Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:15, 6 March 2014

slakr's life is currently frolicking with chaos, so his activity and response times to queries will be highly variable. Leave a message and he will respond whenever he gets a chance— that is, assuming he gets a chance. Cheers =) zOMG!!! I need urgent assistance!!!1!! — banana? — kiwi?

Ideally, please use this link to post new messages at the bottom. If you can't find something you recently posted, I might have moved it down there or it could have been archived if you posted it over 7 days ago. Cheers :)

Click here to start a new talk topic

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Regarding slakr: Why did my page get deleted? Please see Misplaced Pages:Why was my page deleted? first. I have no idea what you're talking about. What's vandalism? If you received a warning from me and you're not logged in, you might have gotten an old warning I sent to someone who shares your IP address. On the other hand, if you've made recent edits and received a recent warning message from me and you genuinely believe that it's not vandalism, don't fret-- simply drop me a message below, because I could have simply made a silly mistake. :) Regarding SineBot: Why does SineBot keep signing stuff I've already signed? All comments should have a signature that includes both a link to your user page (slakr) and a datestamp (05:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)) (per signatures - internal links). This is most easily generated by placing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your contributions, which makes something like "slakr 05:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)". If you have an interwiki-linked user page, consider either creating a user page on enwiki that redirects to your preferred home wiki or simply opting out of automatic signing. If you're still having problems after trying that, post a message below. Be sure to include diffs to make sure I can reference the problem. I don't want my comments signed by SineBot. How do I get it to ignore me or my talk page? Please use one of the opt-out methods listed on its user page. SineBot forgot to sign something it should have signed. Usually this happens because the bot isn't sure if it really should sign something, so it defaults to not signing it (e.g., in cases of complex edits). It does this to avoid being annoying. Other times, a comment might be made when the bot is down for maintenance, so the bot simply never sees it. SineBot signed something that it genuinely should not have signed. Please let me know-- especially if you think it's not a one-time thing. Be sure to include diffs to make sure I can reference the problem. Is SineBot's source code available? Not currently. I'm signing with four tildes (~~~~) but it's still saying I didn't! You likely enabled raw signatures. Open your preferences, click the "User profile" tab, make sure that "Treat the above as wiki markup" is NOT checked, and click Save; it should be fixed. If you have an interwiki-linked user page, consider either creating a user page on enwiki that redirects to your preferred home wiki or simply opting out of automatic signing.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Phil robertson merge..

I'm kinda new to all this but does this mean that the information in that article must be merged into the Phil Robertson article? If that is the case I must disagree with this assesment... given tprimarily the topic of the article wasn't about phil robertson nor A&E but the controversy over the remarks...and secondly the only call for a merge was striked out when issues of being undue were raised... (to examplify how undue it would be I refer you to the duck dynasty article which many are trying to reduce... including myself... its huge! and some suggesting trimming it down to a paragraph) but anyhoo... If merger of this article is not neccessary then I apologize for wasting your time.. although I do believe it had potential as a stand alone article...I would surely have to consider disputing turning the phil robertson page into a proxy for a controversy that in essence was about the remarks rather than the man.. alll assesments on the issue where in relation to the words/actions and beared little or no opinion of the man,the show, or the company that produced the show.....sure they started the national debate but they were not the focus of the debate... thank you for your time Nickmxp (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It's basically de facto delete. However, as the arguments for delete pointed out, the main issues were the event's independent, lasting notability (rather lack thereof) and the merits of forking to its own article from its parent(s). In almost all cases (including keeps), nobody was arguing the article's entire content was truly lacking in secondary source coverage or otherwise completely delete-worthy (contrast, for example, with a non-notable company, person, etc...). Taken in concert, I took that as consensus to keep the reasonably keepable content, leaving the matter of where it truly belonged to be sorted out elsewhere. Whether or not that's on Phil Robertson (I assumed, mainly given the rationales for POV-forking and him being the originator of the comments and ensuing controversy), Duck Dynasty (as I noted a lot of the article's content is already there), and/or a combination of both is more a discussion for the editors of those respective pages, but the close templates only seem to allow one article to be stuck in the field. :P

In contrast, had it been flat-out deleted it wouldn't have addressed—and would have contradicted the logical intent of—many of the delete votes (i.e., those stating, roughly, "delete because it's a POV-fork") as well as the keep votes (i.e., those stating, roughly, "keep because it's too big and needs its own article"), as outright deleting the content (instead of merging it back to where it was forked from) would have even further solidified an alleged POV fork's intent (i.e., to presumably whitewash a source article) while obliterating the content, citations, edits, and updates that had happened in the meantime. In short: simply deleting would have been the antithesis of both sides' arguments.

Basically, the thought is that if the content was spun off from its parent article(s) for whatever reason, but people later decided it didn't need (or shouldn't have, etc...) its own article, then it logically follows that it should return from whence it came (instead of disappearing down a black hole). That's part of the idea behind ignoring a flat "!vote" count in favor of fulfilling the perceived/applied/practical intent of what's actually being said (e.g., "I'm saying <delete/keep/comment>, but I really mean <whatever> because of the rationale I'm giving and the situation at hand"). Hence, a "merge" in this instance seems to fulfill both consensus and practicality by making it a lot easier for non-admins to copy the content back to its ideal location(s), as a true "delete" would have otherwise immediately killed all of it and required either userfication, a temporary undelete, or direct admin editing action to get at the deleted revisions.

--slakr 10:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• I must disagree with your close on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Phil Robertson ''GQ'' interview controversy. The article was created to spinoff from the Duck Dynasty article to avoid the content being undue there. There are still reports coming in on this - like an entire cycle citing the ratings drop and speculating how the controversy tied into it, and the attendance at a White House dinner, etc. - and every point for deleting the article was countered with reasoned policy, and most were not refuted, if addressed at all. I think a no consensus was called for, and I ask you to reconsider the matter. The controversy itself is notable; much of the content is simply inappropriate at the biography article, where a NPOV summary, rather than what is there now, would be best, and some of the content is misplaced at the Duck Dynasty article where we should be focussing on the impact of the show, rather than rewriting everything to cater to that POV, it's best just to treat the notable event on its own, and let the Duck Dynasty content also be trimmed down to a summary, rather than recount all the notable parts of the controversy. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Your very comment, "The event has already been white-washed in the biography article, Phil comes off as a preaching hero, and efforts have been underway by the nominator and SPAs to do the same on the show article.," actually makes more of a case for why it's likely a POV fork. That, among the various other comments, is why I felt merge, rather than other bolded suggestions, was appropriate given the arguments made. --slakr 05:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The biography has been whitewashed, if you take away all the direct quotes, which is just repeating, needlessly, the offensive comments on this controversy, there is essentially only a sentence or two. If you notice the action right about, it goes into great details on the alleged dispute with A&E over bleeping content, but that is supported by one or two sources. This controversy has hundreds, and more coming. And that's not the article where this was spun out from. The nominator has been since banned, and the article has been remarkably peaceful since then. The idea that it was a POV fork was properly refuted. It's a spinout article making the same statements as the main article, and the main editors, are both here suggesting that the article can remain and have declared an effort to work out any content disputes. Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

For clarity... I really haven't made any additions to Misplaced Pages concerning the gq controversy.. I did make two edits.. one on the duck dynasty article, in a failed effort to condense it and one in the deleted article to help concerns of a pov fork.. but it is very true that non of the information from this article came from the Phil Robertson page.. I think everyone is in agreement that the information is to large and irrelevant for inclusion on the two pages in question.... which is why I raised concerns over merging... I think the decision should be either a keep or delete based on input obtained from the discussion... I don't believe a merge would be of any interest to the editors of either page as there is just too much information not directly related to either subject... Nickmxp (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

My point remains that the controversy itself is notable, and hundreds of sources attest to that, as well many in the discussion agreed the controversy article should exist. By having the controversy article we can easily summarize the controversy in the Duck Dynasty article, and add anything that shows how it affected the series. Anything else could be deferred to the controversy article. This arctics would've NPOV on at least those articles. Like others, I have given up the biography being NPOV. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree that many editors from the Duck Dynasty article thought a seperate article was needed... I think the main issue was POV... as notability issues seemed to have been addressed... (it's kinda like the Chic-Fil-A controversy a few years back.. which there is also an article on wikipedia about..)Nickmxp (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The current whitewashing at the Duck Dynasty article, which is eerily similar to what happened at the biography demonstrates a stand alone article about the controversy is the NPOV of going forward. We can't mythologize these events. We need the stand alone article to be restored. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You can merge to either/and/or Duck Dynasty / Phil Robertson. If I recall correctly, there's realistically a better argument for reduced coverage at *Dynasty, but there's now substantially better argument for the content to return to *Robertson, despite much of the content actually being at *Dynasty. Again, I could totally be wrong, but IIRC the controversy was from comments made by predominantly the person—not the show producers, other cast, etc, and while the dude was suspended or whatever from the show, the show's content, itself, wasn't the primary originating reason for the controversy (i.e., he wasn't saying it on-air). If the show was more incidental and he could have just as easily been a cast member on "Fish Oligarchy" (or something similarly backwater but less fictitious :P), then the controversy would still more belong on the *Robertson page. That's not to say that coverage, to a certain extent, isn't also warranted on *Dynasty, of course.

If you're concerned about UNDUE issues on the person page, keep in mind that it's woefully evident that a substantial portion of Robertson's notability in secondary sources comes from his comments, even if the reception was controversial.

--slakr 04:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, AfD isn't the final word, especially in more borderline AfDs like this. Should the issues of the main rationales that were given be resolved, there's realistically no prejudice against recreation. Things like WP:G4 serve to avoid people wantonly recreating articles without fixing the problems raised in an AfD, so if you think it can survive a proverbial "round 2" at AfD, you could always go for it. Keep in mind that a large amount of contention was also over the subjective applications of WP:EVENT and WP:NOT#NEWS, not just the WP:NPOV issues. So, time's probably your friend on this, too (think "lasting effects:" greater sourcing, continuing coverage, other events citing the event, etc...) --slakr 04:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. In this case Robertson is the patriarch of the family, and the show is about the family, he is synonymous with the show, and is considered to be speaking on behalf of the family. He wouldn't have been interviewed if it weren't for the show, and all his controversial comments were reported as "Duck Dynasty star", "Duck Dynasty controversy," etc. As well all the protests were focussed on the show (getting it cancelled), and the network. So the show article is where the controversy should likely be centered but a stand alone controversy article would relieve the concerns, except for those that wish to remove all traces of the event, or spin it only as a religious man being victimized. What do you suggest is the best way forward? Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion Review of YouNow

Hi Slakr, I am back from holiday (lucky me!) and saw that the AfD decision for was delete (unlucky me!) and I am trying to understand why. On a purely "vote" basis, there were 4 votes for Keep (2 from me) and 3 for Delete. But more importantly, on the issues of substance, I believe I answered each of the criticisms with factual answers. Aside from personal opinion that the page was promotional, Deleters offered two more specific arguments for deletion. DGG wrote that the references I cited were "essentially just notices." I made the case that long articles from TechCrunch and AllThingsD are much more than notices. A vote for Keep added additional references. DGG did not attempt to rebut this. BlitzGreg argued that "Citations are all to Youtube pages." I explained that I chose these YouTubers because they were highly notable (the two i chose each have their own Wiki pages). BlitzGreg did attempt to rebut this. Finally, I made the point that YouNow had purchased a company BlogTV that itself was considered notable enough for a Wiki page. As this is only the second page I've created and my first Delete, I wanted to check with you to understand more about the reason for Delete before I attempt a more formal appeal. Thanks for any insight you can offer. skeats111 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

AfD is not about numbers; it's about arguments (also for future reference: avoid adding more than one vote, as it looks like vote stacking). On top of that, one of the commenters, Wesakgilda (talk · contribs), had no other edits outside of that discussion. On the delete side, the argument was that it failed the general notability guideline requirement for the sources to be substantial, independent, secondary, and/or reliable. Keep arguments were based on inheritance from another article (i.e., BlogTV) and other things having articles, which are typically not valid arguments. That said, If BlogTV is, however, notable, and YouNow acquired their assets, then perhaps BlogTV is the more appropriate article (and/or possibly appropriate for a move to the new name). *shrug* --slakr 00:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast response. I really appreciate it. I want to persist, however, because the main point of the Delete side, that the referenced are not "substantial, independent, secondary, and/or reliable," does not hold up. TechCrunch and AllThingsD are independent of YouNow. They are owned by AOL and the Wall Street Journal. YouNow is a venture-backed start-up. The sources are secondary and reliable. And the stories were substantial. They are medium length articles that focus exclusively on YouNow (unlike, for example, a round-up story that might cover 5 or 6 companies in an emerging market). The AllThingsD article includes a 14 minute video of YouNow giving a demo of the product. The TechCrunch article is also focused solely on YouNow and also includes a 13 minute video. The Dive Into Media and Tech Disrupt conferences are highly regarded, invitation-only events that attracts notable venture capitalists, entrepreneurs and tech evangelists. And there are more. I just found a PCMag article (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2392871,00.asp) focused on YouNow. Given that the quality of the references was the primary reason for delete, can you respond to these specific references and explain what is lacking? Thanks. skeats111 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's an issue with there simply not being enough. The thing about AfD is that it can be widely variable on just how many sources there need to be, and how extensive the coverage in those sources should be. I have noticed, however, that usually web content and companies are expected to have considerably greater and more diverse sourcing than, say, a dead historic figure, for example, probably in large part due to the amount of promotional articles that people create, and the relative inexpensiveness of commissioning promotional coverage in periodicals and press-release-reposting websites. --slakr 03:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Slakr. That helps. How many references are enough? Techcrunch is huge. It's comparable to some of the most heavily trafficked tech blogs on the web. (Scroll down here to see techrunch compared to sites like mashable, lifehacker and engadget https://siteanalytics.compete.com/mashable.com/#.Uw4PS_RdVGH). AllThingsD does not get at many uniques, but with Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher, you have two of the most influential tech writers on the web. I would be happy to add the PCMag article. That makes three. One of the Keep votes suggested a few others, so the article could grow to 5 or 6 references. I assume there is no hard and fast rule, but that seems pretty sufficient in both number and significance of reference to meet the criteria for substantial coverage. Skeats111 (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Slakr, would you support restoring the article to draft status? This would allow me to amend it to incorporate additional, significant references I mentioned above, along with others I'm sure I can find. I think this would help the community make a more informed decision, and I believe, ultimately result in a Restore decision. I'm suggesting this after looking at Deletion review. I noticed the Leslie Cornfield decision here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_February_22 which has some similarities to YouNow. Skeats111 (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of National American Miss

Hello, not sure why NAM was deleted due to notability thresholds. There are a lot of girls who compete in NAM and are wanting information about NAM. If you are concerned with lack of notability because they are children then the Little league wiki page should be deleted as well. If you are concerned with name recognition then Aric Almirola's wikipage should be deleted as well. This is a state by state pageant that is so popular in Florida that there needs to be three pageants. Request you reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.133.7.197 (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to nominate those articles for deletion, as well. --slakr 06:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Crown Hill, Indianapolis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• Just wondering why this was a "delete" instead of a relist? The only person to participate in the debate said it should be incubated for improvement. There was no rush that I can see.--Milowent • 13:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

  We don't keep things that are unqualified for mainspace around indefinitely, so asking for incubation is still asking for delete. I can userfy if someone, specifically, wants to take personal charge of the article and believes they can improve it up to the standards of verifiability, notability, and the numerous other content criteria. As for not relisting, it comes down to an issue of practicality:

  1. The policy of verifiability was the primary rationale for deletion.
  2. I agreed with the assessment of the nominating admin's understanding of the policy of verifiability.
  3. No policy or guideline-based argument was given to keep it; asking for incubation (instead of just making the changes that may-or-may-not address the deletion rationale) is still asking for delete.
  4. The AfD had already gone several days past its 7-day window, with no additional input, making it also a de facto {{prod}} in that regard.

  --slakr 01:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• I see someone beat me here.  With part of your point I agree, as I often !vote Delete for articles without sources on the grounds that they must be entirely rewritten.  I even sponsored a discussion at WT:V to improve support for the deletion of articles that fail WP:V.  But claiming that incubate, without arguments to keep, is really a request for delete, is strained logic.  The nominator has already explained that sources are confounded with the nearby cemetery.  As per deletion policy, Incubation is preferred to Userfication.

I strongly disagree that AfD creates a hostage, one that requires editors to shift their editing priorities.  IMO it is questionable time management to invest time in an article where there is currently an active AfD, there is already one editor !voting to delete, and there is a deadline.

As for your point that WP:DRAFTS needs to have a process to give an operational definition to the term "stale draft", I have attempted this argument at WT:Drafts.  The consensus as of now (really only one person defending the status quo), is that there is no deadline at Misplaced Pages.  I cannot carry this argument by myself.  You are allowed to join the conversation at WT:Drafts.

Finally, this was a WP:NOQUORUM, so a hard delete was an incorrect closure.  A soft delete is the same as the de facto prod that you mention.  A prod can have been restored to draftspace, but the hard delete prevents this path to incubation.  It is partly your job to build an encyclopedia.  Do you agree that incubation is a process to improve the encyclopedia?  Unscintillating (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Bureaucracy gives me diarrhea ...heh, well, not really, but I try to avoid it like 3rd-world tap water. If you'd like, feel free to ignore all of the "helpful hints" as to my inner reasoning for the close (since you seem to be experiencing a similar adverse reaction to them) and go solely based on my actions. I suggest you re-read the policy you're quoting, for starters; then, take this to deletion review if you're still unconvinced my close was in line with it. Of course, you're more than welcome to just fix the policy-based problems with the article and re-create it, but the choice is entirely yours. --slakr 08:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, you've had some time to reflect on your comments, is there anything else you want to say?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there something else you needed assistance with that I happened to miss? --slakr 02:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

So for you it is so normal to initiate a conversation with a stranger by talking about diarrhea, that you've forgotten it in the next breath.  Do you agree that incubation is a process to improve the encyclopedia?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

  Unscintillating (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

So to reiterate, you're saying you don't require further assistance from me. That's understandable. Thank you for raising your concerns, and I regret that I have been unable to resolve them to your complete satisfaction. If you happen to run across any further issues on this topic, please feel free to contact another admin to assist you, as it's become apparent that I'll be unable to address your concerns. --slakr 05:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Marc Latamie's article

Dear Slakr, the article "Marc Latamie" has been deleted by you yesterday while, after many conversation with different users and administrators, I followed the recquired informations for sourcing the text. It was sourced at the end. I took time to understand how to do it well. But finally the ones who gave a deletion advertissment agreed with the changes. Then, I inform you that I am going to do it again, being very carefull with the requested laws for wikipedia.--Lucilulle (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Stacy Blackman article

I was surprised to see that the article was deleted considering that I had edited it to address all the concerns. I have placed a copy on my user page. Looking at that, what would be your main feedback to fix it up, considering that it is well referenced so pass WP:GNG? Thanks —Artfog (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The best people to ask for input are likely people who had commented in the deletion discussion. --slakr 19:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that I commented on their vote, addressing their concerns, but they never responded. That is why I'm surprised, because I thought I had addressed all the concerns raised. —Artfog (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

deletion of younow

Hey did you check the links i hve provided? Or did you skip them as my edit count is low? Wesakgilda (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Press releases don't count; echoes/blogs of the same coverage don't count; mentions in passing don't count. While unfamiliarity with those conventions can translate to finding someone has a low edit count, I can incidentally assure you that high edit counts don't necessarily translate to familiarity, either. Even I have to review our policies and guidelines. --slakr 08:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Raffy Cortina

Raffy Cortina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hiya Slakr,

You recently deleted Raffy Cortina, and I was hoping you could help me understand what the major issues were with page, and if they can potentially be fixed. No one felt too strongly about it in the discussion, although I'm not sure if the participants realized that the student award they were talking about is actually an Oscar. I'd be willing to take responsibility for the page if it can get undeleted. Let me know when you get a chance! --Cheers, Buttons23 (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

  It would appear the primary argument was that it didn't meet our notability requirements for biographies. Take a peek at requests for undeletion. --slakr 09:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Richard Horowitz

Richard Horowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello,

You recently deleted an article on composer Richard Horowitz. I had just spoken last week to Callanec to have it restored with the condition I put in all my sources. I have since been working on making a proper works cited. Would you please restore it so I could put in all the sources? This was my first modification to a preexisting entry.

Jeanettebonds (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Jeanettebonds

 Callanecc (talk · contribs), who's presumably more well informed of the situation and is also an administrator, should able to assist you. I primarily try to focus on backlogged areas. --slakr 09:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Jen Hudak

Hey there. First of all, thank you so much for restoring my account. After reading the Misplaced Pages rules and regulations, I completely understand why the content I wrote is unacceptable. However, I'd still like to use that content and rewrite it in my own words, rather than scrounging around and gathering resources all over again. Is there any way I can recover what was previously written for personal use so that I may use it as a framework to rewrite the article. I'm in talks with Jen Hudak via email to get more information on her career but would prefer to have a basis before doing so. Thank you in advance. (EGorodetsky (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC))

Indiggo

Thanks for your thoughtful close. A few points. First, there were more than one article that focused primarily on Indiggo (some in Romanian, but at least one in English). Your close reads as though they don't exist. They are, along with the other mentions that are shorter, the essence of GNG. Also, your close reads like a !vote, rather than a weighing of the !votes of others -- which appear to me to be no consensus. Finally, especially given the above, and the fact -- flagged in the discussion -- that some !votes came while relevant material had been improperly deleted, I think it would serve the interests of the project to keep the AfD open for another week, as we often do in close cases. Many thanks for your consideration.07:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Epeefleche (talk)

Leaving it open longer would appear to only result in more delete votes. If an AfD reaches me, it's because AfD is backlogged and whatever the AfD, it's overdue for a close—usually by several days (5 in this case, which is nearly the entire length of the relist you're requesting). It's not about numbers, and as a closer, when someone says "Per Michael Bednarek," I look back at that guy's comment, see unreliable sources as part of the justification (not consistent with the reliable sources guideline as artists can self-edit/self-publish), and also see sources that mention the subject in passing (not consistent with the notability guidelines). Because they don't accurately reflect our policies and guidelines, those !votes end up being losing weight or being discarded altogether. This is the main reason why it's extremely important to not just say "per (someone else)," because if that person's rationale isn't grounded in policy, neither is yours. Check out things like arguments to avoid in deletion discussions for a more thorough explanation of why this is. --slakr 08:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you re: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Trinity St. Clair

Hi Slakr, Even though it resulted in the loss of an article, I want to thank you for your clear and concise explanation of your reasoning behind the AfD closure and your decision. Regardless of the allegation made by Admin Spartaz, I was not trying to "tell you how to do your job". I was just trying to suggest a peaceful outcome to one of unfortunately several heated debates. Again, thank you. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Good close! Spartaz 18:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)