- MPCon (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I don't believe consensus was reached. Both Delete votes made arguments that were disputed and some were addressed with additional sources and citations.
As the AFD had already been relisted twice I believe that the deletion discussion should have been closed and the notice removed under no consensus. Sepharo (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - As there were no valid votes to keep...opinions of single-purpose account IP users carry little to no weight in AfDs...and user Czar's argument that the coverage was only local was not refuted. Consensus to delete is clear. Tarc (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- While there were many sources that were local there were also multiple that were not. Said more than once was that the only sources were from college papers which is simply untrue. Also I am not a single purpose account. Sepharo (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There were no non-local sources brought up in the AfD. And unless you are admitting to being one of the IP editors, you did not vote in the AfD, only comment. But looking at your sparse edit history, IMO "SPA" applies to you as ewll anyways. Tarc (talk) 03:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I am both 12.97.75.145 and 2601:40A:8000:2A:5CB:CF:F113:CF95. I only voted once, I mistakenly thought I needed to vote again after a relist but that was appropriately struck. The discussion and comments of IP editors are valid, their votes are not (WP:HUMAN WP:IP edits are not anonymous). But AFDs are not decided by majority vote, they're decided by consensus. The claimed consensus here consisted of the nominator, one user making the argument that the sources were only local and college papers, and finally after two relistings and 20 days, a user with a 7 word reiterartion that "the few sources provided are all local" ... I can't see the article right now but from what I recall there were 7ish sources and they were not all local.
- As far as me counting as an SPA, that's ridiculous. This account has contributions going back to 2006, but that doesn't really matter. The vast majority of my edits have happened as an WP:IP editor and I'm proud of that. Sepharo (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse IMO the closer evaluated consensus properly. The problem with the "keep" votes is not just that they are IPs; it is that they do not cite Wikipedia policy. One user says that he comes to Wikipedia every year to find out when the event will occur; that is absolutely one of the things Wikipedia is not here for. Others argue that the local coverage is sufficient, but the weight of consensus here is that a once-a-year local event like this needs somewhat broader coverage. (Pesonally, looking at the article myself, I would have !voted "delete" while suggesting that the basic information be incorporated into other articles, perhaps Eastern Michigan University or LAN party.) --MelanieN (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Two !votes in favor of deletion are not the strongest consensus possible, but I think they suffice. Furthermore, as indicated by MelanieN, the "keep" !votes fail to cite policy. The close was properly reflective of a "delete" consensus. North of Eden (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. It is one of the longest-standing practices I am aware of on Wikipedia that the contributions of non-registered and newly-registered editors are given less weight on DRV – and as policy is merely a collection of common agreed practices, that is effectively policy in everything but name. As mentioned above, the strength of argument on the delete side was also clearly higher. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse two IPs showed up, one tried to vote twice(!), and they both had arguments that at times bordered on the nonsensical: "I love attending this event"... actual quote. The delete arguments correctly pointed out the serious sourcing issues. Any article that relies on college newspapers as a source is pretty much a goner if it hits AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|