Louisiana Electorate of Gays And Lesbians – Closure endorsed. (NAC) – Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Louisiana Electorate of Gays And Lesbians (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) A non-admin closure, the arguments presented that claimed it met our guidelines for sourcing. It still doesn't, and the closure should have reflected this. Sources are mandatory to build an article, and sources about the subject are necessary for notability. This article lacks both. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Endorse within the possible range of valid closures, th generally for a divided afd it should be an admin who closes. It was argued that some of the many sources were sufficiently independent to meet the requirements, and the question of whether or not they are is a matter of judgment. (I personally have no opinion on notability, but the overall tone seems a little promotional.) And, after all, it can be renominated in a few months. DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Comment I will not !vote here (although obviously I stand with my closure), but would like to note that all participants in the AfD !voted "keep", with the nom being the lone dissenting voice. If that is a divided AfD, then only AfD's without any delete !vote where the nom withdraws the nomination can be closed by a non-admin. The tone of the article is, of course, not something for AfD to correct. In any case, with 5 editors !voting "keep" and only the nom arguing for "delete", I don't see how this AfD could have been closed differently. --Randykitty (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] My issue is more that the closure does not take into effect relevant policies on verifiability (as it lacks reliable sources about the topic) nor guidelines on notability (as it could, in theory, be speedily deleted as an A7 due to no real assertions of notability). Should it have been closed delete? Maybe, probably not. But given the sitewide guidelines, where's the actual consensus that we keep articles like this? If the guidelines don't matter, why have the discussions? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Endorse it looks to me like Randykitty validly interpreted consensus. As DGG pointed out, the application of guidelines is a judgement call, and the consensus at the AfD, seemed to be that it should have been kept. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, looks like a valid interpretation of the consensus here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC).[reply] Endorse The people posting in the discussion thought the sources were adequate, and that is a judgement call. Close was clearly proper based on the discussion. Moreover, the nom says "Sources are mandatory to build an article, and sources about the subject are necessary for notability." This is not true. WP:V requires verifiability, not verification. Except in the case of BLPs, sources need not be present for a valid article, although of course it is better if they are. Here sources were clearly present, and reliable ones, the question was how much of their discussion was bout the group itself. That is not a bright-line issue, judgement is needed, and DRV is not AfD round two. DES ^(talk) 04:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Literally no one concurred with the nominator. Consensus as clear as I've ever seen it. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Please read the top of the page specifically, "Deletion Review should not be used: 1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment; to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion". If it were only the closer disagreeing with your application of the guidelines it would be one thing but no one did. You are targeting the entire discussion and not bringing forth any new information. The close was correct and consensus was met in all practices of WP:CONSENSUS. Mkdw ^talk 23:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. The expressed consensus was evident, and the nom does not argue that the content in any way breaches policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, all we have is the nom disagreeing with everyone else who participated in the discussion as to whether sources existed to establish notability, and those participants are almost all well-established editors with reasonable comments rather than SPAs pushing an obvious agenda. So there's no question that the consensus was to keep, and it would have been improper to close it any other way. postdlf (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Louisiana Electorate of Gays And Lesbians – Closure endorsed. (NAC) – Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

A non-admin closure, the arguments presented that claimed it met our guidelines for sourcing. It still doesn't, and the closure should have reflected this. Sources are mandatory to build an article, and sources about the subject are necessary for notability. This article lacks both. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse within the possible range of valid closures, th generally for a divided afd it should be an admin who closes. It was argued that some of the many sources were sufficiently independent to meet the requirements, and the question of whether or not they are is a matter of judgment. (I personally have no opinion on notability, but the overall tone seems a little promotional.) And, after all, it can be renominated in a few months. DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will not !vote here (although obviously I stand with my closure), but would like to note that all participants in the AfD !voted "keep", with the nom being the lone dissenting voice. If that is a divided AfD, then only AfD's without any delete !vote where the nom withdraws the nomination can be closed by a non-admin. The tone of the article is, of course, not something for AfD to correct. In any case, with 5 editors !voting "keep" and only the nom arguing for "delete", I don't see how this AfD could have been closed differently. --Randykitty (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My issue is more that the closure does not take into effect relevant policies on verifiability (as it lacks reliable sources about the topic) nor guidelines on notability (as it could, in theory, be speedily deleted as an A7 due to no real assertions of notability). Should it have been closed delete? Maybe, probably not. But given the sitewide guidelines, where's the actual consensus that we keep articles like this? If the guidelines don't matter, why have the discussions? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse it looks to me like Randykitty validly interpreted consensus. As DGG pointed out, the application of guidelines is a judgement call, and the consensus at the AfD, seemed to be that it should have been kept. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, looks like a valid interpretation of the consensus here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse The people posting in the discussion thought the sources were adequate, and that is a judgement call. Close was clearly proper based on the discussion. Moreover, the nom says "Sources are mandatory to build an article, and sources about the subject are necessary for notability." This is not true. WP:V requires verifiability, not verification. Except in the case of BLPs, sources need not be present for a valid article, although of course it is better if they are. Here sources were clearly present, and reliable ones, the question was how much of their discussion was bout the group itself. That is not a bright-line issue, judgement is needed, and DRV is not AfD round two. DES ^(talk) 04:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Literally no one concurred with the nominator. Consensus as clear as I've ever seen it. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Please read the top of the page specifically, "Deletion Review should not be used: 1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment; to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion". If it were only the closer disagreeing with your application of the guidelines it would be one thing but no one did. You are targeting the entire discussion and not bringing forth any new information. The close was correct and consensus was met in all practices of WP:CONSENSUS. Mkdw ^talk 23:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The expressed consensus was evident, and the nom does not argue that the content in any way breaches policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, all we have is the nom disagreeing with everyone else who participated in the discussion as to whether sources existed to establish notability, and those participants are almost all well-established editors with reasonable comments rather than SPAs pushing an obvious agenda. So there's no question that the consensus was to keep, and it would have been improper to close it any other way. postdlf (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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