The close of this afd is problematic. The close does not in any way reflect the discussion. The closer uses a reason not mentioned by any of the participants in the discussion. Closer is incorrect in stating that passes WP:NMUSIC as the two artists mentioned are not members of Bradway as would be required to pass. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A closing statement which starts "I'm going out on a limb with this one -- & against not only consensus, but Beeblebrox's...", will always be problematic. It's pretty much a statement the closing admin should have joined the discussion rather than closing it and has given too much weight to their own view point and research. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pretty blatant case of the closing admin casting a supervote. The consensus in the discussion, by the closing admin's own admission, was to delete the article. The close made arguments regarding the notability of the article which were not made in the discussion. The role of the closing admin is to interpret the consensus of the discussion and act on it; here, Llywrch plainly did the opposite of that.
I haven't personally evaluated the notability of this band, but I imagine that Llywrch's new information would have led to the AfD being relisted, if only the information had been presented in the form of a vote. Therefore, in my opinion, we should strike the close and relist for further discussion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find this to be a well-reasoned close. A close read of my comments will reveal I actually did not advocate deletion or retention, I merely reported on facts not previously made evident at the AFD and commented that it was in fact not substantially identical to the previously deleted version. The fact that the closing admin apparently read that as an argument for deletion and then decided to disregard it anyway throws the entire closing into question. The remainder of the close does read more like a vote than a neutral closing statement. If you have to qualify your close with "I hope" and state that you are going against consensus, you shouldn't do the close at all and instead participate in the discussion. overturn and relist. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. The criticism of the closer's action as a "supervote" is well-taken; considering it as only an ordinary !vote would likely mean a lack of consensus, and further discussion on the points involved could be useful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I honestly don't see that I cast a "Supervote" -- if I understand that unfamiliar term correctly. I have no dog in this fight; my intent was just to close a discussion. Just to explain my thinking on this matter, I was at the point of closing this as a "delete", with those very words & supporting text typed into my edit field, when I had a nagging doubt that a "delete" was just too simple a conclusion: deleting the article might just be a regrettable mistake we all make. Hence my further research, which was an effort to find enough justification to silence that nagging doubt. Would it make everyone happier to "trout" me for erring on the side of a keep? Fine; I like rainbow, although cutthroat trout is also acceptable. But if I am to err, I would rather do it on behalf of keeping an article than deleting it, because the first kind of mistake is always simpler to fix than the second. -- llywrch (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not that you wanted to look into it further, that's absolutely fine. The problem is you then used that to determine the decision. Once you'd looked into and found detail not presented in the debate why didn't you just add your voice to the debate, instead you added your voice whilst simultaneously preventing any further response or analysis on the matter. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist The closer did exactly the right thing by having nagging doubts and researching. But once they found something of interest they should have !voted, not closed. Hobit (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
