The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The deletion discussion after being relisted was closed and kept because the closer felt there was "...consensus that the nomination has no merit", rather than closing the discussion on the merits of the arguments in the deletion discussion. Step 1 of
Wikipedia:Drv#Steps to list a new deletion review was executed for
clarification but was ignored.
Endorse. AfD is not for discussing merges. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 06:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)reinserting comment deleted by IP
here --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 08:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse the original closing decision. From my limited experience at DRV, this forum is not to be used to attempt to get a "do over" after clearly not achieving the consensus that one originally wanted at AfD, MfD, etc.. Curb Chain has been making
sneaky and disruptive edits to
List_of_American_death_metal_bands for a number of days now, which has caused myself to unfortunately have to file a case against Curb Chain at
AN/I. Item #2 above isn't really true, since the real current version of the list that's in question here is really
this one, which contains the total number of
death metal bands that were originally formed in the
United States. This version existed before Curb Chain basically blanked the list (for the second time) to make it look like there were only a few bands mentioned there that weren't already on
these lists. As for #3 above, to quote
Wikipedia:LISTN#Stand-alone_lists: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." The list in question here should be kept simply because it is easier to
navigate than the excessively long parent lists of all death metal bands.
Guy1890 (
talk) 07:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse The consensus was clearly "keep" and I am not even sure why the AFD was relisted (garnering another "keep"). It seems to me that the issue is one where guidelines of style and "notability" are relevant and people are entitled to take a view on such things.
Thincat (
talk) 08:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse Consensus was clear and within policy at the AFD. Not a matter for DRV.
Only in death does duty end (
talk) 08:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse per the above. The nomination arguments were roundly dismissed - and an AFD cannot be closed on the merits of its nomination when the discussion comes to a consensus that the nomination had no merit. The nomination here also appears to be re-litigating the AFD, which is not how DRV works. Note that this issue has been brought to ANI.
UltraExactZZSaid~
Did 12:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Curb Chain says his request for "clarification" from the closing admin,
User:Mike Rosoft was "ignored". First, Curb Chain literally "ask[ed] for clarification"
[1] without elaboration or explanation. Second, judging from the time stamps he waited less than four hours to decide Mike Rosoft "ignored" his post (a time that Mike clearly was not even editing according to his contribution history).
And so, too, went his AFD nomination. I wasted more time than anyone in responding to him, and all of his arguments were addressed, no one agreed with him, and his rebuttals were unfocused and incoherent. It's really disappointing to see him repeat here the "'American death metal' is not a genre" nonsense, given how many times it was explained to him that it's a standard grouping by nationality, but that's been par for the course in this. postdlf (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Wow. Endorse. This might even be a rare case that a DRV should be closed early.
Hobit (
talk) 16:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)reply
No, no. That would delay things far too much.
Thincat (
talk) 17:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)reply
User:Curb Chain has asked me for clarification about my decision, without saying exactly what he wants clarification about. In any case, the deletion nomination has been soundly rejected by everybody but the nominator; there's nothing to review here. Keep. (Thanks for reminding me to add an old deletion debate notice on the talk page, though.) -
Mike Rosoft (
talk) 16:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The deletion discussion after being relisted was closed and kept because the closer felt there was "...consensus that the nomination has no merit", rather than closing the discussion on the merits of the arguments in the deletion discussion. Step 1 of
Wikipedia:Drv#Steps to list a new deletion review was executed for
clarification but was ignored.
Endorse. AfD is not for discussing merges. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 06:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)reinserting comment deleted by IP
here --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 08:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse the original closing decision. From my limited experience at DRV, this forum is not to be used to attempt to get a "do over" after clearly not achieving the consensus that one originally wanted at AfD, MfD, etc.. Curb Chain has been making
sneaky and disruptive edits to
List_of_American_death_metal_bands for a number of days now, which has caused myself to unfortunately have to file a case against Curb Chain at
AN/I. Item #2 above isn't really true, since the real current version of the list that's in question here is really
this one, which contains the total number of
death metal bands that were originally formed in the
United States. This version existed before Curb Chain basically blanked the list (for the second time) to make it look like there were only a few bands mentioned there that weren't already on
these lists. As for #3 above, to quote
Wikipedia:LISTN#Stand-alone_lists: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." The list in question here should be kept simply because it is easier to
navigate than the excessively long parent lists of all death metal bands.
Guy1890 (
talk) 07:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse The consensus was clearly "keep" and I am not even sure why the AFD was relisted (garnering another "keep"). It seems to me that the issue is one where guidelines of style and "notability" are relevant and people are entitled to take a view on such things.
Thincat (
talk) 08:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse Consensus was clear and within policy at the AFD. Not a matter for DRV.
Only in death does duty end (
talk) 08:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse per the above. The nomination arguments were roundly dismissed - and an AFD cannot be closed on the merits of its nomination when the discussion comes to a consensus that the nomination had no merit. The nomination here also appears to be re-litigating the AFD, which is not how DRV works. Note that this issue has been brought to ANI.
UltraExactZZSaid~
Did 12:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Curb Chain says his request for "clarification" from the closing admin,
User:Mike Rosoft was "ignored". First, Curb Chain literally "ask[ed] for clarification"
[1] without elaboration or explanation. Second, judging from the time stamps he waited less than four hours to decide Mike Rosoft "ignored" his post (a time that Mike clearly was not even editing according to his contribution history).
And so, too, went his AFD nomination. I wasted more time than anyone in responding to him, and all of his arguments were addressed, no one agreed with him, and his rebuttals were unfocused and incoherent. It's really disappointing to see him repeat here the "'American death metal' is not a genre" nonsense, given how many times it was explained to him that it's a standard grouping by nationality, but that's been par for the course in this. postdlf (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Wow. Endorse. This might even be a rare case that a DRV should be closed early.
Hobit (
talk) 16:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)reply
No, no. That would delay things far too much.
Thincat (
talk) 17:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)reply
User:Curb Chain has asked me for clarification about my decision, without saying exactly what he wants clarification about. In any case, the deletion nomination has been soundly rejected by everybody but the nominator; there's nothing to review here. Keep. (Thanks for reminding me to add an old deletion debate notice on the talk page, though.) -
Mike Rosoft (
talk) 16:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.