User talk:Xymmax/Archives/2011/May

Rationale for the no consensus closure of Articles for deletion/Third Summers brother
As the closing administrator of Articles for deletion/Third Summers brother, you put in the rationale that CBR is a reliable source and therefore it was not fair to accord less weight to the keep !votes. That CBR is a reliable source was not in contention. The contention was that only one reliable third-party source mentioned the topic and that it does not discuss in detail the plot-point, which makes the article fail the WP:GNG because of lack of significant coverage and absence of sources (multiple references by the same publisher are generally considered a single source for notability purposes.) Furthermore, I think that you did not take into account that both the article and the sources do not provide reception or significance per WP:PLOT, which was also mentioned in the AfD and that it was not addressed by keep !votes arguments, which focused mostly on WP:N. There are also the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH concerns that were not properly addressed by keep !votes. Also, there was a simple majority of delete !votes, 6 delete !votes vs. 5 keep !votes (of which one was "per Crazy runner points above.") So, per WP:DRV, I invite you to take a second look at the AfD because I do not think that the keep !votes addressed properly the issues raised by the nomination and delete !votes arguments, and there was a majority of arguments in favor of deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said, my personal sympathies would be with those who thought this article belonged on a fan site, but I still don't see that there is a consensus to delete in this discussion. While I agree that !votes that oppose policy generally should receive less weight when closing, I saw this more of a case in which there is disagreement in how policy should apply. I appreciate having the chance to take a second look, but I think no consensus is where this discussion lies - there was a numerical majority, but no rough consensus to delete. I don't know how useful it is to take a no consensus close to DRV, but please feel free if you think it's warranted. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  17:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Third Summers brother
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Third Summers brother. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jfgslo (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Query
Hi. I noticed on Asif Mallah you converted it from a speedy to a blp prod. This is really a question, as I don't know the answer -- where both are applicable, is one preferred? And if so, which, and why? I would have thought the speedier of the two -- which I would have thought was a speedy. Thanks. You can reply here.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think that there's any one right answer. I considered speedy deleting it, but I find that speedy deleting articles that have been around awhile - and this one goes back 4 or 5 years - tends to result in people coming along later and asking for a restoration. Since this article didn't seem to be unduly negative, I figured that there was no harm done in giving it a period of consideration before deletion. There are some editors who like to target expiring BLP prods and try to source them, and while I didn't find any sources, someone else might. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  19:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)