Damien Fonoti ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Requesting overturning of the decision to Delete this article. Vote was 3 - 2 in favor of keep. Simione001 ( talk) 13:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Relist there is clearly no consensus to either keep or delete. There were three !votes on each side (counting the nom as a "delete" vote) with no compelling arguments. Basically the "keep" !votes say it passes WP:GNG and the "delete" !votes say it does not without much to support their claims. Letting the discussion continue for another week is the best way to determine if consensus exists. Frank Anchor 14:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to Relist - Delete was not a plausible close. No Consensus would have been a valid close, but getting more input is even better. The close was a supervote. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. There were no guidelines cited and supported with evidence by any keep !voter, while one delete !voter gave a compelling reason for why GNG was not met. It should not be surprising that !votes with zero specificity to the subject, or that lack any basis in P&Gs, are disregarded by the closer. JoelleJay ( talk) 00:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The last voter made a compelling case against notability, and nobody made a compelling case for it (there's one purely procedural vote and two keeps by editors with problematic voting histories). No reason for a relist when the evidence is clear. Avilich ( talk) 02:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The very fact that there are only two delete votes suggests it's not as compelling as you suggest. Simione001 ( talk) 03:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Relist is the reasonable thing to do here, no consensus close would not have been unreasonable (although unusual for a never-relisted discussion), but either keep or delete are not supported by that discussion. Jclemens ( talk) 03:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Relist The nom, delete vote #1 were WP:VAGUEWAVE, the third keep vote is WP:PLEASEDONT. So we only have 1 keep vote claiming they added sources which showed they were notable, and the last delete vote disagreed. A 1v1 is not consensus in any sort of the manner. Relist to evaluate the sources and determine if they are enough for notability. Jumpytoo Talk 05:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Relist given that the debate was evenly split, and almost all of the comments just assert that the subject is or isn't notable, there isn't much of a consensus there. Hut 8.5 18:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment from closer The vote count is neither here nor there because AfD is a discussion, not a vote. I completely discounted the comments from IdiotSavant as out of scope for AfD. In general, I weigh vote-like comments that offer no explanation as to why an article meets or does not meet the GNG extremely lightly. In the end, there was a single compelling point made from Devonian Wombat. This was lighter than I would have liked, but, based on the last few months, I did not see a relisting generating much more discussion beyond what is here. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - So in that case it should be Keep no consensus. Simione001 ( talk) 22:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

    No, but good try -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - Remember, AFD is not a vote. It's absolutely valid to close a discussion based on strength of arguments rather than who showed up to participate.-- 🌈WaltCip-( talk) 13:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I don't think there's any prospect of finding decent sources for this person, so a relist would be a waste of resources.— S Marshall  T/ C 13:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply