I believe the closing reasoning did not accurately summarize the side arguing in favor of keeping the article.
The closer dismissed the arguments as simply violating WP:OTHER and not making any other arguments, both of which I believe are incorrect.
First, I am well aware of WP:OTHER, which is why I made sure I followed from within that rule While comparing with other articles is not, in general, a convincing argument, comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, makes a much more credible case. and I made comparisons to featured articles.
Second, there were indeed other arguments being made. These included the usefulness of being directed to multiple articles, understanding the subject better, or that discussions over the usefulness of sidebars should belong in a separate place. These arguments were not addressed in the closing.
Endorse. Closer evaluated consensus correctly. More generally, this argument is weak. Of course there are navboxes on FAs / GAs but this is really not that useful a point as the whole question is which navboxes make sense. Some topics meeting the bar doesn't mean other topics also meet the bar. The concerns of duplicativeness seem very valid - navbox spam is a problem. SnowFire (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2026 (UTC)reply
Of course there are navboxes on FAs / GAs but this is really not that useful a point as the whole question is which navboxes make sense. Some topics meeting the bar doesn't mean other topics also meet the bar. I made the comparison as I don't see any criteria under which these other articles would have needed the navbox but this wouldn't.
Overturn to NC 1) 3 of last 4 !votes are to keep, including 2 of 3 after relisting. Trend is to keep. 2) Reasoning is not sufficiently lopsided to deride all the keeps as OSE. "Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTDATABASE." is a textbook WP:VAGUEWAVE and we have one PERNOM: the Delete side is not a shining beacon of anything here. Overall, I don't see a consensus, nor that deletion is within admin closer discretion--and this was a NAC. Jclemens (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2026 (UTC)reply
Overturn to No Consensus. Both Keep and Delete are weak, so there is no consensus based on strength of arguments, and there is no consensus based on counting votes. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2026 (UTC)reply
So, since you're here... I didn't particularly see your argument as being that much better, just arguing that Abraham is a too-broad topic for such. Entirely possibly correct, but not particularly compelling from a policy standpoint, is it? Or am I missing something? Jclemens (talk) 08:17, 13 April 2026 (UTC)reply
Our policy for sidebar templates is based largely on the appropriateness of the topic. If the topic and the entries are not "tightly related" per WP:SIDEBAR we should not have it. Further, what's the policy based argument for keeping it? None has been supplied and it does not seem to fit the majority of the guidelines at WP:NAVBOX. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2026 (UTC)reply
Endorse (as closer). The only !votes to keep amounted to the literally definition of WP:OTHER with comments like The merits of this sidebar seem indistinguishable from those of Template:Moses. User is unhappy things didn't go their way and I will note first tried to take this to WP:ANI with this post in a bizarre attempt to have me sanctioned for my closure. Additionally Wikieditor662's claims about featured articles or good articles have nothing at all to do with this template. We are not discussing articles, but a tempalte. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:46, 12 April 2026 (UTC)reply
I agree that the example you made was a violation of WP:OTHER, but I think it was the only one that did so. Any other examples would be appreciated.
Also, @Zackmann08 taking this to WP:AN was not an attempt to have you sanctioned; it was a mistake, as I thought you request the undeletion there, as I made a previous RfC overturn request there.
And the articles shown were examples that contained these templates. Since FA articles are role models, such templates would not have been contained there if they needed to have been deleted.
Oh please, they first tried to discuss it with you at your talk page, where you replied I stand by my decision but you are more than welcome to request a review, and then, when asked to elaborate on your reasoning, you came back with I think my closure summary explains my reasoning very clearly. If you disagree, that is totally fine and you are more than welcome to request a deletion review. They literally did exactly what you told them to do, and the fact that they initially did it at the wrong venue hardly makes it a bizarre attempt to have [you] sanctioned. XAM2175(T)23:39, 13 April 2026 (UTC)reply
overturn to NC. I believe the right way forward is to open a discussion about sidebars. In any case the arguments for deletion were basically "this template is overused" (which I think is true). The closer argues that arguments which point out that other, similar, templates exist are a WP:OTHER violation and should be ignored. But this is a about a template, not something where guidelines like WP:N exist. I'd argue this is closer to WP:OTHERCATSEXIST, a question of consistency of formatting and organization. So such arguments *are* quite relevant. In any case, I don't see consensus to delete and I don't think we quite get to keep. So... Hobit (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2026 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The subject meets the Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG) through multiple instances of significant, independent coverage in reliable sources.
Billboard provides industry-recognized coverage of the artist, including discussion of commercial performance and independent success: https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/five-times-august-1046687/.
CBS News offers mainstream editorial coverage of the subject’s career, including exposure through placements on major television programs, representing non-trivial independent discussion: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/second-cup-cafe-five-times-august-21-03-2008/.
Additionally, PopMatters published a full-length critical review of the artist’s album, providing substantive analysis of the subject’s work and positioning within the music landscape: https://www.popmatters.com/five-times-august-brighter-side-2496171118.html.
Further independent coverage is provided by the Dallas Observer, which discusses the subject’s media presence and music career: https://www.dallasobserver.com/uncategorized/five-times-august-pops-up-on-the-real-world-which-is-far-less-of-a-big-deal-than-it-sounds-7078905.
These sources are independent of the subject, editorial in nature, and provide more than trivial mention, collectively satisfying WP:GNG. The prior deletion appears to have undervalued the depth and diversity of available sourcing.
Given the presence of multiple reliable, independent sources with substantive coverage, restoration or draftification for improvement seems consistent with Wikipedia policy. Additional sourcing can also be incorporated to further strengthen the article if restored to draft space. Lyricalliberty (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2026 (UTC)reply
Deleting admin's comment: I G4'd this page responding to an applicable good faith tag by wikipedian User:KH-1. This subject was discussed at AfD in 2021 and these presented (2008-09 era) sources were available at that time, but were neither included in the article nor mentioned at the AfD. I'm not persuaded anything presented so far puts this subject past WP:NBAND or WP:NALBUM. Given Brad Skistimas was originally created and built exclusively by single purpose (and likely connected) accounts then later unanimously deleted at AfD, I'm not convinced my G4 deletion was the wrong call. I might change my mind, but I'd need to see much better sourcing. BusterD (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2026 (UTC)reply
The following reply has been added after the discussion was closed:
The sources cited (e.g., Billboard, CBS News, PopMatters) do not appear to have been meaningfully considered in the original AfD discussion, as they were not included in the article nor discussed. As such, they constitute previously unconsidered evidence relevant to notability under WP:GNG.
"Besides his recordings, Skistimas has made it very far as a DIY musician, with his music appearing on various television shows, commercials, and films. In fact, he appeared on the FOX Business Channel as an expert “Do-It-Yourself” indie artist."
"Early last year, Skistimas began releasing a series of protest songs as Five Times August that were directed towards Covid-19 pandemic-related lockdowns and restrictions and U.S. government officials’ handling of the situation. His single “Sad Little Man” really hit big, reaching the #1 position on various Amazon and Apple Music charts."
