A non-admin closure is not appropriate unless everyone agrees. Two said to keep it, one said to redirect, the nominator and two others said to delete it. An administrator should close this. DreamFocus 19:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in NAC that says "everyone must agree" for a NAC- it's about consensus and consensus doesn't require total agreement. It requires majority agreement and pertinent arguments. So Endorse. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's an essay. Is there any guideline or policy page about this? DreamFocus 20:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You literally implied that WP:NAC doesn't allow for a closure, yet you're asking for guidance on what policy does while declaring that it doesn't allow for this at the same time? PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: Closer is experienced and the decision was not a close call or controversial. Dreamfocus only mentioned the !votes, and of course it is not a vote. ––FormalDudetalk 20:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Praxidicae, I am not aware nor can I find any evidence that there is a policy or guideline that states A non-admin closure is not appropriate unless everyone agrees, and there are as far as I'm aware hundreds if not thousands of NAC's where not everybody agreed. So Endorse-- AsarteaTalk|Contribs 20:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The guideline for non-admin closers (it's at WP:NACD, for the nominator here who doesn't seem to know how to follow a hatnote) states that close calls should be left to an admin. Deletion discussions that could have more than one outcome, like this one, are close calls by definition. While the closer was right to discard both keep votes, an administrator correctly closing this would also downweight the minority, barely-explained redirect !vote since the redirect target contains zero mention of any songs recorded by this person. Yes, we could just take it to RFD, but there isn't reason to when this has already been discussed and incorrectly closed. —Cryptic 20:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was the nominator and I don't see any discussion with regard to my behavior nor was I notified of any such discussion. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, thought it was RandomCanadian. Still that discussion is relevant — DaxServer (t · m · c) 20:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing an obvious connection between that discussion and this deletion review...4meter4 (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per policy at WP:NACD. There was clearly not a consensus to redirect (or keep or delete for that matter), and with very little participation, this probably should have been re-listed to give time for further comment in order to build a consensus.4meter4 (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Relist - With opinions all over after one week, a Relist is the right action, and any other close by an admin would have been appealable also. A Trout to the appellant for one of the more wrong reasons to appeal, but both the closer and the appellant made mistakes here. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: re-close by admin or relist, not obvious enough to qualify for WP:NACD (guideline). Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn – non-admin closures are reserved for straightforward cases, and this was not a straightforward case, as explained above. On the merits, the closure isn't too far off the mark, but a relist – to obtain further participation and to discuss the proposed alternative to deletion – would perhaps have been a better option. (I don't quite agree that NACs are only acceptable when "everyone agrees", though: there are plenty of non-unanimous AfDs that are still straightforward enough for a non-admin closure. The real question non-admins should ask themselves is "could anyone disagree with this closure in good faith?", and if the answer is yes, the AfD should be left for a sysop.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Relist followed by an admin closure after more discussion. Same reason as last 3 above me. Venkat TL (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Relist: While "non-admin closure is not appropriate unless everyone agrees" is absolute bullshit, looking at the arguments, both keep arguments are very weak on their own, and have already been countered with a much stronger argument. However there is no clear consensus among participants if this should be deleted or redirected, which is why I wouldn't want this to be closed the same way by an admin as well. ~StyyxTalk? 15:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Relist: This is a clear relist candidate. Extremely weak keep arguments, no real arguments for and against redirect, redirects are cheap but there should be discussion about it.Lurking shadow (talk) 07:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Obvious WP:ATD-R. The nominator should take WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD more seriously. The merge or redirect target was obvious, and the nominator made no effort to explain why it shouldn’t be done, and this failure regularly leads to undisciplined deletion discussions. Do not relist because the nomination was faulty. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I was at first torn between endorsing the closure and going for a relist after a similar AfD was reopened after it was closed as delete. The rationale of the ones who !voted keep are very weak as they mentioned other stuff exists instead of list-related policies, compared to the rationale of the ones in the AfD I mentioned. As the one who !voted redirect in the AfD because I believe that it's a valid ATD-R, along with the reasons above, I'll endorse the closure. The nom's reasoning is vague. SBKSPP (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- Given that the only other possible outcome would be to delete, which I assume is not what the appellant wants, I'm not sure what the point of this DRV is. ReykYO! 01:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Matthew Tye – Allow recreation. There is unanimous agreement that the page should no longer be protected from recreation. Furthermore, about half the participants here believe the draft should be accepted with the other half being neutral. Seeing that there is no opposition, I shall accept the draft in my editorial capacity as a reviewer. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I created Draft:Matthew Tye. Two sources that provide significant coverage about the subject are:
Mo, Yu 莫雨 (2021-07-30). ""在中國，自由都是表面的"：一位逃離牆國的美國網紅" ["In China, freedom is superficial": An American Internet celebrity who fled the wall country] (in Chinese). Voice of America. Archived from the original on 2022-06-19. Retrieved 2022-06-19. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2022-06-20 suggested (help)
Liu, Youwei 劉又瑋 (2021-08-26). "賺的錢比中國多7倍！台灣擁2戰略關鍵 老外讚：一直想搬回去" [Earn 7 times more money than China! Taiwan has 2 strategic keys. Foreigner praises: I always want to move back] (in Chinese). FTV News. Archived from the original on 2022-06-19. Retrieved 2022-06-19. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2022-06-20 suggested (help)
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
As the most recent deleting admin, I've been notified about this request, but I have no opinion about it. I don't have the time to re-read all these discussions and form one, and I don't read Chinese. So I'm neutral here. Sandstein 13:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Downgrade Protection to ECP to Allow Review of Draft including acceptance of draft if reviewer accepts draft. The draft is currently admin-protected, which was appropriate until a neutral editor had a draft for review. Lower the protection to ECP so that a reviewer can accept. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the article by moving Draft:Matthew Tye to Matthew Tye. and downgrade protection as needed. I can't verify the sources due to language issues, but the draft looks fine. Hobit (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unsalt. I don't have a strong opinion about whether the sources are enough to establish notability, but since it's been nearly four years since the last AfD, this attempt by an experienced editor to recreate the article based mostly on post-2018 sources seems fine. If anyone feels that the sources are inadequate, they are of course free to start another AfD. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. No issue with the AfDs at the time they ran, but circumstances have changed and experienced editor has provided a solid draft. No reason not to allow StarMississippi 13:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
