The City of Milaca (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Obviously fictional positions in government and outlandish descriptions make it questionable place exists as described; article created just a few weeks ago with few editors; High school cliques are described in detail. Soc8675309 (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing for DRV to do here, Soc8675309. I see Tikiwont's already taken the appropriate action. I move for speedy closure.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, it's about and taken from Milaca, Minnesota, so I've redirected for a moment there, but then decided to speedily delete it as vandalism. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Wei (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This AfD on a BLP was closed as keep with the reason that "there were no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator" (myself). I've raised with the closer that I don't see the consensus there and he argued that the debate ran for 13 days and was relisted once with nobody but me arguing for deletion. According to him and another editor, it couldn't have been closed any other way. Now, first of all I think such a closing statement needlessly personalizes the issue. In as far that correctly describes the situation, it still does not imply automatically a consensus to keep an article as it neither addresses raw numbers nor arguments for keeping. Finally, I think this is an indeed an incorrect interpretation of this particular discussion which had a low participation and ended with question marks after the two keep arguments regarding the album and the Chinese Google hits. Now, I am well aware that the distinction between a keep and a no consensus closure is of limited importance for the fate of a specific entry, but I also think that it is occasionally important to clarify how we establish consensus or the lack thereof, so i ask for your feedback if this could indeed not have been closed differently, or should rather be overturned to no consensus. Tikiwont (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You're a victim of low AfD participation levels there, I think, Tikiwont. Given a listing for thirteen days and a unanimous "keep" apart from the nominator, it's hard to envisage any other outcome to the debate.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not a victim here in any case. I just wouldn't apply the term unanimous in a a situation where two editors disagree with one.--Tikiwont (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from closer. I stand by my close but after further thought I will concede that no consensus would also have been a valid close considering one of the 2 "keep" !votes was a per. As far as my closing statement, it wasn't personal. I use "No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator" on most of my closes. Further note, the nominator is correct that the article is an unsourced BLP and since there is a logical redirect target for it, I have boldly redirected the article to One Million Star (season 2) per WP:BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist for more input. Unsatisfactory closing statement under the circumstances, non-admins shouldn't be closing these types of nominations.--Otterathome (talk) 07:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If a non-admin can't close a unanimous "keep" after thirteen days of listing, then what on earth can they close?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Only two outside users gave their view, more views are needed if it is very borderline like this. If there is a still a shortage even after 13 days, the closing user (or admin) is expected to give an explanation as the Afd can go either way.--Otterathome (talk) 08:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I could have relisted it a second time but WP:DELPRO discourages second relistings unless there is a good reason and at the time I didn't see one. However, the article is an unsourced BLP and that may be considered a good reason for a second relist and I'll keep that in mind for future relist runs. As far as an explanation goes, what further comment could I have given besides saying what I did? Also, why did you revert my redirect with the summary "there's no blp here"? Last I checked this person was still alive and the article is unsourced. Clear WP:BLP issue. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure as the discussion could not have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose that technically, we could go with "Re-open for an admin to close". Non-admin closures are for uncontroversial matters, and the fact that Tikiwont and Otterathome have challenged the closure indicates that it's controversial, so procedurally an admin should re-examine the matter. I think Stifle's remark may suffice, because in my experience if even Stifle can't find a reason to delete in the debate, there's none to be found (*grins at Stifle*)—but it's arguable that an uninvolved admin should reclose.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feh. I suppose I should point out that there should be no prejudice against renomination, in all the circumstances. Stifle (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure - 13 days of listing with nobody advocating deleting this article indicates "keep" was the proper closure. The "keep" voters all based there arguments on WP:NOTABILITY policy (major label release, plenty of sources about the topic, etc.).--Oakshade (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – there was nobody else arguing for deletion apart from the nom. MuZemike 01:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, but prefer no consensus and/or a note indicating no prejudice to renomination. Tikiwont challenged both of CaliforniaAliBaba's arguments and received no response. Redirecting appears to be the correct editorial decision. Flatscan (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Flatscan; also endorse the redirect. Tim Song (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a reasonable closure. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wong Fu Productions (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article about an independent filmmaking group has been deleted numerous times in 2007 citing notability issues. However, films and short films by the group have since been featured at the San Francisco International Asian American Film Festival (entry) and the San Diego Asian Film Festival (entry). They also appeared at the Short Films Corner of the Cannes Film Festival. (video blog entry) CNN's Ted Rowlands recently did a segment on them as well. (Wong Fu Productions Press Page)

—Arsonal (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Are there non-blog source about "Wong Fu Productions" itself, rather than listings or brief film productions. WIthout those there isn't much an article can say. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• When an article has been deleted so many times that an administrator has felt it necessary to protect the article from further recreation, it's customary to bring a sourced userspace draft to DRV for commenters to consider. I recommend doing so. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the suggestion. I will write up something over the weekend. Arsonal (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I protected this page from recreation back in 2007 (as a fairly freshly-minted admin) after approximately 10 recreations, one of which consisted of "wiki is gay for deleting my articles". Frankly, the suggested citations above are so far away from the material I saw and deleted that I actually suspect that there are two groups with the same name, and I hope that the "sourced userspace draft" will be clear about the group's entire history. I will look forward with interest and without pre-judgment to seeing the aforementioned draft. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed the requested "sourced userspace draft", which is available on this page. If reviewers decide to restore access to the article page, perhaps it will be a good idea to place a semi-protection to prevent disruptive edits such as the ones Accounting4Taste experienced. Given the popularity of this group on the Internet, I can anticipate fans accessing the article and attempting to add information that may be excessively trivial.

—Arsonal (talk) 05:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I've looked at the sourced userspace draft and have no objection to my protection being removed or to this article being returned to articlespace and retained; in fact User:Arsonal appears to have done a stellar job in providing useful and relevant citations and material. This topic looks to have been effectively and thoroughly rescued. Re the suggested semi-protection, my understanding is that protection is applied after disruptive editing... everything I saw previously had so little content that I would have called it disruptive posting, not editing. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsalt per Accounting4Taste. Excellent work indeed. Tim Song (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Yup, that draft is good to move into the mainspace.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Approve new draft. Stifle (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]