Morphyre (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The original reason for deletion in 2009 was 'Lack of Significant Coverage', and it seems that Morphyre now has significant coverage to warrant a page. There are 80,000 Google hits for Morphyre, and it ranks higher for search terms like 'Music Visualization' that virtually every other Music Visualizer. I recently updated the external links in the article and resubmitted it. I thought that this was the correct route to reinstate the page, but it seems not. Sorry about that. I have looked at similar articles on Music Visualisations and put in external links that I assumed to be of sufficient quality for the article. I accept now that AppEggs was a bad source, however the rest of the links seem very reliable to me, and often include reviews by users of the software. If more links are required I can dig up several blog posts, as well as twitter posts and over 100 videos on YouTube. However I did not think that these were required at the time. Please reconsider the deletion of this article. There is a significant amount of general awareness of Morphyre now (with over 15,000 users per day, and 5,400 searches per month on Google for the word 'morphyre') and it seems surprising that there is no Wikipedia page on it. GW PUR3 (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It certainly is possible to recreate an article deleted through AfD if you can bring up some source coverage which warrants reopening the issue of the subject's notability. The question here is whether or not the links added are the sort of thing that might conceivably demonstrate notability (the text was essentially the same as in the AfDed version). The links added were [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7] (the last one claimed as a "review"). These do not look like the kind of things which would demonstrate notability. The first one is the website of the developers and thus isn't independent of the subject, most of the rest are sites hosting downloads of the software with some kind of description of it, they likely aren't independent of the subject and do not appear to be the kind of thing that we would consider reliable. You should also be aware that you can't demonstrate notability through YouTube videos, blog posts, Twitter posts, or searching statistics. Hut 8.5 20:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yes, it was quite OK to recreate the article afresh but it was (rightly or wrongly) deleted as being "substantially identical" to the previous version. I disagree with Wikipedia's notability guidelines but most people accept them, even taking them as rather inflexible policy, and we must accept that. The staff review in Winamp has some value but even that is a bit weak. The article will still need better references. I suggest you edit Music visualization to improve the description there and also edit that article, probably in the history section, to put in place some substantial, independent, reliable sources to establish the notability of the topic "music visualisation" (to avoid the Music visualisation article itself being submitted for deletion). Thincat (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for deletion review DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse with considerable misgivings. The edit comment when the CSD deletion tag was applied ("the article is exactly the same it was before, with the addition of a couple of commercial links") was wrong. Also, WP:CSD#G4 is not supposed to be applied to "pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". The recreated page is indeed different—for one thing it has had the section "Morphyre Engine" removed and that is a substantial change. Deleted, recreated, diff. However, a change (even a major change such as this one) caused by removing text seems a technicality and I think it was reasonable to move to the primary CSD#G4 test of whether the new article is "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy". Again ignoring identicality, the improvements seem not to relate in a substantial way to the reasons for the AfD deletion, namely, lack of satisfactory sources for notability. However, if other people feel that process has not been followed properly, I have no problem with listing again at AfD. Particularly for speedy deletion, the criteria should be observed strictly and in this case they were not. Thincat (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Morphyre is a 2009 software that takes musics and converts the sound into animated/visual imagery. The above DRV's nominator's offer to improve the article with non-reliable sources goes against an interest in having a Morphyre article in article space (see WP:GNG). WP:RS has written standards to determine what is and is not a Wikipedia reliable source, and that standard is not "the rest of the links seem very reliable to me, and often include reviews by users of the software." A news search does not bring up much on the topic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Azerbaijan (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

WP:SUPERVOTE by administrator despite 2:1 ratio to keep and thoughtful rationale on the "keep" side apparently ignored. See User_talk:Beeblebrox#Azerbaijan for attempt to convince the administrator to reconsider. As a result of the deletion, I haven't seen the page for a while but I remember thinking that it was very interesting and had good potential when I first read it, and so i think its deletion is a loss to the project. It has a few precedents on Wikipedia - see Category:Etymologies of geographic names. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the argument that the page was longer than the parent article wasn't "ignored", it was simply given less weight because it wasn't a very good argument for keeping the page. As people rightly pointed out, there was no real information in this article that wasn't located in the parent article and the split article was only longer because of the addition of redundant quotations. Closing administrators are required to consider strength of argument when closing deletion discussions, and that the discussion was 2:1 in favour of keeping the page is not a reason to overturn the closure. Yes, some other countries have articles about their etymologies, but that is also a poor argument for keeping the page. An article about a country's etymology can be created when there is enough information to justify a stand-alone page. If there isn't then the subject can be covered in the article about the country, and if you look more closely you will see that many countries do not have articles about their etymologies for this reason. I would suggest that the page be recreated as a redirect to Azerbaijan#Etymology, as is common with many other countries. Hut 8.5 11:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse own close I am a little surprised to see the unfounded accusation of a supervote. I did not close this based on my own opinion, I don't care one bit whether this article exists or not. I did what is required of closing admins, evaluated which side made a better argument with a stronger basis in Wikipedia policy. I have explained how I weighted those arguments both when doing the close and again when the user filing this DRV asked me about it on my talk page so I should think it was fairly obvious that I did not simply step in and substitute my own opinions in the absence of a consensus, which the reporting user should also know is not determined by sheer strength of numbers. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am tempted to advocate that a Smerge and redirect to Azerbaijan#Etymology would have been a better rough consensus reading. The solution here might involve userfication. "Supervote" feels a bit harsh. Could someone please temporarily undelete the pages, including the subpage referred to? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Spartaz. I see a typical unjustified spinout that should be re-merged and redirected (even if there is nothing to merge, the work done on the spinout may positively influence development of the main article. If the main article is too large, a spinout should be made from a larger more important part. I think a redirect, even with history intact, is entirely consistent with the delete votes, however a consensus against keeping a standalone article was clear. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have temporarily undeleted the article for the purposes of this discussion Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The close wasn't a supervote, rather an explanation on why Beeblebrox discounted several of the non- policy based opinions. His judgement was sound and the close is valid. ThemFromSpace 04:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from reporting user It seems that all here agree that "SUPERVOTE" was an unfair characterisation. I apologise to Beeblebrox as i did not intend to suggest any underlying POV or similar bias influencing his decision, only that he closed against the tide of the AfD (see e.g. the sentence from the wp:supervote essay "Unless there are serious verifiability or BLP issues, an XfD heavily skewed to one side should not be closed the other way." - albeit that as i have said above, although it is not a vote, the arguments made by the keep side did not appear to have been taken in to account as balance.) To that point, could I suggest that if anyone who understands the word supervote better than me and has the time to do so, it would be good to try to clarify its usage explanation in the wp:supervote essay, so that others like me don't use it incorrectly and risk unintended offence. To the debate, thanks for those commenting - for my penny's worth, i agree with those suggesting a redirect to Azerbaijan#Etymology. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn WP:REDUNDANTFORK states: "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article." So, even if we suppose there was a consensus to keep the topics together, this should have been done by merger rather than deletion. Furthermore, WP:DGFA states emphatically "When in doubt, don't delete." and the policy WP:PRESERVE recommends plenty of alternatives to deleting text. The close seems to have been a supervote in respect of the method chosen to resolve this issue. Ordinary editing was the consensus of the discussion and the closer had no good cause to override this. Warden (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and merge/redirect, no need to hide the little bit of extra information from non-admins. And per Warden. —Kusma (t·c) 11:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Albannach (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closing administrator cast a WP:SUPERVOTE. Ignored those who agreed that the sources proved it passed the notability guidelines, and decided to look at those sources, decide for himself, and ignore everyone else. Discuss on his talk page was is at User_talk:Coren#super_vote where I and two other editors tried to reason with him, but failed. The article should've closed as no consensus, not delete. Dream Focus 04:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Would someone be willing to give the two sources that Colonel Warden mentioned in the AfD? As the article is currently deleted, I'm unable to look at them. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: [8], [9]. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a copy of the page at User:Yaksar/sandbox. – Fayenatic London 08:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this copy is a violation of WP:Userfication#Cut and paste userfication and WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Userfication. It may be better to undelete in place and use {{TempUndelete}}. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As tempundelete I'll take the liberty of removing the copy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have temporarily undeleted this for the purposes of review at DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as closer; Milowent makes a decent point on my talk page that what the long AfD might be viewed as a symptom of the article being borderline rather than unsalvageable, but I don't think that's sufficient to save it.

  I closed the AfD that way because the nominator's concerns (lack of significant sources) went unaddressed, not because there were n people !voting one way or that. Yes, that involved looking at the substance of the comments (were the sources good enough?); but that's what the closer is supposed to be doing – not just counting how many people came in to agree with it. — Coren ^(talk) 14:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The closing administrator is suppose to judge consensus based on what those participated said. Seminole Chronicle has 10,000 readers. If enough people said the coverage of them stating this band was "one of the highlights of the event" and they got a "wild response from the crowd", counts towards their notability, then so be it. The other source gave a detailed review of their album and called it "One of the best folk-rock albums ever made". Dream Focus 14:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you please then show me which criteria of WP:BAND those sources fulfill, because the arguments for keeping need to be based in policy. — Coren ^(talk) 15:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  And, on the substance:

  • The first source is a incidental mention in an article about an unrelated event in a local newspaper.
  • The second is a blog post reviewing three albums, the "detailed review" you speak of is 150 words.

  Are you seriously arguing that those sources meet policy? At all? — Coren ^(talk) 15:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The first source says "One of the highlights of the event was the music performance from the band Albannach from Glasgow...". That coverage is neither unrelated nor incidental as it emphasizes the significance of the band's appearance in the event. The other source is not a blog — it's an article in a non-profit newspaper which seems to have a reasonable editorial staff and process. So, what we see from this is that not only did the closer form their own judgement of the sources but that this judgement was inaccurate. Warden (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Administrator Ironholds did explain the situation well on Coren's talk page.[10]

Sure, and policy gives you the ability (as closing admin) to say "X is rational" or "X is irrational". It doesn't let you go "X isn't a reliable source"; that's effectively the insertion of a new argument, which is an action for !voters, not closers. Ironholds (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• A long time administrator explained how things have always been done. Dream Focus 14:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist The arguments given for keeping the article were really quite terrible and mostly consisted of editors who had been canvassed to the page, but in a brief amount of sleuthing I managed to find the following sources that contain signficant coverage: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. However, these sources are mostly coverage in the context of local events where they are performing and I am not particularly convinced that such sources should be used to establish notability. I would prefer to see a band receiving some attention that is not prompted by them performing in the immediate area. However, that is an argument for AfD and probably not enough to gain consensus for a delete given the level of coverage in those sources.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Sorry, but while the closer's opinion matched my view expressed in the discussion, I don't believe that there was consensus to delete. Citing WP:BAND as a justification of the close isn't really valid as it is only a guideline, and consensus will always trump a guideline. In the absence of a genuine consensus either way, relisting to gain a genuine consensus would seem appropriate. If there's no change after 7 days then it should be a no consensus close. By the way, I really don't appreciate Milowent describing my comment in that AfD as "a crappy argument for deletion"[16] - not being sufficiently significant is surely a pretty good argument? --Michig (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lol, I feel mentioned. Is this really the right venue for this? Anyway, briefly, Michig, please do not take that comment as personal, you labeled your delete !vote as "weak delete", so I guess I could have said "weak argument for deletion". Your comment was "probably falls short of being sufficiently significant for an encyclopedia article." I did not find this to be a silver bullet supporting the delete close, it was your fair and honest opinion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was leaning towards delete, but it was at least close to being borderline. So a good reason to delete in my view, just not strongly applicable in this case. I won't take it personally. Back to editing...--Michig (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment; for what it's worth, I see nothing wrong with a relist – I doubt it's a worthwhile exercise, but the article doesn't seem to present untoward BLP concerns so there is no harm in having it around a while longer. — Coren ^(talk) 03:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: This AfD was already listed a whole month, and during that time, no one was able to find sufficient sourcing to establish notability. Sorry, but relisting is pointless, and I can find nothing wrong with Coren's closure. The arguments for delete were simply moe compelling. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no one really looked, it was a malaise-filled AfD. Some editors said the few cites added were sufficient. Typically such a low participation mixed discussion like this would end as no consensus.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that relisting would be pointless due to the duration of the original discussion, unless new evidence of notability will be provided. No opinion as to the article's merit. ThemFromSpace 04:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Stumbled across this from STiki questioning whether or not the undelete notice was vandalism. Anyways, a quick search shows additional sources all over the net. One including an incident where a band member was stabbed and it was reported in papers like Glasgow Daily Times. [17] A bit of NOTNEWS, but still probably useful. One almost useless one from a university, might just be to fill out the background or note that they played there. [cview=linear] A story by the The Daily Times is a little better and covers them. [18] STV and Youtube have numerous clips about the band and some interviews. Though this link is broken recently, [19] this is a youtube mirror, [20]. While that's not much, they did tour the US and even still they do seem to be able to pass GNG. An unusual type of band, the requirement is not some high notability bar, but that no original research is required to fill out an article on them. I've seen dozens of okay to meh level sources, but a gem of some national or regional paper could turn up if I had access to their archives. Seeing as such archives are not typically online, tracking every appearance to prove GNG is a bit much. I think it passes the bar for GNG because they've has prolonged exposure, toured and continued to play concerts for ten years. Its not Uncle Ken's garage band, but it definitely doesn't have to be Aerosmith to get a Wiki page. Though I would take another look at their albums, as those do not seem to have much other then a tracklisting and certainly will not meet the notability requirements. Its much easier to keep the band page and merge the other info into it at this point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that there is a claim that the band appears on a soundtrack of a movie which satisfies WP:BAND if it can be substantiated. There is a video in which they thank the movie director for making the video for them. The movie is listed at IMDB. Can anyone help confirm this with additional sources?
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I made it fairly clear in my !vote that the sources I had added were just samples and that that there were plenty more out there, as a result of the band's extensive touring. I also indicated that, while the sources were not individually that wonderful, the overall width of the coverage was adequate. This is consistent with WP:SIGCOV which states "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources.". The closer seemed to misunderstand or misrepresent the extent of the sourcing and this is not his job — he's supposed to summarise the discussion, not to second-guess it. As a by-the-way, I was looking at the closer's work, as he's made several controversial closes recently. His first edit was to the article Executable. That was nearly 10 years ago and that article still has no good sources even though it has been tagged for four years now. The sources added to the Albannach article look good by comparison. See WP:LIGHTBULB which explains how we spend too much time in unproductive discussion like this and not enough actually building the encyclopedia. Warden (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The consensus was obvious. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I see that the closer would be happy with a "relist" outcome for this DRV, and I see that in this debate, The Devil's Advocate has brought up new sources to consider. AfD is the place to consider them. It seems to me that a relist is the right way forward.—S Marshall T/C 22:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus - Equal headcount, subject at roughly the threshold of notability = no consensus. WilyD 11:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist without prejudice towards Coren's original close; the new sources and issues raised by ChrisGualtieri, Berean Hunter and Devil's Advocate ought to be considered, and a new AFD is the best place to do that. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. That "SUPERVOTE! SUPERVOTE!" ploy really is growing whiskers by this point. Obvious notability failure -- whatever low-quality bits Colonel Warden has scraped up -- and Coren really made the only decision which he could have. Which is not a SUPERVOTE! no matter how many times Dream Focus hauls it out as his last-ditch defense. --Calton | Talk 13:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:DGFA states emphatically, "When in doubt, don't delete." The sources and comments made introduced sufficient doubt that deletion was quite improper. Your contention that deletion was the only possible outcome seems absurd - we wouldn't be here at DRV if that were the case. Warden (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The keep !votes were not overwhelming. For example, the first failed to address the issue of significant coverage in reliable sources, whereas the last held no weight whatsoever ("Article seems okay"). There were no errors in the administrator's policy-based closure. Till 04:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist, TDA's sources warrant review at AfD. --j⚛e decker^talk 03:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per lack of reasoning. "SUPERVOTE!!!1" is apparently the new word for "A close happened I disagree with!". Accusing a closer of supervoting is actually pretty serious, and as with other accusations on Wikipedia (and elsewhere) it shouldn't be done without evidence to back it up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The keep positions inability to distinguish between topic importance to overcome WP:NOT and quantity of topic coverage to meet WP:GNG is not a basis to upset the delete close. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crown the Empire (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Crown The Empire (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Temp Undelete to access information band has reached notability by charting on billboard. If I can access the original page I will recreate it with appropriate references. Informed Deleting user, he deleted my comment with only the title of "that ship has sailed" and archived the rest of the thread on that topic (although only deleted my comment for undeletion). Mariolennox (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by deleting admin If you wanted it userfied so that you could work on it in userspace, or via WP:AFC, why didn't you simply ask me? Instead, I received an unsigned message on my talkpage simply requesting undeletion based on the exact same reasons that I had already addressed immediately above that message. If you wish it userfied, please confirm that you will not move it back to userspace until you have had it vetted by a well-seasoned editor, AND you can 100% confirm that no sockpuppetry or collusion is taking place regarding this article (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hansard of the Sarawak (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Also... I am interested to know how long a stub page is permitted to exist before AfD cuts it. In particular for pages that are clearly not frivolous. It seems to me that cutting them too soon is shot sighted.

For the record: I have been previously tagged "Troll?" by PKT(alk)

Leng T'che (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin Consensus seemed clear that people thought it was either a hoax or not-notable. I don't see a clear objection in this review request that something changed since the close or that the close was in error. MBisanz ^talk 01:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can it be a "consensus" when there was no common "reason" cited? The reason were all over the place. WP:Hoax is even plain wrong. Leng T'che (talk) 10:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was consensus the article should not be retained on Wikipedia, even if the specific reasons varied. MBisanz ^talk 18:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Huh? Each of the jurors say he is guilty of a different crime, so we hung him for good measure. Leng T'che (talk) 05:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • To extend that metaphor, if some of the jury say guilty because of the blood evidence, some of the jury say guilty because of the eyewitness testimony, and some of the jury say guilty because of the signed confession... the suspect would be found innocent somehow? That really makes no sense at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There's no reason to see the discussion as ending any way except "delete", and no evidence has been presented of anything (e.g. canvassing or sockpuppetry) that would be a good reason for this discussion to be seen as flawed. FYI, according to State governments in Malaysia, all states have Westminster systems, and Westminster systems customarily have a Hansard. That's not necessarily a good reason for the article to have been kept, but it's a good reason to say that it's not a hoax; even if they don't use the name "Hansard", we could have an article under this title (minus "the" before "Sarawak"), using "Hansard" like we do "Legislature of placename" for many places whose legislatures aren't named simply "Legislature". Leng T'che, if you believe that this subject is notable, you can write a new article about it, but you absolutely must include sufficient reliable sources to demonstrate that this specific Hansard passes our inclusion standards in some way. Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you read my comments on the various pages, you will see the key issue is not so much the specific article, but the trend to delete stubs before they have had a chance to grow up. This page is a reasonable example.

    Besides: Various "contributors" (including your self) have suggest improvement. Be bold.... do it. It appears that these improvements are obvious, so be bold. (If "the" should not be in the title, then be bold, remove the "the")

    My other gripe would be that some stub will take time, esp for smaller countries. More time should be allowed to let these pages develop, or at least some patience when managing these pages.

    On the other hand.... yes, wikipedia does need a clean up. (I'd be happy to find a few thousand for the AfD's groupies to chew on. (But there is probably a WP:RULE against this) ).

    However, caution (and some intelligence) is due when deleting to any articles. It is disturbing to see WP:HOAX applied to justify a delete, when that it is not that!

    Leng T'che (talk) 10:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The arguments in the AFD discussion were based in policy and not refuted. In the discussion, Metropolitan90, DrKiernan, and Chipmunkdavis all, in effect, made the point, long supported by deletion policy that this is a non-topic that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources. They further made the point that the article was completely confused and didn't even identify a coherent subject, and thus not a valid stub with scope for expansion. Leng T'che made the usual distraction fallacy nonsense about processes being broken, and entirely failed to address that point, even when it was put to xem directly by Metropolitan90, twice. Witness this non-sequitur for example. This very deletion review is simply yet more of the same by the same person, alas. Uncle G (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per lack of sensical reasoning. Nom is essentially trying to get a deletion reversed on the grounds that although there was consensus to delete, some of the reasons given to delete were different(!). While this is a novel tactic I don't recall seeing before, that doesn't mean it makes a lick of sense either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - It took a while to figure out what the topic was (I still may be wrong). Sarawak is one of two Malaysian states on the island of Borneo. The Rajah of Sarawak formally ceded sovereignty of Sarawak to the British Crown on 1 July 1946. Hansard is the name of the printed transcripts of parliamentary debates in the Westminster system of government (named after Thomas Curson Hansard, an early printer and publisher of these transcripts). So the topic "Hansard of the Sarawak" is about the printed transcripts containing the discussion in England about the Rajah of Sarawak formally ceding sovereignty of Sarawak to the British Crown on 1 July 1946. The article appears to have read as:

  Hansard of the Sarawak was the name given to transcripts of parliamentary proceedings of Serawak (Act of Cession) and Sarawak (Constitution) in 1946. Those official record of the debate and proceedings of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords of the Parliament of the United Kingdom on Serawak (Act of Cession) were appointed on 22 May 1946 and Sarawak (constitution) were appointed on 24 July 1946.[21]

  The question at the AfD was whether the printed transcripts/documents met WP:GNG. The term "Hansard of the Sarawak" seems to have been made up, probably because the humor to some brought on due to the difficulty by others in understand the topic from the Wikipedia article name (which accounts for the hoax assertions in the AfD). Consensus in the AfD was that the transcript topic did not meet WP:GNG and the closer got it correct. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• merge or relist for adiscussion thatwould include the possibility of merging. The nomination was inadequate, because this possibility was not mentioned, and it is a preferred alternative to deletion. The discussion was similarly inadequate, and so was the close. This does not have to be considered in all cases, but it's a relevant possibility for article like this. I notice there is a very weak section on politics in the main article on Sarawak, so the content is not already present. ~
• Endorse consensus to delete was clear, and no valid reason has been presented to overturn. No, the possibility of merging was not considered, but it was clear that the article was so confused it wasn't clear what it was actually about (the article text was about records of British parliamentary debates concerning the Sarawak, although the content was being defended as if it was about present records of parliamentary debates), which would seem to preclude the possibility of any sort of merger. Hut 8.5 19:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]