Misplaced Pages

Sway Public Relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Incorrect G11 and A7 speedy since article made a credible claim of significance, credible sources were appropriately cited, including merits and recognition given to agency. Also, willing to rework article if need be. Gixego 17:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Question: Is this the correct name of the deleted article? Because no deletion history shows up under this title. The deleted article can be found at SWAY Public Relations. --MelanieN (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It has now been moved to User:Gixego/SWAY Public Relations. -- GB fan 17:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I save lots of articles, but in this case a fact cited to 25 inline citations rings immediate alarm bells of trying to puff up something that probably isn't notable. And sure enough, checking out the first few revealed nothing but trivial passing relations. There are many, many, PR agencies, unless one has the same level of sustained news coverage as Max Clifford they probably don't warrant an encyclopedia level of coverage. I have restored to User:Gixego/SWAY Public Relations so it can be worked on as a userspace draft, but my prediction is the creator will get frustrated. There was no need to stir up trouble at DRV - I am happy to userfy anything I delete unless it would be against policy to do so (ie: copyvios, unsourced BLPs and attack pages). Ritchie333 17:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse the speedy, at least for G11. Most of the reverences for very minor awards proven by pr or blog sources--no such reference counts as a reliable source.The onlt real RS is a single short NYT story is talks about this one company as one of those joining a merger. Tthe list of clients is promotional'; we do sometimes include a mention of particularly important clients in a long term relationship, but most notable firms do business with a great many suppliers. I doubt if a proper article can be made here, but there's no reason not to try in draft apace. Gixego, I think we need to all your attention to our rule on onflictl of interest. In particular, if you have any fiancial conflct of interest, see tou our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure DGG ( talk ) 07:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse G11 as blatant advert. I have not considered A7. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse G11. Given this, this, this, and this, I also agree completely with what DGG tells you. --Randykitty (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse, as a straightforward and correct application of CSD G11. Lankiveil 12:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC).
• Comment userfied article has been deleted by Jimfbleak. Related article Commonground/MGS is at AfD here. Ritchie333 11:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Barfchal tradition (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Incorrect G1 speedy since page was not patent nonsense. It constituted a constituted a poorly-written description of an Iranian tradition apparently better known as Varf Chal, documented in writing here and in photographs here. Discussed previously on deleting admin's talk page. To be moved to Varf Chal if undeleted. Full disclosure: this nomination is partially intended to investigate present CSD consensus in general in order to help develop this suggestion, even though it itself is not an A7 case. A2soup (talk) 05:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - if you can sensewise make of it, you're a better person than I. It seems like a case for Category:Misplaced Pages administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles + User:A2soup/Sandbox, to me. WilyD 08:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Having reviewed the deleted article, its content, though including sequences of English words, was incomprehensible and the subject not discernible. As ever, no objection to restoring to userspace or draftspace if someone undertakes to improve it. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)`
• Endorse deletion. Admittedly, the specification of WP:CSD#G1 excludes "badly translated material", which this may be; but the summary at the end says "In short, if you can understand it, G1 does not apply." I can't understand this, so I think it is a valid G1. JohnCD (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse reading through the content of the page, I can not understand what the article is about. -- GB fan 11:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse, "Google calls the people to prepare"? This text meets the second criteria listed at Misplaced Pages:Patent nonsense, in my opinion. Lankiveil 12:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC).
• How are we supposed to judge if the page is not restored? Not everybody's a sysop. Alakzi (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Alakzi: Now restored for the purposes of this dicussion. Lankiveil 12:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC).
• Endorse this is somewhat borderline but it is very, very hard to extract any sort of meaning from this article at all, and it wouldn't surprise me if it turns out to be the output of some machine translation. G1 is a reasonable call. If someone does want to write a comprehensible article on the topic then there's nothing preventing them from doing so (and if they can make sense of this one then it can be userfied). Hut 8.5 16:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse as G1. It's unreasonable to expect NPP-ers to tell the difference between nonsensical word salad and extremely poor machine translation--indeed we can't even call something "translated" if the result is totally incoherent, with phrases such as (for example) "'The rule of women (mothers King) on ​​the implementation of the regulations snow field'". It would require a 100% every-word rewrite to make this an acceptable article, so restoring it would not be in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse - Standard "patent nonsense" speedy deletion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse - Article text is an incomprehensible text wall by a WP:CIR-failing new editor, speedy was entirely appropriate. This also appears to be the 5th in a series of rapid-fire DRV nominations, all of which are heading to certain endorsement; at what point is the OP looked at for disruptive activities? Tarc (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for the rapid-fire noms. I think I presented my reasoning for questioning these sorts of deletions (although admittedly not G1 deletions like this one) clearly in this suggestion. The noms were all in good faith, and it was far from obvious to me that they would all head to certain endorsement. I still think that Castratii was not a valid A7, since claiming to have released 3 EPs and an LP seems like a clear credible claim of significance to me. Paul Johnson (Broadcaster) was also not a valid A7, and my lack of access to the article following its deletion prevented me from seeing that it was a valid G3, which was not mentioned by the tagger or deleting admin. This process did not seem to be backlogged or even very busy, so I figured that several noms at once would not be disruptive, especially since evaluating a speedy is easier than evaluating an AfD close.

As for this particular DRV, I requested it since the article seemed (and still seems) to me like poorly translated material, which G1 specifically excludes. I see now that most people also find it to be patent nonsense, and admit that the nom was overzealous. I would be fine with a WP:SNOW close on this DRV and all the others except Castratii and Paul Johnson (Broadcaster). A2soup (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse One of the clearest examples of opaque nonsense I've ever seen. This Drv is a waste of time. --Randykitty (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse. I like to think I am very tolerant to people having trouble getting started, but I was only able to get about 20 words in before I starting choking, literally. As per WilyD. Please work on better translations/English before putting something in mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Castratii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Incorrect A7 speedy since article made a credible claim of significance, namely being a music duo with 3 EPs and an LP. Discussed previously on deleting admin's talk page, where this source and this source were provided. Full disclosure: this is partially intended as a test case to gauge the present A7 consensus in order to help development of this suggestion. A2soup (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Full article text: "Castratii is are a gloom pop duo based in Sydney Australia and Los Angeles California. Formed by artists and musicians Jonathan Wilson and Beauvais Cassidy in 2008 the act have released 3 EPs and 1 LP." Created by User:Castratii. Perhaps not a textbook A7, but no chance of surviving AFD in that state. Anyone wanting to recreate it should do so. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This is an example of how A2Soup's formulation "plausible claim to belong to a category of which the members are often notable" is too broad. Yes, bands are often notable, but much more often they are not, so "Castratii are a gloom pop duo" is not a credible claim of significance, nor is releasing 3 EPs and 1 LP, given that "release" these days often means "post on Youtube". An additional factor is that the band themselves posted the article, i.e. no-one else is interested enough to write about them. JohnCD (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the band posted the article is actually not an additional factor since neither COI nor an inferred lack of popularity have anything to do with A7. The only thing that matters is the presence or absence of a credible claim of significance. A2soup (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

That's true but, in the absence of a credible claim, when deciding whether to delete an A7 I consider whether there is any sign that it might be worth some searching to see whether there is more to the subject than appears in the article. Self-promotion is one indicator that there probably is not. JohnCD (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse releasing something isn't in itself an assertion of significance, as it could just mean putting it on their website (it looks like that's what the term means here). If they'd released something on an actual record label then that ought to get past A7, but there wasn't any indication of that. Hut 8.5 16:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The LP was released on an actual record label, see my response to Randykitty below. A2soup (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Even if it was, the article didn't say so. A7 isn't like notability deletions at PROD or AfD. People reviewing A7 nominations aren't expected to research the subject, and the fact that it might be possible to write an article on some subject which could get past A7 doesn't mean any article on that subject can't be deleted under A7. If the article had claimed that the subject had released records on an actual record label, especially a notable record label, then you may have had a point. Hut 8.5 19:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The fact that A7 reviewers/deleters aren't expected to do research is the reason A7 has very strict criteria. The point is to not let A7 snag stuff that could survive AfD. The situation where we expect the author to specify something that honestly is not usually specified when discussing albums in the context of their artists in order to survive A7, but which when specified could potentially be enough to get past AfD, is exactly the sort of thing A7 is trying to prevent be being so emphatic about requiring a much lower standard than notability, not requiring evidence, etc. What if the new author mentioning a truly significant album has not read our discussion here? Should we expect them to know that we a) will not even Google the album to see if it is significant and b) hold label involvement to be crucial for album significance? It just seems unreasonable and not in the spirit (or letter, IMO) of A7. A2soup (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, speedy deletion is narrowly defined in order to restrict it to the more unambiguous cases, and an indication that an article would be likely to survive AfD should exempt it from A7 speedy deletion. However there was no indication that this article could possibly survive AfD. Being on a label is only one way of indicating significance (for example only one of the twelve criteria in WP:MUSIC involves labels). It is however a fairly common one and articles about artists or albums, even minor ones, do often mention the label the subject is associated with. Indicating why the subject is significant is part of good writing, and anybody writing about a notable topic who makes any effort to explain why readers should care about it, or who follows the instructions displayed at the top of the edit window and cites reliable published sources, will get past A7 more or less automatically. And being on a record label is not in itself enough to get an artist past AfD unless the label is quite famous. Hut 8.5 22:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse If it had been claimed that those 3 EPs and 1 LP had been released through a significant label, that would have been different, but this one-liner is a prime example of an A7. --Randykitty (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The LP, at least, was released on a label (see "Eora" here EDIT: Website seems to have gone down, see archive here). Whether Time No Place is a significant label is a question for AfD, but it has a good number of releases and doesn't look like a vanity label associated with the band. The website also indicates that the LP was not only printed online, but was also pressed in 12'' vinyl.

I see no reason to assume that releases mentioned in an article are not on a label unless otherwise indicated. I think most people take label involvement to be implied when someone talks about an album release, and it's absurd to expect an article creator to know that they have to specify label involvement. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but calling an album "released" when there is no label involved seems a tad dishonest, and I would never assume that is the case if it was left unspecified. A2soup (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

But none of that was in the "article", which means there was no credible claim. --Randykitty (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The claim was of having released EPs and an LP, and there was a clear credible claim of this. Claiming specifically that these albums were released on a label is a completely unintuitive requirement for "significance" since that should be the assumption when someone makes such a claim. Also, it is entirely possible for self-released albums to become quite popular. For these reasons, actually evaluating an album is a task that should be left to AfD, where people willing to use Google have a chance to discuss the album's method of release/popularity/etc. Claiming to have released a full-length album should be enough to pass A7, or cases like this will keep occurring. A2soup (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

That would have been a reasonable assumption, say, 20 years ago. Nowadays, if someone claims to have released an EP or LP, the reasonable assumption is that, as JohnCD says, it was just posted on YouTube. --Randykitty (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse While releasing an album through a notable label is sufficient to survive A7, merely releasing an album is not. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. In the most technical sense the article did not meet A7, but it has no chance of surviving an AFD. As Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, there is no sense in undeleting it only for it to get deleted again at AFD. I have already given the entire page content above, and so if someone wants to recreate the page, they can. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Washington center for equitable growth (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Incorrect A7 speedy since article made a credible claim of significance, namely being a research and grantmaking organization. Discussed previously on deleting admin's talk page, where this source and this source were provided. To be moved to Washington Center for Equitable Growth if undeleted. Full disclosure: this is partially intended as a test case to gauge the present A7 consensus in order to help development of this suggestion. A2soup (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse being a research and grantmaking organisation is not in itself an assertion of significance. The article did not cite either of those sources, it only cited the organisation's own website (which is never going to get an article past A7). Given that the article consisted of one sentence which sounded as if it was taken from a press release I would recommend that anyone who wants to rewrite it start from scratch. Hut 8.5 07:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse per Hut 8.5 with leave to recreate a better article. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per A7. Once again, the category "research and grantmaking organisations" certainly includes some notable ones, but it does not follow that belonging to that category is a credible claim of significance. JohnCD (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse, there is no credible claim to significance in the text. If anyone want to see what the article says read the first sentence of this and change "We are a new" to "The Washington Center for Equitable Growth is" This is also deleteable under WP:G12. -- GB fan 11:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse, the article did not make a credible claim for significance; I could found a think tank in my garage and offer grants for beer and pizza, and that would make me at least as credible as the text for the deleted article indicates (noting of course that the organisation may be credible and notable, you just wouldn't know it from this article). Lankiveil 12:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC).
• Endorse I agree completely with the above analyses and have nothing to add. Clear A7. --Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Suryakant Lokhande (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Incorrect A7 speedy since article made a credible claim of significance, namely being an artist. Awards were mentioned in a web source that was present at time of deletion. Discussed previously on deleting admin's talk page, where this source and this source were provided. Full disclosure: this is partially intended as a test case to gauge the present A7 consensus in order to help development of this suggestion. A2soup (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse being an artist is not in itself an assertion of significance and that someone might have been able to write an article on this topic which could have got past A7 is not a valid reason for overturning a deletion. The text of the article only said that the subject has a bachelor's degree, which certainly isn't an assertion of significance. There was a source cited but I'm pretty sure it was written by the subject. Hut 8.5 07:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse. Being an artist is in no way shape or form an assertion of importance. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse. Once again, many artists are notable, but it does not follow that "X is an artist" is a claim of significance requiring to be tested at AfD. One reference was added after the article was tagged, but it is a website selling his works and those of other artists. JohnCD (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse There is no credible claim to significance. Just being an artist is not a credible claim to significance. The article only stated what kind of art he does and that he earned a bachelor's degree. -- GB fan 11:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Weak Endorse, merely being an artist is not a credible claim of significance. I'm slightly weaker on this one because there may be some awards which may be notable, and could potentially do with some community scrutiny. I'm still reasonably sure that the article would be deleted though, and undeleting it, putting it through AFD, and then redeleting it in a week would be pointless process wonkery. Lankiveil 12:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC).
• Endorse Picasso is a notable artist, but that doesn't mean that every artist is notable. --Randykitty (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Paul Johnson (Broadcaster) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Incorrect A7 speedy since article made a credible claim of significance, namely being a television broadcaster. Discussed previously on deleting admin's talk page, where this source was provided. To be moved to Paul Johnson (broadcaster) if undeleted. Full disclosure: this is partially intended as a test case to gauge the present A7 consensus in order to help development of this suggestion. A2soup (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse the article did assert significance but that assertion is clearly nonsense. The article started as a copy/paste from Nick Grimshaw, the lead sentence at the time of deletion was still the same as that article, and most if not all of the film, TV and radio credits in this article actually belong to Nick Grimshaw. The article was written by Pauljohnson07 (talk · contribs), so I think this is just someone who wants to appear that he's famous. We shouldn't restore or rewrite this article unless we can be reasonably sure that the subject actually exists. Hut 8.5 07:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• And this source is obviously talking about a completely different person. That Paul Johnson was a traffic and weather reporter in Southern California, this "Paul Johnson" is supposedly an English TV and radio presenter who has never worked in either. Not to mention the fact that the Californian Johnson has been dead for two years according to that source, while the deleted "Paul Johnson" was supposedly presenting The One Show. Hut 8.5 07:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Technical overturn then re-delete per CSD:G3 vandalism (blatant hoax). Stifle (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse. At first glance, there is a claim of significance. At second glance, "Judge on X Factor" - funny, haven't heard of him? Check up: not true. Look at author's talk page: CorenSearchBot has spotted that it's copied from Nick Grimshaw. Conclusion - there is a claim of significance, but it's not credible, in fact it's false. At this point it fails A7, though it might be better to change the deletion reason to G3 hoax. JohnCD (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• No Action, A7 should never even have entered the picture because, as the editors above point out, the article is bollocks. Right outcome, wrong process. Lankiveil 12:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC).
• No Action Personally, I would not have used A7, because I think the claim that this person presented some significant shows means that he could quite possibly be notable, if those claims were correct. However, the article contains several cluess that this is a hoax: supposedly this guy started presenting in 2009, and then from 2012 he suddenly is (co-)presenter of or judge in some of the most popular UK shows? That's unlikely and as the remarks above show, the claims are patently false. So, yes, wrong process, but the outcome was right and I for one won't argue for a revert of this decision just because we feel like wikilawyering. But, yeah, as Stifle says, if we really want to dot the i's and cross the t's, then let's overturn and re-delete as G3. Anybody willing to waste their time are welcome to do so. --Randykitty (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the overturn and re-delete is unnecessary wikilawyering. I would not have nominated if there had been any prior indication that this was G3. I was unable to see this myself prior to nomination because the page had cleared from the Google cache. A2soup (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying you couldn't see the article to check it, but you took it to DRV anyway? --Randykitty (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@A2soup:, any comment on the above? You've been commenting on other things on this page, but I guess you missed this one. --Randykitty (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I can understand A2soup's reason. What s/he was doing here was testing (as it turns out, testing to destruction) a theory that "plausible claim to belong to a category of which the members are often notable" is what WP:CSD#A7 means by a claim of significance. If you believe that, then since broadcasters are often notable the title "Paul Johnson (Broadcaster)" would be enough to indicate that the article should not have been deleted. JohnCD (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I saw it when it was tagged A7 and remembered that it looked very non-A7, so I sent it here when I started wondering what counts as a "claim of significance". I have it in my sandbox now, and I must say that my memory did not fail me-- it very clearly makes a claim to significance. It is also not obviously invented unless you look at the page history (or so I'm told) or Google the guy. Since no one indicated any factual issues with it before I brought it here, I never thought to check that part of it, which isn't relevant for A7 anyways. We don't have to actually restore and re-delete the page as G3, but I stand by my nomination as an inappropriate A7, and I hope the closer addresses that aspect of my nomination even though no action should be taken either way. A2soup (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Subject bar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Initiating this discussion per WP:DRVPURPOSE #1. The TfD discussion for Template:Subject bar was closed as "no consensus to delete", but consensus therein was for a "keep" close in my opinion. While discussions are not based upon vote count, out of eight contributors, only two contributors opined for deletion (including the nominator), and most !votes were essentially policy-based. I discussed the matter with the closer on their talk page (diff), and the closer qualified the close stating, "I closed it as "no consensus to delete" because there was no consensus to delete it. The fact that's used on such a small number of pages, doesn't suggest that there is strong consensus to keep use it either." However, this implies that templates must be used on an arbitrary number of pages in order to garner a "keep" result. The template is presently transcluded on 2,054 pages (see Template transclusion count), which I find to be significant, particularly because Template:Subject bar requires more work to publish than a simple copying and pasting of its contents. The close comes across as a WP:SUPERVOTE, particularly after the explanation provided on the closer's talk page, and the closer should have perhaps !voted in the discussion instead of closing in this manner. North America 02:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• The template wouldn't have been deleted either way, so I don't see what purpose this serves. Alakzi (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• As per this nomination, this was brought here per WP:DRVPURPOSE #1, "if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly". Also, inaccurate discussion closures can set faulty precedents for Misplaced Pages content. North America 02:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse and speedy close; as a matter of practice we do not get caught up in reinterpretations of the different versions of keep. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn to keep. I know these quibbles with "no consensus" can be irksome but in this case there was very substantial policy-based opposition to a seemingly ill-conceived deletion nomination. The closing statement wasn't wrong but it didn't adequately reflect the discussion. Thincat (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • If by policy-based opposition you mean "this template does not violate any policy", that would be 99% of all TfD nominations. A template does not need to violate any policy to be deleted. Alakzi (talk) 10:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
    • The nomination (that the template is not widely used and so is "non-standard") was far removed from any of the TFD "Reasons to delete a template" and the only other support for deletion related to something that could be fixed by normal editing. The keep arguments seem to me to have provided cogent reasons for why the template is worth keeping and none were contrary to deletion policy. Of course a policy-compliant template can be deleted by consensus but in this case, rather clearly, the consensus was against deletion. Thincat (talk) 10:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
      • So there was no policy-based opposition is what you're saying. Alakzi (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
        • The opposite of that, in fact, but I won't take this any further. Thincat (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• endorse, seems like a plausible reading of the discussion and at this point it's just pointless quibbling. the template was kept, so who really cares. and because of all this we now have basically zero admins who are regularly closing TfDs. just let it go and move on. Frietjes (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll just say that a good faith question at a user talk page regarding a discussion closure should not be equated in any way, shape or form with a supposedly sudden, alarming and immediate lack of admins contributing to closures at TfD. It's an Apples and oranges comparison. Per WP:ADMINACCT, admins are expected to respond to genuine concerns. There is no way I could have predicted the user retiring all of the sudden. North America 14:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
    • There is a lack of regular admins at TfD, which is not supposed. It is immediate, as Plastikspork was the last one. It is alarming, because, without Plastikspork, we're gonna run a high backlog. No, you're not responsible for his departure. Alakzi (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
      • All right, but, so if an admin suddenly retires, then any close they perform right before retiring is all right, because the retirement causes harm to the project, and the weight of the retirement outweighs a potentially inaccurate close? Quite a stretch. It would be nice if people would please consider addressing the substance of the nomination here, about the close of the discussion itself, rather than the admin who closed it. North America 14:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
        • I agree with you on that point; you're preaching to the choir. :-) As for the substance, I don't see how it might've been a WP:SUPERVOTE; the transclusion count was discussed within. You could say he's not gauged the consensus correctly, but a supervote is a pretty heavy charge to levy. Alakzi (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Ultimately, the close equates to no consensus having been reached in the discussion, even though (in my opinion), the overall consensus is apparent for a keep result, relative to the overall discussion and the strengths of the arguments therein. This sets a false precedent for the template into the future. How was no consensus established in this discussion? Rather than responding to my concerns on their talk page, the closer decided to instead declare ad hominem statements toward the very notion of my politely asking for clarification, and then abruptly "retired" with no further response. Furthermore, at this point, if I request for the closer to consider expanding their ambiguous close rationale at the discussion, they will not, because of their sudden "retirement". Something is wrong with this picture. Where is the accountability? North America 17:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • if I request for the closer to consider expanding their ambiguous close rationale at the discussion, they will not, because of their sudden "retirement"? how do you know if you haven't tried? Frietjes (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn to keep - I saw this closure when it was performed, immediately thought that the rationale was oddly reasoned given the underlying !vote count and the supporting rationales of the discussion participants, but chose to leave it alone. I am well aware of Plastikspork's declining participation in TfD closures, as he has, until very recently, handled the majority of TfD closures for the past several years. I have also seen other responses from Plastikspork that appear to be evidence of increasing frustration and declining morale, that have been accompanied by his declining number of TfD closes. Plastikspork has borne that burden for far too long, with very little assistance from other administrators. No administrator should bear the responsibility for an entire category of XfDs almost alone. That's why several TfD regular participants have been actively soliciting the participation of new administrators at TfD -- including NorthAmerica1000, Opabinia Regalis, and several other administrators who are new to TfD. That said, in my opinion, NA1000's analysis is closer to reality than Plastikspork's rationale, and probably better reflects the consensus that was readily evident in the TfD discussion. NA1000's polite request for an explanation of Plastikspork's closure on the latter's talk page was respectful, factual, only mildly critical, and completely proper; Plastikspork's response was snappish and improper, and probably reflects what I perceive as his own declining morale and participation. The solution here is not to walk on egg shells in our dealings with a long-time administrator, but to solicit the greater participation of new administrators in TfD closures to better spread that burden. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn to keep There are different implications between a "no consensus" and a "keep" close: the latter will make a renewed nomination less likely. In this case, I find myself in complete agreement with Dirtlawyer1's analysis and I regret that this seems to have been the last drop for Plastikspork. I hope they're just on a break and will come back refreshed sooner rather than later. --Randykitty (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
• FYI: The closing administrator has undone his closure of this TfD , and relisted it among the 1 July 2015 TfD discussions , with edit summary "Relisted per request over email". Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse as a plausible reading of the discussion. Both sides have coherently argued their position, and a supermajority consensus does not make. Clasping on the agitated admin's one-sentence response to discredit their closure strikes me as lazy. Why do you not offer your analysis of the discussion? Alakzi (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• Speedy close. Although I would have supported an overturn to keep per Dirtlawyer1's reasoning, the closing admin now has undone his close and relisted the TfD to Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 July 1#Template:Subject bar. So this DRV should now be speedy closed as "Closing admin self-reverted close and relisted the TfD. This is now moot." Cunard (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)