Hajime Sorayama v. Robert Bane and Tamara Bane Gallery ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

On his talk page, Mr. Malik Shabazz, has made it quite clear that he won't brook any differences about a page he has deleted. So although one is encouraged to dialogue with the administrator, I am appealing his decision directly because he has convinced me that I would be wasting my time with him.

The page that I wrote (Hajime Sorayama v. Robert Bane and Tamara Bane Gallery) faithfully reports, with ample footnotes, a federal court case that is of public interest. It is not an attack page any more than the wikipedia page about Bernard Madoff is an attack page. You cannot define something as an "attack" page simply because the page describes criminal or tortious acts that are ruled on by a court of law.

I make no disparaging comments about Mr. Bane personally or his businesses. The ONLY statements about Mr. Bane's behavior are direct quotes (footnoted) from two federal courts.

Nor does the page I created here resemble the Tamara Bane Gallery page which was deleted over a week ago. That page (as I have noted elsewhere) contained contentious material and disparaging remarks. It also did not follow precisely what the federal courts ruled. Mine does.

One reason to delete this page is NOT that it's an 'attack' page, because that's simply not true. Nor can this page be deleted because the information is not verifiable. All statements are verfied. So what is the reason, in that case? Ton-Metallicon ( talk) 01:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment Before commenting on this debate, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamara Bane Gallery and the correspondence at User talk:Ton-Metallicon. Personally, I think this user needs told forcibly that, whatever the notability of this case, he is simply not welcome to contrite to articles relating to this subject.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 02:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment I was the one who originally tagged the article as an attack page. When I skimmed over it, it read read like a page making disparaging comments about one of the parties. I will also point out that this article came to my attention do to an on Manga which referenced one of the litigants in this case. It should also be noted that the OC and the person starting this DRV, admitted to being paid to write this " report" on Wikipedia by an undisclosed party, quite possibly one of the litigants, and therefore has a conflict of interest. — Farix ( t |  c) 02:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Romania – Sri Lanka relations ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

First, this discussion was previously wrongly closed early (it was closed before 7 days had passed by User:Sandstein) so this discussion didn't get a full seven days to be discussed before it was closed. Second, there was clearly a disagreement about whether it should have been kept. (There was 1 Strong Keep vote, 2 Keep votes, 5 Delete votes in addition to the nomination, and 1 Week Delete vote). Of course, deletion of an article is not just a vote, and in the event that there is a doubt about consensus, the article should be kept. (See number 4 at Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Deciding_whether_to_delete.) Third, it was clear that 3 of the delete votes based their opinion on the idea that no 3rd party independent sources existed, something that was clearly not true at the time. (See also further improvements I have made to the article since deletion at User:Cdogsimmons/Romania – Sri Lanka relations.) Fourth, the nominator, User:LibStar, as much as admitted that he had not done a thorough search for sources, despite the fact that the absence of sources was the reason he nominated the article for deletion. He disputed that he needed to do so, despite the fact that WP:GNG clearly says a good faith search for sources is necessary before nomination. Finally, as a matter of policy, the deletion of the information in this article does not serve Wikipedia's general goal of being a summary of all human knowledge. Notability in this situation should really be secondary to the fact that this information is clearly encyclopedic. The deleting administrator, User:X!, did not address the failure to find consensus regarding the "significance" of third party coverage when given a chance to reevaluate the delete . [1] All in all, the result should have been no consensus at the very least. Cdogsimmons ( talk) 20:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no-consensus which seems the best I can make from the discussion. It would have helped if the closing admin had given a reason for the verdict. On his talk page he says that he personally doesn't think the subject was notable, which is irrelevant, as he is supposed to be judging consensus. If he judged the topic so, he would have done better towards deleting the article to give a reasoned argument to that effect in the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist. Most of the "delete" votes came in at a time when the sources were not provided, so it is best to allow them an opportunity to re-evaluate those sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse By simple vote counting, with 7 deletes (including the nom) and 3 keeps, there's consensus for deletion. Taking into account the weakness of the !keeps, that consensus is only clearer: two of the three keep votes don't address notability at all, they simply state that the relations exist; these should be ignored. The idea that early votes should be discounted is, IMHO, ridiculous, as it assumes that those voters weren't following subsequent developments. Maybe they weren't, or maybe we were, but WP:AGF requires that we assume the later. Finally, despite Cdog's good intentions and thorough efforts, none of the sources he dug up at the 11th hour actually qualify as " direct detailed" coverage of the topic of these county's bilateral relations. Notability remains unproven, as argued by a supermajority of the debate's participants. Yilloslime ^T _C 22:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Supposed early final close was, at worst, a trifling 12 minutes early. Closer's determination appears to be withn administrative discretion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 23:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (as closing admin) - I stand by my decision. I would also like to dispute the comments that I brought my personal opinion into this debate &emdash; I have not. If I made it sound that way, I did not mean it. I deleted it because the sources that were brought up did not satisfy a claim of notability. The notability outlines for foreign relations wikiproject give these 6 guidelines as to notability:

1. They have been engaged in a war.
2. They engage in significant trade.
3. They have been/are in an alliance.
4. They share a border.
5. They have been engaged in a significant diplomatic conflict.
6. They have been engaged in a significant trade dispute.

• Romania and Sri Lanka are clearly not in a war, and they clearly do not share a border. There is no significant conflict or trade dispute between them. There has been no formal declaration of an alliance, or at least, none that is covered by sources. This brings us to the last point, which is that they are engaged in significant trade. From what has been presented, there does not appear to be enough significant trade between the two countries to make this article notable. Yes, it's a wikiproject, it's non-binding, and exceptions do exist. However, there did not, and still does not appear to be enough to make this article noteworthy. I am asserting that this close was well within my discretion. ( X! ·  talk)  ·  @140  ·  02:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - I'm not seeing a problem with the admin's closure. This decision was well within his discretion. -- Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 02:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse for two reasons. First, because by the number of votes and strength of the arguments, the "delete" side clearly won the argument. Second, because Cdogsimmons' additions to the article in no way demonstrate notability. For those who aren't familiar with this user, he is one of those people who crams articles of this sort with every conceivable form of trivia in order to "rescue" them at AfD. It's odd that, 1506 days into his Wikipedia career, he still understands so little about our notability policy. These comments are a perfect illustration of what I mean. If he truly believes that a direct link to the "PAYMENTS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF CEYLON AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE RUMANIAN PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC", which (obviously) isn't discussed in any secondary source (given that no one outside Wikipedia has even noticed this "topic" exists) constitutes the "significant coverage" demanded by WP:GNG (to say nothing of the inherent WP:PSTS problem there) — well, then I don't know what to say. What I do know is that our articles should revolve around topics the notability of which is immediately apparent through multiple substantial mentions in independent sources, not pieces of yellowing paper sitting in UN archives that haven't seen the light of day in a half century. He may wish to ponder that before he goes on his next expansion spree. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse clear and accurate reading of the discussion, in which the policy arguments for delete were stronger. Bali ultimate ( talk) 03:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Well within the closing admins discretion. It is difficult to see how this could have been closed any other way. Kevin ( talk) 04:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I'm not seeing clear error here; I think a relist along the lines proposed by King of Hearts is perfectly reasonable, but I do not see how the closer exceeded their discretion by not relisting. Tim Song ( talk) 06:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Permit recreation at least. The weighting of arguments by closing admin is questionable, given that the keep !votes correctly pointed at the existence of sources, but is indeed within discretion. The article as it is now in userspace however presents plenty of sources and worthwile information, and deserves to come back. -- Cyclopia ^talk 11:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Trout slap the closing admin for not giving a closing rationale, which could have averted the need for DRV. Endorse closure, as the keep !voters didn't adequately demonstrate the existence of significant coverage, and none of the guidelines for notability of relations were met. Scraping together an article from one press article, single sentences in books and some government websites isn't the way to go. Fences& Windows 14:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• I see nothing that necessitates a closing statement. I guess he could have rehashed the standard "Consensus is that the topic is not notable enough for inclusion" etc., but the AfD is clear enough that it should be obvious. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 21:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• There's no such thing as obvious when there's a contested AfD, especially for these bilateral deletion discussions. Not giving a rationale is practically inviting a deletion review in this kind of case, and to not give one when there are non-SPAs hotly contesting your close just seems bloody minded and high handed. What's wrong or so difficult with explaining your actions as an admin? My trout remains. Fences& Windows 00:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• It might be easy to leave one, but it's never been required, and consensus is that it isn't required. -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• As I read it, it was consensus that an admin should leave a closing statement in a disputed AfD, but that they need not. Violations of should can result in people calling for the fish. As well they should (or something like that...). In this case it would have been helpful. Hobit ( talk) 03:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• No it was never found to be consensus that we "should", only that it's nice. Frankly, I'm not to much into "nice" getting in the way of simply closing a discussion. As I see it, a lot of the time a huge drama war can be avoided, by not leaving a closing statement. Because people love to read into admin's closures, and find a way to take it to DRV. So there should, IMO, never even be a should clause to adding a statement, as it's decided on a case by case basis. And I'm pretty sure we can handle that ourselves quite fine, thank you. Regards, -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 18:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Ah, the old "I don't have to explain myself" option. And if I do, people just get mad. I've worked for bosses like that. Oddly people near them seem to get highly annoyed. Hobit ( talk) 01:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• They're only annoyed till they have to fill the position. -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 19:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Strong Endorse the so called "faulty" source finding of my nomination is no reason to overturn. the WP community has 7 days in any AfD to find evidence of notability (ie significant third party coverage). At best, Cdogsimmons found verification of a few agreements not treaties. there is no evidence in the AfD discussion of typical things we have seen in bilateral AfDs that makes things notable such as many state visits, military or economic assistance, significant migration, diplomatic incidents and so on. The article's information better sits in a Foreign relations article in anyway. "the deletion of the information in this article does not serve Wikipedia's general goal of being a summary of all human knowledge" is not a reason for an overturn in deletion review. secondly WP clearly does not cover all human knowledge, see WP:NOT and only entities that are notable. It should also be noted that besides Cdogsimmons the other keep votes had pretty weak arguments with no evidence. LibStar ( talk) 23:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• I do think that before we can endorse an AfD's decision, we need to be satisfied that the AfD properly considered all the sources. If not all the sources were considered, then there's reasonable doubt about the outcome. I agree with King of Hearts that we cannot be sure in this case, so I see "relist" as the appropriate outcome.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 11:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• weak endorse I think it's not unreasonable to say that the sources were addressed and found wanting in the AfD. That said, I really can't tell what the closer was thinking and wish there had been a meaningful closing statement as it might have saved us from this DrV. Hobit ( talk) 03:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse There was no showing that the relations are significant enough to meet the GNG's threshold of multiple reliable sources. Reading this AfD, I'd have been fine with either a 'Delete' or a 'No Consensus' closure within admin discretion. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 04:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, "Keep" arguments were weak. I'd echo the calls to the closing administrator to pre-emptively explain the reasoning applied when closing any XFD that is likely to be even remotely controversial. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 11:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC). reply
• Endorse - Closing statement would have indeed been nice, but not crucial. However I think it's an accurate decision. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 05:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Odette Krempin ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Krempin is honorary consul of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in Germany, an official diplomat and listed as such on the website of the German Foreign Service, 2) the article cited significant coverage in reliable published indepedent sources ( Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Frankfurter Rundschau, in both of which she was profiled, Deutsche Presse-Agentur, Hessischer Rundfunk), 3) the article followed the BLP policy after being entirely rewritten. Hekerui ( talk) 15:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no consensus. Although I favoured (weakly) deletion, I must note that the first four deletion !votes asserted a lack of sources, but by the time the article was deleted coverage in mainly German-language sources had been demonstrated and included in the article, and the contents of the article had been verified by German-speaking editors. So these initial !votes don't hold much water. Delete #5 by No5oo was incomprehensible. The only other delete argument was from me arguing for deletion on grounds of BLP1E, and that rationale was hotly contested and possibly refuted by several !voters. I think Coffee didn't fully see the evolution of the discussion from an initial run of delete voters changing to a significant run of keeps. What Coffee saw as canvassing wasn't canvassing: the article was raised as a test case at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Non English sources by Off2riorob (who !voted delete) for whether articles can be written using mostly or all non-English sources. That's not canvassing. Fences& Windows 16:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Apparently you weren't looking at the right places for the canvassing. There was an IP going around posting the debate at various people's talk pages. That is canvassing, and some of the keeps actually came from those canvassing links. It's within my discretion to discount those !votes, especially when they say something like this: "BLP doesn't come into this, since there is not a single unsourced negative statement about her in the article." Yeah that's a really rock hard argument for it's inclusion. Aside from the canvassing you had keeps like this one: "Weak keep, add {{current}} and wait for more coverage." Oh yeah I just can't wait to see us do that for every article now. -- Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 02:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Well, it'd help if you'd use diffs for proving canvassing as editors don't read minds... Here's the supposed canvassing: [2] An IP editor contacted various German-speaking editors with a notice about the AfD: "Issue w/German sources. Hi. You may be able to help out w/the deletion discussion at this page. Many thanks.-- 68.173.96.196 ( talk) 17 December 2009". If you read WP:CANVASS, you'll see that "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a few editors are considered "friendly notices" if they appear intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion". This was a "friendly notice" to some editors who might be able to help with the German-language sources about Krempin. Fences& Windows 03:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Diffs wouldn't have helped. There was no canvassing, as I had already indicated below. German-speaking does not here mean a propensity to vote keep. (and not all did). Does closer have any proper fact or policy-based reason for the close? None have been offered.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 04:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
      • The "canvassing" itself looked innocent (and perhaps was), but the !votes that came from it were not very high in knowledge of our deletion policies. Therefore I didn't think they were viable for the inclusion of the article, as they didn't cite anything strong enough for the nomination and original problems to be overrided. -- Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
        • It wasn't canvassing. Even "canvassing". It was, as you say, innocent. It did not reflect reaching out to people on one side of the issue. It was classic non-canvassing. As to the knowledge of deletion policies of the German translators; theirs was far higher than the German-phobe (conflating "Nazi" w/"German") and the I-misread-core-policies keep voters. Not even close.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
          • True, but at any rate, the delete's opinions were much more rooted in policy. Therefore they have the consensus. -- Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
            • That wasn't the rationale that you gave in your close. And it isn't what all 10 people commenting here believe (including me). You certainly are not impressing me with your ability to respect consensus in this discussion. Instead, you are saying that all 10 of us are wrong, and you are right. Especially as an admin, I would expect you to set an example for others as to respect for consensus here.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
              • Please, I beg you to not read into my comments here. What I am simply saying is that even though it does seem that this close will be overturned, I still believe that my decision was within my discretion. I am not saying that you all are wrong, quite the opposite. Regards, -- Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus. I'm not impressed with the closure, which should be keep, as there is surely no consensus for deletion. At lot of less significant stuff is tolerated on en-WP, so one wonders why this colorful bio draws so much flak? The first five !votes up to Dec 12 are all delete, as the article was badly sourced then. Since, new sources were added to the article, which is reflected by the final five !votes, all keep. Also, I'm puzzled by the emotions of some editors, especially the one who broke Godwins Law. That person should have been banned from the discussion for being way off topic (if not blocked for incivility). Also, it remains a secret why exactly the article was deleted. Lack of notability? Hardly. No English sources? Apparently - and that is quite a slippery slope. Well, to sum it up: Wikipedia is just not important enough (or anymore) to waste time with it. --  Matthead   Discuß   18:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC) --  Matthead   Discuß   18:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensuskeep. The worst closure I've seen in many weeks. Well said by the others. The only "canvassing" wasn't that at all -- it was various editors being contacted who listed themselves as having a high level of facility with the German language (after some editors indicated that they had trouble because sources were in German). None of the editors contacted, to my knowledge, indicated a prior propensity to vote keep on this issue or delete. The delete voters here were rife with inaccurate understanding of wikipedia's core content policy, and POV. And even with that, there was no consensus to delete--I was wondering if a thoughtful closer would close as keep (given that delete voters based their views on such peculiar thoughts as suggestions that articles written in German should be discounted because of the World War 2 concentration camps, or based on complete misunderstandings of wikipedia core policies), and thini that is how it should have been closed . No basis for this closure.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 20:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn as no consensus When the closing statement acknowledges that there was no clear consensus, as is the case here, there is no reason to delve into "better" arguments, when the close of no consensus is the obvious option. Simply put, when there is no clear consensus, close as no consensus without interjecting personal biases to judge policy. Alansohn ( talk) 20:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn as the close obviously goes against consensus. The only deletion argument offerred after sources were presented was that those sources are not in English, which is a silly, dumbing-down, reason for deletion. Let's get the real issue out into the open here. This is one of a series of disruptive deletions by one of a small group of editors/admins who think that if someone screams "BLP" it means that all rational arguments should be discarded and that anyone who argues for keeping an article is the spawn of the devil. This behaviour needs to be nipped in the bud as it is preventing the building of an encyclopedia, which is what we are supposed to be doing here. Phil Bridger ( talk) 21:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to keep- notability arguments should have been discarded out of hand. Notability was proven and then some. As for BLP1E, it was argued but refuted. Since there were no viable delete arguments, there was no possible reason to close as delete. Umbralcorax ( talk) 22:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn -- this is "no consensus, default to delete" in all but name. Congratulations to the deleting admin for not actually trying to use that rationale this time, but the result can't be allowed to stand all the same, given that there was no consensus at the AfD for deletion. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 22:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Clearly no consensus, defaulting to keep, and in the absence of any substantive explanation from the closer the default, reflecting the numerical !voting results, the default result should stand. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 23:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn An astonishing close. Have Godwin's law and wikipedia's content policies been repealed and replaced by their opposites? John Z ( talk) 23:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Closing admin's statement - Woah I thought that AFD wasn't a vote? This decision is well within my discretion. The majority of the keep votes were total crap, some of them saying that just because of only one event that she was notable, 1 even said that they didn't know a lot about what is notable. The delete votes actually cited good policy as a reason for the deletion. I'm frankly starting to get sick of the "AFD is a vote" attitude going around here at DRV. -- Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 01:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

**I'm starting to think you can't be trusted with closing AfDs. Fences& Windows 03:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Struck Fences& Windows 14:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• • • Second that. Closing an AfD poorly is one thing. When every commenter (ten 12 here so far; including delete voters) has indicated that the closer has closed the AfD against consensus, for him/her to argue the propriety of his close confirms to me that the wrong end of the mop is being used.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 04:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
    • @F&W That's more than a little ridiculous. Considering that only about 1% of my AFD closes have been taken to DRV, I think I'm doing quite well. -- Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 04:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Admittedly, I've not had prior experience w/you that I can recall off-hand, and am basing my broad conclusion only on two things -- this close, and your reaction to the 10 people who have indicated (without any opposition) that this close was not appropriate. Didn't mean to suggest that my conclusion was based on anything more, but I do think these are fairly emphatic mis-steps; especially the second--the digging in of the heels in the face of unanimous reaction, even from delete voters, suggests to me a problem in listening to others. It's just the sort of thing that would lead people to vote against a sysop-to-be at an RfA. One side point--I think it would be great if we did have stats that showed us how many closes of a closer were brought here, and how many (what percentage) were overturned. As a first step to a review of closing rights.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Well you bring up an even better point. I think I've had only 1 or 2 actually get overturned here. In all honesty, that has got to be the lowest rate for any admin at AFD. I'm not being controversial, I made I close that I saw fit according to policy. I'm actually saddened that Fences & Windows is trying to turn this into more than he knows it to be. I've been more than civil with him, but his constant calls on my conduct are starting to wain on my patience. -- Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
          • Actually I just checked, this is the only deletion I've had overturned, and it wasn't even because of how I closed it, it was because the person who the article was about, became more notable. This shows that I'm not near as controversial as Fences & Windows is trying to make me sound. Just because he has disagreed with some of my recent AFD closes, he has usually been in the minority, this is the only time that it appears that a DRV, on one of my closes, that he has !voted overturn in, might actually close that way. Please stop drama mongering F&W, I don't appreciate it. -- Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 06:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. I was the nominator. If the discussion would have maintained the course it started on, I would have easily closed it as a delete. However, sources were added that the group seemed to accept as being reliable. Notability is still a grey area to me, but I'd rather err on the side of keeping. She seems to be somewhat of an international figure and errant diplomat who makes the news where she surfaces. I see that the closing statement mentions canvassing, which I have not had a chance to investigate. -- Spike Wilbury ( talk) 04:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• There is a fine line between appropriately discounting comments that are contrary to policies and guidelines, and inappropriately substituting one's judgment for that of the community by picking one side over the other in a legitimate difference of opinion on how policies and guidelines should be applied. The fact that XfDs are not votes does not mean that closers can discount comments simply because they do not agree with them. In this particular AfD here, the initial flurry of deletes argued that there are no sources, but then sources were presented, so the basis for these deletes have vanished. Of the editors who participated after the sources were presented, a clear majority supported keeping on the ground that notability has been established. While AfD is not a vote, and several editors (F&W, for example) supported deletion despite the sources, both sides presented reasonable, cogent arguments that basically involves a legitimate disagreement over the proper interpretation of the notability guidelines. All things considered, this is, in my view, in the middle between a "no consensus" and a "keep". Since it is at the very best a "no consensus", there is no admin discretion to delete. Therefore, overturn to no consensus, at a minimum. Tim Song ( talk) 07:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to keep. Clear evidence of notability was brought during the AfD, and it is baffling how the closing admin has discarded them. The closing rationale makes no sense in light of the AfD discussion. -- Cyclopia ^talk 10:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply