Exit 245 – "No consensus" closure endorsed. – Sandstein 08:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Exit 245 (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) There were two keep !votes in this discussion. The second, without any offense intended towards the editor, is not at all a valid !vote. it argued that because the discussion had been relisted 3 times (the third of which was by the non-admin closer, not that it really matters) it should be kept. This is an argument that a discussion should be closed, maybe, but it gives no input into whether the material should be kept or deleted. This leaves the one other keep !vote, which stated that since a work by the musical group was included on the best of album of the International Championship of Collegiate A Cappella and International Championship of High School A Cappella organizations it received inherent notability. This compilation album, however, does not infer inherent notability under the MUSIC notability guidelines, however, and I noted that the actual honor would require independent coverage if it was going to show that the subject passed the GNG. The only other !vote occurred after this discussion, a user !voting delete. Thanks for your time, everyone Yaksar (let's chat) 23:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] This AfD suffered from very limited participation, as only two people other than the nominator offered comments on the merits of the nomination, and one of those !voted keep. Such debates are usually relisted, closed as "soft delete" in a similar manner to PROD, or closed as no consensus (WP:QUORUM). The relist option had been done three times and the nomination was not uncontested, so the first two options aren't appropriate. Hence I'm going to have to endorse the closure, with the caveat that the article can be renominated at any time. Hut 8.5 23:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Nobody cares enough to delete it, so it was kept. "No consensus" was the right call in the circumstances.—S Marshall T/C 00:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I too would have closed as non-consensus. Just relist it in a few months. After a minimal-participation non-consensus, a month is probably enough. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse even discounting the final !vote, there does not appear to be a consensus as to whether the inclusion on the BOCA compilation confers notability or not. Since the notability of the group essentially rests on this, "no consensus" was the correct call to make. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC).[reply] Concur with some of the above comments, I can't see a real consensus in that lot (personal view would probably have been more towards deletion), so a no consensus close would be the most reasonable. Simply relist it in a month or two and see if a stronger consensus can be reached. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse (no consensus). Lugnuts !vote can't be simply rejected, his rejection of the earlier articulated delete !vote is inferable. Consider a fresh nomination after two months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] If someone came along and said "Those above with a delete opinion are wrong", then we'd expect the closer to give that little weight. That we have to infer that from Lugnuts comment should see even less still. Not that I think it matters much, without Lugnuts opinion, I still can't see a real consensus. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Lugnuts did directly rebutt the nomination and the "delete" !vote, though without rationale. If it weren't for Lugnuts, I could see it being closed as Delete. The three relistings, however, speak to a "no consensus". Presumably, each of Ron, Tom and TheSpecialUser read the discussion and failed to be persuaded either way. I'm afraid that on this occassion, Yaksar has been beaten by apathy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure. There was insufficient discussion and insufficient agreement to justify a closure as "keep" or "delete". In my search for sources, I found coverage from Pitch Perfect: The Quest for Collegiate A Cappella Glory, which was not debated in the AfD. The book was written by journalist Mickey Rapkin who appears to be independent of the a cappella group and James Madison University. I think a more substantive discussion is necessary before a determination of "keep" or "delete" is made. Cunard (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse close - Insufficient discussion so no consensus correct. Not sure whether the name EXIT 245 came from the following, but the link at here notes, "The ninth illustration shows a horizontal rectangular sign with the words "VA National" on the top line, "Cemetery" on the middle line, and "EXIT 245" on the bottom line." Some other references are: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]. These are more one or two lines of info, each, but coupled with the book Cunard found, and a little luck, the topic might meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Exit 245 – "No consensus" closure endorsed. – Sandstein 08:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

There were two keep !votes in this discussion. The second, without any offense intended towards the editor, is not at all a valid !vote. it argued that because the discussion had been relisted 3 times (the third of which was by the non-admin closer, not that it really matters) it should be kept. This is an argument that a discussion should be closed, maybe, but it gives no input into whether the material should be kept or deleted.

This leaves the one other keep !vote, which stated that since a work by the musical group was included on the best of album of the International Championship of Collegiate A Cappella and International Championship of High School A Cappella organizations it received inherent notability. This compilation album, however, does not infer inherent notability under the MUSIC notability guidelines, however, and I noted that the actual honor would require independent coverage if it was going to show that the subject passed the GNG. The only other !vote occurred after this discussion, a user !voting delete. Thanks for your time, everyone Yaksar (let's chat) 23:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD suffered from very limited participation, as only two people other than the nominator offered comments on the merits of the nomination, and one of those !voted keep. Such debates are usually relisted, closed as "soft delete" in a similar manner to PROD, or closed as no consensus (WP:QUORUM). The relist option had been done three times and the nomination was not uncontested, so the first two options aren't appropriate. Hence I'm going to have to endorse the closure, with the caveat that the article can be renominated at any time. Hut 8.5 23:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody cares enough to delete it, so it was kept. "No consensus" was the right call in the circumstances.—S Marshall T/C 00:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I too would have closed as non-consensus. Just relist it in a few months. After a minimal-participation non-consensus, a month is probably enough. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse even discounting the final !vote, there does not appear to be a consensus as to whether the inclusion on the BOCA compilation confers notability or not. Since the notability of the group essentially rests on this, "no consensus" was the correct call to make. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Concur with some of the above comments, I can't see a real consensus in that lot (personal view would probably have been more towards deletion), so a no consensus close would be the most reasonable. Simply relist it in a month or two and see if a stronger consensus can be reached. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (no consensus). Lugnuts !vote can't be simply rejected, his rejection of the earlier articulated delete !vote is inferable. Consider a fresh nomination after two months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If someone came along and said "Those above with a delete opinion are wrong", then we'd expect the closer to give that little weight. That we have to infer that from Lugnuts comment should see even less still. Not that I think it matters much, without Lugnuts opinion, I still can't see a real consensus. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lugnuts did directly rebutt the nomination and the "delete" !vote, though without rationale. If it weren't for Lugnuts, I could see it being closed as Delete. The three relistings, however, speak to a "no consensus". Presumably, each of Ron, Tom and TheSpecialUser read the discussion and failed to be persuaded either way. I'm afraid that on this occassion, Yaksar has been beaten by apathy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. There was insufficient discussion and insufficient agreement to justify a closure as "keep" or "delete". In my search for sources, I found coverage from Pitch Perfect: The Quest for Collegiate A Cappella Glory, which was not debated in the AfD. The book was written by journalist Mickey Rapkin who appears to be independent of the a cappella group and James Madison University. I think a more substantive discussion is necessary before a determination of "keep" or "delete" is made. Cunard (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - Insufficient discussion so no consensus correct. Not sure whether the name EXIT 245 came from the following, but the link at here notes, "The ninth illustration shows a horizontal rectangular sign with the words "VA National" on the top line, "Cemetery" on the middle line, and "EXIT 245" on the bottom line." Some other references are: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]. These are more one or two lines of info, each, but coupled with the book Cunard found, and a little luck, the topic might meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.