been listed twice and two other editors had commented without supporting the nomination, I really cannot see how I could have found a deletion consensus without stretching my closing discretion into a supervote. SpartazHumbug! 06:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There were no delete votes so we effectively had a talk page discussion not an AfD, I suggest you tag it with notability, send it to WP:GAR and renominate it in a couple of months. Szzuk (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not vote and would have preferred a larger comment, but even with relisting none were forthcoming. With that in mind I am happy to step back and let WP decide (i.e. no change). There are plenty of other song articles which of need deleting for failing WP:NSONG and too much effort has already been expended on this one. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I don't see any policy argument being put forward that requires or even allows this article to be deleted. An overall reading of the WP:NSONGS guideline seems to recommend redirection to the article on the album. But if no one supports redirection that does not imply deletion. There was no suggestion as to how WP:GNG has been failed (the rationale referred to a criterion in NSONGS and not GNG). WP:Primary requires us to be cautious with our use of primary sources but how does that lead us into requiring the article to be deleted? Unless a speedy deletion criterion applied, an unsupported AFD nomination (even if unopposed) would need to be very carefully and persuasively argued to lead to a delete conclusion. Finally, after a rather clear (though outdated?) endorsedkeep at WP:Articles for deletion/Run the World (song) a much more compelling case for deletion would be required here. Thincat (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Sure looks like NC to me. -- RoySmith(talk) 11:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Even if it were overturned to a delete, it'd be a pretty soft delete. Only one delete vote and after two relists. SportingFlyertalk 02:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – there was plainly no consensus to delete. Amisom (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No consensus is exactly what there was. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse One nominator with no support is not a consensus to delete, however strong the arguments might be. The closer could have added a delete view and left it for a different closer, but did not choose to do so. Could not have rationally been closed as Delete. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Expecting me to vote delete because discussion wasn't clear is presupposing that my purpose at AFD is to look for a delete consensus. I don't think that's a helpful mindset for a closing admin and I tend to only vote on close or weak discussions if its in an area I have personal interest in. SpartazHumbug! 15:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus was the obvious close Atlantic306 (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There does not seem to be anything wrong with the AfD and the NC result. It was relisted twice and no editors provided any reasons to delete other than the nom which is obviously insufficient. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
