Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 February 5: Difference between revisions

Ang Pag-ibig Kong Ito (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I don’t know if this is too late, but, the closed as No Consensus. I disagree on this ’cause one editor voted as Redirect to Leah Navarro, per WP:MUSICOUTCOMES and I already check WP:BEFORE. On WP:NSONG: Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups., It is indeed that there’s a notable cover from the notable artists. However, the coverage from the song are lack. It should be applied the GNG here also. The closing isn’t BADNAC, but there’s a misunderstood that this is not really passed on NSONG. ROY is WAR Talk! 01:10, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (as NAC): I haven’t done any closes since mid-January, so this one is unsurprisingly older. I understand exactly what @Royiswariii means here, regarding there being multiple factors involved. I did say in the closing statement that I was open to relisting this for a final time should somebody feel another week was appropriate. As it’s been quite a while now, I’m not willing to do that without the confirmation or consensus confirming that’s allowed so many weeks later. I support whatever consensus eventually forms here. Thanks! 11WB (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, but feel free to renominate if you believe participants ignored key evidence. I’m sure the closer would agree that this could benefit from a few more pairs of eyes examining it. Owen× ☎ 01:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Owen. I would suggest doing a re-nom over relisting as it offers an opportunity to improve the nomination statement. Jumpytoo Talk 05:17, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Deletion review is for situations where the deletion process has not been properly followed. It is not for situations where you just disagree with the outcome reached. As others mention, a renomination would be the best way forward. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  To be fair to @Roy, multiple participants in the AfD cited GNG, which I failed to mention in the closing statement. That is an error on my part. I focused only on the music specific notability guidelines, and not the general guidelines as well. As a non-admin, I should not have performed an NC close, which automatically violates point 1 of WP:BADNAC. I actually disagree with @Roy about it not being a BADNAC. The fact it was brought to DRV means the AfD was contentious and should have been left to an admin. 11WB (talk) 11:53, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to add on to the above, based on this DRV and my recent poor record with AfD nominations, I’ve made the personal decision to not return to doing closures until I relearn the P&Gs. 11WB (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. It is generally a bad idea for a non-admin to close a discussion which was relisted (especially one that was relisted multiple times), as that is an indication that the discussion is at least somewhat contentious. However, this is not a WP:BADNAC as the close was correct as there is clearly not consensus to not keep a standalone article. A keep close would have also been reasonable, but NC is the best option. Frank Anchor 13:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]