Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 20

< November 19	Deletion review archives: 2008 November	November 21 >

20 November 2008

Perry the Platypus

Endorse closure. MBisanz could not possibly have closed this any other way. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure agree with stifle, reviewed AfD and article... it's a keeper.--Paul McDonald (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Keep was appropriate. And you're misrepresenting an excellent admin by saying he only counted !votes. Read what he wrote to you on his talk page again. --Dweller (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I brought about this deletion review because I feel the closing administrator incorrectly closed the AfD in two ways. The first way is that the admin found consensus not by looking at the strength of argument and underlying policy but instead counted heads. I always thought it was the role of the closing administrator weigh the arguments presented by both sides and not simply count the votes. If he did look at both sides of the argument it is hard to gather that from either the closing sentence, "The result was keep.", or from the discussion on his talk page where he talks about the amount of votes and when they were cast. The second way, is at the very least the admin disenginiously closed the AfD as Keep when it could have been closed as no consensus, as he stated on his talk page, to minimize ambiguity and future confusion. Aspects (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of arguing about it, you should be apologising to MBisanz for misrepresenting him. Any disingenuousness here is entirely by you misrepresenting what he wrote. By accusing him of disenguity you compound your baseless accusations. The AfD was appropriately closed. --Dweller (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any "bad faith" going on here, just a lack of complete communication. I have often wished that closing admins would state reasons behind the conclusion of an AFD rather than just the result.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (keep). At worst keep (no consensus). No prospect for deletion. discuss other options on the talk page. Agree with Paul McDonald, I wish closers would always give a decent explanation, clearly better explanations are needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passion Pit

Passion Pit (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Not meeting band requirements I got on Wikipedia and I searched for Passion Pit to find that the band has been removed from wikipedia. I think that this band at least meets one or more of the requirements for a band, such as notation from a organization. Epic Fu has featured Passion Pit on an episode and I believe that fits a requirement. I am wondering if this should be un-deleted from Wikipedia. Thank you very much. Anarchy 228 (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 09:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All else being equal, I like to follow due process myself. However, here we are and I don't see any indication of bad faith in bringing forth this discussion. That said, a quick google search for me gave a whole bunch of articles, including a NYTimes entry. Not being an expert on what makes a band notable, I'd say that just on the sheer volume of entries that there is a case for notability here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 09:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]