Overturn to no consensus I don't see an argument there for either keeping or deleting, but rather a discussion with a lack of consensus. While overturning a keep to a no consensus basically splits a hair, I'm nevertheless not voting to endorse this to give those wanting to keep it notice there may be a little bit of work to do on the article to make sure it's notable, and to those wanting to delete it that they can wait a couple months and then renominate if no work has been done on the article, and they think it still stands to be deleted. I for one do think there's a difference between keep and no consensus even though the result is the same, and in no way do I support overturning this to a delete. SportingFlyerT·C 23:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure a relisting would help, plus a quick search of the topic shows, in my mind, that it's clearly notable, with each awards show receiving significant coverage from the likes of Variety, Billboard, Hollywood Reporter, and the like, so relisting's unlikely to give you the outcome you're seeking. SportingFlyerT·C 16:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not worth making an issue between Keep and No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, the challenges to the lone keep argument were at least significant enough that they should have been evaluated further by editors who hadn't yet participated. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 03:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Robert McClenon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus or relist. I don't think the discussion can be described as having any consensus to keep, whether or not there's consensus to delete. Hence: no consensus, not keep. The discussion is already open, an "endorse" isn't going to make less of an issue. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relist- This is a problematic outcome. The sources do not provide the kind of information that an encyclopedic article would need to cover, such as who is behind the award. I don't think we should endorse a keep outcome to a clearly inconclusive AfD. — Charles Stewart(talk) 08:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing a keep consensus in that discussion either, but it had already been relisted once, and AfD participation is so very low nowadays that it's disproportionately expensive in volunteer time to keep relisting the same discussions. We need our AfD volunteers to be considering the new cases, and that's why it's better for these things to be closed after one relist or preferably none. I'd have gone with no consensus which is of course indistinguishable from a keep outcome in practice.—S MarshallT/C 09:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would have gone for a no-consensus, but that doesn't change anything materially. Stifle (talk) 10:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, and give a chance for a consensus to (maybe) develop (and usually the norm is 2 relists anyway). Gotta say, a very odd closure that was not leaning to keep in any way. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Had this been closed as NC, I probably would have gritted my teeth and endorsed. But, I really hate to see decisions made with so little discussion, and I'm hard pressed to see how this works out to keep. I'm hoping that the added exposure this got on DRV will attract more of our brightest and best minds to join the discussion. -- RoySmith(talk) 23:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Laurence Powell – Endorse. There's a minority opinion by S Marshall which I won't officially include in the consensus close, but mentioning it so people know it exists. -- RoySmith(talk) 23:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I think the closing should have been to re-list or no consensus.
Rationale for closing it was, "The CRIME /IE arguments trump GNG ones." One, I don't think there is any thought out reason why one policy reason should outweigh another reason. To me, this was a notable enough event that the WP:1E statement of "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate" should apply. To me, it makes little sense to have an article about John Hinckley Jr. and not about Powell. Both are extremely significant events. In the case of Powell, the coverage is substantial on him from all types of sources. When I brought up the example to the closer, he stated that "dunno. Perhaps the person who tried to kill a president has more enduring notability then a policeman who murdered a black.person. There are far more of the latter than the former." [1] That response negates the colossal importance of the Rodney King Riots that resulted from Powell's actions. The event was exceptionally historically notable, and he, as a significant player in an extremely historical event, needs an article.
While this is not a vote; there were 2 keep votes and 2 delete. The vote totals indicate that there is no consensus here. Casprings (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"While this is not a vote, [argument based on this being a vote]." — Rhododendritestalk \\ 03:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. First off, even if we're headcounting, remember that the nomination, unless explicitly stated otherwise, is also an argument to delete. In this case, it clearly is. That would make 3 deletes, 1 merge, 2 keeps. When BLP concerns are raised, which was the case here, a closer can decide to close a discussion which may otherwise have fallen "no consensus" as delete. The closer's interpretation of the discussion was within reasonable discretion. The rest of the nomination makes little sense; we do not decide what "needs" an article, we decide if an article does or does not fall within our policies and guidelines. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 03:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse 4 editors favored something other than keeping the article. Good close. Lightburst (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The AfD nomination was made at an unfortunately sensitive time and it is good that the discussion remained calm. WP:BLP1E is a policy while WP:GNG and WP:CRIME are guidelines. It is sometimes said, with some justification, that policies "trump" guidelines. Guidelines explicitly allow for "occasional exceptions" and "common sense" and even policies only need to be followed "normally". WP:CRIME explicitly includes the word "normally" and its stipulations are not absolute. WP:BLP1E, which was referred to by those suggesting delete and implied by the closing rationale, is to be distinguished from the notability guideline WP:1E (short for WP:BIO1E) so an argument on grounds of WP:BLP1E is not fully countered by relying on WP:BIO1E. At AfD Rhododendrites helpfully referred to the difference. Delete was a close well within discretion, in my view, and relist would have been acceptable. Redirect should have been the preferred close (though it might have been slightly controversial). Thincat (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Accurate close of a defective discussion. AfD participants should have considered the possibility of redirecting to Rodney King#1991 police assault in Los Angeles, but failed to do so. Defective discussions are errors in the deletion process, and it's DRV's role to correct them. The least process-intensive solution, and therefore the one that's least expensive in volunteer time, would be a straight overturn to redirect; but if the DRV closer is squeamish about that, they could "endorse" and then note that there's nothing to stop anyone from redirecting as a separate and subsequent editorial action.—S MarshallT/C 11:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- consensus was clearly against having this as an article. That shouldn't be a barrier to making a redirect to Rodney King#1991 police assault in Los Angeles. In fact, I'm going to do so now. ReykYO! 15:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Just because someone passes WP:GNG doesn't mean they're guaranteed an article. One situation where that's the case is WP:BLP1E, which was properly identified by the voters and the closer. There's no reason why he can't be adequately covered in the merged article, though - just means no on a standalone article. SportingFlyerT·C 23:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - A valid closure. No error by closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closure is within the realms of reasonableness and I would not disturb it. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
