Marc Weidenbaum (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

No clear keep for this AfD. At best, no consensus, and likely could/should have been relisted. Attempt to discuss with closing admin resulted in him telling me his views of WP:N and that he ignored both deletes as he felt that "Opinions that are contrary to policy are ignored" in AfD (nevermind that WP:N isn't a policy), despite both deletes clearing noting that they did NOT feel that Weidenbaum meet WP:N. He also incorrectly presumed that my nomination "stems from an apparent misunderstanding of the notability guideline precendence" which it does not. None of the keep votes provided actual sources showing significant coverage of Weidenbaum beyond his name being mentioned in various Viz press releases, etc. Request AfD be reopened or closing summary reevaluated as no consensus. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 04:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment as closing admin. A discussion with me prior to DRV was held, and is appreciated. The requester here seems to want a keep close reverted to no consensus. No consensus is a keep close, so there is really nothing to do, is there? If it would somehow generate holiday cheer, I'd gladly reclassify the closing as no consensus, in which case we'd have to immediately go to the article and do nothing, in order to implement that really important change. But lets discuss it here for 5 days first, just to really make sure such a drastic change is what we really want. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC) reply

There is a difference between no consensus and keep, particularly in how the article is treated after. No consensus leaves it eligible for quick renomination, particularly if no work is done to improve or establish real notability, while keep means it shouldn't be renominated for at least 6 months. I asked you to consider no-consensus, but you indicated that you felt it was clearly keep because you felt the deletion votes were ignorable (which they were not). -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 04:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Also, it is illogical to nominate articles for deletion under the premise that their subjects are not notable, and then to argue that notability is not a policy. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 05:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC) reply

How so? Notability has never been a policy. That doesn't stop it from being a core reason for deletion. As an admin closing deletion debates, I'd hope you would be familiar with WP:DEL#REASON #7: "Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline ( WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)".-- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 06:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC) reply

It is illogical to use WP:N as a basis for nominating articles for deletion and to simultaneously tell people who are suing WP:N as a reason for keep that WP:N is not a policy. It is speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Yes, I am familiar with the guidelines you listed; I hope that was never in question... keep the discussion about articles/processes and not about editors/admins, please. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Can you please point specifically where I said that because WP:N isn't a policy it isn't a valid keep reason? The only note I said about N being policy was in response to YOUR statement saying it was. Apparently you added additional context where there was none.-- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 18:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment I haven't looked at the AfD or the article yet but I would like to note here that I am a big fan of people bringing deletion discussions here to discuss a possible process issue that doesn't impact the discussion outcome. The spirit and letter of the DRV 'policy' tells us that process review is the most important part of DRV and that changing the outcome should be secondary. For what should be obvious reasons, most of the decisions reviewed here are primarily concerned with outcome, not process (though an alleged mishandling of the process resulted in the outcome contested). That's my speech. :) </soapbox> Protonk ( talk) 05:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment probably just a side note, but the article creator himself noted that he wanted it deleted and was surprised the AfD closed as a keep. [1] -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 06:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The closer's statement and reasoning was adequate. While we are reviewing process though, we may note that the nominator started attempting to delete the article within 21 minutes of its creation and failed to follow the helpful process laid out at WP:BEFORE. I have just made a search for sources myself and found no difficulty in adding references from some books. The parable of the mote and the beam seems applicable. Colonel Warden ( talk) 09:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC) reply

As usual, you presume to know what I did or did not do, and presume to know anything about the history behind things. I did not find any of those "sources" to be anything more than trivial mentions of him as the spokesperson for the company he works for, rather than significant coverage about him as a person, and I discussed with the creator that creating this article had been considered months ago. As for what you added...uh huh...a minor note on his Pulse's editorial policy (which has nothing to do with him as a person) and a minor note that he wrote something somewhere about smoking dope. Uh huh...-- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 14:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure. No consensus would turn into a keep anyway, so it's dysfunctional to overturn on that basis. If someone raises an issue at a later nomination that it was closed as keep previously, then feel free to point them at this DRV. Stifle ( talk) 09:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. I think the close is correctly founded. WP:N does require significant coverage of the subject itself - I think it is questionable that most of these sources are actually covering Weidenbaum. That is, the source is not about him, it's about whatever he is talking / writing / being interviewed about. It also points to press releases, etc., not demonstrating notability and the majority of these sources appear to be releases he has issued. Having said this he is quoted occasionally and probably tips over into a Keep - but only just. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello, I created the article These Are Powers, which was speedy deleted soon afterwards. I know quiet some about the rules on what's relevant and I think this was done a bit too fast. T.A.P. is relevant because it has a neutral bio on allmusic.com (or VH1.com), Dead Oceans is a famous label also hosting The Dirty Projectors, The band recently toured through Europe and also performed at SXSW, Pat Noecker was before in Liars (band), the band produced 2 albums, 3rd one coming out in feb., their 2nd album is being reviewed on Pitchfork Media as a 7.2. I did quiet some research after this band on the internet to compile this article, because I knew so little about their background, so I would like to have it back. In case you are not familiar with noise rock, the band is comparable with bands like Neptune (band), Experimental Dental, No Age Health (band), Pre (band) and other similar bands from NYC for instance the bands mentioned in Todd P's article. It's from that particular scene and not very much more unknown than all the others mentioned there or here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_rock#2000s. Hope to have given you some accurate refs to measure with. Can you trace these sources and give me your idea about this? Outdepth ( talk) 22:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Outdepth. Take a look at Wikipedia:MUSICBIO#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles and explain which of the criteria is met. I think this article is borderline, in terms of meeting Wikipedia's criteria. But, I'm open to undeleting it and giving a chance, if you can provide more independent, reliable sources about the band. -- Aude ( talk) 22:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC) reply

It's in point 1 of the link you give. Allmusic.com and Pitchfork Media (3 million visitors monthly) are reliable and relevant neutral sources? I thought they were good enough as a ref to specify if a band is relevant enough or aren't those not good enough? Outdepth ( talk) 23:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I have restored the page. Pitchfork Media seems to be acceptable for establishing notability, though you should also see if the band has coverage in other sources, for example, the Village Voice or such that covers music in NYC. -- Aude ( talk) 23:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Ben Alekzsander Williams (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

I strongly feel that this page should be kept! It was nominated for deletion early on when there wasn't many references etc so the page looked abit blank and users were saying Delete. But after it was cleaned up and made to look professional and had very detailed references, a few users demanded it was kept. Ben has his own page on IMDB and was a character on a television programme so I feel, as well as the other users who wanted it kept, it should stay.

From looking at other articles that are nominated for deletion, this page is miles more notable from the others. Some just look boring and have no references whatsoever and yet are still being 'kept'. I strongly recommened this page is looked at again and then un-deleted.

Thankyou x CrackersTeam ( talk) 18:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted - looking at the deleted revisions, I do see some claims of notability, but they're tenuous at best, and there were no irregularities in the AFD that I could see. I'd have closed as delete as well - the subject may be on his way to being notable, but isn't there yet IMO. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a venue for indicating how the deletion process has been followed. It is not a chance for a second bite at the cherry to explain why the article should be kept. Stifle ( talk) 22:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion; inadequate assertion of notability; proper determination was made based on available information. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 06:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - AFD closure looks fine and DRV is not AFD round 2. No prejudice against re-creating if and when multiple reliable sources satisfying WP:RS can be found that assert the subject's notability. Wiw8 ( talk) 22:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Akiha_Tohno (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

Insufficient detail elsewhere There was a page on Akiha Tohno (from the Melty Blood spinoff of Tsukihime), but now that article is gone. The article now redirects to List of Tsukihime Characters. The page that existed before was of similar quality and detail to the page that currently exists for Shiki Tohno.

I do not know who deleted the Akiha Tohno page or why. I have been unsuccessful in trying to figure this out. What I do know is that the page existed and now it doesn't. I can't even say how long ago it existed as it has been several months since I last looked it up.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian Tempest ( talk • contribs) 15:29, 19 December 2008

• This page wasn't deleted, only redirected. The content's in the history. Stifle ( talk) 16:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC) reply