- The Paternoster Gang (audio drama) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The closer appears to have failed to properly assess the strength of argument. When asked, the reason given by the closer is that the argument had "descended into name-calling", but did not address the issue of the strength of argument presented by those who wanted to keep the article [1]. None of the three who !voted for keep gave any reason founded in notability guidelines - one argued that the content is transcluded and it should have been tagged first (the article had already been redirected/reverted and prodded/deprodded before the AfD), one argued against notability guidelines, while the last argued that notability is contextual. The no-consensus result here is puzzling because the majority !vote for delete was ignored with no apparent consideration for strength of argument, merely that there were arguments. The closer also argued that a delete or keep argument is weak given that I thought redirect is a possible option, but the discussion is not about the opinion of one person and that is not how most have !voted. I don't normally challenge a closer's decision even if I disagreed and considered for some time whether starting this deletion review is worthwhile, but this result made redirect difficult because those who wanted to keep it can simply revert any redirect claiming that there is no consensus to redirect. Since there are 2-300 articles on audio productions by the same company that are largely in a worse state source-wise, this result sets a bad precedent for those who wants to keep those in any future AfDs to just keep arguing with little regard for notability guidelines (and it was essentially just a single IP editor who kept arguing) hoping for a non-consensus. Hzh (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that discussion was a mess. Hard to call it much of anything other than NC, though delete wouldn't have been crazy. There appear to be only two sources in the article, one from the Radio Times (which is probably not independent?) and Digital Spy, which appears to be a reasonable source. Eh. My !vote would have been to merge back into the main article Madame Vastra, Jenny Flint, and Strax. But for now I guess endorse as it's a reasonable closing of an unreasonable discussion. There are other sources [2], [3], etc. so it's not like there is nothing out there to build an article around. Hobit (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn That discussion was a mess and on one hand I entirely understand the no consensus close. That being said, I really don't see any good, consistent arguments to keep within the mess. Furthermore, no keep !votes occurred after any of the relistings, all of which were fails WP:GNG (including the merge !vote). I certainly understand where the nominator is coming from. I've oscillated between Endorse, Comment, and Overturn here and think overturning to a redirect or a merge would be the most sensible decision. SportingFlyer T·C 22:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I was in a similar place. But a merge or redirect target isn't obvious (there are at least 2 and probably 3) and there was no meaningful discussion on that. As I said, I'd have !voted to merge back to Madame Vastra, Jenny Flint, and Strax. The one !vote for merging picked a different location. IMO, it comes down to DRV's remit. I sometimes think it appropriate to go outside of the discussion to find the right solution, but only if it's really obvious. I don't think this one is. Hobit (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Interestingly enough, my second comment on the AFD was noting that I, in fact, originally added the content at Madame Vastra, Jenny Flint, and Strax, as well as linking the discussion where an editor disagreed with the location of the content, hence the editor removing it from there and another creating the separate article. If the article cannot exist, then I fully support merging it back there. -- /Alex/21 01:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) I agree there's no obvious solution here. I settled on overturn since I don't have a problem with "no consensus" since there's not a consensus on what to do with this article, but I also think there's consensus to "not keep," which is the point of an AfD, especially if you read the "merge" vote as a "not keep." SportingFlyer T·C 01:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't fault the close given the discussion; but what a horrible discussion it was. Relist with a semi-protected AfD so as to give the closer something less sock-tainted, at least.—S Marshall T/C 00:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide proof that the AF was "sock-tainted"? -- /Alex/21 01:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also already been relisted twice, I'm not sure how another relist would be helpful. SportingFlyer T·C 01:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Alex 21, I'm afraid that there are technical reasons why, on Wikipedia, you can never prove socking to a philosophical standard of proof. Certain users with special privileges called "Checkusers" can take additional steps to detect personation on Wikipedia, but I'm not one. Even checkusers can't achieve a philosophical standard of proof.
I can "prove" socking to a legal standard of proof, i.e. the standard that would convince a jury. After you've spent enough time analyzing AfDs you learn to see it. In this case the "jury" I need to convince is one person:- the closer of this DRV. I feel that anyone who's got sufficient experience to close a DRV will be able to read that discussion and see why I very strongly suspect that a degree of socking has taken place. SportingFlyer, the problem is that the discussion we've had is basically not closable with any conclusive outcome. I feel that a fresh discussion without the socking is much more likely to reach a decision.—S Marshall T/C 11:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said on my talk page, in Hzh's opening comment for the AfD, he suggested he had tried a redirect and been reverted. That suggests he had an alternative for deletion in mind, which makes deleting the article outright problematic. My recommendation is to wait a while, so the drama from this AfD has died down, then file a new AfD that will hopefully just stick to the issues. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. (uninvolved). Fair reading of a mess. See advice at WP:RENOM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and either send to draft or redirect/merge. I would say "overturn to delete" because there isn't a single decent Keep vote there (one is "it will be notable" and the other is "it's notable") but the inevitable fact is that it will gain actual sources as soon as it's released and reviewed so there doesn't seem a lot of point deleting it. Black Kite (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, but draftify. Endorse because the AfD was a mess and the NC close was probably about as good as anybody could do with what they had to work with. But, given the poor state of sourcing, and the expectation that there will be more sources at some point in the future when it's released, incubating this in draft space seems like a good plan. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
|
