List of types of businesses using the "as a service" business model ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Reluctant to open a DRV but no response from closer on talk [1]. There was clear consensus to do something here. 4 delete !votes, 2 others suggested conversion to disambiguation, and 2 keeps, (1 of which was "keep or merge" and the other was "keep and convert to SETINDEX"). A simple "The result was no consensus" keeps a page by default that no one unequivocally thought should be kept. The article is new, and delete arguments that it failed LISTN were unanswered. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 20:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply

User:Doczilla took a four day break, but has made a couple dozen edits today. Doczilla should answer the question on their talk page, per WP:ADMINACCT. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I noticed a lack of editing and deliberately waited until after Doczilla had made new edits, and then waited for over 12 hours more for an answer on the page. At this time it still has not been addressed. Thus my reluctantly bringing it here. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 07:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Having read Doczilla’s answer, …

Doczilla could add some of that to the closing statement.

My advice is to attempt the non-deletion solutions suggested, and if they don’t work, follow the advice at WP:RENOM. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• It's an unattributed copy/paste which creates a terms of use problem that needs to be fixed. A "no consensus" outcome should have triggered an appropriate WP:CWW repair and if we do nothing else, DRV must fix this. It violates the terms of use to leave it.
  I do not weight the arguments as Doczilla did. Either this fails LISTN and should be deleted, or else it could be converted to a valid navigational list per CLN in which case it should exist. I would say that if the navigational list is the right way to go, the WP:PATT problems with it suggest it would be simpler to delete and start over than to repair.— S Marshall  T/ C 08:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment as a service: Nothing in the AFD closure prevents editors from merging or converting the article, nor from fixing any alleged copyright issues. Stifle ( talk) 09:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - There was no consensus. A closer has to be bold to close an AFD where the participants really are scattered all over, because, no matter what the closer does, someone is likely to take it to DRV, and here we are. If the closer finds that there was a rough consensus to do something, someone will appeal that that was a supervote, or was not what the community wanted. If the closer finds No Consensus, someone will appeal that there was a rough consensus. There was no consensus, and the closer acted reasonably in saying that there was no consensus. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I've made the suggested WP:SIA for this topic by repurposing the rubbish article as a service. The set index article should be at that name, not at the name 'List of types of businesses using the "as a service" business model' which is a rather poor and useless name.— Alalch E. 17:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Seems like a WP:BARTENDER situation. There was a consensus that something besides keep needed to be done, but respondents did not agree on exactly what to do. Admin discretion for some kind of non-keep option mentioned in the discussion might be reasonable. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 21:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete based on WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 by analogy. Circumstances changed in a way which has something to do with the recommendations made in the AfD.
  Read the last comment left by User:TimothyBlue as 'delete'. He suggested keeping with the rationale that the list should be converted into a WP:SIA at a time when there wasn't an "as a service" SIA. But now, after the AfD, there is such a SIA, however it was not the nominated list that become the SIA but the article as a service (which was in a hopeless state and the topic is not a good topic for a regular article in the first place). So, seeing that TimothyBlue's suggestion to make a SIA was actually taken up, his !vote can be understood simply as "don't keep that table-format list" under the current circumstances, meaning essentially "don't keep the page". I take it that he agrees that there need not be both lists, because that wouldn't be right since they are duplicative (set index articles are also lists). The only difference in the end result is the name. "As a service" is a good name for something (including a SIA), while "List of types of businesses using the "as a service" business model" is not a good name for anything.— Alalch E. 01:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • As a general rule, if you feel you can read into a bolded keep !vote an actual intent to delete (or via versa), that means either the !voter is an idiot or you are stretching too far. In this case, I think you are stretching too far to guess how the changes you describe would impact his !vote. Perhaps best to ping @ TimothyBlue: and ask rather than reading tea leaves. Hobit ( talk) 22:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

    Alalch E did ping TimothyBlue. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 23:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

    After all these years, I didn't realize that a link to someone caused a ping. Hobit ( talk) 01:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and relist. While I personally believe the article should be kept, that was clearly not the consensus in the AfD. True, opinions were evenly split between Delete and Merge, but the default Keep resulting from a "no consensus" close reflects the least popular view there. Anything other than Keep/no-consensus would have been closer to representing the consensus in that AfD. Owen× ☎ 12:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Eh. endorse That was a hard close, with the options being merge or NC IMO. Just no clear way forward--there was a reasonable argument for a keep, merge, and delete with more numbers leaning in the merge/delete direction. Sometimes those should be closed as merges, sometimes NC. I'm not sure which would be better here, so I have to endorse this close as reasonable. Hobit ( talk) 22:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I agree with pretty much everyone. There was no consensus in the discussion, but there was a consensus to do something. Since others indicated there was no objection to doing something, I boldly (mid discussion) took an axe to the article to make it an SIA , and think it now can pass SUMMARY ( BEFORE, AFTER Revert if there is an objection, I know this kind of edit can be controversial mid discussion).

I don't think a relist would be productive at this time, give this six months and then renom for a fresh discussion.  //  Timothy ::  talk  23:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ TimothyBlue There are two "as a service" set index articles now:

• the set index article as a service (it's a set index article)
• the set index article List of types of businesses using the "as a service" business model

Which of the two do you consider to be better? (Knowing that there are two set index articles with the same scope, do you agree that two should not exist per WP:REDUNDANTFORK but one—which one?) — Alalch E. 00:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply

That's an irrelevant question. We aren't in an AfD here. The purpose of a DRV is to determine whether the AfD was closed correctly or not. Owen× ☎ 01:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply

There's been a change in circumstances. I've explained it above. — Alalch E. 01:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to delete. Nom is correct that there's a "do something" in here, but the alternative to deletion with any support at all was DAB-ification. However, As a service is already a set-index article (a "super-DAB") that covers this, and is at the obvious name for such a page. So, the AfDed page serves no function at all and isn't salvageable. The most that needs to be done here is adding entries to As a service that are missing, and the most that needs to be done immediately in that regard is a talk page post at Talk:As a service indicating what ones are missing, so editors can work on adding that material as time and interest permit. There is zero actually encyclopedic content in the AfDed page; it's simply a reformatted copy-paste of the relevant category, and it is at a crappy title (extremely unlikely search phrase) that we don't need to do anything with at all other than return it to a blissful red link.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • It wasn't already a SIA when the afd was closed or, for that matter, when this drv began - it looked like this. — Cryptic 23:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Sure, but the horse is already way out of the barn now. I'm one of those WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY types. There's neither any point in keeping this (it would just be redirected, and then probably WP:RFDed as an implausible search title), nor in relisting it just to delete it.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Relist (or just overturn to delete if we want to cut out the red tape). In the original AFD, I suggested to either merge or convert to WP:SIA. This outcome has effectively been implemented by User:Alalch E. after closure. Given the current status of the as a service article, I agree that this article is now redundant. My understanding of policy is that we're supposed to only comment on issues with the interpretation of the discussion (which arguably was correct at the time of closure) or present new information, and deletion should be done at AFD, but I think we can just WP:IAR this and delete, since it's probably going to be WP:A10ed or WP:SNOW deleted anyway. Liu1126 ( talk) 22:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete The NLIST failure arguments are clearly the strongest. The SETINDEX arguments aren't necessarily bad arguments but if we did this it would be unnecessarily duplicative of the page it was forked from. It appears this happened post-close, so the overturn to delete should be read more as procedurally the right thing to do than classic incorrect close. SportingFlyer T· C 00:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to merge for the reasons expressed in WP:BARTENDER. The closer has some discretion to determine which merge targets is best, but the no consensus, defaulting to keep, close is not the desire of the participants in the discussion. If a merge has already been implemented (as Liu1126 suggests), then it would be appropriate to delete the article as further discussion is moot. -- Enos733 ( talk) 17:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC) reply

List of number-one digital songs of 2023 (Canada) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I thought of bring back the list of List of number-one digital songs of 2023 (Canada) because I feel there was more differences with the List of Canadian Hot 100 number-one singles of 2023 compared to the others years then you can verify via archived copies on the Wayback Machine. -- Sd-100 ( talk) 02:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Fixed incomplete nomination. Noting that the G4 tag is up, and this discussion was obviously started as a response to the G4 tag.— Alalch E. 12:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. There was a consensus to delete this page as part of the nominated bundle. No new information has come to light since the deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page.— Alalch E. 12:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Deletion review is a place to address failures to follow the deletion process, not to bring (back) up things that were or ought to have been raised at the AFD. Stifle ( talk) 15:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Nothing wrong with the G4 tag in this instance. SportingFlyer T· C 18:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply