Endorse, as AfD nom. Other than
NorthPark1417 (the article's author), the only person arguing to keep was
User:Ricksanchez. I certainly don't intend to dissuade new editors from taking part in AfDs, but with a grand total of 162 edits, I suspect they have limited experience evaluating articles. In any case,
they wrote, ... if
NorthPark1417 could give us a list of what has been updated and why those new updates increase notability, I am in favor. If
NorthPark1417 cannot or does not, I will change my status to delete. The requested list of updates was never provided. Unfortunately,
User:Ricksanchez never returned to the AfD, so we can't know for sure what they would have done. I'm pinging him to clarify his intentions one way or another. --
RoySmith(talk)14:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse There is consensus in the first AfD that available sources were insufficient to establish notability and in the second that the concerns in the first AfD were not addressed. Unless the
best three sources are significantly better than what was available the AfDers at the time, relitigating this is pointless, and having a 5th discussion next week won't change the result from what ut was a month ago. Strongly suggest that the nominator pass their best sources through a review process before trying to recreate a page on the subject, and also suggest that maybe
Tim Hinely is the better topic to write an article on, as suggested in both AfDs.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c)
17:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)reply
There are 2 delete and 2 keep. It is no-consensus. Additional sources were added, including ones from notable industry journalists and musicians. The two nominators of the deletion are at the forefront of the discussions, in the AfD, the user talk discussion, and here as well. -
NorthPark1417 (
talk)
17:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)reply
This is absurd.
NorthPark1417, this is the second time you've opened a DRV, then not had the patience to wait for it to be completed before running off and re-creating the article. When you open a DRV, you are requesting that your fellow editors invest time to evaluate your request. It is disrespectful of their efforts to not wait for them to finish their job. By just creating new articles, all you do is generate more work for other people. Please don't do that. It is considered
WP:DISRUPTIVE. This is a collaborative project. The way to be productive is to work with your fellow editors to advance the goals of the encyclopedia, not to win battles by tiring out the opposition. --
RoySmith(talk)21:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)reply
I've taken a closer look at
Tim Hinely. It is virtually identical to the deleted
Dagger (zine). The changes largely consist of swapping the order of some sections. The Bibliographies are almost identical. Rather than delete it myself, I've tagged it for
WP:G4 to get a second opinion. --
RoySmith(talk)14:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse, as AfD nom. Other than
NorthPark1417 (the article's author), the only person arguing to keep was
User:Ricksanchez. I certainly don't intend to dissuade new editors from taking part in AfDs, but with a grand total of 162 edits, I suspect they have limited experience evaluating articles. In any case,
they wrote, ... if
NorthPark1417 could give us a list of what has been updated and why those new updates increase notability, I am in favor. If
NorthPark1417 cannot or does not, I will change my status to delete. The requested list of updates was never provided. Unfortunately,
User:Ricksanchez never returned to the AfD, so we can't know for sure what they would have done. I'm pinging him to clarify his intentions one way or another. --
RoySmith(talk)14:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse There is consensus in the first AfD that available sources were insufficient to establish notability and in the second that the concerns in the first AfD were not addressed. Unless the
best three sources are significantly better than what was available the AfDers at the time, relitigating this is pointless, and having a 5th discussion next week won't change the result from what ut was a month ago. Strongly suggest that the nominator pass their best sources through a review process before trying to recreate a page on the subject, and also suggest that maybe
Tim Hinely is the better topic to write an article on, as suggested in both AfDs.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c)
17:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)reply
There are 2 delete and 2 keep. It is no-consensus. Additional sources were added, including ones from notable industry journalists and musicians. The two nominators of the deletion are at the forefront of the discussions, in the AfD, the user talk discussion, and here as well. -
NorthPark1417 (
talk)
17:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)reply
This is absurd.
NorthPark1417, this is the second time you've opened a DRV, then not had the patience to wait for it to be completed before running off and re-creating the article. When you open a DRV, you are requesting that your fellow editors invest time to evaluate your request. It is disrespectful of their efforts to not wait for them to finish their job. By just creating new articles, all you do is generate more work for other people. Please don't do that. It is considered
WP:DISRUPTIVE. This is a collaborative project. The way to be productive is to work with your fellow editors to advance the goals of the encyclopedia, not to win battles by tiring out the opposition. --
RoySmith(talk)21:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)reply
I've taken a closer look at
Tim Hinely. It is virtually identical to the deleted
Dagger (zine). The changes largely consist of swapping the order of some sections. The Bibliographies are almost identical. Rather than delete it myself, I've tagged it for
WP:G4 to get a second opinion. --
RoySmith(talk)14:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)reply