Ed Mylett – Procedural close. Redundant to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 1#Ed Mylett. Sandstein 20:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ed Mylett (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) ED Mylett Show is current #7 on the business podcast chart, Ed Mylett is the host of this podcast. Ed is the author of the self-help book, #Maxout your life which has a 5-star rating on AMAZON. Ed's has shared the stage as a motivational speaker with other business legends such as Tony Robbins, John Maxwell, Phil Knight, and others. Ss6694 (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Speedy close and block the nominator First of all, I think you deserve to be blocked for an obvious case of WP:NOTHERE per your contributions that are centered around this AfD [1], and second, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 1 you have opened already exists and it's going the SNOW endorse route. Not sure why this second DelRev has been opened. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Ed Mylett – Procedural close. Redundant to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 1#Ed Mylett. Sandstein 20:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

ED Mylett Show is current #7 on the business podcast chart, Ed Mylett is the host of this podcast. Ed is the author of the self-help book, #Maxout your life which has a 5-star rating on AMAZON. Ed's has shared the stage as a motivational speaker with other business legends such as Tony Robbins, John Maxwell, Phil Knight, and others. Ss6694 (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and block the nominator First of all, I think you deserve to be blocked for an obvious case of WP:NOTHERE per your contributions that are centered around this AfD [1], and second, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 1 you have opened already exists and it's going the SNOW endorse route. Not sure why this second DelRev has been opened. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Electric Brain – Endorse. The sole two arguments in favour of overturning or relisting are being fairly vague on why they thing that the close was wrong while the far more numerous endorse arguments go into more detail about why they think the close was appropriate. Yes, the nominator of the deletion review later expanded on their arguments but it doesn't seem like they have convinced many people that a reassessment is due. I see some concerns that the close was overly terse beforehand, but it seems like that was addressed in the course of the discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Electric Brain (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly —Flicky1984 (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] This was a close discussion, on the heels of a previous NC debate. It deserves a more detailed closing statement than just a single word. @Yunshui: could you give us additional insight into how you weighted the comments? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Well, ultimately this discussion boils down to the very simple question of whether there is sufficient independent coverage in reliable sources to warrant keeping the article. The two sources which were at the forefront of the discussion were the Nintendo Life and Super Play articles, which as User:FOARP and User:David Fuchs demonstrated, do not provide the level of coverage required to establish notability. The !votes in favour of keeping the article argued primarily that the lack of sources was not an issue (or rather, was to be expected) due to the age of the publication, citing the essay WP:NMAG. However, this essay does not trump the notability policy, which requires significant coverage in multiple, reliable independent sources. The consensus, as I interpret it, is that the few sources available do not represent this level of coverage, and consequently that the article does not – in its current state – meet the requirements for inclusion. I would prefer not to engage in further discussion of this close - that's not an attempt to be evasive, but I agree that it was a close call and so would like to see what conclusion others come to without my input. You’re right, perhaps a line or two of explanation would have been helpful. At the time I felt that the reason for deletion was fairly obvious; evidently not! Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Comment Shouldn't this be speedy closed per WP:DELREVD? The nominator has failed to "discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly", which is listed as an instruction before coming here. I expected this to happen when I saw the closure (which imo required an extra comment from Yunshui). No opinion for anything else right now. I do have to point to WP:NRV, so we cannot pretend that sources exist when "there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability". Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] The relevant part of WP:DELREVD says "Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly", so it is not a strict requirement. If User:Flicky1984 had tried to talk this over with the closer on their talk page, I suspect User:Yunshui would simply have told them exactly what they said here anyway so it would not make much difference. As it happens I think Yunshui made the right call, sad though I am to see this article deleted, because the sourcing simply wasn't there. Wikipedia operates by consensus, and is not simply a case of vote-counting but instead weighs the quality of arguments as well. EDIT: the one use I could see for relisting this is to come up with an alternative to deletion - I did think about a redirect/merge to Onn Lee instead but he doesn't seem to be that notable. I suppose it could also be merged/redirected to the publisher, but I don't know if they are useful either. FOARP (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Just did a strike of that part, you are correct in that regard. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs debunked the sourcing on 31 July, putting forward a compelling rebuttal of whatever limited policy-based keep rationales had remained standing to that point. Between then and the AfD's closure on 5 August there were no further keep !votes and one further delete !vote. That has to weigh on the mind of the closing admin, I would think. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - there were only 2 policy supported Keep !votes, vs 4 reasoned delete !votes (though personally I despise AfD "!votes" that make people go and hunt down what they said in the previous AfD rather than copying it). There is certainly some deletion rebuttal of the Keep viewpoints, it's not total as it's acceptable somewhat a judgement call, but it's there. Though I'm not sure I buy Mkativerata's point that a rebuttal is clearly proved by the post-activity being a single delete !vote. While a NC close wouldn't have been bonkers, I think a delete close was more reasonable. I do think that the closer Yunshui should have provided a more detailed close explanation. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse I thought I was going to be headed for a different outcome for quite a bit of that AfD but my thinking largely parallels Nosebagbear. The delete !votes explain why the keep sources don't establish notability. The keep !voters with the exception of Flicky1984 make no effort to show otherwise. Thus I think applying appropriate weight that delete is an appropriate reading of consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse I'm satisfied with the fact the sources being used to keep the article were shown to not sufficiently meet WP:GNG. I'm a little concerned keep voters may have been suppressed since this was a pretty fast renom after a NC close, but at the end of the day, I think WP:GNG wasn't met based on the reading of the article, and delete an acceptable result. SportingFlyer T·C 23:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] ~~Relist~~ personally I feel that this should have been a 2nd NC close, just like the first AfD with the main claim being WP:NOTTEMPORARY. As User:SportingFlyer, I'm also concerned at the speed of renom and lack of further input from the nominating editor; almost a drive-by nom. The first AfD was barely 3 months ago and the large improvements and extra sourcing added to the article at that time are, IMHO, worth more than a speedy renom and delete. Finally, I feel that more time should have been given for keep voters to present themselves, contrast with the first AfD that was relisted two times after the initial nom due to NC. It's for that reason I am voting Relist and I hope others will follow suite. —Flicky1984 (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Flicky1984, I've taken the liberty of striking your relist here in bold - since you nominated the article for restoration, which counts as a !vote, it gives the impression you're !voting twice. Of course, your comments clarifying you're asking for a relist are more than welcome! SportingFlyer T·C 02:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Oh! I was not aware my initial review was an automatic vote for restoration. I'll leave everything how it is now. Thanks. —Flicky1984 (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Sources were either unreliable or directories. This is a correct interpretation of SIGCOV. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Reclose with a better explanation or revert the close and allow someone else to do so. Terse closes like are disrespectful to the participants, and insufficient for later editors to understand why the discussion was closed that way. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] No disrespect was intended, but the need for an explanation is now very clear. I have copied my rationale over to the deletion discussion, since it is evident now that I erred in not explaining the logic behind the close. Apologies all round, especially if anyone felt I was being disrespectful. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Thank you. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Thanks also form me. Whilst I still feel that more time before the close would have been beneficial, this reclose is a good resolution. Finally, I'd appreciate it if Yunshui could provide a copy of the final source for the page to me so I can keep it in my Userspace drafts until such time that more sources come to light. I only have an older copy of the source. Many thanks! —Flicky1984 (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Flicky1984: Happy to do so; the most recent version prior to deletion has been restored to User:Flicky1984/Electric_Brain2. Yunshui ^雲 _水 20:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Thank you. —Flicky1984 (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - Delete was a valid reading of the consensus. (No Consensus would also have been valid.) Closer user proper judgment. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Overturn or re-list There was not a consensus to delete in the first AfD or this one. I am not going to comment on the article, but we should follow our closing guidelines for WP:NOCONSENSUS. There was time to re-list the AfD. Lightburst (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Electric Brain – Endorse. The sole two arguments in favour of overturning or relisting are being fairly vague on why they thing that the close was wrong while the far more numerous endorse arguments go into more detail about why they think the close was appropriate. Yes, the nominator of the deletion review later expanded on their arguments but it doesn't seem like they have convinced many people that a reassessment is due. I see some concerns that the close was overly terse beforehand, but it seems like that was addressed in the course of the discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly —Flicky1984 (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was a close discussion, on the heels of a previous NC debate. It deserves a more detailed closing statement than just a single word. @Yunshui: could you give us additional insight into how you weighted the comments? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ultimately this discussion boils down to the very simple question of whether there is sufficient independent coverage in reliable sources to warrant keeping the article. The two sources which were at the forefront of the discussion were the Nintendo Life and Super Play articles, which as User:FOARP and User:David Fuchs demonstrated, do not provide the level of coverage required to establish notability. The !votes in favour of keeping the article argued primarily that the lack of sources was not an issue (or rather, was to be expected) due to the age of the publication, citing the essay WP:NMAG. However, this essay does not trump the notability policy, which requires significant coverage in multiple, reliable independent sources. The consensus, as I interpret it, is that the few sources available do not represent this level of coverage, and consequently that the article does not – in its current state – meet the requirements for inclusion.

I would prefer not to engage in further discussion of this close - that's not an attempt to be evasive, but I agree that it was a close call and so would like to see what conclusion others come to without my input. You’re right, perhaps a line or two of explanation would have been helpful. At the time I felt that the reason for deletion was fairly obvious; evidently not! Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't this be speedy closed per WP:DELREVD? The nominator has failed to "discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly", which is listed as an instruction before coming here. I expected this to happen when I saw the closure (which imo required an extra comment from Yunshui). No opinion for anything else right now. I do have to point to WP:NRV, so we cannot pretend that sources exist when "there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability". Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant part of WP:DELREVD says "Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly", so it is not a strict requirement. If User:Flicky1984 had tried to talk this over with the closer on their talk page, I suspect User:Yunshui would simply have told them exactly what they said here anyway so it would not make much difference. As it happens I think Yunshui made the right call, sad though I am to see this article deleted, because the sourcing simply wasn't there. Wikipedia operates by consensus, and is not simply a case of vote-counting but instead weighs the quality of arguments as well. EDIT: the one use I could see for relisting this is to come up with an alternative to deletion - I did think about a redirect/merge to Onn Lee instead but he doesn't seem to be that notable. I suppose it could also be merged/redirected to the publisher, but I don't know if they are useful either. FOARP (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just did a strike of that part, you are correct in that regard. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs debunked the sourcing on 31 July, putting forward a compelling rebuttal of whatever limited policy-based keep rationales had remained standing to that point. Between then and the AfD's closure on 5 August there were no further keep !votes and one further delete !vote. That has to weigh on the mind of the closing admin, I would think. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - there were only 2 policy supported Keep !votes, vs 4 reasoned delete !votes (though personally I despise AfD "!votes" that make people go and hunt down what they said in the previous AfD rather than copying it). There is certainly some deletion rebuttal of the Keep viewpoints, it's not total as it's acceptable somewhat a judgement call, but it's there. Though I'm not sure I buy Mkativerata's point that a rebuttal is clearly proved by the post-activity being a single delete !vote. While a NC close wouldn't have been bonkers, I think a delete close was more reasonable. I do think that the closer Yunshui should have provided a more detailed close explanation. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I thought I was going to be headed for a different outcome for quite a bit of that AfD but my thinking largely parallels Nosebagbear. The delete !votes explain why the keep sources don't establish notability. The keep !voters with the exception of Flicky1984 make no effort to show otherwise. Thus I think applying appropriate weight that delete is an appropriate reading of consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I'm satisfied with the fact the sources being used to keep the article were shown to not sufficiently meet WP:GNG. I'm a little concerned keep voters may have been suppressed since this was a pretty fast renom after a NC close, but at the end of the day, I think WP:GNG wasn't met based on the reading of the article, and delete an acceptable result. SportingFlyer T·C 23:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Relist~~ personally I feel that this should have been a 2nd NC close, just like the first AfD with the main claim being WP:NOTTEMPORARY. As User:SportingFlyer, I'm also concerned at the speed of renom and lack of further input from the nominating editor; almost a drive-by nom. The first AfD was barely 3 months ago and the large improvements and extra sourcing added to the article at that time are, IMHO, worth more than a speedy renom and delete. Finally, I feel that more time should have been given for keep voters to present themselves, contrast with the first AfD that was relisted two times after the initial nom due to NC. It's for that reason I am voting Relist and I hope others will follow suite. —Flicky1984 (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flicky1984, I've taken the liberty of striking your relist here in bold - since you nominated the article for restoration, which counts as a !vote, it gives the impression you're !voting twice. Of course, your comments clarifying you're asking for a relist are more than welcome! SportingFlyer T·C 02:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I was not aware my initial review was an automatic vote for restoration. I'll leave everything how it is now. Thanks. —Flicky1984 (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Sources were either unreliable or directories. This is a correct interpretation of SIGCOV. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reclose with a better explanation or revert the close and allow someone else to do so. Terse closes like are disrespectful to the participants, and insufficient for later editors to understand why the discussion was closed that way. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect was intended, but the need for an explanation is now very clear. I have copied my rationale over to the deletion discussion, since it is evident now that I erred in not explaining the logic behind the close. Apologies all round, especially if anyone felt I was being disrespectful. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also form me. Whilst I still feel that more time before the close would have been beneficial, this reclose is a good resolution. Finally, I'd appreciate it if Yunshui could provide a copy of the final source for the page to me so I can keep it in my Userspace drafts until such time that more sources come to light. I only have an older copy of the source. Many thanks! —Flicky1984 (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Flicky1984: Happy to do so; the most recent version prior to deletion has been restored to User:Flicky1984/Electric_Brain2. Yunshui ^雲 _水 20:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. —Flicky1984 (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - Delete was a valid reading of the consensus. (No Consensus would also have been valid.) Closer user proper judgment. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn or re-list There was not a consensus to delete in the first AfD or this one. I am not going to comment on the article, but we should follow our closing guidelines for WP:NOCONSENSUS. There was time to re-list the AfD. Lightburst (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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