665:; I'd be fine with either keep or no consensus; and the difference between those two closes is so slim to be barely worth a DRV. (Unless someone wishes to immediately re-nominate it) I'm not seeing anything in the AfD debate to justify an overturn to deleting the article, so endorse the close as within admin discretion between keeping and no consensus.
528:
closed the AfD stating simply, "The result was Keep. Chicago Sun Times is a good source." After I inquired about the closure, Ruslik0 stated that the article was verifiable and the close was based on the strength of the keep arguments. However, the article was originally nominated on the basis of
716:
The consensus in the discussion was to keep the article. Strong arguments were made in favor of keeping on the basis of the existent of reliable sources covering the subject. Two votes to delete (based on the issue of "local" coverage) were valid but outweighed. The other vote to delete deserved
587:
Consensus was to keep. In my analysis of the debate, Edison's "delete" vote should be accorded less weight because he voted before sources were found. Racepacket's "delete" vote and OCNative's nomination are valid opinions but consensus was not with them in the debate. Mandsford, TonyTheTiger,
291:
427:– Closure endorsed. Consensus is that the "keep" close was accurate and/or within the closer's discretion and is, therefore, against overturning to "no consensus", especially since that outcome too would result in the article being kept. –
699:. Keep and no consensus were both open to the admin here; delete most certainly wasn't. In any case, overturning to "no consensus" would be pointless procedure. Even a "keep" can be renominated after a reasonable period of time. --
588:
Bearian, and CastAStone all had strong arguments as to why the article should be retained. Because the "keeps" had a slight numerical majority, and because their arguments were reasonable, a "keep" close is reasonable.
506:
523:
This discussion was closed as keep despite the fact that there appeared to be no consensus and a small number of commenters. The discussion should have been relisted or at least closed as "no consensus" instead.
289:
494:
283:
515:
48:
34:
160:
620:
I would have tended towards a no-consensus closure myself, but that comes out the same ultimately. There was certainly a sufficient number of contributors.
464:
43:
378:
automatically, relist if desired. Only two editors commented in the AfD; that's not really a binding consensus. This should be treated like a contested
641:, looks fine to me. A no consensus close would have been okay too, but honestly if it had been me closing it I'd have called that one a "keep" too. ~
460:
423:
338:
148:
605:
I do not agree that there was "a small number of commenters". This number was actually quite high, and relisting did not make sense.
39:
293:. That's plenty more sourcing than was offered at the AfD, so, if anyone thinks that it's not enough, it should be re-evaluated.
722:
387:
255:
as above. Not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources, and the claims to notability are weak, vague, and unspecific.
310:
reliable and verifiable sources provided in the userspace article and available elsewhere support the claim of notability.
547:- I see nothing wrong with that close. Consensus in the afd was for keeping the article, and that was how it was decided.
169:
21:
666:
182:
177:
First I have to say that I'm not sure if this is the correct page for my request. The article has been deleted by
737:
718:
444:
402:
383:
98:
17:
670:
726:
708:
691:
674:
657:
633:
615:
597:
579:
556:
538:
433:
391:
370:
352:
332:
319:
302:
298:
274:
245:
226:
201:
87:
704:
552:
83:
198:
687:
589:
534:
315:
610:
429:
366:
328:
294:
118:
287:
700:
629:
593:
548:
79:
572:
529:
non-notablity, and the pro-deletion arguments were not weaker than the keep arguments.
379:
348:
256:
241:
222:
212:
194:
186:
683:
530:
311:
606:
525:
190:
114:
70:
625:
189:. Their album was one of the top ten albums in Iran 2003 and they appeared on a
642:
193:
sampler about the music of Iran. I think, that my draft can be moved to NS0.
565:
343:
285:
236:
217:
178:
181:
on the basis of non-notability. I've rewritten it in my user space (see
360:
Cirt's "delete" closure of the uncontested deletion nomination, but
717:
given little weight due to the subsequent location of sources.
682:
close was a reasonable interpretation of the AfD discussion.
364:
per Phil
Bridger (and do not procedurally relist at AfD). –
211:
I am failing to see significant coverage enough to satisfy
564:- Consensus is clearly in favor of keeping this article.
501:
487:
479:
471:
155:
141:
133:
125:
8:
443:The following is an archived debate of the
97:The following is an archived debate of the
416:
63:
78:to mainspace in light of new sources. –
461:Northwestern University Dance Marathon
424:Northwestern University Dance Marathon
7:
740:of the page listed in the heading.
405:of the page listed in the heading.
234:Stricken this comment, see below.
28:
327:No objections to recreation, per
185:) and think that the band passes
736:The above is an archive of the
401:The above is an archive of the
1:
434:04:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
88:12:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
727:20:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
709:03:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
692:02:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
675:15:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
667:Bradjamesbrown is travelling
658:12:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
634:11:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
616:10:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
598:06:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
580:06:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
557:05:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
539:03:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
392:20:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
371:04:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
353:02:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
320:02:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
303:23:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
275:18:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
246:02:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
227:16:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
202:08:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
183:User:Siechfred/Barad (band)
763:
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
743:Please do not modify it.
450:Please do not modify it.
408:Please do not modify it.
104:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
447:of the article above.
101:of the article above.
719:A Stop at Willoughby
384:A Stop at Willoughby
750:
749:
671:Talk to my master
415:
414:
754:
745:
655:
613:
570:
518:
513:
504:
490:
482:
474:
452:
417:
410:
362:allow recreation
308:Allow Recreation
280:Allow recreation
272:
269:
266:
263:
172:
167:
158:
144:
136:
128:
106:
64:
53:
33:
762:
761:
757:
756:
755:
753:
752:
751:
741:
738:deletion review
714:Endorse closure
643:
611:
576:
566:
514:
512:
509:
500:
499:
493:
486:
485:
478:
477:
470:
469:
448:
445:deletion review
406:
403:deletion review
270:
267:
264:
261:
168:
166:
163:
154:
153:
147:
140:
139:
132:
131:
124:
123:
102:
99:deletion review
62:
59:3 February 2010
55:
54:
51:
49:2010 February 4
46:
37:
35:2010 February 2
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
760:
758:
748:
747:
732:
731:
730:
729:
711:
694:
677:
660:
636:
618:
600:
582:
574:
559:
521:
520:
510:
497:
491:
483:
475:
467:
455:
454:
439:
438:
437:
436:
413:
412:
397:
396:
395:
394:
373:
355:
322:
305:
277:
257:Andrew Lenahan
249:
248:
231:
230:
175:
174:
164:
151:
145:
137:
129:
121:
109:
108:
93:
92:
91:
90:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
759:
746:
744:
739:
734:
733:
728:
724:
720:
715:
712:
710:
706:
702:
698:
695:
693:
689:
685:
681:
678:
676:
672:
668:
664:
661:
659:
656:
654:
650:
646:
640:
637:
635:
631:
627:
623:
619:
617:
614:
608:
604:
601:
599:
595:
591:
586:
583:
581:
578:
577:
571:
569:
563:
560:
558:
554:
550:
546:
543:
542:
541:
540:
536:
532:
527:
517:
508:
503:
496:
489:
481:
473:
466:
462:
459:
458:
457:
456:
453:
451:
446:
441:
440:
435:
432:
431:
426:
425:
421:
420:
419:
418:
411:
409:
404:
399:
398:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
374:
372:
369:
368:
363:
359:
356:
354:
350:
346:
345:
340:
337:
334:
330:
326:
323:
321:
317:
313:
309:
306:
304:
300:
296:
292:
290:
288:
286:
284:
282:per sources:
281:
278:
276:
273:
258:
254:
251:
250:
247:
243:
239:
238:
233:
232:
229:
228:
224:
220:
219:
214:
210:
206:
205:
204:
203:
200:
196:
192:
188:
184:
180:
171:
162:
157:
150:
143:
135:
127:
120:
116:
113:
112:
111:
110:
107:
105:
100:
95:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
44:2010 February
41:
36:
23:
19:
742:
735:
713:
696:
679:
662:
652:
648:
644:
638:
621:
602:
584:
573:
567:
561:
544:
526:User:Ruslik0
522:
449:
442:
430:Black Falcon
428:
422:
407:
400:
375:
367:Black Falcon
365:
361:
357:
342:
335:
329:Phil Bridger
324:
307:
295:Phil Bridger
279:
260:
252:
235:
216:
208:
207:
191:Rough Guides
176:
115:Barad (band)
103:
96:
75:
71:Barad (band)
69:
58:
701:Mkativerata
549:Umbralcorax
80:Eluchil404
179:User:Cirt
684:Alansohn
531:OCNative
376:Overturn
339:contribs
312:Alansohn
209:Comment:
20: |
697:Endorse
680:Endorse
663:Endorse
639:Endorse
622:Endorse
603:Comment
585:Endorse
562:Endorse
545:Endorse
516:restore
480:history
380:WP:PROD
358:Endorse
325:Update:
253:Endorse
213:WP:NOTE
187:WP:BAND
170:restore
134:history
76:Restore
626:Stifle
607:Ruslik
590:Cunard
502:watch
495:links
195:Siech
156:watch
149:links
52:: -->
16:<
723:talk
705:talk
688:talk
630:talk
612:Zero
594:talk
568:Reyk
553:talk
535:talk
488:logs
472:edit
465:talk
388:talk
349:talk
344:Cirt
333:talk
316:talk
299:talk
242:talk
237:Cirt
223:talk
218:Cirt
199:Fred
142:logs
126:edit
119:talk
84:talk
32:<
575:YO!
507:XfD
505:) (
341:).
268:bli
161:XfD
159:) (
22:Log
725:)
707:)
690:)
673:)
632:)
624:.
596:)
555:)
537:)
390:)
382:.
351:)
318:)
301:)
271:nd
265:ar
262:St
259:-
244:)
225:)
215:.
86:)
74:–
42::
721:(
703:(
686:(
669:(
653:a
651:c
649:z
647:a
645:m
628:(
609:_
592:(
551:(
533:(
519:)
511:|
498:|
492:|
484:|
476:|
468:|
463:(
386:(
347:(
336:·
331:(
314:(
297:(
240:(
221:(
197:•
173:)
165:|
152:|
146:|
138:|
130:|
122:|
117:(
82:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.