This non-admin closing AfD needs more inputs from experienced AfD regulars to get a clear consensus as the page references are interviews and primary sources. Additionally, the topic has only few name drops in reliable sources with other bands or songs that have no significance and no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse while a relist may have been appropriate due to the low turnout, there was unanimous support to keep (outside of the nominator) and the appelant appears to be relitigating the AFD, which is not permitted. Probably not the best time for a WP:NAC, but the result is the correct interpretation of consensus. FrankAnchor15:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Modified based on Hut 8.5's comments. My biggest concern was this being a NAC, however I have always considered endorsement by an administrator to validate questionable NACs. FrankAnchor13:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure, but I don't like it - on the one hand there appeared to be a numerical advantage on the !keep side. On the other, a NAC with less (I think) than 7 days of discussion and with little time to examine the offered sources seem unnecessarily rushed. Tough to conclude that the debate had really run its course.
Discussion was open for 7 days and 11 minutes and several sources were presented within the first day, so there was ample time to discuss, though nobody (including the nominator) chose to. FrankAnchor16:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse. Weak because there was low turn out, and two editors disagreeing with the nominator. I think community support for non admin closures exists in very narrow circumstances, and not in difficult cases, this is borderline. I think giving it another week would be more common and I think preferable. Endorse because nobody refuted the two arguments to keep, both provided sources, and presented a credible arguments, linked to policy, closure has participated in 100+ AFDs and is approximately aligned with consensus in their votes, which isn't a huge amount, but I'd not endorse if it was fewer.
Endorse Um, why are we even suggesting that an AfD open for seven days with no non-keep input is a) not a clear keep, or b) controversial enough that a NAC is not appropriate? Sources were presented and endorsed, not refuted or challenged even by the nom. Not asking for a nom to badger other AfD participants, but when no one else has contested sourcing, there's simply no justification to NOT keep. Jclemens (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I don't see any particular problem here: the AfD was open for seven days, it had enough participation for a close, nobody apart from the nominator supported deletion and there wasn't any attempt to rebut the sources presented. The OP should have responded to the Keep comments in the AfD and it generally isn't the closer's job to judge the sources. I guess we could relist it but don't take that as an indication the closer did anything wrong. Hut 8.508:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just thought I should make a brief comment as the closer. I generally set myself a very high bar on the uncontroversial requirement for my NACs, so I'm sorry if anyone thought this close was controversial. To explain my reasoning, I saw unanimous keep !votes (barring nom), a number of sources presented early in the discussion with a plausible GNG/NEXIST argument made, and no challenges made to the sources presented for the remainder of the discussion. Conesus appeared to favour keep, although I accept that a relist would have also been valid outcome. I should also say that I am now due to be away until Wednesday but I'll support whatever consensus is reached here. WJ94 (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The close accurately summarized community consensus. Keep was the only possible outcome based on community input.4meter4 (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
