Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Human disguise

Disagree with closure reasoning
«Therefore, no consensus is the only correct outcome.» — Agreed.«However, this article is unique in that it was previously deleted,» — Disagreed; present article is substantially different from "Human suit", for one thing, it's better developed.«and that the 'status quo' is for the article to not exist.» — Disagreed; present article is not in the "status quo" of another article altogether. This is a de novo review, so "no consensus" means "no consensus", not "consensus to delete".After all, presumably that other article was deleted because there was consensus to delete it, right? (Or wasn't there?) So surely it is significant that this time the consensus has shifted."In any XfD (WP:AfD, WP:TfD, etc.), 'no consensus' defaults to keep. Keeping an article preserves all options and the possibility of future discussions." — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC) 
 * TBH I don't think there is anything to be achieved by pursuing this in the talk section of a closed AfD debate. Artw (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it could be appropriate to say that this AfD was processed as a DRV where a "no consensus" would equate to endorsement of the closure. I don't see an error here.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If we want to close it that way, then we do it that way, but if we close it with "no consensus", then it was done wrong. WP:AFD states: "If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept" (emphasis mine) Cheers! Scapler (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion: Deletion review/Log/2009_November 4 — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Was there a consensus?
I've looked over this AFD a few times now, and I see a clear and obvious consensus for deletion. As (obviously) not everyone sees it that way, I've broken down how the !votes look to me:


 * Legend:
 * Pictogram voting keep-light-green.svg - rationale meets policy, guideline, or essay
 * Pictogram voting oppose.svg - no qualifying rationale (note)
 * Pictogram voting merge.svg - !vote for merge
 * Pictogram-voting question.svg - !vote unclear

I don't know if this will help anyone else, but it helped me clarify how I saw the situation. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of table

 * Well, I think you mischaracterized my "strong keep because as a broad theme it's clearly notable" argument as "inherited" — I didn't suggest inheritance from anyplace else, and have no idea where it would be "inherited" from. But since "inherited" is an invalid "keep" argument, I suppose I serves your purpose to slap that label on my and others' "keep" !votes where or not it actually fits. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 08:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've moved it from INHERITED to ITSNOTABLE. Better now? I was just trying to be as precise as possible, and I can't see that it makes any difference, but if you prefer it, great. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 10:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My !vote was also based on RS and notability grounds "This article has no RS that establishes it as a notable concept", and per my comments OR and SYNTH - but placing it in NOTE section will be fine. Verbal chat  10:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear where you think it should be moved; could you be a little more precise? Sorry… <span style='font:bold 1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on the above, it is pretty clear that the keep arguments were far stronger and thus if we went by strength and accuracy of arguments, it should be overturned to "keep," as the article is clearly discriminate, non-trivial, unoriginal research, that passes multiple guidelines, policies, and essays. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And that would be your opinion. This chart is (as I've said several times now) mine. Me, I look at the !votes for keep, and I see all of them as falling neatly into AADD.
 * Whereas had your opinion differed, you could just as arbitrarily have "rejiggered groups" to let all the !votes for delete fall neatly into AADD. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My !vote was a humorous attempt to show by example that the subject was clearly notable by modern references in both fiction and non-fiction contexts. If you think that is a useless or ilikeit response, you are severely discounting my links. Miami33139 (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you prefer that I put it under INHERITED? I can do that, no problem. <span style='font:bold 1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how "trivia" arguments work as per policy. #1 they are really just WP:JNN.  #2 like WP:JNN it's an essay.  I can find an essay for pretty much anything.  I'd say that such !votes aren't addressing any policy/guideline based reasons to delete and so should be largely discounted. Hobit (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you mean by JNN as an essay, as it actually isn't—do you mean you think AADD itself shouldn't be used? Now that would be interesting. So far as trivia goes, I was looking at TRIVIA (a guideline, fwiw) to see what it said about trivia articles, which got me to HTRIVIA. If you know of something that applies more specifically, let me know. However, looking at it some more, I think it makes sense to separate INDISCRIMINATE from NOTDIR, and then rename the trivia group to NOTDIR—after all, "Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" appears to (imo) cover pretty well what they were saying. <span style='font:bold 1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)