A Tribute to Metallica: Metallic Assault (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

A Tribute to Metallica: Metallic Assault was rather hastily deleted even thought the consensus was about half and half. also, my attempts at recreating the article with the appropriate {hangon} tags were completely ignored. This album IS relevant on the same grounds as hundreds of other albums!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheesecake92 ( talk • contribs) 20:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The article was deleted because there were no reliable sources. If you can find multiple sources which discuss the album as the focus of the article, then recreate the article in your User space. But the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument isn't going to help you to prove that this album is notable. Corvus cornix _talk 21:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. AfD looks fine, and deletions after that are G4s. Consensus is not a vote count. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 15:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - this looks a good close to me. One of the reasons for requiring sources, apart from establishing notability, is so that an encyclopaedic page can be written. As with others, my searches have drawn a blank. BlueValour ( talk) 03:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

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

There was no consensus to delete the page in This nom. The votes were relatively split (yes I know it is a discussion rather than a vote) and there were not any convincing arguments for keeping and/or deleting the article, and the admin who deleted it acted rather hastily and failed to give a reason for the deletion. While I agree with Goddard's deletion, I think the deletion of Carl's page was frivolous and violated. WP:ALLORNOTHING. Both currently redirect to a character list }} Scooter3230 ( talk) 15:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Note: the nominator of this DELREV has withdrawn it, see his comments below. JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Restore there was not consensus on the original nom and Wheezer is a notable character NewYork483 ( talk) 16:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse delete closure for both (as closer):

I see some bad faith statements in this delrev request. I would ask the nominator to please read the policy WP:DELREV and carefully observe that he should have had a discussion with me first, to allow for the possibility that I would have voluntarily changed my mind without the drama of a DELREV. This would have possibly also allowed me to explain my rationale in a way that would have helped him to make good faith assumptions rather than make bad faith remarks.

Note: This was a bundle nom for Goddard (Jimmy Neutron character) and Carl Wheezer, see the AFD debate here.

• FullMetal Falcon nominated the articles for deletion citing WP:WAF and WP:NOT#PLOT
• TJ Spyke suggested merge Goddard and keep Carl Wheezer, with rationale that was his own research about how important the characters were, from an in-universe perspective. This recommendation was ignored.
• Ridernyc !voted for delete both, as original research and cited WP:PLOT
• Hobit suggested merge and keep per TJ Spyke, who's suggestion was invalidated, and so this one is also ignored.
• Kww suggested delete and listify on a dab.
• PrincessKirlia made an incoherant comment that included the request to keep, but cited no understandable policy, guideline or precedent and was ignored.
• Eusebeus said delete both and made a valid statement citing WP:FICT
• NewYork483 requested keep both, and stated they were better sourced with secondary cources, then made a statement similar to TJ SPyke. His comment was not ignored.

Based on strength of argument, and adherance to policy, I saw clear concensus to delete. I noted that the article had been listed in a deletion sorting for list of fictional characters, so those editors who would have had an interest in keeping these articles should have had more than ample opportunity to weigh-in with valid arguments to keep, but did not. JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Endorse Closure their redirects entries on the character list are sufficient Frank Anchor, U. S. American ( talk, contribs) 16:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Overturn only if reliable secondary are presented, otherwise Keep them on the character list, possibly adding more to their descriptions on it < Baseballfan789 ( talk) 16:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Are you making a whole new deletion debate argument or are you commenting on the closure of the debate as it existed at the time of closure? This venue is not intended to be a whole new debate, it is to determine if the admin who closed the debate did so properly. JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh, my bad. I believe it should stay as part of the list but reliable secondary sources would change my mind about it. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and not completely familiar to all of the guidelines/policies. Thanks < Baseballfan789 ( talk) 16:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I would like to withdraw the DRV request per Jerry's and Frank's statements nd a review on DRV policy that i did. Scooter3230 ( talk) 17:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Sofa (Canadian band) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Requesting userfication; I was denied by the closing admin. Chubbles ( talk) 15:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply