TheOdd1sOut – "Delete" closure endorsed. I have to discount the opinion of AwesumIndustrys because they are just attempting to continue the AfD discussion. This forum is for discussing whether a closure was procedurally correct. Sandstein 08:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Despite having reasons for the article to be kept, it was deleted. The real problem with the deletion was that three of the delete !votes were from users. The other five deletes were from IPs, all of which point back to Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. It's very suspicious and some action should take place. Zoom (talk page) 17:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did you ask the closing admin why the vote was delete? I don't see it on their talk page. Looking through it myself and ignoring the IP votes, there doesn't seem to be a strong consensus either way, though the keep votes seem weak as they are based on the premise sources might exist. SportingFlyertalk02:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. SPAs are usually here to vote keep rather than delete. It would be worth an admin having a quick look to see if there had been any destructive editing. Thincat (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse. The only argument to keep which included sources was from User:Ahiijny, but they don't look like WP:RS, and/or are just passing mentions. The fact that his book hit the best-sellers list doesn't satisfy WP:AUTHOR. On the other hand, this isn't a slam-dunk. I wouldn't have any objection to relisting it for another week to see if that makes a difference.
I agree that it's odd to have anonymous socks on the delete side. On possible explanation is another YouTuber trying to dump on a competitor. Another is that sometimes socks place random delete votes in an attempt to build some kind of reputation as other than a WP:SPA. Yet a third is just plain vandalism.
Renounce(?) - The article should've been expanded on, not deleted. Call me biased, but I don't like seeing articles deleted as Wikipedia should be a vast repository of information. If it was a bad article, then put up a message asking people to expand it. AwesumIndustrys (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
relist This one is difficult. If you discount all of the IPs as socks (which I think is reasonable) you have a pretty poor discussion. The sources in the article aren't great, but there are two sources that have some in-depth (one is the high school paper which doesn't appear to have a LOCAL problem the other is mostly an interview). There is also some coverage of the *work* and that wasn't discussed in FoodBeast (three articles, each short). And while being a NYT best-selling author doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR, it is evidence of notability. I'm a hair's breadth from an endorse (I went back and forth a few times) as this not a clearly wrong deletion IMO. But an otherwise ill-attended discussion tainted by so much socking seems like something we should relist (and watch for further socks). Hobit (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
