- The Mountain Witch (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The editor who closed this AfD (with whom I discussed the close) is an excellent closer and was, I think, faced with a difficult decision. Still, I think this might benefit from a relist to allow a stronger consensus to develop towards either Keep/Delete. There were three Keep !votes but I'm concerned that these largely did not present any valid argumentation / rationale and were merely WP:VAGUEWAVEs.
- Comment - my "accuracy" rating is as irrelevant as yours. My Keep in this case was to support that of User:Newimpartial, as I assume was User:FreeKnowledgeCreator's. No delete or dissenting votes were provided, thus I feel we have a valid close. BOZ (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. I really can't fault the closer; this sure looks like an obvious keep, at least at first glance. I wouldn't expect anybody (including myself) would have closed this any other way. But, the whole premise to keeping this is based on Flames Rising being a WP:RS, and I can't agree with that. The claim is that Flames Rising is an editorially vetted publication (as opposed to a blog). But, as a I read through http://www.flamesrising.com/about/ and http://www.flamesrising.com/submission-guidelines/, I'm not convinced that it is. The about page describes it as a fanzine. That doesn't (ahem) conjure up visions of strict editorial oversight. The submissions guidelines says:
- we encourage you to submit your content to our site in order to gain exposure and publicity for whatever it is you’re working on.
- typically, we only edit reviews for basic spelling and grammar and do not alter your written content
- They also allow the review author to retain copyright, and don't pay for reviews.
- These are not the sorts of things which scream out WP:RS. On the other hand, they do provide some editorial oversight, in that they describe the types of reviews and other content they want to publish, and reserve the right to reject those that don't fit their needs. So, not a totally anything-goes, hands-off WP:UGC blog. But, on the spectrum of reliable-sourcitude, more on the bloggy end of the spectrum. So, maybe the Flames Rising review isn't total garbage, but it also doesn't seem like enough to base a WP:GNG claim on all by itself. Overall, I think relisting this to get broader input would be a good idea. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- My claim about Flame Rising is that it is vetted by a reliable editorial staff. They reserve the right to reject submitted content, and have attracted some of the best writers in the business, such as Kenneth Hite. There are plenty of other reviews of this multiply-award-nominated game out there, so I picked one that was in my personal opinion the best.Newimpartial (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood. Setting aside the larger question of whether the flamesrising.com fanzine is RS or whether it is enough to prove WP:SIGCOV for a moment, is the column by "Clyde" that of a professional staff member (insofar as any flamesrising.com fanzine staff are professional in that they are all unpaid) or that of a contributor? We, correctly, consider Forbes.com to be RS, but we don't consider Forbes.com contributors to be RS and I would be surprised at an argument that flamesrising.com fanzine contributors are inherently more reliable than Forbes contributors. Chetsford (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Chetsford, you are "repeating arguments already made in the deletion discussion", are you not? I do not see that any "significant new information has come to light" not any allegation of "substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion". Your contributions here read like IDONTLIKEIT, to be honest. That isn't what deletion review is for. Newimpartial (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Chetsford, you are "repeating arguments already made in the deletion discussion", are you not? No, I don't believe so. Chetsford (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - this request for deletion review appears to be an inappropriate use of the process, as it seems to consist of "a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment", since the requestor simply states that the review "might benefit from a relist" - if this were the relevant criterion, then just about all non-speedy AfD closes might qualify. The arguments for this one were stale and the closer weighed policy considerations appropriately into the close.
- The requestor appears "to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion" (viz. point 3) and to "argue technicalities" (viz. points 1 and 2), which makes this an entirely out-of-scope request IMO. Let us not encourage this manipulation of process. Newimpartial (talk) 04:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon further investigation, I would also note that the requestor's interaction with the closer consisted in asking that the result be changed from "keep" to "no consensus", which would make no material difference whatever, but it would affect the Requestor's AfD statistics, with which he appears to be much concerned. That alone strikes me as a reason to refuse the request, as it appears quite frivolous in nature, given the full context. Newimpartial (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- By "no consensus" I meant find that there was no consensus with the implication it would be relisted as per WP:RELIST. I apologize if I expressed myself imperfectly. Chetsford (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You expressed yourself using the words that you, yourself use to record closes of "no consensus" in AfDs, on the page you use to keep track of individual results and to calculate overall percentages of success (where you do not count "no consensus" results against your batting average, for some reason). If you meant something different from what you mean elsewhere, then yes, I'd say you expressed yourself imperfectly. Newimpartial (talk) 06:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Chetsford (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Closer's comment - the nominator took this up with me on my talk page and they seem reasonable in their concerns as I doubt they're trying to manipulate the process as Newimpartial suggests. And BOZ seems to confirm that I interpreted their keep argument correctly. RoySmith (the only one who has commented here that didn't participate in the AFD) presents a compelling argument, despite the fact that this seemed to show The Mountain Witch was reviewed by an independent source (those seem to pass RS/GNG/NBOOK). Had Newimpartial not provided the source by Flames Rising, I wouldn't have closed this AFD (I avoid closing any AFD's without policy-based arguments even if all the arguments are for keep). Although I still think my closure was correct based on my initial observations, relisting wouldn't be a bad idea as RoySmith suggests, and any endorsement of my closure should come other than from those that participated in the AFD (essentially discounting Newimpartial's endorsement since they participated at the AFD).—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Enough votes had been placed to keep, with no support for delete at all, so the close seems to be justified. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist a technical reading of WP:DRVPURPOSE would suggest a renomination after a certain amount of time. I'm in favor of a relist per RoySmith, though - it's the easiest thing to do given the concerns raised with the one currently identified source and will allow for another week's worth of eyeballs. SportingFlyer talk 10:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist, or simply list again, with no fault to the closer. RoySmith found a pretty significant issue with the source that really does change things. Can't fault anyone for closing a unanimous consensus as keep, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
