628:. First off, even if we're headcounting, remember that the nomination, unless explicitly stated otherwise, is also an argument to delete. In this case, it clearly is. That would make 3 deletes, 1 merge, 2 keeps. When BLP concerns are raised, which was the case here, a closer can decide to close a discussion which may otherwise have fallen "no consensus" as delete. The closer's interpretation of the discussion was within reasonable discretion. The rest of the nomination makes little sense; we do not decide what "needs" an article, we decide if an article does or does not fall within our policies and guidelines.
730:, but failed to do so. Defective discussions are errors in the deletion process, and it's DRV's role to correct them. The least process-intensive solution, and therefore the one that's least expensive in volunteer time, would be a straight overturn to redirect; but if the DRV closer is squeamish about that, they could "endorse" and then note that there's nothing to stop anyone from redirecting as a separate and subsequent editorial action.—
200:
do on the article to make sure it's notable, and to those wanting to delete it that they can wait a couple months and then renominate if no work has been done on the article, and they think it still stands to be deleted. I for one do think there's a difference between keep and no consensus even though the result is the same, and in no way do I support overturning this to a delete.
356:
I'm not seeing a keep consensus in that discussion either, but it had already been relisted once, and AfD participation is so very low nowadays that it's disproportionately expensive in volunteer time to keep relisting the same discussions. We need our AfD volunteers to be considering the new cases,
199:
I don't see an argument there for either keeping or deleting, but rather a discussion with a lack of consensus. While overturning a keep to a no consensus basically splits a hair, I'm nevertheless not voting to endorse this to give those wanting to keep it notice there may be a little bit of work to
577:
and not about Powell. Both are extremely significant events. In the case of Powell, the coverage is substantial on him from all types of sources. When I brought up the example to the closer, he stated that "dunno. Perhaps the person who tried to kill a president has more enduring notability then a
238:
I'm not sure a relisting would help, plus a quick search of the topic shows, in my mind, that it's clearly notable, with each awards show receiving significant coverage from the likes of
Variety, Billboard, Hollywood Reporter, and the like, so relisting's unlikely to give you the outcome you're
176:
Two editors in favor of deletion and one in favor of keeping. Buidhe co-signed my rationale that the given sources do not establish notability (i.e. churnalism does not meet the bar of significant coverage) and
Atlantic306 asserted that they do. I provided additional evidence of churnalism at
318:
to no consensus or relist. I don't think the discussion can be described as having any consensus to keep, whether or not there's consensus to delete. Hence: no consensus, not keep. The discussion is already open, an "endorse" isn't going to make less of an issue.
340:- This is a problematic outcome. The sources do not provide the kind of information that an encyclopedic article would need to cover, such as who is behind the award. I don't think we should endorse a keep outcome to a clearly inconclusive AfD. —
581:
That response negates the colossal importance of the Rodney King Riots that resulted from Powell's actions. The event was exceptionally historically notable, and he, as a significant player in an extremely historical event, needs an
671:
are guidelines. It is sometimes said, with some justification, that policies "trump" guidelines. Guidelines explicitly allow for "occasional exceptions" and "common sense" and even policies only need to be followed "normally".
567:
Rationale for closing it was, "The CRIME /IE arguments trump GNG ones." One, I don't think there is any thought out reason why one policy reason should outweigh another reason. To me, this was a notable enough event that the
572:
statement of "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate" should apply. To me, it makes little sense to have an article about
159:
411:. Had this been closed as NC, I probably would have gritted my teeth and endorsed. But, I really hate to see decisions made with so little discussion, and I'm hard pressed to see how this works out to
357:
and that's why it's better for these things to be closed after one relist or preferably none. I'd have gone with no consensus which is of course indistinguishable from a keep outcome in practice.—
788:, which was properly identified by the voters and the closer. There's no reason why he can't be adequately covered in the merged article, though - just means no on a standalone article.
147:
168:
394:, and give a chance for a consensus to (maybe) develop (and usually the norm is 2 relists anyway). Gotta say, a very odd closure that was not leaning to keep in any way.
546:
287:, the challenges to the lone keep argument were at least significant enough that they should have been evaluated further by editors who hadn't yet participated.
48:
34:
43:
117:
534:
802:
253:
214:
415:. I'm hoping that the added exposure this got on DRV will attract more of our brightest and best minds to join the discussion. --
113:
70:
39:
741:
555:
368:
328:
595:
While this is not a vote; there were 2 keep votes and 2 delete. The vote totals indicate that there is no consensus here.
21:
179:
User talk:Spartaz/Archive24#More info on decision at
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Guild of Music Supervisors Awards
178:
726:
Accurate close of a defective discussion. AfD participants should have considered the possibility of redirecting to
852:
820:
659:
The AfD nomination was made at an unfortunately sensitive time and it is good that the discussion remained calm.
484:
433:
275:
97:
17:
755:- consensus was clearly against having this as an article. That shouldn't be a barrier to making a redirect to
794:
245:
229:
206:
186:
399:
466:
which I won't officially include in the consensus close, but mentioning it so people know it exists. --
306:
841:
824:
807:
772:
745:
721:
651:
634:
618:
604:
473:
422:
403:
386:
372:
351:
332:
310:
293:
279:
258:
233:
219:
190:
86:
816:
737:
647:
504:
364:
271:
611:
600:
324:
789:
629:
470:
419:
288:
240:
225:
201:
182:
717:
574:
395:
837:
382:
347:
302:
684:
and implied by the closing rationale, is to be distinguished from the notability guideline
785:
731:
697:
693:
689:
677:
673:
668:
660:
643:
578:
policeman who murdered a black.person. There are far more of the latter than the former."
500:
463:
454:
358:
712:
should have been the preferred close (though it might have been slightly controversial).
766:
596:
320:
77:
781:
664:
467:
416:
784:
doesn't mean they're guaranteed an article. One situation where that's the case is
713:
685:
569:
377:
I would have gone for a no-consensus, but that doesn't change anything materially.
832:. The closure is within the realms of reasonableness and I would not disturb it.
833:
756:
727:
588:
378:
341:
676:
explicitly includes the word "normally" and its stipulations are not absolute.
760:
642:
4 editors favored something other than keeping the article. Good close.
563:
I think the closing should have been to re-list or no consensus.
700:. At AfD Rhododendrites helpfully referred to the difference.
270:- Not worth making an issue between Keep and No Consensus.
181:
but the essence of the argument is all there in the AFD.
579:
541:
527:
519:
511:
154:
140:
132:
124:
704:
was a close well within discretion, in my view, and
757:Rodney King#1991 police assault in Los Angeles
728:Rodney King#1991 police assault in Los Angeles
8:
680:, which was referred to by those suggesting
483:The following is an archived debate of the
96:The following is an archived debate of the
447:
63:
815:- A valid closure. No error by closer.
696:is not fully countered by relying on
587:The article is remarkably similar to
7:
855:of the page listed in the heading.
759:. In fact, I'm going to do so now.
436:of the page listed in the heading.
28:
114:Guild of Music Supervisors Awards
71:Guild of Music Supervisors Awards
609:"While this is not a vote, ." —
851:The above is an archive of the
692:) so an argument on grounds of
432:The above is an archive of the
224:Would you support a relisting?
462:There's a minority opinion by
1:
708:would have been acceptable.
780:Just because someone passes
878:
842:10:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
825:01:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
808:23:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
773:15:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
746:11:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
722:08:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
652:05:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
635:03:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
619:03:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
605:02:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
474:23:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
423:23:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
404:19:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
387:10:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
373:09:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
352:08:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
333:13:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
311:05:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
294:03:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
280:01:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
259:16:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
234:19:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
220:23:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
191:20:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
87:06:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
858:Please do not modify it.
490:Please do not modify it.
439:Please do not modify it.
197:Overturn to no consensus
103:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
301:per Robert McClenon.
487:of the page above.
100:of the page above.
663:is a policy while
865:
864:
744:
633:
575:John Hinckley Jr.
446:
445:
371:
350:
292:
85:
869:
860:
805:
797:
736:
632:
616:
614:
558:
553:
544:
530:
522:
514:
492:
448:
441:
363:
346:
291:
256:
248:
217:
209:
171:
166:
157:
143:
135:
127:
105:
84:
82:
75:
74:– AfD relisted.
64:
53:
33:
877:
876:
872:
871:
870:
868:
867:
866:
856:
853:deletion review
817:Robert McClenon
801:
793:
771:
612:
610:
554:
552:
549:
540:
539:
533:
526:
525:
518:
517:
510:
509:
501:Laurence Powell
488:
485:deletion review
455:Laurence Powell
437:
434:deletion review
343:Charles Stewart
272:Robert McClenon
252:
244:
213:
205:
167:
165:
162:
153:
152:
146:
139:
138:
131:
130:
123:
122:
101:
98:deletion review
78:
76:
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
875:
873:
863:
862:
847:
846:
845:
844:
827:
810:
775:
765:
749:
748:
724:
654:
637:
623:
622:
621:
613:Rhododendrites
592:
591:
584:
583:
561:
560:
550:
537:
531:
523:
515:
507:
495:
494:
479:
478:
477:
476:
444:
443:
428:
427:
426:
425:
406:
389:
375:
354:
335:
313:
296:
282:
265:
264:
263:
262:
261:
174:
173:
163:
150:
144:
136:
128:
120:
108:
107:
92:
91:
90:
89:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
874:
861:
859:
854:
849:
848:
843:
839:
835:
831:
828:
826:
822:
818:
814:
811:
809:
806:
804:
798:
796:
791:
790:SportingFlyer
787:
783:
779:
776:
774:
770:
769:
764:
763:
758:
754:
751:
750:
747:
743:
739:
735:
734:
729:
725:
723:
719:
715:
711:
707:
703:
699:
695:
691:
687:
683:
679:
675:
670:
666:
662:
658:
655:
653:
649:
645:
641:
638:
636:
631:
630:Seraphimblade
627:
624:
620:
615:
608:
607:
606:
602:
598:
594:
593:
590:
586:
585:
580:
576:
571:
566:
565:
564:
557:
548:
543:
536:
529:
521:
513:
506:
502:
499:
498:
497:
496:
493:
491:
486:
481:
480:
475:
472:
469:
465:
461:
457:
456:
452:
451:
450:
449:
442:
440:
435:
430:
429:
424:
421:
418:
414:
410:
407:
405:
401:
397:
393:
390:
388:
384:
380:
376:
374:
370:
366:
362:
361:
355:
353:
349:
345:
344:
339:
336:
334:
330:
326:
322:
317:
314:
312:
308:
304:
300:
297:
295:
290:
289:Seraphimblade
286:
283:
281:
277:
273:
269:
266:
260:
257:
255:
249:
247:
242:
241:SportingFlyer
237:
236:
235:
231:
227:
226:Axem Titanium
223:
222:
221:
218:
216:
210:
208:
203:
202:SportingFlyer
198:
195:
194:
193:
192:
188:
184:
183:Axem Titanium
180:
170:
161:
156:
149:
142:
134:
126:
119:
115:
112:
111:
110:
109:
106:
104:
99:
94:
93:
88:
83:
81:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
857:
850:
829:
812:
800:
792:
777:
767:
761:
752:
732:
709:
705:
701:
681:
656:
639:
625:
562:
489:
482:
459:
453:
438:
431:
412:
408:
396:Jovanmilic97
391:
359:
342:
337:
315:
298:
284:
267:
251:
243:
212:
204:
196:
175:
102:
95:
79:
69:
59:13 June 2020
58:
49:2020 June 14
35:2020 June 12
688:(short for
589:Stacey Koon
303:Newyorkbrad
733:S Marshall
644:Lightburst
464:S Marshall
360:S Marshall
80:Sandstein
597:Casprings
321:Alpha3031
239:seeking.
44:2020 June
786:WP:BLP1E
710:Redirect
698:WP:BIO1E
694:WP:BLP1E
690:WP:BIO1E
678:WP:BLP1E
674:WP:CRIME
669:WP:CRIME
661:WP:BLP1E
582:article.
468:RoySmith
460:Endorse.
417:RoySmith
316:Overturn
20: |
830:Endorse
813:Endorse
778:Endorse
753:Endorse
714:Thincat
657:Endorse
640:Endorse
626:Endorse
556:restore
520:history
299:Endorse
268:Comment
169:restore
133:history
834:Stifle
782:WP:GNG
706:relist
702:Delete
682:delete
665:WP:GNG
471:(talk)
420:(talk)
409:Relist
392:Relist
379:Stifle
348:(talk)
338:Relist
285:Relist
686:WP:1E
570:WP:1E
542:watch
535:links
155:watch
148:links
52:: -->
16:<
838:talk
821:talk
762:Reyk
718:talk
667:and
648:talk
601:talk
528:logs
512:edit
505:talk
413:keep
400:talk
383:talk
307:talk
276:talk
230:talk
187:talk
141:logs
125:edit
118:talk
32:<
768:YO!
617:\\
547:XfD
545:) (
160:XfD
158:) (
22:Log
840:)
823:)
720:)
650:)
603:)
458:–
402:)
385:)
331:)
327:•
309:)
278:)
232:)
189:)
42::
836:(
819:(
803:C
799:·
795:T
742:C
740:/
738:T
716:(
646:(
599:(
559:)
551:|
538:|
532:|
524:|
516:|
508:|
503:(
398:(
381:(
369:C
367:/
365:T
329:c
325:t
323:(
305:(
274:(
254:C
250:·
246:T
228:(
215:C
211:·
207:T
185:(
172:)
164:|
151:|
145:|
137:|
129:|
121:|
116:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.