Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 1#Gargoyle Router Firmware

:{{DRV links|Gargoyle Router Firmware|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gargoyle_Router_Firmware|article=}}

Four editors thought the sources significant to warrant keep: Qrsdogg, Widefox, Dcxf, and Dream Focus. The nominator and one other felt otherwise. There was no consensus to delete. I discussed this with the closing administrator on my talk page. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dream_Focus&redirect=no#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FGargoyle_Router_Firmware] The sources are reliable, as they have editorial oversight as to what goes there, one a broadcast television show and another a print magazine even. Administrator clearly ignored consensus of those participating in the AFD, and instead made a super vote. Dream Focus 05:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• My only comment is that I said it all in the close, and thanks to Dream for bringing it to my talk first. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• I don't like that debate very much at all. We've got a bunch of unsubstantiated votes, which can safely be disregarded, plus another skirmish in the ongoing argument between Hrafn and Dream Focus, largely about the philosophy behind WP:N, in which Dream Focus gave us a refreshingly unconventional view of our inclusion criteria which Hrafn seems to have countered by citing the existence of a template. The whole exchange seems like a poor basis on which to close an AfD.

  I'm conscious that the debate had been relisted by Ron Ritzman, so relisting again would not have been appropriate. Therefore the closer had little choice but to examine the sources for himself. The rather detailed and helpful closing statement shows that this is exactly what he did.

  The only basis on which DRV can assess whether the close is correct was to make our own examination of the sources. I think we will need to set aside for the moment the principle that DRV is not AfD round 2 and focus on the sources for ourselves. Would anyone object to that?—S Marshall T/C 10:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

:All keep votes were based on sources. and are thus substantiated. One of the people who originally said delete, scratched that out and congratulated an editor for finding sources, providing a link to the article itself to show the changes that had been made. Those changes are what caused everyone who said keep, to make that decision. And we're not here to reevaluate anything other than the close. Are closing administrators suppose to weigh consensus, or ignore it and cast a supervote? Dream Focus 12:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

:*I'm sorry, Dream Focus, but I'm afraid it's quite beyond me to see how those keep votes were based on a critical analysis of the sources. Could you explain in more detail?—S Marshall T/C 23:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

::*They saw the sources, and agreed they were notable, which they are. Consensus was clear. Dream Focus 04:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

:::*I don't think they looked at the sources very closely. Do you?—S Marshall T/C 08:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

::::*Speaking for myself, yes I did, and please don't assume that I didn't. Dcxf (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Note Though I initially !voted Delete but then struck my !vote upon learning of sources that my searching had missed, I never changed my !vote to Keep, however. My apologies if my comments in the discussion were unclear. My view is that the sources that were found are less that I like to see if I'm going to !vote Keep and more than I like to see if I am going to !vote Delete. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Honestly though, I think this discussion probably should have been closed as No Consensus. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

:*I'm not opposed to a Relist either, given the circumstances. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Relist. It could've been left as no consensus, and the closing is clearly a super vote. I don't see a problem with an AfD2 instead, but the article needs to be restored - frankie (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn to Keep [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gargoyle_Router_Firmware&oldid=435259199 this] version of the debate was not suitable for relisting. No one had agreed with the nominator after a week--or rather, one had, and then had rescinded his own !vote. Relisting is for debates with less participation and/or clarity. The additional debate between two participants on whether LWN.net is a reliable source shouldn't have been enough to result in a "delete" argument, because people differ on Internet sourcing all the time. There was no compelling reason for the relister to relist, nor for the eventual closer to close as anything other than keep. No consensus would have been within the realm of discretion, but delete is unsupported by the debate. Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• I know I said I wouldn't comment, but please explain to me how this debate showed that there were the multiple reliable sources that are required by our core content policy of verification? The long tradition of rough consensus is that arguments that are not supported by policy are subordinate to those that are. As noted by S Marshall, there was little to no effort by the keep side to conform to policy. I had hoped that the participants might go and read those policies before coming here, but sadly that appears not to have been the case. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• :Verification was met. There are links to the coverage in reliable sources. Dream Focus 04:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• :: No it wasn't. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Do you see how you're not actually adding to the debate, Dream Focus? I can just so "no it's not" again and again, just like your saying "yes it is." Please stop making claims wholly unsupported by evidence, show how you're correct by referencing policy and guideline.
• :::Consensus was that it was. You went against the consensus. You decided to cast a super vote, defying the rules of Wikipedia. You are suppose to judge consensus, not ignore it. Dream Focus 04:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• :Fundamentally, a closer should not both insert their own analysis of the arguments AND override the numerical consensus. If you disagree with the way things are going enough that it seems clearly appropriate to override the numerical consensus in your close... then you probably ought to just !vote yourself and let some other admin close it with the benefit of your reasoning. Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Demote closing statement to a delete recommendation and relist. While the source analysis by User:Aaron Brenneman is detailed, I think it stretches the amount of independent investigation that closers should do. It would have been better presented as a delete recommendation to bolster the source shortcomings pointed out by FuFoFuEd and Hrafn. Flatscan (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• FuFoFuEd criticized the Cybershack and Linux Magazine sources, and Hrafn also considered Cybershack lacking. I consider the closing statement's expansion of these to be acceptable. The "Gargoyle FAQ" by the founder/lead developer is clearly not independent, which I think is obvious and thus allowable. The LWN.net evaluation is novel and nuanced enough to be inappropriate as part of the close. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with the statement the decision on LWN was beyond what an admin should take on themselves. But, as I tried to make clear in the close, the fact was that that was the only source that was even close, and that thus it didn't matter. Wee need multiple sources. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 09:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• I saw "This now means that no matter if it is decided that LWN is reliable, it doesn't have multiple reliable sources." WP:GNG states that "Multiple sources are generally expected", but I've seen that interpreted as two or more good sources, one good source and other marginal ones, and lots of marginal ones. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
• This was a miserable debate. I can't fault Aaron for refusing to close this as a keep or even a no-consensus, even after correctly discounting all the keep votes. The article as it stood at the time of the nomination was 3/4 features list and screenshot gallery, and the other quarter was so full of peacock phrases that it could probably have been speeded as a G11. But when an administrator sees an afd debate like this in the closing queue, the correct action is to put your analysis in a delete recommendation yourself and trust that the next administrator to take a look at it will also ignore the invalid keeps. If he didn't, that would be the correct time to bring it to DRV.

  As for things as they stand, unless someone has an argument of substance against the statement in Aaron's close, rather than one of technicality, I don't see any value in sending this back to AFD for the sake of sending it back to AFD. Simply claiming that there's coverage in reliable sources is not in itself a get-out-of-jail card, you have to actually provide those sources. No such sources were provided, and I don't think they exist. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Relist and let another admin decide on the close: I concur with Flatscan & 74.74.150.139. Although I agree with Aaron Brenneman closing argument (no surprises there), an admin should not both argue to a substantive extent and close the discussion -- that leads to a perception of partisanship in the close. I think any new closing admin would have trouble closing the discussion against his detailed and cogent argument (and doing so may lead to a new DRV thread), but that's for another day. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse The closing admin here went beyond what he should have here, and this certainly shouldn't be repeated. That being said Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and reopening something just for the sake of process, when the logic behind the closure is sound, is unnecessary and a waste of time.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• : I've not at all "gone beyond," as I followed the guideline Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, and in particular it's advice on determining rough consensus:

  Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.

  This principle is routinely examined at deletion review: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada–Tonga relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women's superiority, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monika Star, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, all upheld.
  
  The keep arguments were fundamentally flawed in almost every aspect. Their reading of policies and guidelines was superficial at best, and is badly out of step with the standards that routinely applied at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The extensive close raised no arguments that had not already been presented by the other participants. Had I simply closed this as "Delete, FuFoFuEd and Hrafn are correct." that would have been well within the range of normal closes. Since I took the time to explain very carefully why they were correct, and link to the relevant policies and guidelines, it suddenly becomes a supervote? I'd point in particular to the Monika Star debate, where the biggest complaint was that the admin had not explained why the various keeps are not correct.
  
  I'm also struggling to accept the argument presented that I should have !voted instead of closing since the "numbers were against" delete. Let us suppose that I had done that, since it was 4:1 or some such (though we're not counting votes, of course). Then the next admin who attempted to close would have said, "Oh, well, the best arguments are for deletion, but sadly it's only 4:2, so I have to !vote instead of closing." Then the next admin tries to close, but oh dear, it's only 4:3, I better !vote." Then the next admin... See where we're going here? We don't count votes.
  
  Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

::::Then the next admin who attempted to close would have said, "Oh, well, the best arguments are for deletion, but sadly it's only 4:2, Not necessarily true. I've recently made some changes to WP:SUPERVOTE (which is "only an essay") where I am trying to argue that while AFD is not a "vote", neither is the !vote count meaningless. In my view, for "admin's discretion" to have applied here, the "delete" position would have had to be a "significant minority". 4:1 isn't but 4:2 may be. Your "delete" !vote might have made it possible for the next admin to have punched it "delete" without us being here. (or at least made this DRV a certain endorse) What would be a "significant minority" is subjective but when I close AFDs, I like to see at least 2 editors concur with the nom before I hit the delete button. (though there are exceptions such as for "high risk" articles like BLPs) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

:::*Should I be alarmed that 2 of the 4 precedents you cite are my closes? Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

::* It seemed obvious to me that the sources were adequate, if not stellar, so I didn't feel the need to expand on what had already been said. I disagree with your analysis of the sources and would have been happy to debate it had it been presented in the discussion. Dcxf (talk) 10:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse or in the alternative Demote closing statement to a delete recommendation and relist. (as per Flatscan) it is no good just saying it has RS if you don't put them up. Mtking (talk) 10:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Relist with the closing statement moved to the discussion section as a "delete" opinion. The closer is probably correct on the merits, but the question of whether the sources are sufficient to establish notability is so difficult, and dependent on editorial judgment, that it is not suitable to be the basis of a closure on the basis of the strength of the arguments presented. The AfD should have been closed as "delete" only once there was a numerical consensus on the basis of all opinions that address the question of whether the sources are sufficient for notability.  Sandstein  17:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Again with the "numerical consensus." Where does this come from, anyway? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Relist, the close was quite clearly a supervote. I can't help but feel the closing admin should have just !voted and left it at that rather than closing the discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC).
• Undelete. Aaron Brenneman's comments would be better stated as a "vote" in the debate than as a leonine form of jumping on the giraffe when its neck is down in the water, waiting to be the closing admin so his argument would win and then -- SNAP! Wiwaxia (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Relist The deleting admin did exactly what he is not supposed to do, which is to make his own analysis of the issue. He is certainly allowed --and in fact, required--to make his own evaluation of whether the arguments presented are based on policy, and many people think he is entitled to make an evaluation of which conflicting policy based arguments are the stronger. But the judgement about whether sources are substantial and independent is to a considerable extent a matter of opinion--any rational argument that they are or that they are not is an argument supported by policy--and is generally a decisive question when that is the issue. What he should have done is seen whether there was consensus that the sources were or were not sufficient, or whether there was no consensus on the issue. If he had an individual view on the matter, he should have joined the discussion. I respect his analysis, though I think I probably disagree with it; it would have been a useful contribution to the AfD. Additionally, I would have discarded Hrafn's argument as not based on policy--as, in fact, based on rejected policy that specialized sources are insufficient. DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

::*In response to DGG's snippy comment about my comment I would like to point out (i) that the passage in question [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANotability_%28books%29&action=historysubmit&diff=436291141&oldid=435906487 was removed] AFTER [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FGargoyle_Router_Firmware&action=historysubmit&diff=435968807&oldid=435964689 I made that argument] -- and that I can hardly be faulted for relying on what was explicit policy^{(guideline technically)} at the time I commented. (ii) I would also point out that this was not my only example of coverage being required to extend beyond a specialised audience. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• To be fair to Hrafn, I changed the NBOOK guideline following a couple of recent AfDs. Consensus on that matter--specialized sources--seems to have changed for books. I don't think there ever was one for software, as there's no separate guideline. However, all sources except one in this AfD have very brief coverage. A similar article, FreeWRT, was merged/deleted even though it had a more extensive word-count-wise burst of news coverage. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
• FreeWRT is a project that has been dormant for four years, and that was cited by all respondents in the deletion discussion as the reason for merging it. Gargoyle is still being actively developed, and still receiving coverage. For example [http://www.techspot.com/guides/416-wireless-router-custom-firmware-alternative/], published after the deletion discussion, lists it as one of "the most popular [firmware alternative] options out there". Dcxf (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• There are multiple places above that phrases like "numerical consensus" are being used as indicators for how decisions are driven. I must admit I'm surprised at this, and I would like someone to link to a policy or guideline that states counting is how consensus is formed. (Note that I have provided a link that explicitly states the opposite, and even provided the text.) - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Revert closing and reclose by another admin  I have researched the following assertion:

1. Kristian Kissling (17 Jul 2009). "Gargoyle: Web Interface for Router Configuration". Linux Magazine. [http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/News/Gargoyle-Web-Interface-for-Router-Configuration [2]] Retrieved June 16, 2011.

:::: * 210 words, mostly identical to above, also in the "news" section...

:::: * All as per above.

:IMO, this is not coherent analysis.  The phrases "mostly identical to above" and "All as per above" have unclear antecedents.  Even if we assume a worst case scenario, there is still no relevant statement here.  The author, Kristian Kissling, is [http://www.yasni.ch/kristian+kissling/person+information known].  There is no evidence that the basis of this news was a [http://freshmeat.net/projects/gargoyle-router press release].  Did the closing admin look for an original press release?  If such had been cited, we would know that it exists, and we would know how much it had been re-written.  I tried to find the editorial policy regarding press releases for Linux Magazine, but it would probably require an email be sent.  Had the closing admin done this, he would probably have found that Linux Magazine retains editorial control—this is evidenced by the lack of mentioning any press releases in the news article and the giving of an author's name.  Moreso, it should not be a surprise that technical magazines use press releases as a source.  In this case, this news article is what we are looking for at Wikipedia, Kristian Kissling and the editors at Linux Magazine are second party and independent, the author is considered to be an expert, and Kristian Kissling and the editors that used the article believed the material sufficiently reliable and notable to put his and their names on the news article.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Natal Philharmonic Orchestra|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natal Philharmonic Orchestra|article=}}

Closing administrator says the reason for keeping the article is that it 5 editors against 1, however, this is not a vote. The sources that allegedly establish notability of this topic are only trivial mentions. Dlabtot (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse close The administrator weighed consensus, which was of everyone saying the sources presented were sufficient to establish notability, only the nominator, you, seeking to delete it. Dream Focus 05:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Shocked by that close. The first four swath of keeps fail to address a single policy or guideline betwixt the lot. The fifth makes a bald claim with no supporting evidence. The only meaninful contribution to the debate was Dlabtot's, where he carefully lays out why this fails to meet policy, "showing his work" so that others may see. This should have been a total drop-kick delete. I'm also unimpressed by the reasoning provided at User_talk:Courcelles#Natal_Philharmonic_Orchestra.E2.80.8E that the nomination must be good before the article is deleted. When decent contributions follow on from a nomination, for example, we don't let the nominator withdraw, if I may draw a parrallel. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• The nomination here was the only argument for deletion, and it was poorly thought out. Anyone who mashed the "find sources" buttons ontop of the AFD would have found copious plenty, especially if they thought to use the organizations current name. The nomination amounted to saying the article was lousy, a classic WP:NOEFFORT hand-wave, and that is NEVER a good argument for deletion. Someone, at least the nominator, has to make a plausible argument for deletion, and no one did here. Courcelles 17:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

::: You claim that it would take a minimal effort to find reliable sources to find the significant coverage in independent reliable sources required to establish notability. However unlike me, you obviously haven't undertaken that effort, otherwise we would have such sources to add to the article, in which case I would fully support its retention... or you would admit that your claim is invalid. There are thousands of professional orchestras in the world. I believe that only the ones that meet our notability criteria should have articles on Wikipedia. At the time I nominated the article it did in fact have absolutely no sources other than a link to the orchestras website[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natal_Philharmonic_Orchestra&oldid=435813733] - obviously that does not establish notability. If you really think that a lack of reliable sources to establish notability does not constitute a 'plausible argument for deletion', I must seriously question your competence to act as a closing admin for these discussions. And I say that with at least as much respect as you have shown me. Dlabtot (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

::::That an article is unsourced is not and never has been (excepting newly created BLPs) a valid argument for deletion. The valid argument is that an article is not verifiable, and that reliable sources are nonexistent. You never made that argument, you said it had "no sources". not that no sources existed. No one, until this came to DRV, ever made even an attempt at a valid argument for deletion that had any basis in policy; here you come much closer to advancing the unsourcable argument, not the unsourced one. Finally, I'd remind you that a few sentences here and there in reliable sources are enough for verifiability, which is non-negotiable, as the Verifiability says merely "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.", and there is no way that applies here. Whether the coverage is enough for the GNG to be satisfied, however, is a decision that the community must make in its role as the sovereign, not the closing administrator, who merely acts on this aspect as the instrument of the community's will. Before someone jumps on me, I'm not saying "count votes", I'm saying the closer has to have a damned good reason to read a discussion, know what the community wants to do, and then do otherwise. This wasn't a close call where you agonize and weigh each opinion to decide who has the better argument, this was a case where, in a well-attended AFD, no one agreed you had a case. I don't think you had a case, either, but that opinion is formed from reading this debate so many times the last couple days, not meaningful in closing this. Courcelles 16:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn to No Consensus. Only one of the 4 keepers adressed any real reason for keeping, coverage. The others were It's just notable. Nominator questioned the validity of the coverage being sufficient with details, something the keeper didn't give. there is no consensus that the sources presented were sufficient. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse – If it's not a vote, then the argument that only one entry made an attempt at establishing notability is invalid – one is enough. As for that particular argument: I still believe that performing a world premiere of an opera by a notable composer and accompanying a highly notable singer confers notability. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• It's hard to make a brilliant close off a less than brilliant discussion, and I have some sympathy with Courcelles' position on his talk page. I'm tempted by Duffbeerforme's view, although I don't think there's any point overturning a "keep" to a "no consensus". Let's leave things unchanged for the time being, but perhaps we could encourage an early renomination of the article at AfD in the hope of a more evidence-focused discussion next time.—S Marshall T/C 11:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse – I'm afraid I cannot see any other way to close this; the consensus looked like that notability was established, and many of those arguments on the retention side seem reasonable. –MuZemike 21:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus and possibly renominate. Dlabtot's arguments were far stronger than the keep votes, which were (1) a reference to policy that didn't actually exist, (2) same as 1, (3) same as 1, and (4) WP:VAGUEWAVE/WP:ITSNOTABLE respectively. But unfortunately, while Dlabtot's arguments were stronger, I don't think it would be worth the drama to reclose it as delete. NW (Talk) 00:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus, with leave to renominate. The keep comments were very poor. Dlabtot's follow-ups were convincing and not rebutted, but delete closes based on a single supporter – even with no opposition – are rare. Flatscan (talk) 04:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

: It was very disappointing to me to have put so much time and effort into looking at those sources and seeing that, no, they did not establish notability, and then to construct a comment that showed that in detail, while entreating further discussion. But then I waited for days, diligently checking my watchlist in hopes that someone would engage in discussion. What my watchlist did alert me to was 'closed as keep'. The closing admin's reply to a request for a rationale? to paraphrase: 5 to 1.

: Clearly the correct course of action would have been to relist, so that further discussion and perhaps further improvements to the article could happen. For example if this really is, as asserted, the 'national orchestra of South Africa', there must be numerous print sources to establish this that are just not accessible through Google. The web is not the world. Perhaps one of the South African Wikipedians who participated in the deletion discussion could add some print sources that we can't find with a web search, but as newbies they don't know how to do that.

: I must also add that I am extremely offended by the dismissive and insulting tone taken towards me by the closing admin. Dlabtot (talk) 05:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus WP:NMUSIC does not suggest that being "a professional symphony orchestra" (do we even have a RS for its being 'professional'?) demonstrates notability, so the first 'keep' and its two 'me-too's are without basis and thus irrelevant. Likewise the "Coverage in reliable independent sources" cites no actual (let alone significant) coverage. Therefore there is no substantive 'keep' opinion. On this basis, and given Dlabtot's rebuttal, a 'delete' close would been not have been unwarranted (though would have been somewhat brave on the closing admin's part). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse Classic case of WP:IAR and of people not searching for sources. So to arguments:
• It's a professional Philharmonic Orchestra that played the opening of a Bongani Ndodana-Breen musical[http://www.iol.co.za/tonight/news/local/powerful-remedy-for-healing-country-1.1061089]. It's one of 4 South African classical Orchestra's listed [http://books.google.com/books?id=ez1JfIVM4ykC&pg=PA734&dq=%22Natal+Philharmonic+Orchestra%22&hl=en&ei=9uMOTtOpHcKFsAL577WECg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Natal%20Philharmonic%20Orchestra%22&f=false here]. Frankly, WP:N is a guideline and should be overridden for cases like this. Why can't we find reviews of this group (well I've found a few, all just a sentence or two)? No idea. They perform a regular weekly series [http://books.google.com/books?id=y4c1a6GSQ8cC&pg=PA317&dq=%22Natal+Philharmonic+Orchestra%22&hl=en&ei=bOcOTsTDA7HjsQKtkZmvCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=%22Natal%20Philharmonic%20Orchestra%22&f=false]. In the US any such group would have a large number of reviews. Perhaps these are in something other than English? Perhaps South African newspapers don't cover classical music? Perhaps they just aren't on-line? No clue.
• In addition, there are sources, they just aren't easily available.[http://books.google.com/books?id=AFB1QwAACAAJ&dq=%22Natal+Philharmonic+Orchestra%22&hl=en&ei=9uMOTtOpHcKFsAL577WECg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ] is a book (perhaps an MS thesis?) that looks at how this group does mentorship. [http://books.google.com/books?id=OojcHwAACAAJ&dq=%22Natal+Philharmonic+Orchestra%22&hl=en&ei=COYOTvWKBsiFsgLR4Zy8Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwADgU] is a book (again looks like an academic work) on the group. there are a massive number of passing mentions of this group both in a news archive search and a book search. Every "guide to South Africa" mentions this group as far as I can tell.

:So A) it's a very reasonable case where our guideline is simply wrong. We really are going to have a band because they are signed to a major label but not cover one of the 4 classical orchestras in South Africa? and B) there are sources (the two books if nothing else), they just aren't easily available to use and C) there almost certainly are other sources out there for a group that's been around for 2 decades. So how is this not an AFD2 argument? It some extent it is. But more so, we have !votes that argue any such group should be notable. We don't have a subject-specific guideline for something like this, so we should be listening to those at the AfD. The closer did exactly that. Hobit (talk) 09:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

::According to WorldCat, An investigation of the mentorship programme of the KwaZulu-Natal Philharmonic Orchestra is a 33-page University of KwaZulu-Natal Masters thesis (so not really a reliable source), held in no library other than that university (so presumably unpublished). "Disestablishing" symphony orchestras in a changing South Africa is a Bachelor's degree thesis (again unpublished & even less reliable). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

:::Thanks for searching! I suspect if we could get those sources they'd nicely point us to more useable ones. It would be hard to write an MS thesis without a few RSes I'd think. Hobit (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse outcome as no consensus to delete. Aaron Brenneman is right that the first three opinions should have been discounted as not addressing the question of notability raised by the nomination, but even so it's a deadlock between the nominator and Michael Bednarek, and so no consensus to delete. Consensus normally requires more than one "delete" opinion.  Sandstein  17:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse with leave to renominate; no reasonable delete closure could have been distilled from the debate provided. Stifle (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Allow speedy renomination, pretty much per Stifle. The debate is, frankly, crappy. I would have gone for a relist myself. T. Canens (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse, not the best arguments on either side, but it's a bit hard to close something as delete when only the nominator is arguing for that outcome. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC).
• Overturn to No Consensus While the nominator did make strong arguments and the other !voters didn't really demonstrate the notability of the subject, I don't think it should be deleted if the nominator makes the only case for deletion. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse. It was a shitty debate but closing it as delete would have been crazy-brave. As others have said above, just re-nominate it. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse. The expressed consensus was rather clear, and while comments like Deskford's may not be good reflections of policy/guideline per se, they're also rather reasonable empirical comments which need not be discounted out-of-hand. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

::Comment: (Deskford opined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natal Philharmonic Orchestra that a professional symphony orchestra should automatically be notable.) I, too, made a similar remark last year. Classical music editors find it exasperating (and tiring) that, e.g., sports people get automatic notability if they appeared in their sport's highest or second highest league (which would make me eligible because I twice refereed WNBL games), but professional symphony orchestras of many years' standing do not. The unsuitability of WP:MUSIC, and WP:BAND in particular, was noted as early as 2005, and nothing has changed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

::: That's an argument to change the sport notability guideline, not the other way around. Otherwise, we'd soon have Keep, professional pop singer or Keep, professional porn actress and so forth. FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse per Michael Bednarek. Notability is established, albeit perhaps not so strongly. Given the location of the orchestra we can't expect the quality of media coverage we'd get in London or New York. Overturning the decision would be a bad precedent. Dismissing a symphony orchestra like a band that had just been formed by a group of teenagers in someone's garage would not be the way to go. --Kleinzach 07:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
• Relist or overturn to delete, which is what I would have voted. Most of the keep votes did not present any policy or common-sense based arguments, so they are just noise. FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse keep. I can see where the DRV nom is coming from, and the attempt at sourcing during the discussion was not really successful. Nonetheless, with almost unanimity for keeping, I can hardly blame the closer for following that. The article is not in the best of shapes, and since South African media has a tendency to not make it onto the internet, it can be difficult to locate sources online. Nonetheless, I am quite certain that this orchestra is covered reasonably extensively, for although I had to search a bit, but I did find [http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-186479842.html this] from The Mercury, one of the main newspapers in Durban. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse, on the basis of both consensus and of further sources, though the article at the time of the AfD was borderline. And the first argument is imo, based on a reasonable interpretation of policy: a professional orchestra is exactly analogous to a professional sports team. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse - give me a break. A WP:NOEFFORT nomination statement followed by 0 delete votes, and you bring this to DRV? Stop wasting everyone's time. If people still think the article should be deleted, then relist it with a better rationale, but don't bring it to DRV and accuse the closer of incorrectly closing it as keep. If it had been closed as anything other than keep, it would have been at DRV in a heartbeat. —SW— ^communicate 04:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)