Burn it All ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

No strong consensus to delete without maintaining the page history. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 20:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - Deleting was a valid conclusion by the closer, and it appears that the appellant is stating a policy that is not in place that restricts deletion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 07:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse- the delete !votes cited the lack of sourcing, which is a legitimate concern the keep side did not address. There was a suggestion to redirect but, without being identify which target would be most suitable, it's not very useful. And a redirect can be made without restoring the page history anyway. I think consensus to delete was a reasonable finding. Reyk _YO! 09:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• endorse for now Appears to meet WP:BAND, but that's probably not enough if there really are no sources. Once the band does something that gets at least a bit of coverage, get it undeleted, add those sources and we'll talk. But for now the outcome is reasonable even if the !vote was close. If there *are* decent sources, contra the claims of the delete side, they should have been supplied (and even here, given the !vote was 2 to 1 including the nom, even just decent sources would be enough for a relist given it meets an SNG). Hobit ( talk) 12:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • The band's done nothing since releasing a demo in 2008. It's not reasonable to expect it to get new coverage. — Cryptic 18:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse own deletion as that was the consensus at the discussion. I am not sure what would be accomplished by "maintaining the page history" whilst still following the delete consensus, even if that were something that we had the capacity to do. If someone wants to cite the sources (over and above just asserting they exist) then that would be grounds for reconsideration. Stifle ( talk) 14:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The AfD itself had run its course after 2 relists and the consensus is clear to delete since there were no sources presented to establish that the band is really notable. — Nnadigoodluck ███ 20:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Not entirely sure I understand this nomination. Was Stifle meant to restore the page history after deleting the article, and if so, how?— S Marshall  T/ C 14:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC) reply

  S Marshall, the OP meant that the closer should have closed as redirect while preserving the page history. — Nnadigoodluck ███ 16:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• This was recreated as a redirect a few hours ago, and I've listed it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 27. — Cryptic 18:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse technically speaking given the limited participation and the fact that the subject meets WP:BAND ("Ensemble has 3 notable band members") this should probably have been no consensus, but given that the band hasn't produced any music other than a few demos and there weren't any sources other than this I don't see much of a case for keeping the article. There is no value in keeping the page history, the deleted version didn't do anything other than name the members of the band. If someone is able to come up with any different sources at all though then I suggest a new AfD. Hut 8.5 19:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus The nominator was blocked as a sock a couple of days ago, making this one person for keeping, one person for deleting. I strongly agree with the outcome, and there was nothing wrong with the close, but the AfD is now improper in the first place, and a no consensus with the ability to renominate I think makes the most sense here. Even though it's a bit of bureaucracy, socks shouldn't be the determining factor for article deletion, if properly discovered, and I feel just strongly enough about that to not endorse. SportingFlyer T· C 13:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I concur with SportingFlyer. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 16:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Based on your vote in the AfD, I don't think you concur that deletion was probably the correct outcome :-) SportingFlyer T· C 18:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Reply - I meant to say, that because the nominator was blocked as a sock a couple of days ago, that the AfD is now improper in the first place. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 20:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse had two relists. Mr. Heart ^(talk) 06:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• No, we've got to relist it on the basis of the new information (last few days). When you subtract the sockpuppet, that debate doesn't add up to a "delete" consensus.— S Marshall  T/ C 01:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I concur with S Marshall. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 01:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no consensus per SportingFlyer. If we discount the nomination, which we now have to given that it's by a checkuser-blocked account, we don't have a consensus for deletion. Sandstein 06:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Given that we have new information stating the nominator was ineligible to raise the AFD, I would suggest endorse but relist. My closure was correct given the information available at the time, and should be endorsed, but to ensure the correct outcome given the demonstrated socking, the article should be listed again. I would suggest this be a fresh listing rather than adding further to the existing one. Stifle ( talk) 10:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply