Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/JK! Studios

Closed as delete
7 Keeps; 2 Deletes Consensus doesn't count for anything. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 11:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User:7&6=thirteen you have clearly misunderstood what consensus means. This is a direct quote from Closing_discussions Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue.. If you do not think the discussion was closed correctly you can request a Deletion review which is usually way more preferable to complaining on talk pages of closed discussions. --Dom from Paris (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently you choose not to count. Ipse dixit.  WP:Preserve.  WP:NEXIST.  WP:Before.  These are not just empty words.  They are expresions of policy.  The latter is a series of hurdles that needs be jumped before an AFD is approved and closed.
 * That you and I disagree is one thing, and I WP:AGF.
 * But to become the final arbiter of the dispute, and disregard the many voices that disagree with you, is hubris. It deserves the full light of day and a fitting memorial.
 * You will do what you will do. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 02:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As advised by Domdeparis, you are free to take this up at Deletion review. If you so desire, I shall not participate in the deletion review with any comments (but you'll have to explicitly communicate the same to me on my talk page, so that I don't miss any such request). Warmly, Lourdes 06:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I read and agree with Lourde's analysis of the keep !votes and why they did not count them. there were clearly 3 !votes coming from IP addresses or users that have made at most 1 contribution to WP that make no arguments based on policy or guidelines. 1 weak keep that actually states that they agree with the delete argument but the notability might change...so contradicts policy. Your !vote that simply states that the article meets GNG without saying which sources show this and accuses me of not complying with before search which as per WP:ADHOM is to be avoided and If you can salvage the article, then just salvage it and don't attack other editors for not finding what you found. 1 !voter that quotes WP:EXIST but obviously didn't bother to read it because it says However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. Another keep !vote that cites 2 sources as showing it passes GNG but these sources are too weak to show that it meets WP:NORG which is the relevant criteria to apply. Most of the sources are affiliated or primary sources, most of the sources are owned by or linked to the church LDS, the troupe from what I can gather are all graduates of BYU owned by the same organisation. I say affiliated because one of the aims of the church is proselytism. You may have a problem with simple maths yourself because there are not 2 but 4 editors who wish to delete: me as nom, ifnord, Highking, and KE Koffmann plus an editor that states he agrees with the delete !voters but hadn't decided to !vote yet. --Dom from Paris (talk) 12:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)