WISE J2000+3629 (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

WISE J2000+3629 is one of the only objects within 20 light years of the sun without a corresponding wikipedia article (see Template:Star systems within 15–20 light-years for what I mean). It was proposed for deletion by @Stringtheory11: and completed by User:Rjd0060 1 week later. Unfortunately, the former seems to only be sporadically active, and the latter has not come online a single time since 2016. Furthermore, WISE J2000+3629 is one of the nearest T-dwarfs to the sun, something around the closest 20. Considering it was only deleted due to no responses, it has a very weak case for deletion anyway. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doria Ragland (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article is about a person who does not meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements for inclusion. While her daughter is notable, notability is not transferable and Wikipedia is not the news. For those arguing keep, please read WP:N and make arguments based on policy and not opinion. The subject’s coverage is entirely related to her daughter and her daughter’s wedding and she herself is not the primary subject of any references unconnected with those topics. The first debate never established a reason to keep the article based in Wikipedia policy, I strongly encourage the closing admin to ignore what is bound to be a large number of popularity votes for keep that are not based in policy. From my perspective this is an obvious delete when looking at Wikipedia’s notability requirements. 219.79.126.90 (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist for the full seven days. With plenty of contributions on both sides, a SNOW close was plainly inappropriate. Stifle (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse WP:INHERITED says "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." So, as the nominator here says, we need to meet WP:GNG requirements but we do not need to investigate whether the source material was written merely because the person has a famous relative. Are there multiple, independent, reliable, substantial sources? Even if there are, WP:BLP1E says we should not have an article when three other conditions all apply. In the present case WP:BLP1E #3 does not apply if the event was significant and the individual's role was well documented. So, cogent "keep" arguments can be made and are not a priori to be dismissed as "not based in policy". At AFD were "keep" arguments made within these constraints and did they constitute a consensus? The closer thought so and I agree. Perhaps the nominator here could have come to the same understanding if they had asked the closer. As for the early close, I think it was OK-ish under the circumstances but I would not object to reopening it now things have calmed down a bit. Thincat (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the original closing decision. Maintain current article or merge to Family of Meghan Markle My first vote is to keep the current article, but summarizing and merging content to the family article is a second-best option. I understand the GNG and BLP issues and normally I would be right there with you (such as my nomination to delete the article on the mother of Rudy Guliani, which essentially was just a restatement of family information from his early life section). In this case, though, there are a lot of the hits to the article. As of today, there have been 2.2 million hits and although the interest rate has dropped significantly, there are still 3K+ hits each day. In addition, her relationship with her mother, and the way she was raised, provides insight into her interests in charitable causes and significance of being the first African-American Duchess in the royal family. Why would we delete what has been a very popular article, per WP:COMMONSENSE and a smidge of WP:Ignore all rules.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated my vote.–CaroleHenson (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close. The review text above does not clearly state which of the five reasons at WP:DRVPURPOSE is being claimed, and does not appear to have followed point 1 of the instructions at WP:DELREVD: Discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before deletion review. See Purpose. This review request looks more like trying to keep fighting for deletion (see "Deletion review should not be used" points 1, 2, 5). --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse both because the close was reasonable, and because this nomination fails WP:DRVPURPOSE #5. This was open for 5 days and it was abundantly obvious this was never going to get closed as delete. There was a lot of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT going on, but there was also enough reasonable policy-based arguments on both sides that the overwhelming numerical headcount could be taken as consensus to keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Even though I voted delete, the majority was not in my favor. It clearly wasn't a SNOW keep though. I'm still in favor of a Family of MM article though instead of one for her mom. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist to AfD: The AfD doesn't have a clear consensus on whether to keep or delete the article. WP:SNOW is not appropriate to close the discussion. We should have more input. --B dash (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The close was reasonable and the OP doesn't raise any procedural issues. Andrew D. (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Sensible close, I do not think it is even reasonably remotely possible that a clear consensus for deletion could have arisen by that point, leaving the article retained in any case. --joe decker^talk 17:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I don't believe this was a snow keep and the conversation should have been allowed to play out fully. However, it seems basically impossible this would have resulted in a delete even if allowed to go the full week, so I don't see any reason to overturn the vote. Lonehexagon (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I would have preferred that this not be SNOW closed, as there were significant views to delete being expressed. However, as the discussion stood, it could not have reasonably been closed as other than "keep". "Passes the GNG" is a strong policy argument, and it was not really refuted by those favorign delete. BLP1E pretty clearly does not apply, there may be only one reason but it is a continuing one, not a single event. Once the world takes not of a person, that person is notable. To some extent notability is inherited, it is jsut not automatically inherited. In any case begin related to a famous person does not prevent notability, and one can be notable not for any significant achievement, but just for being famous. We may not like that, but it is true, and Wikipedia must reflect that fact. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep, but the snow description was incorrect, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Music (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

IMHO, no consensus (which defaults to keep) was reached on a discussion that was relisted twice, two people voted delete and two people voted against delete. Jax 0677 (talk) 02:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to my closing statement, which I stand by, there's a (somewhat) more detailed explanation at my talkpage. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, reminding the nominator that the discussion is WP:NOTAVOTE, which is what the rationale seems to hinge on. Jax was the only one that wanted keep. There was another !vote for deprecate, but Plastikspork explained why that was unnecessary. Finally, I do believe that Amory's explanation is correct and sufficient. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There was only one Keep vote after 3 weeks, and after being relisted twice, no one else seemed willing to discuss it further. Considering the project itself wanted to get rid of it, I think it was fair to close as delete. If there was even one more Keep vote, it might be different. Lonehexagon (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]