- Fledgling Jason Steed (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
This page has just been deleted, despite there being more votes to keep than delete - and despite obvious on-going research to verify the facts. This page had been getting almost a thousand page views a day - was it too much to ask that the AFD run until AFTER the Easter break, when newspapers/magazine staff would have been back in to answer questions? I truely believe this has been closed too soon, and unfairly.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 01:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Myosotis Scorpioides 01:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin: There has already been plenty of discussion. Just because consensus is not obvious is not a reason to relist. I closed this as delete rather than no consensus because many of the keep !votes lacked substance; they were not based on policy or guideline, but personal opinion (see WP:ILIKEIT). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion as original nominator. I was giving it the benefit of the doubt until I looked at the book review references and found that while I could find the journals and, indeed, the specific pages mentioned online, they did not mention the book. While there were multiple keep !votes, most of them did not seem based on policy - Myosotis' being an exception. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I just restored the removed DRV request, because I might very well have been wrong. Let's let DRV decide it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to find a reason not to, but I have to endorse the deletion. Of all the sources directly related to the book only the Yorkshire Evening Post was really reliable (I made a mistake about Fictionreviewer.net). The other reviews were from military fans which is likely to affect the independence of the review. Also, there's a lot of padding: the rumour that Anthony Horowitz wrote the book under a pseudonym (why self-publish if you have a publisher?) and the story about the real war hero that is supposedly related in the fictional universe. The article lacked sufficient encyclopedic information to survive the deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 15:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The closing admin properly discounted !votes from new and unregistered users, and those grounded in personal preference rather than policy. Correct result. Stifle (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the closer got it right and even stated that if it meets WP:BK it can be recreated; rather than drama here, why hasn't anyone who felt it should be kept bothered to try to garner the references to see if it meets WP:BK - their lack of efforts speaks volumes about whether it does. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the closing admin applied policy correctly in deleting the article, and by discounting WP:ILIKEIT !votes. That, and the fact that he allowed for recreation if i meets the guidelines shows that this was a good closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I endorse everything you luvverly admins do. You are always right, and always perfect. Endorse,endorse, endorse.--Beehold (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse – First off, AFDs are not majority votes. Second, per guideline, comments by new (i.e. non-autoconfirmed and SPAs) and IPs are given less weight than those from established or otherwise autoconfirmed users. Third, most of the reasons to keep (again, mostly from SPAs) do not explicitly address the notability issue via the appropriate guidelines. Fourth, and we had a similar DRV on this not too long ago, holidays still count as a day in that AFD discussion (I think the one I was referring to as contesting a deletion because it was closed too early as the discussion went over the 4th of July); besides what about those non-Christian or non-Orthodox Christians who do not celebrate Easter (in the case of Orthodox Christians, not this specific weekend)? MuZemike 02:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|