Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 3

Barad (band) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

First I have to say that I'm not sure if this is the correct page for my request. The article has been deleted by

• Comment: I am failing to see significant coverage enough to satisfy
  WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Stricken this comment, see below. Cirt (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as above. Not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources, and the claims to notability are weak, vague, and unspecific. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation per sources: [1][2][3][4][5]. That's plenty more sourcing than was offered at the AfD, so, if anyone thinks that it's not enough, it should be re-evaluated.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Allow Recreation reliable and verifiable sources provided in the userspace article and available elsewhere support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: No objections to recreation, per
  Phil Bridger (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse Cirt's "delete" closure of the uncontested deletion nomination, but allow recreation per Phil Bridger (and do not procedurally relist at AfD). –Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn automatically, relist if desired. Only two editors commented in the AfD; that's not really a binding consensus. This should be treated like a contested
  WP:PROD. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Northwestern University Dance Marathon (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This discussion was closed as keep despite the fact that there appeared to be no consensus and a small number of commenters. The discussion should have been relisted or at least closed as "no consensus" instead. User:Ruslik0 closed the AfD stating simply, "The result was Keep. Chicago Sun Times is a good source." After I inquired about the closure, Ruslik0 stated that the article was verifiable and the close was based on the strength of the keep arguments. However, the article was originally nominated on the basis of non-notablity, and the pro-deletion arguments were not weaker than the keep arguments. OCNative (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- I see nothing wrong with that close. Consensus in the afd was for keeping the article, and that was how it was decided. Umbralcorax (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- Consensus is clearly in favor of keeping this article. Reyk _YO! 06:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Consensus was to keep. In my analysis of the debate, Edison's "delete" vote should be accorded less weight because he voted before sources were found. Racepacket's "delete" vote and OCNative's nomination are valid opinions but consensus was not with them in the debate. Mandsford, TonyTheTiger, Bearian, and CastAStone all had strong arguments as to why the article should be retained. Because the "keeps" had a slight numerical majority, and because their arguments were reasonable, a "keep" close is reasonable. Cunard (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I do not agree that there was "a small number of commenters". This number was actually quite high, and relisting did not make sense. Ruslik_Zero 10:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I would have tended towards a no-consensus closure myself, but that comes out the same ultimately. There was certainly a sufficient number of contributors. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, looks fine to me. A no consensus close would have been okay too, but honestly if it had been me closing it I'd have called that one a "keep" too. ~ mazca ^talk 12:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse; I'd be fine with either keep or no consensus; and the difference between those two closes is so slim to be barely worth a DRV. (Unless someone wishes to immediately re-nominate it) I'm not seeing anything in the AfD debate to justify an overturn to deleting the article, so endorse the close as within admin discretion between keeping and no consensus. Bradjamesbrown is travelling (Talk to my master) 15:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close was a reasonable interpretation of the AfD discussion. Alansohn (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Keep and no consensus were both open to the admin here; delete most certainly wasn't. In any case, overturning to "no consensus" would be pointless procedure. Even a "keep" can be renominated after a reasonable period of time. --
  Mkativerata (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse closure The consensus in the discussion was to keep the article. Strong arguments were made in favor of keeping on the basis of the existent of reliable sources covering the subject. Two votes to delete (based on the issue of "local" coverage) were valid but outweighed. The other vote to delete deserved given little weight due to the subsequent location of sources. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]