Darcy Isa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Joyous! had closed this as keep however when I went to ask if they'd reopen it they said they'd change it to No Consensus however IMHO there was no consensus to Keep - 2 out of the 3 keeps were more or less "I've seen her on TV and want it kept" or atleast that's how I perceived it, Not one editor had provided any sources to back up their !vote nor did anyone even reply to me there inregards to the sources, The article at present is very poorly sourced as no one could find any sources I just don't see any consensus to keep, Personally I believe it should either be relisted for another week incase anyone can find sources or redirected to either Grange Hill or Waterloo Road (or just deleted as I know some admins believe redirecting is an editorial thing), Anyway thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 02:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse no consensus. It wouldn't have been a clear-cut "keep" even if the keep arguments had been guideline-based, which they were not. Delete would have been a brave close but one I would also have endorsed. However, WP:N is a guideline allowing for occasional exceptions and people are entitled to think this article is an exception. It would have been nice to know why people considered the guidelines unsatisfactory in this case as well as why they thought the subject was important enough to have an article. For articles like this it seems to me better to consider verifiability, WP:V, rather than notability because, especially with a living person, there is far less latitute. Why not edit the article (gently) with this in mind? Thincat (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Usually when it comes to sourcing I do try & get atleast 1 substantial source with the rest being mentions, Unfortunately with this BLP there's nothing substantial and I only count 3 mentions on Google (6 including those in the article), As I said I don't expect tons of substantial sources however for someone who's been acting since 2005 you'd expect better than just mentions, Anyway IMHO it's TOOSOON for them to have an article at the moment however I had hoped after a relist the consensus would've gone towards redirect which would've preserved the history so if more sources did come up the article redirect could be reverted. –Davey2010^Talk 11:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak endorse as within discretion. A second relist would have been reasonable as well. That is the kind of AfD were it is hard to assess a consensus; there is participation, but no real discussion. Weakly, though, as Joyous! made a keep close without a statement in a case that is (to the least) not a clear-cut keep, and then changed the close without making a statement either, which is probably WP:TROUTable. Even if AfD viewers have the idea to go to their talk page, the discussion with the opener of this DRV is not exactly illuminating. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I ruefully accept the Trout. I should have been more clear about why I was changing the close. I'll keep that in mind in the future. Joyous! | Talk 22:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist This is one AfD which is ripe for a relist (with perhaps a comment explaining the keep !voters to bring sources or explain their rationales). At present there seems to be very less discussion which makes it hard to judge the consensus. A relist and sorting it into additional lists would probably help. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Nomination: Delete because it should be redirected to page1 or page2. It is not the least bit surprising that the ensuing discuss was not productive consensus building and ended in "no consensus". The "Redirect per nom" !vote is particularly evident of this. See Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "It is not the least bit surprising that the ensuing discuss was not productive consensus building" - Exactly the discussion was crappy so why shouldn't of it been relisted like any other AFD that has poor discussions after the 1st relist ?, Perhaps I'm clearly missing something here but I'm just not seeing the consensus to do anything - If the AFD got relisted and discussion was crap then yes I would agree with the NC whole heartedly but as it stands it's way too early. –Davey2010^Talk 14:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It was correct to not relist because there was no reason to think more discussion would lead to a consensus. The discussion was hopelessly unfocused due to your non-proposal. Your nomination fails to state a proposed action. Do you want to delete or not? If redirect, then to what? The posing of fuzzy question is not a good use of AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A) Please read WP:AGF - It wasn't "hopelessly unfocused" at all, and B) Had you bothered to read the AFD you will clearly see I stated and I quote "Has been in Grange Hill and Waterloo Road so redirecting to one of those would probably be best" so I clearly did state a proposed action, I obviously didn't expect it to be closed purely on one !vote however I didn't expect it to be closed so early neither. –Davey2010^Talk 21:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Read contradiction. You made a proposal that is a contradiction. You asked for three things, all mutually incompatible. You can't redirect to two titles. Do you propose a DAB page? Read Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. The discussion needs a reboot, not a relist. The close was correct. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• These were all suggestions but for clarity I only want this overturned and relisted (and if it gets closed as NC the next week then I'd be fine with that), I didn't say I could - I said "so redirecting to one of those would probably be best" - If I say this editors can then pick one if they choose to do so (some editors pick one and others just go with delete), Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 22:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If you can't make a leading proposal for a singular outcome, you should use the article talk page. AfD well used for solid proposals to delete, poorly used for unfocused discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  In the AfD there is no hint of a budding consensus for redirect to one title over the other. Therefore a relist is not appropriate. It needs a fresh and better nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see what's wrong with suggesting 2 targets - It's better than suggesting none at all and not only that when I didn't used to suggest targets I had editors saying "redirect to x" so me suggesting is rather helpful and saves articles being deleted. Exactly there's no consensus which is why a relist is appropriate and a second relist is always preferred over one relist, My nomination was sound however if you think "it was crappy" then that's your opinion, Thanks and Have a nice day. –Davey2010^Talk 22:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree that the first relist was appropriate. The longterm widespread excessive pointless relisting that goes in is just stupid.
  Suppose you made a firm clear statement proposing to redirect to Page1. Why not Page2? Without a good answer, there is no consensus. Is a dab appropriate?! A good metaphor for the nomination is "half baked". The nominator is supposed to complete WP:BEFORE, not every respondent. You can't have the contradiction as proposed, let it go at least a month, then come back with a better considered proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 23:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I whole heartedly agree I'm sick to death of the constant relistings however atleast to me there was no problem doing it for a second time here (if this was already on the second relist then to be blunt we wouldn't be here now), I see where you're coming from but listing 2 targets gave editors options of where to redirect the article too (and in all fairness I wasn't sure myself - Could've gone to the tp but it would've been months even years before someone replied), Inregards to the BEFORE - I did state "Few mentions on Google but nothing substantial" - Editors are responsible for finding sources if they !vote keep otherwise with the greatest of respect their !vote is meaningless unless they're going by a policy which no one did here, I honestly don't believe there was anything wrong at all with my nomination - I've made over 30/40 AFDs like these and all have so far gone without any hitches, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 23:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse  AfD nomination states, "best to redirect", which is a form of keeping.  Now the same editor states that he can't understand a concensus to "keep"?  He is part of the consensus.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes I said "best too" but I never said it should - It was a mere suggestion however like with any AFD I prefer to let the community decide - I disagree I'm not part of the consensus because I'm not bothered whether this is redirected or deleted!, I really cannot understand the harm in relising for another weak which atleast to me is more productive than just firing up another AFD, As I said if this is relisted and then closed a week later under the exact same outcome then I would accept that and move on but to me the AFD was closed a little too soon. –Davey2010^Talk 17:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does it help the project to continue to coerce the AfD volunteers on an issue for which you have no personal opinion?  I don't mean this disrespectfully, rather I'm aghast at the idea that we shouldn't always default to NOT using AfD whenever possible. 

As for your point about relist, I've argued both ways recently.  Both problems occur, closers I think close off discussion to their preference, when relisting is appropriate; and relists are the relisters way of opening the door to invite "more discussion" when consensus already exists.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because to me I'd rather have it discussed (and if it goes towards redirect I'd rather have consensus for it instead of BOLDLY redirecting it and being reverted which happens quite alot with actors/actresses), I see where you're coming from that we shouldn't just default to AFD for everything however I see it as "If I take it to AFD I'm setting it in stone" if that makes sense, I couldn't agree with that statement but on the other hand some admins do close early and personally I do believe it was closed a tad early, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:Deletion policy#Content, the place for content discussion is on the talk page of the article, and possibly at RfC or dispute resolution.  The "consensus" from AfD is not binding...the redirect and merge outcomes were a late addition in 2009 to the process.  Thus a content contributor can boldly overturn a content decision from AfD at any time.  Yes, there are administrators who will jump into the breach and defend the AfD decision against the content contributor, and then the content dispute might get brought to DRV, which technically has no jurisdiction because the issue is a content dispute.  So an administrator has good reason not to get involved, both practical and policy reasons.  So that is your "stone" as I understand it.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I should've been more clear but those who revert tend to be either SPAs or newbies/one-edit accounts - Ofcourse if anyone does revert and improve I have absolutely no objections but when you get an SPA/Newbie just come along and revert without any consensus or discussion it doesn't help your case because you have no consensus either, As I said the problem with talkpages is that no one ever replies on them - To be honest If people did reply we wouldn't be here now, Usually admins don't ever get involved - If I got an article deleted via AFD then if recreated I would G4 it or if a redirect's reverted I would revert that - The former and latter are never taken to DRV infact other than AFD closures I don't believe I've ever been taken to DRV for anything else, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what about what WP:Deletion policy#Content mentions, which is Template:RfC?   Unscintillating (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close, but re-list. This was a bad discussion. The close was a proper summation of the discussion (hence the endorse), but we ended up in the wrong place because the comments were pointless. Normally, in a case like this, I go through the AfD and see if the policies people cited really do say what they claim they say. I couldn't do that in this case because nobody (on either side) cited any policies. So the whole discussion boiled down to WP:ILIKEIT vs. WP:IDONTLIKEIT and should be reargued from scratch. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• So what about what WP:Deletion policy#Content mentions, which is Template:RfC?   Unscintillating (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]