Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 July 4
4 July 2021
Draft:Showing Up (film)
I request that the deleted editions that I had written with my main account be restored since the version of the recreated article is practically a copy-paste of what I wrote months ago, nothing new was added. BRVAFL (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC) BRVAFL (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Patapon
The original page has since been deleted, with the originating work becoming the primary topic. I am rather surprised that the AfD for the above was closed as delete without a further relisting, with 6 keep votes, 5 delete votes, and one merge vote. That does not indicate to me that there is a clear consensus to delete the page and the closer has not provided a clear explanation as to how he came to that conclusion. It does imply to me, in the absence of a properly explained rationale, as if the closer decided to go for a supervote which is aligned with his personal point of view as opposed to properly weighing the arguments made in the article. A precedent which has been established in many prior AfD's indicate that it is acceptable to redirect the page as a compromise if the closer is determined to provide a final closure on the discussion. I might be wrong...but I am also somewhat concerned as to whether the nominator's action of highlighting the AfD on the main talk page of the Wikiproject, given that they only did so when the initial emerging consensus indicated that it was going against their wishes, may be interpreted as a form of WP:CANVASSING (campaigning?), which potentially calls the legitimacy of the subsequent deletion votes into question. I think relisting the discussion should have been the appropriate course of action. Haleth (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- I would first remind Haleth that it is customary to ask about a decision prior to requesting a DRV of it. That being the case, the "keep" arguments were largely based solely upon the fact that the series contained three games. This appears to be based on some type of WikiProject guidance, but is in any case not a policy-based inclusion reason. The "delete" arguments, conversely, convincingly argue that the amount of reference material is not sufficient to demonstrate notability, and this was not at any point refuted by anyone arguing to keep (one editor stated that it passes GNG, but gave no indication as to how.) AfD is, as always, not a vote count, and in this case the arguments to delete were much stronger ones. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- It certainly is customary for editors who close discussions, especially in an AfD where the participation is not lacking and the outcome is somewhat contentious, to provide an explanation or rationale on why the AfD was closed as such. I don't see any clear consensus to keep, delete or even redirect the article based on the current volume of participation, and I don't agree with your presumption that somehow, the editors who oppose the deletion cannot refute on guideline or policy grounds simply because they didn't follow up. No source by source analysis was ever provided by any participant to determine clearly that available extent sources (cited or uncited) for the topic do not meet WP:GNG when analyzed as a whole, other then an assurance to take their word for it. And a closer certainly could make a call for the topic to be redirected or merged if that is the determined consensus, though they don't have to perform the actual task. You have also not addressed the concerns about the potential issue of campaigning/canvassing, with at least one other editor raising concerns about the nominator's actions in the main Wikiproject talk page. Haleth (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- You're both right. Haleth doesn't strictly have to ask the closer before coming here, but it's rude not to. Seraphimblade doesn't strictly have to write a closing statement that explains why he discounted about half the votes, but if he didn't, he shouldn't be surprised to find himself at DRV.—S Marshall T/C 08:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- After some reading and thought, I would endorse the decision to delete the article. I've been unable to find a specific notability guideline that supports the "keep" !voters' contentions, and as most DRV regulars will be well aware, it's my view that the GNG overrules all other notability rules and guidelines in all cases. (DRV rightly has a history of refusing to enforce certain SNGs.) Accordingly, I think that it was for the keep !voters to demonstrate a GNG pass, and they didn't.—S Marshall T/C 11:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Endorse per S Marshall. The keeps had no apparent policy rationale, aside from invocations of a non-binding (and apparently unwritten?) Wikiproject local consensus. Discounting such rationales was a perfectly valid choice. Since the valid argument that the series qua series failed the GNG went unrebutted (aside from a single conclusory assertion), the closer was justified in closing the AfD as delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Even if it was a *Endorse even if three games was a written rule it wouldn’t be relevant in this situation since several members of the Wikiproject in question voted to delete the article stating that the three game thing was actually a rule of thumb and a minimum requirement for a creation of a series article not a declaration that every series with three games automatically qualifies for an article. Based on that the main rational for keeping is invalid.--70.24.249.16 (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)