Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 24

24 June 2021

KOAD-LP

KOAD-LP (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A crystal clear WP:BADNAC. Not only was the discussion controversial and the closer a non-admin, the closer has a noted bias towards keeping radio station articles (see ongoing discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DXFU, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DXLJ, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DYBK) and as such mis-applied policy (WP:NMEDIA does not even have the weight of an SNG and does not apply when an article fails GNG.) The closer also did not revert their close when asked. I am asking that this either be overturned and closed by an administrator, or re-listed (though it would be the third re-list.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SportingFlyer (talk • contribs) 17:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Relist. As numerous closes have explained, arguments based on WP:NMEDIA (aka WP:BCAST), which is not endorsed by the community, are not policy-based because, to quote one closer, "The phrasing of GNG indicates it applies without explicit exemption, and an explanatory supplement just does not have capability to grant that." The NMEDIA-based keep !votes should thus have been heavily discounted or ignored altogether as being contrary to policy. See WP:NOTAVOTE. And regardless, these AfDs have been quite contentious, so this was indeed a WP:BADNAC. There are other issues (the close reads like a WP:SUPERVOTE, and, as the petitioner above notes, the closer was arguably INVOLVED) as well. I'd be tempted to just !vote overturn, but in this case I'd rather relist in case an alternative to deletion (e.g. a redirect to List of radio stations in California) or some GNG-qualifying coverage can be identified. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Relist - I agree with the assessment made by @Extraordinary Writ. Upon further reading NMEDIA, it isn't even a SNG so should not be considered to outweigh GNG. As I didn't feel it passed WP:BCAST anyway it should be relisted for additional feedback. There was no clear consensus reached and, as pointed out, the non-admin closer has a close affiliation with these type articles. They may not have been involved directly in this discussion but are an involved editor in similar cases and should have waited for an uninvolved admin to close a disputed AfD. --ARoseWolf 19:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn per nom. BADNAC. WP:Supervote, and the closer’s response on their talk page reinforces the Supervote impression and is generally a very poor response by a closer. I do not have confidence in this editor closing discussions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• PUT DOWN THE STICK SportingFlyer has made it very clear in that very AfD how they feel about radio station articles, this one in particular, and how they feel about NMEDIA. Constantly "moving the goalposts" (their words, not mine) on anything and not willing to compromise. When the final !vote was 3-1 to keep and they had beat what was a once good horse to death with a STICK, they come here. Wasting the community's time at best, FORUMSHOPPING at worst. Give it a rest. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Pinging @Superastig, Tdl1060, Sammi Brie, and SBKSPP:, who were part of that discussion, so they can be part of this one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Further: I have updated, as I said I would, KOAD-LP with all the found references and then some from the AfD. Regardless of the closure, this review is moot as it won't survive another AfD. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  SportingFlyer’s POV bias would be relevant if he were the closer. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• @SmokeyJoe: SportingFlyer's bias is relevant he is not willing, at all, to compromise, and "moves the goalposts" in the very AfD he wants us to relist. This is classic being a poor loser. His !vote lost and now he's complaining to the refs (DelRev) that the losing goal (his !vote) wasn't counted more times than the winning goals (the keep !votes). Sorry, that's not how AfDs or sports works. He lost the AfD...and the game. It's over, move on. His bias continues to show from his !vote at the RfC. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• I do not appreciate these demonstrably false comments. SportingFlyer T·C 11:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

It’s over? You sound user like the closer. I don’t care about radio stations or any of the details, but that was plainly a bad close, and a worse response on their talk page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• @SmokeyJoe: Then why, if you don't care, are you commenting on a radio station AfD DRV? SportingFlyer has carried a STICK around about this page for as long as this AfD has been in progress. The details matter. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  It is important that AfD discussions are run and closed properly. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Neutralhomer's argument is spot on. The closing of this discussion is fair unlike the similar discussion which should've been closed as NC, but the nom insisted the closer to have it relisted. If there's an editor who has a bias, it's SportingFlyer, not Neutralhomer or Astig. SBKSPP (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment from closer: I did not vote in the discussion. I only provided a clear and fair explanation in closing the discussion. I closed the consensus based on how strong the arguments are and the "keep" votes seems to be stronger since they do have merits whatsoever. And Neutralhomer is right as he has demonstrated the use of NMEDIA in the previous AfDs. Therefore, I have no bias towards keeping radio station articles whatsoever. And it's true no matter how many times the nominator complains all day long. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Relist as BADNAC. This same notability discussion has played out in a few different venues, including these radio station AfDs and discussion over the status of WP:NMEDIA, and Superastig has participated in enough of that broader conversation that he probably should not have closed this discussion. The only way that we are going to resolve this problem is by bringing NMEDIA's status to RfC (and I'm about to do that, been a bit busy of late). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Relist as BADNAC. Relist and specify that the closer be an admin.
  • • The close was contentious in both a quantitative way and a qualitative way. A close is quantitatively contentious if the numeric !vote counts for Keep and Delete (or some other combination of !vote choices) are roughly equal. In such a case, a non-admin really should let an admin close the XFD. The close was also qualitatively contentious in that there was vigorous back-and-forth debate. One of the functions of administrators is to be neutral when other editors are not being neutral. The closer meant well, but used poor judgment in closing this discussion.
    • The primary function of DRV is to resolve specific disputes about deletion. A secondary function of DRV should be to identify shortcomings or weak areas in the notability guidelines and other deletion guidelines. DRV will not resolve any such issues, but occasionally we will notice that particular topics come to DRV more often than they should, because the deletion guidelines are ambiguous, poorly written, or in need of clarification.
    • Media notability and the status of media notability are an area in which the notability guideline is contentious.
    • If User:Sammi Brie publishes an RFC on the status of NMEDIA, she will be doing Wikipedia a service that may facilitate future deletion discussions.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• • • • Robert McClenon, I have now published this RfC: Wikipedia talk:Notability (media)#Status. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Relist The closer's judgment is, unfortunately, skewed in all things radio media (apart from the examples above, please also see this AfD where it is, apparently, common sense to keep poorly sourced articles because it exists. ——Serial 10:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Relist As a bad non-admin closure.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Relist - clearly not an unbiased close. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse I initially thought of voting to overturn as NC. However, Neutralhomer has made lots of improvements in the article as of recent and and Astig has no participation in the discussion except to close it. Relisting the debate is discouraged as prolonging the discussion will result to a NC. Therefore, the closure of the discussion as keep is an unbiased conclusion, whether the nom likes it or not. SBKSPP (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)