- Albannach (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Closing administrator cast a WP:SUPERVOTE. Ignored those who agreed that the sources proved it passed the notability guidelines, and decided to look at those sources, decide for himself, and ignore everyone else. Discuss on his talk page was is at User_talk:Coren#super_vote where I and two other editors tried to reason with him, but failed. The article should've closed as no consensus, not delete. Dream Focus 04:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC) [reply ]
- Would someone be willing to give the two sources that Colonel Warden mentioned in the AfD? As the article is currently deleted, I'm unable to look at them. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here you go: [8], [9]. Yunshui 雲水 08:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've placed a copy of the page at User:Yaksar/sandbox. – Fayenatic London 08:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, this copy is a violation of ]
- As tempundelete I'll take the liberty of removing the copy. ]
- I have temporarily undeleted this for the purposes of review at DRV. ]
- Endorse as closer; Milowent makes a decent point on my talk page that what the long AfD might be viewed as a symptom of the article being borderline rather than unsalvageable, but I don't think that's sufficient to save it.
I closed the AfD that way because the nominator's concerns (lack of significant sources) went unaddressed, not because there were n people !voting one way or that. Yes, that involved looking at the substance of the comments (were the sources good enough?); but that's what the closer is supposed to be doing – not just counting how many people came in to agree with it. — Coren (talk) 14:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The closing administrator is suppose to judge consensus based on what those participated said. Seminole Chronicle has 10,000 readers. If enough people said the coverage of them stating this band was "one of the highlights of the event" and they got a "wild response from the crowd", counts towards their notability, then so be it. The other source gave a detailed review of their album and called it "One of the best folk-rock albums ever made". Dream Focus 14:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you please then show me which criteria of
WP:BAND those sources fulfill, because the arguments for keeping need to be based in policy. — Coren (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC) [reply ]
- And, on the substance:
- The first source is a incidental mention in an article about an unrelated event in a local newspaper.
- The second is a blog post reviewing three albums, the "detailed review" you speak of is 150 words.
- Are you seriously arguing that those sources meet policy? At all? — Coren (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The first source says "One of the highlights of the event was the music performance from the band Albannach from Glasgow...". That coverage is neither unrelated nor incidental as it emphasizes the significance of the band's appearance in the event. The other source is not a blog — it's an article in a non-profit newspaper which seems to have a reasonable editorial staff and process. So, what we see from this is that not only did the closer form their own judgement of the sources but that this judgement was inaccurate. Warden (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Administrator Ironholds did explain the situation well on Coren's talk page.[10]
- Sure, and policy gives you the ability (as closing admin) to say "X is rational" or "X is irrational". It doesn't let you go "X isn't a reliable source"; that's effectively the insertion of a new argument, which is an action for !voters, not closers. Ironholds (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- A long time administrator explained how things have always been done. Dream Focus 14:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist The arguments given for keeping the article were really quite terrible and mostly consisted of editors who had been canvassed to the page, but in a brief amount of sleuthing I managed to find the following sources that contain signficant coverage: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. However, these sources are mostly coverage in the context of local events where they are performing and I am not particularly convinced that such sources should be used to establish notability. I would prefer to see a band receiving some attention that is not prompted by them performing in the immediate area. However, that is an argument for AfD and probably not enough to gain consensus for a delete given the level of coverage in those sources.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist. Sorry, but while the closer's opinion matched my view expressed in the discussion, I don't believe that there was consensus to delete. Citing
WP:BAND as a justification of the close isn't really valid as it is only a guideline, and consensus will always trump a guideline. In the absence of a genuine consensus either way, relisting to gain a genuine consensus would seem appropriate. If there's no change after 7 days then it should be a no consensus close. By the way, I really don't appreciate Milowent describing my comment in that AfD as "a crappy argument for deletion" [16] - not being sufficiently significant is surely a pretty good argument? -- Michig ( talk) 17:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC) [reply ]
- lol, I feel mentioned. Is this really the right venue for this? Anyway, briefly, Michig, please do not take that comment as personal, you labeled your delete !vote as "weak delete", so I guess I could have said "weak argument for deletion". Your comment was "probably falls short of being sufficiently significant for an encyclopedia article." I did not find this to be a silver bullet supporting the delete close, it was your fair and honest opinion.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I was leaning towards delete, but it was at least close to being borderline. So a good reason to delete in my view, just not strongly applicable in this case. I won't take it personally. Back to editing...--Michig (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; for what it's worth, I see nothing wrong with a relist – I doubt it's a worthwhile exercise, but the article doesn't seem to present untoward BLP concerns so there is no harm in having it around a while longer. — Coren (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse: This AfD was already listed a whole month, and during that time, no one was able to find sufficient sourcing to establish notability. Sorry, but relisting is pointless, and I can find nothing wrong with Coren's closure. The arguments for delete were simply moe compelling. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, no one really looked, it was a malaise-filled AfD. Some editors said the few cites added were sufficient. Typically such a low participation mixed discussion like this would end as no consensus.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that relisting would be pointless due to the duration of the original discussion, unless new evidence of notability will be provided. No opinion as to the article's merit. ThemFromSpace 04:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist Stumbled across this from STiki questioning whether or not the undelete notice was vandalism. Anyways, a quick search shows additional sources all over the net. One including an incident where a band member was stabbed and it was reported in papers like Glasgow Daily Times. [17] A bit of NOTNEWS, but still probably useful. One almost useless one from a university, might just be to fill out the background or note that they played there. [cview=linear] A story by the The Daily Times is a little better and covers them. [18] STV and Youtube have numerous clips about the band and some interviews. Though this link is broken recently, [19] this is a youtube mirror, [20]. While that's not much, they did tour the US and even still they do seem to be able to pass GNG. An unusual type of band, the requirement is not some high notability bar, but that no original research is required to fill out an article on them. I've seen dozens of okay to meh level sources, but a gem of some national or regional paper could turn up if I had access to their archives. Seeing as such archives are not typically online, tracking every appearance to prove GNG is a bit much. I think it passes the bar for GNG because they've has prolonged exposure, toured and continued to play concerts for ten years. Its not Uncle Ken's garage band, but it definitely doesn't have to be Aerosmith to get a Wiki page. Though I would take another look at their albums, as those do not seem to have much other then a tracklisting and certainly will not meet the notability requirements. Its much easier to keep the band page and merge the other info into it at this point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that there is a claim that the band appears on a soundtrack of a movie which satisfies
WP:BAND if it can be substantiated. There is a video in which they thank the movie director for making the video for them. The movie is listed at IMDB. Can anyone help confirm this with additional sources? — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC) [reply ]
- Overturn I made it fairly clear in my !vote that the sources I had added were just samples and that that there were plenty more out there, as a result of the band's extensive touring. I also indicated that, while the sources were not individually that wonderful, the overall width of the coverage was adequate. This is consistent with
WP:LIGHTBULB which explains how we spend too much time in unproductive discussion like this and not enough actually building the encyclopedia. Warden ( talk) 17:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC) [reply ]
- Endorse deletion. The consensus was obvious. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that the closer would be happy with a "relist" outcome for this DRV, and I see that in this debate, The Devil's Advocate has brought up new sources to consider. AfD is the place to consider them. It seems to me that a relist is the right way forward.—S Marshall T/C 22:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus - Equal headcount, subject at roughly the threshold of notability = no consensus. WilyD 11:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist without prejudice towards Coren's original close; the new sources and issues raised by ChrisGualtieri, Berean Hunter and Devil's Advocate ought to be considered, and a new AFD is the best place to do that. Yunshui 雲水 13:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. That "SUPERVOTE! SUPERVOTE!" ploy really is growing whiskers by this point. Obvious notability failure -- whatever low-quality bits Colonel Warden has scraped up -- and Coren really made the only decision which he could have. Which is not a SUPERVOTE! no matter how many times Dream Focus hauls it out as his last-ditch defense. --Calton | Talk 13:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DGFA states emphatically, "When in doubt, don't delete." The sources and comments made introduced sufficient doubt that deletion was quite improper. Your contention that deletion was the only possible outcome seems absurd - we wouldn't be here at DRV if that were the case. Warden ( talk) 15:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC) [reply ]
- Endorse. The keep !votes were not overwhelming. For example, the first failed to address the issue of significant coverage in reliable sources, whereas the last held no weight whatsoever ("Article seems okay"). There were no errors in the administrator's policy-based closure. Till 04:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist, TDA's sources warrant review at AfD. --j⚛e deckertalk 03:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per lack of reasoning. "SUPERVOTE!!!1" is apparently the new word for "A close happened I disagree with!". Accusing a closer of supervoting is actually pretty serious, and as with other accusations on Wikipedia (and elsewhere) it shouldn't be done without evidence to back it up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - The keep positions inability to distinguish between topic importance to overcome
WP:GNG is not a basis to upset the delete close. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 14:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC) [reply ]
|