Premature closure. Substantial information had been added to the associated article's talk page and deletion discussion less than 24 hours prior to termination. Only two active participants since article was wholly unsourced, yielded zero known non-circular search results, listed incorrect geographical coordinates, and was generally indiscernible from a hoax. Associated discussion may be seen here. No prejudice against subsequent deletion if rescue is impossible. Suggest relisting. — C M B J10:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I can see the page in the Google cache, I'm not having any luck finding the sources listed on the talk page. Could someone list the 14 sources involved? I've asked at WP:IRAN for help evaluating the sources. Hobit (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd more than welcome collaboration from WP:IRAN if we can find someone willing and able, though I think we should avoid turning this into round 2 by debating content here. — C M B J23:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My issue with the debate was that largely it wasn't based on the sources--just people's sense if an intersection can be notable. As you pointed out, if it has coverage enough to meet WP:N it's at least potentially worth having an article on. So we really need to figure that out. This, IMO, is a case where the original debate was suffeciently flawed that a debate on the merits needs to happen again. We could just relist and hope for a more informed debate, but I think we should see if we can get language/subject experts involved so we are more likely to make the right decision. Hobit (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(closing admin) I have copied-and-pasted the sources above. It also might be useful to read the discussion between CMBJ and I on my talk page at User talk:GorillaWarfare#Paramount Intersection. There I have explained my reasoning as to why I did not feel that CMBJ's keep !vote was sufficient to sway the consensus, and xe has presented some arguments against it. – GorillaWarfare(talk)18:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relist When substantial relevant information is presented late in a discussion, the discussion needs to continue long enough to judge whether the information results in comments that might change the apparent conclusion. An admin is not permitted to judge whether the additional information changes the conclusion--that would amount to a supervote. The closer must let the community comment, before closing. If the closer should have a personal opinion on whether or not the information changes the result,as it seems from their talk page comments the closer did here, they should instead comment in the discussion, and let someone else close--all as usual. It seems obvious to me that the additional information was substantial and relevant; whether it would induce me to say keep is another matter, which I will consider if I decide to comment on the relisted discussion; it's not relevant to the decision to relist. (On the other hand, had the additional information been trivial, it need not be taken into account; this is a discussion the closer most make, but it seems here clearly more than trivial.) I strongly deprecate the practice of closing a non-obvious AfD discussion without a least a few words of rationale: such a practice would make these talk page discussions less necessary, and increase transparency of administrative decisions. I suggest that we require it. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. The nomination is fair enough but was refuted by new information; the first !vote is an entirely subjective near-rant from someone whose contributions are usually much better; the second simply endorses the previous arguments, neither of which hold up; the third is subjective; the sole keep !vote begins with a subjective rationale but goes on to list sources, which is better; the fourth delete is reasonable but doesn't address the new sources; and the fifth makes a (somewhat out-of-character) bare assertion with no reasoning to support it. That leaves just one, which attempts to address the sources but admits to not being able to read them and then states without evidence that the intersection fails the GNG. When the only policy-based rationales are either outdated or unsupported, the subjective ones are refutable in ten seconds and discussion is still ongoing, relisting seems like the only reasonable option. So let's have the sourcing debate properly. If it turns out that they don't provide enough coverage to convince people that the intersection meets the GNG, that's fine, but so far we haven't even come close to demonstrating that. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
endorse with userfy Alzarian16 has done insightful analysis and I fundamentally agree. However, I think a better way to handle this AfD is to use DRV to conclude that more sources have been found, and to enable re-creation of the article. This Google CID is not by itself definitive, but shows grey areas on all four sides of an intersection, and lends credibility to the possibility that this gathering area is notable. But re-creation should be done judiciously. If WP:IDENTIFIABILITY were a policy, and the existence of topic titles had to be verifiable, I doubt that the current title would be identifiable in the English language. I looked at three of the sources listed here in Google translate and they were minimal. Based on those three sources, "...the rallying point of numerous public gatherings and activist assemblies" is WP:SYNTH. A better map than the Google map would be helpful. Before creating an article, maybe this topic should be mentioned in Shiraz, Iran. Unscintillating (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
It was probably a mistake to close this AfD as a keep closure without reading the debate in its entirety. The rationale for nomination was nothing other than "unsourced BLP" and the first vote was "speedy keep" addressing the nomination reason. The second vote, a "redirect" was complaining about the article containing content no other than the band, thus not addressing the AfD nomination reason. I should have not closed it so early, and I think WP:RELIST should have been a better move to generate more clear consensus. Although it is worth mentioning that the user who made this review called this a s***y decision. --Bryce (talk | contribs)04:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
