Foo Conner – Consensus is that, after the block of various "keep" proponents, the outcome should be changed to "no consensus". Sandstein 06:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Foo Conner (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) The discussion should probably have continued. There are 4 users involved in the AfD. The nominator (delete), the author (keep), a user since blocked as sock (keep) and a user only created today, who claims to be an existing wikipedian on his talk page (keep). The keep views should have been put into perspective. There is some merit to the delete view given the majority of sources are local news, blogs, youtube and/or mentions in passing. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 22:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. Continued discussion would have been pointless. Read WP:RENOM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Allow immediate renomination (I don’t mean to distinguish between consensus to keep or no consensus, rather that the AfD didn’t gain traction, and noting problems with the participants). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] I've indef blocked one of the keep !voters. User:FIFAukr fits the vandalism pattern we've seen before of a brand new account popping up and immediately making numerous almost meaningless comments in random AfDs. Apparently this amuses somebody. Once you eliminate the sock/vandal accounts, all that's left is the nom and the author, who is suspected of having WP:COI. A reasonable argument could be made to delete this just on the nom's argument. I don't know if I'd actually close this as delete, but it's not as much of a slam-dunk keep as SmokeyJoe argues it is. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Well, what I think I really mean, is that if someone thinks this should be deleted, a new nomination is by far the best way to go. RENOM advises a better nomination second time. The nomination first time wasn’t bad, but for a renomination, if the nominator would expand on how they judge the sources to be not reliable, or lacking significant coverage, that would be good. Given the age of the AfD, a renomination after a break is much better than a relist. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] I don't see any really good outcome here. A good outcome would be a clear consensus from experienced community members citing good policy-based arguments. Unfortunately, we don't have that. Calling this No Consensus and allowing it to be relisted after taking some time to research sources and formulating a more comprehensive argument for the renomination seems like the least bad alternative, as SmokeyJoe suggests. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to no consensus. Now that two of the three keep !voters have been indefinitely blocked there isn't a consensus for keeping the article. A renomination would also be a good idea but the fact the debate was closed as Keep will make this significantly harder. No consensus more accurately reflects the current state and leaves the issue more open to reconsideration. Hut 8.5 23:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to No Consensus - This is a case where the overturn does not indicate an error on the part of the closer. The fault was that of the blocked users. I don't like the general principle of Ignore All Rules, but this is a case where the rule should be ignored if it means being stuck with a questionable keep for several months. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to no consensus and no prejudice for renomination. The closer could not have closed this any other way based on the discussion, but as noted above, controlling for blocked users, this was the nominator versus the page creator. SportingFlyer T·C 19:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Closer comment - I have absolutely no problems with this being overturned to no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Reclose and close DRV. Since everyone seems to agree that reclosing the AfD as no consensus (NPASR) is a reasonable choice, I'd suggest a snow close. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Agree with the above — NC seems the better close. Probably should have done it myself rather than go for #2 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Foo Conner – Consensus is that, after the block of various "keep" proponents, the outcome should be changed to "no consensus". Sandstein 06:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The discussion should probably have continued. There are 4 users involved in the AfD. The nominator (delete), the author (keep), a user since blocked as sock (keep) and a user only created today, who claims to be an existing wikipedian on his talk page (keep). The keep views should have been put into perspective. There is some merit to the delete view given the majority of sources are local news, blogs, youtube and/or mentions in passing. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 22:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. Continued discussion would have been pointless. Read WP:RENOM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allow immediate renomination (I don’t mean to distinguish between consensus to keep or no consensus, rather that the AfD didn’t gain traction, and noting problems with the participants). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've indef blocked one of the keep !voters. User:FIFAukr fits the vandalism pattern we've seen before of a brand new account popping up and immediately making numerous almost meaningless comments in random AfDs. Apparently this amuses somebody. Once you eliminate the sock/vandal accounts, all that's left is the nom and the author, who is suspected of having WP:COI. A reasonable argument could be made to delete this just on the nom's argument. I don't know if I'd actually close this as delete, but it's not as much of a slam-dunk keep as SmokeyJoe argues it is. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, what I think I really mean, is that if someone thinks this should be deleted, a new nomination is by far the best way to go. RENOM advises a better nomination second time. The nomination first time wasn’t bad, but for a renomination, if the nominator would expand on how they judge the sources to be not reliable, or lacking significant coverage, that would be good. Given the age of the AfD, a renomination after a break is much better than a relist. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see any really good outcome here. A good outcome would be a clear consensus from experienced community members citing good policy-based arguments. Unfortunately, we don't have that. Calling this No Consensus and allowing it to be relisted after taking some time to research sources and formulating a more comprehensive argument for the renomination seems like the least bad alternative, as SmokeyJoe suggests. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. Now that two of the three keep !voters have been indefinitely blocked there isn't a consensus for keeping the article. A renomination would also be a good idea but the fact the debate was closed as Keep will make this significantly harder. No consensus more accurately reflects the current state and leaves the issue more open to reconsideration. Hut 8.5 23:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus - This is a case where the overturn does not indicate an error on the part of the closer. The fault was that of the blocked users. I don't like the general principle of Ignore All Rules, but this is a case where the rule should be ignored if it means being stuck with a questionable keep for several months. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus and no prejudice for renomination. The closer could not have closed this any other way based on the discussion, but as noted above, controlling for blocked users, this was the nominator versus the page creator. SportingFlyer T·C 19:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closer comment - I have absolutely no problems with this being overturned to no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reclose and close DRV. Since everyone seems to agree that reclosing the AfD as no consensus (NPASR) is a reasonable choice, I'd suggest a snow close. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above — NC seems the better close. Probably should have done it myself rather than go for #2 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Candace M. Smith – Snow Endorse. With a sprinkling of DRVPURPOSE thrown in. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Candace M. Smith (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Discussion focused on WP:NMODEL/WP:NACTRESS, however, those categories do not apply to the subject and therefore the discussion is irrelevant to the issue (similarly, they don't qualify as WP:NWRITER, but that's not grounds to delete.) They are of this category, Models (profession), and many "models" have Wikipedia pages. Looking through those other examples, it seems it would be fair to evaluate again.--23.161.192.6 (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)--73.134.86.177 (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Properly run AfD and correctly closed. If you disagree with the result, or think something has changed, get a consensus at Talk:America's Next Top Model (season 18). This is not a deletion matter. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - Case stated is nonsensical. If she isn't a model or an actress, and the appellant doesn't say how she is notable, then there is no credible claim of significance and that is more than enough reason to delete. This appeal appears to be filed by suckpoppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse and close. Noting that WP:NMODEL covers Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities: emphasis mine, this does not meet DRVPURPOSE. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse correct close, fails WP:DRVPURPOSE. SportingFlyer T·C 19:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. The subject is a model and actress, and thus WP:NMODEL and WP:ACTRESS (which are the same guideline) are relevant to her. The request for deletion review even admits that she is a model. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] The most charitable interpretation I've got is a misreading of the (admittedly unhelpful and largely redundant) "Criteria for pornographic actors and models was superseded by the above and the basic guidelines after a March 2019 request for comment." line. —Cryptic 11:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Candace M. Smith – Snow Endorse. With a sprinkling of DRVPURPOSE thrown in. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion focused on WP:NMODEL/WP:NACTRESS, however, those categories do not apply to the subject and therefore the discussion is irrelevant to the issue (similarly, they don't qualify as WP:NWRITER, but that's not grounds to delete.) They are of this category, Models (profession), and many "models" have Wikipedia pages. Looking through those other examples, it seems it would be fair to evaluate again.--23.161.192.6 (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)--73.134.86.177 (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Properly run AfD and correctly closed. If you disagree with the result, or think something has changed, get a consensus at Talk:America's Next Top Model (season 18). This is not a deletion matter. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Case stated is nonsensical. If she isn't a model or an actress, and the appellant doesn't say how she is notable, then there is no credible claim of significance and that is more than enough reason to delete. This appeal appears to be filed by suckpoppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and close. Noting that WP:NMODEL covers Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities: emphasis mine, this does not meet DRVPURPOSE. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse correct close, fails WP:DRVPURPOSE. SportingFlyer T·C 19:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The subject is a model and actress, and thus WP:NMODEL and WP:ACTRESS (which are the same guideline) are relevant to her. The request for deletion review even admits that she is a model. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The most charitable interpretation I've got is a misreading of the (admittedly unhelpful and largely redundant) "Criteria for pornographic actors and models was superseded by the above and the basic guidelines after a March 2019 request for comment." line. —Cryptic 11:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Music People – Speedy close. Nothing to review. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The Music People (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Stub with no references flagged a decade ago - for a company that appears to no longer exist. synthfiend (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] There is nothing to review. You may take it to AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

The Music People – Speedy close. Nothing to review. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stub with no references flagged a decade ago - for a company that appears to no longer exist. synthfiend (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to review. You may take it to AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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