Ricardo Santos Silva (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• Overturn deletion
• Reason for choice: I believe that the deletion of the Ricardo Santos Silva article was incorrect, as the subject meets the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) and should be considered notable. The subject has been covered by multiple reliable sources, which demonstrate their notability.

• Detailed arguments:

 * The subject has been covered by several reputable sources, including Reuters, The Guardian, and BBC. These sources provide significant coverage and are independent of the subject, thus satisfying WP:GNG requirements.
 * The CNBC interview with Ricardo Santos Silva alone provides in-depth information about him, his work, and achievements. It is hard to argue that an interview with the subject does not provide detailed mention, as the very nature of interviews is to focus on the interviewee.
 * The Entrepreneur of the Year award article supports notability, as it shows recognition of Ricardo Santos Silva's achievements within his field. This award is a testament to his impact in the industry, making him a notable figure.
 * It's important to consider the cumulative weight of these sources, as each contributes to establishing the subject's notability. While some may argue that individual sources do not provide extensive coverage, the combined coverage from multiple reliable sources indicates that Ricardo Santos Silva has garnered significant attention in the media.

Vote: Overturn deletion

Rationale: I believe the deletion was incorrect, as the subject has been covered by multiple reliable sources and significant coverage, demonstrating notability in accordance with WP:GNG. The combined weight of these sources should be considered when evaluating the subject's notability.

ScottWillis45 (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close - this is not a rehash of the AfD. Admin followed policy and based their decision on WP policy, not as a simple vote.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: accurate reading of the consensus; arguments to keep aren't backed up by the sources they cite, and DRV is not for rehashing the AfD. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from closing admin - I'm happy to admit when I've erred in closing an AfD, but after re-reviewing this I don't see that to be the case here. ScottWillis45 is the creator of this latest version of the article so it's understandable that they don't believe it should be deleted, but I believe that the close is consistent with WP:DETCON and ScottWillis45 does not suggest above that there was any issue with the determining of that consensus, just that they disagree with its outcome. - Aoidh (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy endorse as out of scope of deletion review. Deletion review is not to be used merely because you disagree with the outcome of an AFD; it is not a second round or ad novo appeal. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the "delete" side had a stronger, more policy-based argument, specifiaclly the source analysis which was not refuted despite being up for over a week before the AFD closed. The appellant had ample opportunity to discuss this AFD but chose only to relitigate it at this forum, which violates WP:DRVPURPOSE. Frank Anchor 14:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thank you for your comments and feedback. I understand the purpose of a deletion review is not to rehash the AfD, and I apologize if my previous comment gave that impression. My intention is to address the concerns raised and provide additional evidence to support the subject's notability, which I believe satisfies Wikipedia's guidelines for keeping the article.During the AfD, there were more votes to keep the article than to delete it, which is one of the reasons I requested a deletion review. I believe that the additional evidence provided here will help to further clarify the subject's notability. Given some personal matters, I was unable to review the assessment table during the AfD process but I would like to point out that the assessment table appears to have some inaccuracies, such as stating that the CNBC interview is not about the subject. It is crucial to recognize that an interview with the subject inherently provides detailed information about the interviewee, which in this case is Ricardo Santos Silva. Taking into account the guidelines set forth by Wikipedia, the reputable sources cited, and the inaccuracies in the assessment table, I believe there is a strong case for keeping the article on Ricardo Santos Silva. I am open to constructive feedback and suggestions on how to improve the article and further establish the subject's notability within Wikipedia's guidelines. ScottWillis45 (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - the admin was correct in taking the guideline-based arguments over the ones that pleaded for keeping based on non-guideline arguments such as "diverse accomplishments". Please note that I did participate and I did the source analysis. To address the point above, my assessment of CNBC was not inaccurate. An interview directly with the subject himself does not count as significant, independent coverage of that subject. We need reliable sources writing at length about Ricardo Santos Silva (e.g. multiple paragraphs) and what was presented was purely a WP:REFBOMBing of sources, five of which did not even once mention Ricardo Santos Silva! This close is actually a really good example of an admin closing based on strength of arguments and not just doing a simple vote count. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The close was a correct reading of consensus. ScottWillis45, I recommend you look closely at Spiderone's excellent source analysis. The subject is clearly mentioned by reliable, independent sources but his life and career are not covered in detail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Understood and thanks for your collaboration.Aoidh User:onel5969 Vanamonde User:Spiderone User:HJ Mitchell User:Frank Anchor Stifle ScottWillis45 (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Masters Tour (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I don't think that consensus about the non-notable quadruple headlining tour to end into no consensus, despite the fact there are four albums been linked for the respective bands that are headlining the 2008 summer tour such as Nostradamous, Motörizer, The Rules of Hell and the Formation of Damnation. When in fact which it presented in the AFD of this Metal Masters Tour are the 2008 Summer Tour which it featured Maroon 5 and Counting Crows as a co-headliners and held in the same year. The article was created, then BLAR'd by Onel5969, which led to an RFD discussion that TartarTorte questioned the redirect per WP:PTOPIC and WP:XY over the redirect and then restored and sent to AFD by CycloneYoris which it started the discussion and resulted in a deletion. Similar precedent held two months since Maroon 5 and Counting Crows discussion, there are another co-headlining tour which is called "The Royalty Tour" which it became a subject to creation, BLAR, RFD to AFD and to an ultimately deletion discussion. Now this quadruple headlining tour will be subjected from, creation to BLAR, ending up to RFD, resulting to AFD and then to the review to verify which outcome can decide. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:4403:E009:6080:BD67 (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy endorse (involved) - Rehash of a (nonsensical WP:OTHERSTUFF) argument made during the AfD. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  06:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• It's not nonsensical, though, is it. Nominator talks about "precedent" -- he's expecting that similar cases will result in similar decisions, so he's pointing us to what he sees as similar cases and highlighting inconsistencies in how we do things. The right response from us here would be education and explanation, not contemptuous dismissal.—S Marshall T/C 08:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "Deletion review should not be used...to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits)". That said, "no consensus defaulting to keep" is a bit of an odd outcome for a discussion where almost everyone opposed the status quo—not necessarily wrong, but odd. I would probably have closed along the lines of "consensus not to preserve as a stand-alone article, but no consensus for outright deletion, so the result is redirect with no prejudice against another RfD to sort out the issues raised by the IP", but a simple no consensus closure may well have also been within discretion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]