Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 8

James Hoffmann – No Consensus closed endorsed. – Eluchil404 (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The AFD closed with only three people having participated. Please revisit this issue and re-open the discussion so we can gain some consensus. Yardleyman (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Besides, this article is a promotion based of a person that serves coffee. It should be deleted under WP:N.Yardleyman (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there were seven people who participated, which I reckon is actually a reasonable number for most debates, and I would say that the consensus was more heading towards the keep side than the delete end. Anyway, no consensus seems a reasonable close to me. It's also a good idea to contact the closing admin before opening a review. Quantpole (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin - There were too many comments to justify a relist, though no consensus had formed, hence my decision. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not believe that three "votes" (2 keep and 1 oppose) is not "too many comments" to justify a relist. Is there any policy on that? Yardleyman (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse- I might have thought a keep close would have been more appropriate, but no consensus is certainly not unreasonable based on the AFD. There certainly wasn't anything resembling a consensus to delete. 69.242.101.88 (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ack, the above was me, don't know why my computer had me logged out. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse this good close. Please stop trying to re-argue the AfD, Yardleyman. WP:N and accusations of promotion are not matters for DRV.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 06:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – DRV is not AFD round 2. Bolding your statements will not help get your point across. MuZemike 08:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - seems there was a debate and people didn't really buy your arguments, the result was no consensus. DRV can't do anything about that unless there's some overriding policy concern the closing admin should have addressed (copyvios, verifiability, BLP, that sort of thing), which doesn't seem to be teh case here. --Chiliad22 (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus closure. Relisting would not have complied with WP:RELIST. Feel free to renominate at AFD after a reasonable time. Please note that DRV is not for getting a second "bite at the cherry". Stifle (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete the article fails WP:N, WP:BIO and is a WP:1E. There's not even any other sources. So redirect to World Barista Championship. Admin should have been bold.--Otterathome (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect, bold or otherwise still doesn't require any deletion to take place. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

endorse close is a plausible close (if this were an individual who had participated in a more standard competition such as a sport we wouldn't even be having this discussion). JoshuaZ (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close Opinions were roughly evenly split. Calling it a no consensus is the correct thing to do. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, there was no consensus in the debate and while I always prefer larger participation in AfDs, closes with three/four participants is something we've had to get used to. This debate was open 8 days, a full day more than requisit and saw more participation than many other debates. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 12:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - It doesn't look like it'll matte here, but Yardleyman has been blocked as a disruptive sockpuppet. Mr.Z-man 15:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.