User:MacMed/Admin coaching/AfD

The following is an exercise in closing AfD discussions. Please follow these rules:
 * 1) Indicate your decision (keep, delete, no consensus, merge, redirect, etc.) as well as your reason for making that decision. The reason should not be your personal opinion, but rather your interpretation of the arguments presented in the debate. The reason can be a sentence long for simple matters, or an entire paragraph long for more complex cases.
 * 2) You are allowed to search Google or other websites, but do not check Wikipedia to see if the article exists.
 * 3) Do the exercises in order, as they are arranged in order of difficulty.
 * 4) Remember that AfD is not a vote, but rather a discussion designed to achieve consensus. Therefore, you should give more weight to exceptionally well-reasoned arguments and less weight to mere !votes, arguments based on WP:ATA, SPA's, sockpuppets, etc.

Example

Decision: Delete Reason: Although a headcount shows an equal distribution of keep and delete !votes, the delete !votes are based on the lack of reliable sources and the presence of original research, while many of the keep !votes are based on WP:ILIKEIT.

Aap Kaa Suroor 2 - Ae Himesh Bhai
Decision: Delete Reason: Unanimous delete, the only user who !voted keep withdrew said vote. Clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. MacMedtalk stalk 20:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * CORRECT

Transport Giant
Decision: Keep Reason: Clearly notable per the sources found by Sabre. Note:If no one took the initiative to add the sources to the article prior to my close, I would do so myself. MacMedtalk stalk 20:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * CORRECT

Simon james morgan
Decision: Delete Reason: There is no claim whatsoever to the second and third criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER, and it has not been established that any of his roles in notable movies are major enough to warrant an article. MacMedtalk stalk 23:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * CORRECT

Readergirlz
Decision: Keep Reason: Though the article does need a major rewrite, it is not outright spammy, it simply does not show both sides equally. Also, the sources presented make it impossible to delete this article as non-notable. MacMedtalk stalk 21:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * CORRECT

Four square regional
Decision: Delete Reason: A crufty fork that is unverifiable as of today, and it is doubtful that there will ever be strong citations for the material. <b style="color:green;">MacMed</b><sup style="color:red;">talk <sub style="color:black;">stalk 21:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * CORRECT

2009 Lithuania–Russia crisis
Decision: Delete Reason: The keep votes are mostly WP:AADD, and the refs speak only of what sounds like a traffic backup. Not article worthy. Regards, <b style="color:green;">MacMed</b><sup style="color:red;">talk <sub style="color:black;">stalk 23:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * CORRECT

Truth in Numbers
Decision: Keep Reason: According to WP:NFF, an movie that has not yet been released, but that has started primary photography, can be permitted to have an article if it passes WP:N. The coverage by the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and The Inquirer constitute multiple secondary sources providing non-trivial coverage. Regards, <b style="color:green;">MacMed</b><sup style="color:red;">talk <sub style="color:black;">stalk 23:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * INCORRECT - The argument has gone back and forth, without a clear consensus. Therefore, the correct decision is no consensus.

Jessica Brooks Grant
Decision: Delete Reason: Most of the keep !votes are simply "she is notable" and "She should have an article." There is no demonstration of notability, and I could find none searching for myself. Delete per WP:ENTERTAINER. Regards, <b style="color:green;">MacMed</b><sup style="color:red;">talk <sub style="color:black;">stalk 23:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * CORRECT

Mike Brown (goaltender)
Decision: Keep Reason: Mike Brown evidently passes WP:ATHLETE, having played almost 5 years in a professional league. Just because he isn't a superstar like Luongo or Kiprusoff doesn't mean he isn't notable. Regards, <b style="color:green;">MacMed</b><sup style="color:red;">talk <sub style="color:black;">stalk 18:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * INCORRECT - Seems more like a no consensus. This type of closure can be your ally, especially in cases where sources have been provided, but when their reliability or relevance is disputed.
 * Alrighty. I completely forgot about no consensus when I was doing these, but I'll be sure to keep that in mind in the future. Regards, <b style="color:green;">MacMed</b><sup style="color:red;">talk <sub style="color:black;">stalk 12:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Fledgling Jason Steed
Decision: Delete Reason: None of the sources are really reliable. The BBC reference mentions the author only because of his donation to a war memorial, not because of his book. No prejudice against recreation with more WP:RS. Right now the book doesn't meet the criteria of WP:BK. Regards, <b style="color:green;">MacMed</b><sup style="color:red;">talk <sub style="color:black;">stalk 18:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * CORRECT

Greece–Jamaica relations (2nd nomination)
Decision: Delete Reason: Not enough notable content to warrant an article. The existence of embassies and trade agreements are not really notable, as they are mostly part of your average international relations. Any useful information can be inserted into the Foreign relations section of either country's article. Regards, <b style="color:green;">MacMed</b><sup style="color:red;">talk <sub style="color:black;">stalk 18:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * CORRECT

Alexis Grace (2nd nomination)
Decision: Redirect to American Idol (season 8) Reason: A completely unreferenced article, it seems to fall under WP:BLP1E. She is notable only for her participation in the show, and for nothing else after or before that. Even though the show runs for 6 months, it is still only one event, which does not necessarily confer notability. Regards, <b style="color:green;">MacMed</b><sup style="color:red;">talk <sub style="color:black;">stalk 18:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * CORRECT

Man in the Moon (song)
Decision: '''Merge and redirect to Titiyo, no prejudice against speedy recreation. Reason: Source provided by User:Drmies proves the song's charting and therefore notability. As of right now I can't find any additional sources to convince me the song deserves it's own article, but if someone should find some there is no reason not to recreate. <b style="color:green;">MacMed</b><sup style="color:red;">talk <sub style="color:black;">stalk 23:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * CORRECT

List of films receiving six or more Academy Awards
Decision: Delete and redirect to List of Academy Award-winning films after table-ization of the latter is complete. Reason: The nominator raises a strong point with the ability to find reliable sources that support a list of films winning 6 or more Oscars. The talk of the article shows a lot of debate over the cutoff, showing that it is not really necessary. List of Academy Award-winning films being sortable also eliminates the WP:USEFUL argument of the keep !votes.
 * INCORRECT - At worst, it will be merged and redirected to List of Academy Award-winning films. Typically, if the history of the article is not harmful, and it will end up being redirected, the history is preserved for posterity to see and so that people can selectively merge some content into the main article later if the occasion arises. That said, your assertion that "a lot of debate over the cutoff [shows] that it is not really necessary" is more of a supervote; that argument was never mentioned by the "delete" side. Therefore I would close as no consensus and relegate further discussion to the talk page, which is very apt because no matter what happens, there is no way the article will be deleted outright.
 * So you can never use an assertion/implication that wasn't explicitly mentioned by the delete side? (Not trying to be contentious, just asking) And I actually meant merge and redirect, blanking the page rather than delete then recreate. I said delete because there is nothing in the article to actually move (the award numbers are already in the main article). So that is a fairly important distinction I will make sure I remember. Regards, <b style="color:green;">MacMed</b><sup style="color:red;">talk <sub style="color:black;">stalk 03:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't try to interpret the WP:LETTER of my statement that strictly. It's a fuzzy thing; you need a bit of practice closing AfDs to get a feel of what constitutes a reasonable inference. In that case, my opinion was that your inference was stretching it. So the short answer is, yes you can, but be careful not to synthesize your own argument. As for the blanking vs. deleting part, it's not too much of a big deal if you don't get the GFDL involved. However, the revision history is always something nice to have around if you can. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

List of deaths related to Scientology
Decision: No Consensus Reason: Both sides made pretty valid arguments. The article seems coat-racky and a little bit POV at first glance, but each entry is well supported by reliable sources and the article itself meets the notability criteria. One of the main issues delete !voters had was the name; perhaps a move to something less suggestive would be appropriate.
 * OK - The actual result was "delete," but both are considered acceptable closes as long as you explain your decision.

Macacawitz
Decision: Merge and redirect to Controversies of the United States Senate election in Virginia, 2006 Reason: Somewhat a case of WP:BLP1E, some coverage but only as a sideline to the election. !keep votes are essentially WP:ILIKEIT, quoting references already found in the article along with a 404.
 * INCORRECT - The "delete" !votes were largely WP:JNN, with only one mention of the sources (followed by a WP:IDONTLIKEIT assertion of "too minor"). "Merge" or "redirect" are nice results that hardly require justification in non-contentious cases, but here we actually have reasonably strong arguments for keeping. The "keep" !votes cite sources covering the term; the fact that the references are already in the article does not weaken their argument. If someone nominated Barack Obama for deletion and the "keep" side did not bring up a single new source, would it be deleted?

Extravagance
Decision: Delete Reason: Per WP:DICDEF, !keep votes did not really refute this point. The article appears to do nothing but look at the word lexically, and the !keeps saying it is one of the 7 deadly sins are probably confusing the term with lust or gluttony. Regards, <b style="color:green;">MacMed</b><sup style="color:red;">talk <sub style="color:black;">stalk 00:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * CORRECT

Keeani Lei (2nd nomination)
Decision: No consensus Reason: There is doubt as to the legitimacy of WP:PORNBIO but right now it's a policy and Keeani meets it.
 * OK - The decision was correct, but the rationale a little shoddy. Could you expand on the reason why you closed the way you did?

David Kenny (2nd nomination)
Decision: No consensus Reason: The !keep votes failed to address the !delete concerns of WP:NOTINHERITED of the book notability being passed on the the author, but the !deletes also failed to address the fact that the subject meets the most basic notability criteria: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Both sides having unresolved arguments, I would close as no consensus. (PS that's a tough one).
 * CORRECT

All done :) What's next coach? :P Regards, <b style="color:green;">MacMed</b><sup style="color:red;">talk <sub style="color:black;">stalk 20:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)