The following is an exercise in closing AfD discussions. Please follow these rules:
- Indicate your decision (keep, delete, no consensus, merge, redirect, etc.) as well as your reason for making that decision. The reason should not be your personal opinion, but rather your interpretation of the arguments presented in the debate. The reason can be a sentence long for simple matters, or an entire paragraph long for more complex cases.
- You are allowed to search Google or other websites, but do not check Wikipedia to see if the article exists. (besides, it may have been recreated after the AfD)
- Do the exercises in order, as they are arranged in order of difficulty.
- Remember that AfD is not a vote, but rather a discussion designed to achieve consensus. Therefore, you should give more weight to exceptionally well-reasoned arguments and less weight to mere !votes, arguments based on WP:ATA, SPA's, sockpuppets, etc.
Decision: Delete
Reason: Although a headcount shows an equal distribution of keep and delete !votes, the delete !votes are based on the lack of reliable sources and the presence of original research, while many of the keep !votes are based on WP:ILIKEIT.
Beginner
editDecision: Delete
Reason: Does not establish notability, and is full of unverifiable speculation (at the time of this AfD)
- CORRECT
Decision: Keep.
Reason: Sabre has found some third party sources to establish notability.
- CORRECT
Decision: Delete
Reason: No reliable sources (surprised that one didn't come up in the AfD), and no attempt to establish notability; the only "Keep" !vote by a SPA.
- CORRECT
Intermediate
editDecision: Keep
Reason: Every delete !vote had the reasoning just not notable, while keep !votes provided reliable third-party sources to prove notability.
- CORRECT
Decision: Delete
Reason: Unverifiable Original Research. Spike-from-NH's keep argument is rather redundant; "it will never have references... but if somebody can make this unreferencable article good enough for inclusion, we may as well keep it" - wtf?
- CORRECT
Decision: Keep
Reason: Although is is (was?) a future film, there has been coverage in multiple news organizations, like the New York Times. Also has been nominated 3 times before, twice keep once delete, with arguably weak consensus on the third nomination. (and agree with TenPoundHammer; trout the nom for misuse of WP:HAMMER :))
- INCORRECT - The argument has gone back and forth, without a clear consensus. Therefore, the correct decision is no consensus. The fact that it has been nominated before does not overrule the strength of the arguments presented in this debate, which are approximately equal.
Decision: Merge and Redirect to Titiyo
Reason: Only User:Drmies thinks it should be kept, and it does not have enough content for an article on its own.
- INCORRECT - Both the "keep" and "delete" sides offered "(merge)/redirect" as an option. If that were not an option, the debate should have been closed as "delete." Therefore, the correct decision is redirect only, no merge.
Advanced
editDecision: Delete
Reason: All keep !votes made with either weak arguments or checked sock puppets. Also has too few references for a BLP.
- CORRECT
Decision: No consensus
Reason: The arguments just go back and forth. Keep !votes say a source shows notability, delete !votes say the same source doesn't show notability...
- CORRECT
Decision: Delete
Reason: Lack of reliable sources. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is pretty valid for most of the "Keep" arguments.
- CORRECT
Decision: Delete
Reason: Why six? Content should be in the main article. Most of the keep !votes even cited Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions in their arguments (instead of just "Keep - It's useful," "Keep per WP:USEFUL")
- INCORRECT - It's more of a no consensus. The keep !votes at the beginning were based on WP:USEFUL, but always read on to the end - there are pretty good arguments for keep there. (Later, on the article talk page they decided to redirect the page to List of Academy Award-winning films, but that's beside the point.)
Decision: Delete
Reason: (Last AfD had insanely weak consensus, by the way. I would have relisted it...) Anyways, basically states one example of how Greece and Jamaica had bilateral relations. That doesn't cut it. Existance is not notability, and this is a clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS.
- CORRECT