User talk:Dennis Brown/RfA/LuK3

• NOTE: If you are wanting to change your name, or just have as an alternate User:Luke, it may be possible through usurping it. I'm not an expert on the rules, that is what Bureaucrats are for. I suggest emailing or contacting User:28bytes, User:MBisanz or another Bureaucrat. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed 28bytes and it looks like the username "Luke" is very active on other projects, most specifically the Swedish Wikipedia. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I should have checked SUL, my mistake. Looks like you are working hard here. The key is to find a pace that lets you still do the other things you like, so you don't burn out, so don't feel obligated to finish everything in one day, as they will keep coming. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:MUSICBIO. However, the band's main page, Rusted Root, is signed to major record labels (Island and Mecury), which satisfies criterion #5 (Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels). -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• content fork of Gangnam Style#Cultural impact. There is no additional information associated with the people who have done the dance. The list can be in the same article, which will serve the same purpose. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

On the second one, I would close the exact same way for the same reasons. Again, as a closer, you can't inject your opinion on the quality of the sources. Your job is to weight the arguments, and simply interpret the will of the community by virtue of those arguments. You can not add any extra arguments that were not presented in the AFD, or that is a "supervote". You can't use any info in the decision that wasn't used in the AfD itself. Most of the time, this means a very short rationale, or even just "Merge and redirect". If you are asked for an explanation, and you provide information that wasn't included in the AFD, it will be overturned. Judging consensus is tricky. Try 2 or 3 of these per week, or more if you feel like it. Give your answers exactly as you present them in the closing of the AfD with no extra info. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornell Concert Commission (2nd nomination) - Would close as keep. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is the kind of thing I was hoping to see, where you disagree with the outcome, so it can be discussed. This is where learning takes place. In this case, BWilkins closed as "The result was delete. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by the acts booked. Otherwise a non-notable business." and I agree. In that discussion, there two keeps based on "too soon, this was just at AFD" which are invalid votes to be discounted. The last AFD closed as "no consensus", which means it is within policy to start instantly again. Those two votes are ignored due to being incorrect about policy. Next you have one keep vote with the rationale: "2nd nomination not a problem. Its borderline, but I'm not convinced its not notable either." which is one of those votes that isn't really a keep or a delete, so it has no real effect on the outcome, so is somewhat discounted. The third keep vote is for "Looking at the references this is a notable organization." which is a claim that sufficient sources exist, but it is a weak rationale because it is only a general claim with nothing backing it up. The challenge to it was ignored. Now we look at the delete votes. Faustus37 gave a reasonable argument that the sources are only local in nature. The clincher is DGG's argument about notability not being inherited. The policy that most applies to this AfD is

WP:CORP

, and you find DGG's argument is consistent with the policy. WP:CORP also states "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary.", which is shows Faustus37's rational is 100% policy based. After you throw out invalid rationales, you have a very weak keep and two strong delete votes. Yes, judging consensus is tricky. -db

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The7stars (2nd nomination) - would close as keep (no consensus). -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as delete with no rationale (meaning the reasons are obvious), by a Bureaucrat, who are supposed to be the ultimate experts at judging consensus. This is a tricky one, with lots of contention and claims of canvassing. Those things aren't used to determine, only the strength of the arguments when compared to policy. I see some general claims of it failing

WP:RS

(Note, the standard isn't my opinion, it is my interpretation that the community would see them as unreliable)

Looking at the keeps, I see "The article subject is clearly and obviously notable", "per previous AFD", and "Still, it squeaks by for me". This one is made more complicated by Silver seren's activities and claims, but emotional claims aren't policy proof and are common in AFDs. Cindy makes one of the strongest statements "it comes down to differentiating between content intended to inform and that intended to promote.", since having a lot of "references" isn't the same as proving notability, and ties into WP:RS.

Finally, we get to DGG's comment (which I think BWilkin's accurately sums up in his reply). It may be open to interpretation, but the gist I get from it is "I can't articulate a reason to keep", a weak delete vote.

If I had stumbled across this, I would have been teetering between No Consensus (default to keep) and delete, but in the end, I think I would have fell on the side of delete, like MBisanz did, and likely not given any more of a rationale either, letting the discussion speak for itself. I don't think "no consensus" is a wrong answer so much as it is "not as right". I am going to invite a couple of involved people to comment further, as I think this is an excellent example of a contentious AfD, the kind that admin face, and think their input may help you, and honestly, help me as well. I would remind them that your "close" was before the actual close. -db

Hi all. Stopping by. Someone else already asked about this AFD, so you might see my commentary here for more insight. I would add that with an AFD like this, nearly any close would be acceptable given the narrow difference of opinion, but the overall picture of the discussion, especially after the the notifications and relisting, indicated in favor of deletion for me. Let me know if you'd like more. MBisanz ^talk 15:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping by as well. When you close AFD's ... or at least visit them a lot ... you run into the same names quite regularly. For example, IMHO, the words of DGG hold a lot of weight - they know this project, its processes, and its policies. Their AFD comments are well-considered and highly respected to me. When even DGG cannot find a good reason to "keep", then that is indeed more than a "weak delete" from them. Beware of those with a specific "inclusionist" or "deletionist" agenda, however - trust the balanced ones. In other comments, "Per previous AFD" is perhaps the most ridiculous comment on the planet: consensus changes. The ref's didn't support the previous keep either, so "per previous AFD" should have meant delete too :-) (

BWilkins←✎) 16:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks to both of you for taking the time, I really appreciate it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Y1. Dario Seixas - tagged for A7. I would tag and delete it only for G12 and delete it as copyright infringement. The creator provided a source for some information on the musician's career, therefore A7 does not apply to articles that make a credible claim of importance. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 2.YJeremy Stott - tagged for A7. The article can be delete as an attack page with the "People were shocked to hear a big voice coming from a small person, dwarf (that only stands just under 3 foot)" sentence, however I'm on the fence about that. A7 is definitely compatible. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly A7. I wouldn't call it an attack page, that quote was just original research. It wasn't meant as an insult, it seems to be a poorly thought out compliment. -db

• 3.YAmerican Research Center in Sofia - tagged for G12. Would delete as G11 and G12. The article is very promotional in nature, like the last paragraph. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. I don't find the promotionalist all that worrying, and if they were notable, those things could have been fixed. They were making claims of their good deeds, but not in a particularly puffy way. What I didn't find was an actual claim of importance. A7 is the strongest of the delete rationales. Often times, G12 and G11 can be fixed with editing but it is moot if they don't have an actual claim of importance. -db

• 4.YJason Maynard - tagged for A7. I would delete it as A1, in addition with A7. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technically correct, although as an admin, the A7 would have been sufficient. -db

• 5.Y
  prod it. -- LuK3 (Talk) 03:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• 6.YJames Simon Burger - tagged for G3 (hoax). Will delete as such. -- LuK3 (Talk) 03:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are tricky. It might also be "something someone just made up one day", but the claims and style are such that G3 is a reasonable assumption. -db

• 7.Y[email protected] tagged for G1. Would delete it as G2, the article is not gibberish or incomprehensible. -- LuK3 (Talk) 03:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G2 is an oft overused rationale, sometimes used for categories that don't fit into other criteria but where deletion is a very obvious best solution. In this case, I would have done exactly as you did, even if it is an awkward fit. -db

• 8.YThe Funkids - tagged for A7. Would not delete as such, there is a credible claim of significance. -- LuK3 (Talk) 03:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall pretty good. I suggest doing these once every 7 to 10 days, with 8 to 10 CSDs. Best to pick them randomly. The goal isn't to always be right, it is to learn, which means you might be stumped every now and again. All admin are, so it isn't a bad thing to say "I don't know". I may ask another opinion on one if I'm not sure as well. Once you have read these, we might hat off each section to just keep the page easy to read. -db

• 1.Y Lloyd Insulations - tagged for G11. I would most likely delete it as A7, no indication or claim of significance. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 2.Y Xuman - tagged for A7. Signed to a major record label, and a claim of importance. Perhaps a PROD or AfD would be better. -- LuK3 (Talk) 03:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This one is borderline, since there is some question as to how "major" they are, but since we do have an article on them (a weak one), I would agree that PROD or AFD would have been a better route. I might have removed the tag and sent to AFD myself, which is an editor function instead of a admin function, as it doesn't require the tools, thus is allowable. -db

• Y3. Red Flannel Festival tagged for A7. Would delete as such, although there is some reliable sources around Google. At this state, I would delete the article because it does not state the significance of the festival and is borderline promotional. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One good indication is that DGG did the delete. That isn't the reason to agree and even he can make mistakes, but he is known to be very light with the CSD delete button. -db

• 4.Y
  Candystand tagged for A7. I see "Launched in 1997 by Nabisco, Inc., it was the first major advergame portal available on the World Wide Web.", which is a claim of importance. A7 does not apply to this article. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• 5.Y Marty Huggins (The Campaign) tagged for A10. This one is tricky, this article expands on the original article, therefore A10 does not apply (that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject). You could make the argument that it is a hoax because he was not an officeholder. I'm split on this one. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it was expanded with reasonable material (even if it wouldn't pass an AFD) then AFD would have been the better choice. If it was just the characters name, I probably would have just made it a redirect, as a logical search term. However, if the expanded material is unsourced, then you could argue that the unsourced material should be deleted from the article, then what you are left with is an A10. That may be the justification in this case. -db

• 6.Y Strategic Conflict Solutions - tagged for G11. Would delete as such, I would also block the article creator as a promotional-only account. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could also just report at UAA and let another set of eyes decide, which I just did. -db

• 7.Y Rachel Barksdale - tagged for A7 and G11. A7 definitely applies, however the article does not look too promotional to be deleted as G11. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]