How I Quit Google to Sell Samosas ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

2 Merge Votes contra 4 Delete Votes, this is not a consensus for merging or redirecting+further redirect to an Article which also is at AfD !? CommanderWaterford ( talk) 22:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Buddy, you've got several DRV nominations going on at the same time and you're quite new and very enthusiastic. I'm concerned that you might not really be understanding the decisions you're challenging and you're certainly not talking to the discussion closer before you raise a DRV. Will you consider withdrawing this, talking to Sarah about her decision and then coming back if you still think something is wrong?— S Marshall  T/ C 01:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ S Marshall First all I am not your buddy. Secondly of course I will not withdraw it. I am concerned that you are lacking some kind of experience regarding the closing of AfD Discussions. This is clearly not a consensus. Even more if there are duplicate votes. CommanderWaterford ( talk) 08:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  As you wish. I endorse this close, which correctly assessed the strength of the arguments in the light of policy and guidelines.— S Marshall  T/ C 08:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  You are of course free to do so @ S Marshall but a quick look at your Afd Stats tells me that my concerns are very well justified. CommanderWaterford ( talk) 12:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  I'm intrigued. What are your concerns specifically and which stats support them?— S Marshall  T/ C 12:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  You have after 15 years an AfD Stats Result of barely 50% matching your votes the final result, in other words: Your judgement did not fit to the community consensus in around every second of your votes. CommanderWaterford ( talk) 19:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  Ah, I see. In that case, not-buddy, from the depths of my inexperience with these matters I still think you should have consulted the closer. I note with some amusement that you're adopting new users, and I admire your unselfconsciousness about that.— S Marshall  T/ C 09:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  S Marshall at AfD. The majority of his votes are “non discernible”. Hah! Beware auto stats. Green is 58%, Yellow 15%. Errs on voting to delete much more than voting to keep. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse It could have been closed with "delete", but the ATD compliant "redirect" was the better close. It could not have been closed any other way. If the target is deleted, then deleted the redirect and the history behind it. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  Sorry to say but as far as I remember the result of an AfD is a consensus, not what single Editors believe is a better close. There is absolutely no consensus for a redirect/merge. The actual result was to delete the Article and this needs to be reviewed. CommanderWaterford ( talk) 08:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  Note that WP:ATD-R is deletion Policy, and several delete rationales cited notability, which explicitly does not mandate deletion if there is a plausible redirect target. On the other side, “advert” and COI arguments are arguments to delete the history. The two sides did not engage, therefore the closer can interpret, and redirect is better policy (WP:ATD-R) compliance, and better in that light. That said, I think the discussion could have been closed as “delete” or “redirect”. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and delete in line with the consensus at the discussion. Stifle ( talk) 08:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse good close: the prior delete rationale included no reasoning that would have defeated Cunard's merge rationale and there were no later delete opinions. While closing as a delete would have been acceptable, we generally encourage alternatives to deletion, and I commend the closer in having taken advantage of this option. If the delete !voters object to the merged content, they are free to edit the Munaf Kapadia page or nominate it for deletion. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete It was also a single book review, not multiple reviews as normally be required. That is not a logical argument. There was a clear consensus for delete and User:Dial911 voted twice, making the whole thing suspect. scope_creep ^Talk 11:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ Scope creep Where did I vote twice? Are you crazy? Dial911 ( talk) 13:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  Multiple reviews are normally required for a keep outcome, but the close was merge, which doesn't have a minimum threshold for sourcing. I don't see the illogicality?— S Marshall  T/ C 14:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as per ATD policy. Merge was a better decision than deletion. If Munaf Kapadia survives in mainspace, it all makes sense to have his book listed there. Dial911 ( talk) 13:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • @ Dial911 As said before - the clear consensus was to delete, so WP:ATD does not apply - only "if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate." CommanderWaterford ( talk) 19:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply
    • CommanderWaterfordWhat do you find inappropriate about the redirect? Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 03:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Relist - Cunard's suggestion of a merge came at the end of the discussion, and there was insufficient time for it to be fully considered. Most of the delete votes did not take it into account, but Scope Creep's response to Cunard shows that there's no clear consensus about whether a merge would be appropriate, either. A relist permits further debate about whether merging would be appropriate. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 16:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • What do you find inappropriate about the redirect? Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 01:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC) reply
    • I take it this was intended for CW and not for me. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 02:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC) reply
      • oops. struck and copy-moved Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 03:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse WP:ATD is policy; thus, when an appropriate merge or redirect target is identified in the discussion and not refuted, all delete votes become non-policy based. While counting noses may seem to support deletion in this case, the net policy-based count is 0 to 2 for merging. As such, there is no particular reason to relist such a discussion, and the AfD is nominally "successful"--the nominated article ceases to exist as a separate article. Note that this interpretation of policy is not universally held. Jclemens ( talk) 19:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse clear consensus that we shouldn't have a standalone article about the subject, but nobody offered a reason not to redirect/merge it and there was a reasonable argument for doing so. Admittedly the target article has also been nominated for deletion so this may well be a pointless coversation. I suggest the OP stop trying to find random discussions/deletions to nominate here, it's not a very constructive exercise. Hut 8.5 19:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and Delete — Per CommanderWaterford & Stifle, i too believe the close did not correlate with community consensus. Celestina007 ( talk) 20:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Relist and Bundle with the author. There was no error by the closer. Redirects are cheap, and a Redirect, which is a backdoor delete, is consistent with a Delete !vote under normal circumstances when there is an obvious redirect target. However, the fact that the target article has also been nominated for deletion is a complication. Since two related articles were nominated at the same time, we should bundle them, and allow the community and the closer to consider whether to keep both, delete both, or keep one. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment to User:S Marshall - I do not see multiple DRV nominations by User:CommanderWaterford. I see one nomination, and another in which they are participating. Have I missed something, or are two editors, one of whom is new and enthusiastic, being conflated? Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ Robert McClenon No, you did not miss nothing. I guess "new and enthusiastic" was a mistake and as you can imagine I think many times and very carefully before I nominate an AfD for Review. CommanderWaterford ( talk) 21:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  Two others initiated by that user are pending here. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse This DRV really makes no sense: the article was deleted, the information is now at the merged article, the merged article is now up for deletion (NOTE: I did just !vote in that AfD, but I typed this out first and just realised I hadn't submitted.) If the merged article is deleted, the redirect won't go anywhere. If the merged article is kept, the information at that article is validly sourced, and the redirect is valid. SportingFlyer T· C 23:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• And I predict we're going to see a WP:BADNAC protest of the merge target article AfD in 3... 2... 1... Jclemens ( talk) 06:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Andrew Gower ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I found it quite disturbing that some editors at wikipedia believe that the creator of the greatest MMORPG in history has no significant relevance. If creating a work of this size has no historical importance, I honestly don't know what it is.

Lack of information is not a reason to want to erase traces, did you learn anything from the story? He had been withdrawn from Jagex credits some time ago, if there were no other records, how would we know who started it all? I thought that keeping records was one of the main pillars of Wikipedia. A person does not need to continue creating content all the time to be relevant, whether you are ignorant about it, the fact that he is one of the founders of an MMORPG that today has more than 290 million accounts is an irrefutable relevance.

Furthermore, there was no consensus for the page to be changed, basically the result of the decision was that the opinions were controversial, which makes no sense. Iammachi ( talk) 14:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Good Lord, that was an excellent close of a difficult discussion. Barnstar-worthy.— S Marshall  T/ C 16:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• endorse The keep arguments were very weak (very old discussion being kept, "he made a lot of money on something notable") and the deletion arguments are that the sources about him really aren't there. Delete wins. That said, if someone can find independent, reliable, sources that cover him in detail that would be different. The keep !voters really didn't try from what I can tell and it seems likely they would exist given his history. If good sources can be identified at this point, I'd be fine with a relist. Hobit ( talk) 19:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment It's kinda disappointing. Yes, there is simply not much information available about him. So a dozen people have decided that the little information that exists is not enough to be kept together in a Wikipedia article. Perhaps someone else needs the address Andrew Gower (Jagex) (?)
  I really didn't expect things to happen this way. I found out by chance when I went to research about him and the page had been deleted.
  I don't usually edit wiki, so whatever guys, your wiki, your rules. Peace. Iammachi ( talk) 23:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Good close. Checking the article before redirection, there is very little there and nothing that is not well covered at Jagex and RuneScape. WP:BIO2E isn't really a thing, but coverage of Andrew and his brother at these articles is also very brief. Brief is the heart of the problem. Fails WP:BIO. Re-creation advocates can use draftspace, but see the advice at WP:THREE. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, essentially per Hobit. The keep !votes mostly failed to assert substantial coverage, and so the closer was within his rights to disregard them. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 17:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. If I'd taken part in the AfD, I'm guessing I might have put together a case for keep: the first search I tried found this among other results. But the closer has to go with the case made in the AfD, and besides the !vote of Stuhunter83 which linked to a substantive Ars Technica article, the keep rationale was hopeless. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment @ Iammachi You need to inform the deletion closer of the review which you have forgotten - @ S Marshall, who praises the result of the closer in the highest praises here, did inform the AfD closer for you. BTW: 5 Times had this subject been nominated for deletion. CommanderWaterford ( talk) 20:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse We've now had five AfDs on the subject and even though the first four were in the early days, there hasn't been a single keep !vote which has clearly demonstrated notability via sourcing. Not only were the redirect/delete/merge crowd more numerous at this debate, but the keep !voters really didn't advance any sort of argument for keeping apart from notability being inherited from the product he created. I don't see any mistake here, but if he really is notable, we can always re-create through the draft process. Very good close. SportingFlyer T· C 23:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the close, but allow the submission of a draft without waiting two months or six months, but with no guarantee that the reviewer will accept the draft. It was the right close, but the issue was not that the subject is not notable, but that the draft did not show notability. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the rationale for deletion was that the subject doesn't meet the general notability guideline. This is, in principle, a perfectly good rationale to delete something, and I don't see much of an attempt to refute that in the discussion. The arguments for keeping were that he's notable as the result of creating a very successful product, and that the nomination is disruptive because of the previous nominations. The first argument doesn't have much grounding in the notability guidelines, and even if it did (e.g. "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field" from WP:ANYBIO) it would be overruled if the subject doesn't pass the GNG. There is some scope for exceptions to the notability guidelines, but that would require a solid consensus at the AfD. Given that the previous AfD was 12 years ago it's not at all disruptive to renominate it. I suggest that anyone who thinks we should have an article on the subject try to come up with a draft which shows that he meets the GNG. Hut 8.5 11:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC) reply