Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Horror Story (2013 film)

AfD NAC
Could you pleas help me out. I'm trying to determine if this was a good NAC on the users part, and if not how to correct it. He misstates Tokyogirl79's view point, seems to have a clear COI of interest with his extensive involvement with WikiProject:India (in fact he makes sure to post a link to their view points in every post about India), in fact appears to use the closing statement as a vote, and finally makes a comment that borders on violating Good Faith when he says "the film is actually going to release on 13 September and the date has not been included to mislead the AFD." In fact I posted that the film would be released the next month in the AfD. The keeps all both of the same nature, it's only a few weeks away why get rid of it? I only posted in this morning and not even 24 hours later it's closed NAC. I'm not saying I might not be over ruled by consensus but IMO this looks very biased. I didn't even get a chance to reply since it was closed so quickly, that the coverage seems more related to the director then the movie itself. Caffeyw (talk) 03:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (moved from User talk:Peridon talk page)
 * I'm asking for comments here about it - one has arrived before I finished notifying people... I think it was a bit soon, but am assuming good faith (and have no views on the film myself)/Peridon (talk) 10:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If Schmidt is for it, I would recommend re-opening it since I do think that it was a little too early for it to close and it'd be good to give it at least another day or two just to get another few opinions. I think that it's likely to end up as a keep in the end, but I have to admit that I myself was a little uncomfortable with the AfD receiving a snow close after only 3 votes and 24 hours, and by a non-admin to boot. It's not that I don't think it's highly likely that it'd end any other way, but I'd prefer it to get another day or two just so to avoid any further fears of bias or other concerns. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please re-open per my response to Peridon on my talkpage (see Tb below).
 * And to User:Caffeyw, it is well understood and expected that editors contribute to those fields in which they feel their knowledge and experience will serve the project. I act in film and television and am a coordinator of project film. As long as policy and guideline are followed, THAT does not constitute bias. The project is rarely served when an editor tries to contribute to a field in which he has absolutely no knowledge. Tito was unintentionally premature and will happily expect/allow the thing to be re-opened.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 11:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Michael has talked to the closer and is going to re-open the discussion. Thanks, folks.Peridon (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll teach myself how .  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 11:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Then you can tell me how... 8-) Peridon (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Seemed so easy that it might well be wrong. I went to the page history andit to the last version before the close, THEN I re-added the discussion to the various delsorts which had been automatically removed by the close and re-added it to them. I then dropped a note at the discussion of what I did and why. I think its okay now. Restored, acknowledged, and in the delsorts.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 11:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's those automatically done things that worry me. They're great when going forward, but tricky in reverse. Peridon (talk) 11:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood. I had to re-set the AFD header on the article itself and (as it has been improved and moved since the "close") re-set the AFD pointer as well as remove the "oldafdful" message from its talk page. AND then notify involved editors. Whew. If I messed up, someone will let me know.   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 12:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey, that automatic thingy did not work here. I closed the AFD and found right at that time someone has moved it to new title. The script failed to removed AFD template and add oldafd tag at talk page. I had to do these manually. Script and tools may be faster, but, humans ae better.. always. I'll appreciate if someone adds selected portions of these discussions in an archived box at the AFD in an archived box. Discussions are getting fragmented. I don't mind quoting my email reply. They could contact me directly with theri concerns. Anyay... -- Tito ☸ Dutta 14:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)