- TheOdd1sOut (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Despite having reasons for the article to be kept, it was deleted. The real problem with the deletion was that three of the delete !votes were from users. The other five deletes were from IPs, all of which point back to Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. It's very suspicious and some action should take place. Zoom (talk page) 17:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The decision being reviewed here is the 25 September closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheOdd1sOut. The deleted article has temporarily been restored, may be seen here in 24 September version. --Doncram (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Did you ask the closing admin why the vote was delete? I don't see it on their talk page. Looking through it myself and ignoring the IP votes, there doesn't seem to be a strong consensus either way, though the keep votes seem weak as they are based on the premise sources might exist. SportingFlyer talk 02:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- even ignoring the possible socking, it's reasonable to infer that there was a consensus to delete. Those saying keep were all about
"there must be sources out there somewhere" whereas the delete side looked and didn't find any. Reyk YO! 14:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC) [reply
- Comment Although I'm unhappy about the result of the AfD, it looks like the closing admin was aware of the possible socking, so I can't really complain there. Ahiijny (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. SPAs are usually here to vote keep rather than delete. It would be worth an admin having a quick look to see if there had been any destructive editing. Thincat (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- History Temporarily undeleted for review DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- A review of the SPA contributions shows some minor, quickly reverted vandalism and some minor constructive edits. SportingFlyer talk 02:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak endorse. The only argument to keep which included sources was from
WP:AUTHOR . On the other hand, this isn't a slam-dunk. I wouldn't have any objection to relisting it for another week to see if that makes a difference.
- I agree that it's odd to have anonymous socks on the delete side. On possible explanation is another YouTuber trying to dump on a competitor. Another is that sometimes socks place random delete votes in an attempt to build some kind of reputation as other than a
WP:SPA . Yet a third is just plain vandalism.
- -- RoySmith (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrelevant comment – Just wanted to note that I was displeased to find out that this deletion discussion wasn't listed on the webcomic deletion sorting page, so I was caught by surprise when it was deleted. I don't really have any comments on the socking, however. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 17:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, process seems fine, the article's sourcing is poor and many of the edits are by ]
- Renounce(?) - The article should've been expanded on, not deleted. Call me biased, but I don't like seeing articles deleted as Wikipedia should be a vast repository of information. If it was a bad article, then put up a message asking people to expand it.
talk) 17:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC) [reply
- I think the word you're looking for is Overturn. See ]
- relist This one is difficult. If you discount all of the IPs as socks (which I think is reasonable) you have a pretty poor discussion. The sources in the article aren't great, but there are two sources that have some in-depth (one is the high school paper which doesn't appear to have a LOCAL problem the other is mostly an interview). There is also some coverage of the *work* and that wasn't discussed in FoodBeast (three articles, each short). And while being a NYT best-selling author doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR, it is evidence of notability. I'm a hair's breadth from an endorse (I went back and forth a few times) as this not a clearly wrong deletion IMO. But an otherwise ill-attended discussion tainted by so much socking seems like something we should relist (and watch for further socks). Hobit (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
