Death of Prince – We've already had this discussion. Please refer to the previous DRV, which gives clear instructions about the appropriate venue where further points can be made. – —S Marshall T/C 18:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Death of Prince (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) This DRV meets at least two reasons per WP:DRVPURPOSE, Deletion Review may be used: if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly; ..... if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page; REASON 1: Wrongly closed by failure of the non-administrator closer to comply with WP:NAC which states "Non-administrators should restrict themselves to the following types of closures:Clear keep outcomes after a full listing period (stated in the instructions to each XfD, this is usually seven days), absent any contentious debate among participants. There was no clear outcome and a contentious debate. The user who closed it is not an administrator and was asked not to close it. REASON 2: New information has come to light such as the cause of death, that there is now testimony about drug use on the plane, source of drugs, drug treatment plan was going to be started, and realization that this was a very notable death and notable events surrounding death. ADDITIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE: Suggested by a user that voted delete that I or someone pursue DRV. The final result of the AFD should have been "no consensus, default to keep" or, in light of further new information since the AFD, a "keep". Thank you Whiskeymouth (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply] Speedy endorse this has already been discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 June 8. Consensus was that this closure was appropriate and any discussion concerning recreation should be at Talk:Prince (musician). SST flyer 05:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply] MASSIVE CONFLICT OF INTEREST as this user closed the AfD so wouldn't oppose it but would oppose overturning his own decision.Tim Bosnia (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment: Consensus at the prior DRV shows that the AfD was closed correctly and the close rationale by RoySmith pointedly says that any discussion to resurrect the page should occur at Prince's talk page. The thing about DRV is that it's only supposed to look at whether or not the original deletion was valid and the last DRV closed as it being valid. Now that said, there's been enough since then to where the article would likely survive another AfD. However that discussion needs to occur on the article's talk page and if successful, you can feel free to recreate the page without going through DRV. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply] I've opened up a discussion on the talk page here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply] We already dealt with this, and there is no need for us to deal with it again at this point. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply] overturn I see no mention of the two reasons in this complaint as being addressed in a previous deletion review. I also see that SST Flyer made the original Delete decision so his comments are complete inappropriate and should be striken. A judge never decides on an appeal of their own decision. For example, if a judge rules one way, that same judge is not on the appeals court. I vote mainly because I see a very bad process going on, which is some User trying to uphold fairness and the rules but seeing opposition. Frankly, I don't care about Prince and don't know the lyrics to any of his songs, short of a phrase or two. Tim Bosnia (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Death of Prince – We've already had this discussion. Please refer to the previous DRV, which gives clear instructions about the appropriate venue where further points can be made. – —S Marshall T/C 18:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This DRV meets at least two reasons per WP:DRVPURPOSE, Deletion Review may be used: if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly; ..... if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page; REASON 1: Wrongly closed by failure of the non-administrator closer to comply with WP:NAC which states "Non-administrators should restrict themselves to the following types of closures:Clear keep outcomes after a full listing period (stated in the instructions to each XfD, this is usually seven days), absent any contentious debate among participants. There was no clear outcome and a contentious debate. The user who closed it is not an administrator and was asked not to close it. REASON 2: New information has come to light such as the cause of death, that there is now testimony about drug use on the plane, source of drugs, drug treatment plan was going to be started, and realization that this was a very notable death and notable events surrounding death. ADDITIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE: Suggested by a user that voted delete that I or someone pursue DRV. The final result of the AFD should have been "no consensus, default to keep" or, in light of further new information since the AFD, a "keep". Thank you Whiskeymouth (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy endorse this has already been discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 June 8. Consensus was that this closure was appropriate and any discussion concerning recreation should be at Talk:Prince (musician). SST flyer 05:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MASSIVE CONFLICT OF INTEREST as this user closed the AfD so wouldn't oppose it but would oppose overturning his own decision.Tim Bosnia (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Consensus at the prior DRV shows that the AfD was closed correctly and the close rationale by RoySmith pointedly says that any discussion to resurrect the page should occur at Prince's talk page. The thing about DRV is that it's only supposed to look at whether or not the original deletion was valid and the last DRV closed as it being valid. Now that said, there's been enough since then to where the article would likely survive another AfD. However that discussion needs to occur on the article's talk page and if successful, you can feel free to recreate the page without going through DRV. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened up a discussion on the talk page here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We already dealt with this, and there is no need for us to deal with it again at this point. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
overturn I see no mention of the two reasons in this complaint as being addressed in a previous deletion review. I also see that SST Flyer made the original Delete decision so his comments are complete inappropriate and should be striken. A judge never decides on an appeal of their own decision. For example, if a judge rules one way, that same judge is not on the appeals court. I vote mainly because I see a very bad process going on, which is some User trying to uphold fairness and the rules but seeing opposition. Frankly, I don't care about Prince and don't know the lyrics to any of his songs, short of a phrase or two. Tim Bosnia (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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