Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 25

25 October 2009

David Shankbone

David Shankbone (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

According to WP:AFD, discussions should be open for at least seven days. The closer's response to me was "Seven hours over the course of a week isn't a terribly large amount of time." I think in discussions such as these (the particularly high profile cases), it is important to let discussions run their full course. It's also questionable to me that just the right number of votes were considered invalid to arrive at the magic percentage of 60% (consensus) in support of keep. Furthermore, regarding the final closing statement of "I feel as though there is a strong consensus here that, based on policy-related arguments including notability, neutrality, and verifiability," I fail to see how a strong consensus could be pulled form this discussion, much less in support of keeping, and it seems to me that WP:BLP was not given sufficient consideration when attributing weight to arguments. "[W]e should take [a] very high moral and ethical approach to BLPs."[1] Lara 17:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn — the closer did not give appropriate weight to the cromulent pro-delete reasons, which are significant since this is a biography of a living person. @harej 18:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn BLP articles should be given special consideration, and discussion should not be stifled, whether for a few hours or minutes. Early closure was inappropriate. Additionally, it was clearly a no-consensus deal, which with BLPs defaults to delete. Majorly talk 18:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • People keep on claiming that "no consensus" with BLPs defaults to delete but where exactly is this written down? Regards SoWhy 18:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
    • In the deletion policy, of course. Majorly talk 18:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
      • It says that an XFD without consensus may be closed as "delete" but not that every "no consensus" closure defaults to "delete", does it? Regards SoWhy 18:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
        • It says may, but it does not say may be closed as delete either. Therefore I take it to mean delete unless there is a good reason not to. Majorly talk 18:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn: Strongly. In high-profile AFDs, there is a much stronger requirement to follow the letter of the policies. Try holding your breath for seven hours or going into work seven hours early. This wasn't a matter of minutes. It should be re-opened, and I'm frankly appalled that Hersfold didn't simply reverse himself after admitting he was in error. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - It was interesting that Hersfold closed it far earlier than he did. I was in the process of writing up a closure rationale to close it on time later in the evening, though I would have looked over the comments made this afternoon and incorporated them into my closing statement. I feel that instead of going into reasons why I disagreed with Hersfold, I'll post what would have been my closing rationale. As for one part of Hersfold's decision, I disagree with the decision to discount per X votes that were repetitive of other solid rationales. In an AfD of this magnitude, there is obviously little one can do at certain points if everything to say had already been said. NW (Talk) 18:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Many Wikipedians contributed to this discussion and generally split themselves into one of a few camps: (1) those who participated only to ascribe either the AfD or the article itself to Wikipolitics, (2) those who gave weak arguments to keep or delete the article, (3) those who felt that the sources provided met the notability criteria for biographies, (4) those who felt that the sources provided did not meet the notability criteria for biographies, (5) and those who felt that the subject had marginal notability but ought to be deleted anyway. As the first two group were obviously discounted, we must look at the latter three to see if a consensus can be gathered from them. Those who made valid arguments to keep the article often cited the fact that Mr. Miller had a detailed interview with the Columbia Journalism Review in Jan/Feb 2009 which focused primarily on him.[2] Several other newspapers and magazines were cited as potential sources, though these seem to be less focused on Mr. Miller and also deal with other issues. Thus it is not a clear case of the "significant coverage in reliable sources" of WP:GNG being met. Other points brought up were the fact that he was the first citizen-journalist to interview a sitting head of state. However, this is not the case. He was merely the first Wikinews accredited editor to do so. Others argued that his photography had been used in reputable publications such as The Guardian and The New York Times, but the fact that his work has been used in major newspapers is not necessarily indicative of notability, and in Mr. Miller's case does not appear to satisfy WP:CREATIVE. Weighing the arguments of groups 3 and 4 and reviewing the sources against our inclusion criteria, it does appear that Mr. Miller is in a gray area of notability. Finally, taking into consideration the arguments of group 5 whose primary concerns are WP:BLP and do no harm (already evident in the article's history), I am closing this discussion as delete.

This would have been my closing rationale, if my comment above was unclear. NW (Talk) 18:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn - for a number of reasons. The closer was overly dismissive of the delete arguments and applied too much weight to WP:PERNOM. Also, Jimmy made a very strong appeal to delete, which didn't appear to factor into the overall close rationale. Furthermore, the AfD should have been allowed to go to closure and not be an early close, especially given how busy and how contentious it's been - Alison ^❤ 18:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse 7 hours amounts to very little over the course of a week, the closing admin did not intentionally close it early and I think it makes no difference to the results. I feel that BLP issues were given a good response and that most of the concerns were about potential future issues. I think the closure accurately reflected the communities expectations regarding deletion. Chillum 18:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse: whatever you make of the timing issue, there is no way to get to a different outcome here, as there was nothing close to a consensus to delete. And why do people keep saying that no consensus defaults to delete? It's not true, no matter how much some people wish it were true. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Please read this very carefully. Majorly talk 18:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Policies change as tradition changes. The tradition has changed. Lara 18:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn There is no way this was a valid "keep". More than a few valid votes were discounted that should not have been, and the fact that it was so early does not help - I'd support overturning just based on that. — Jake Wartenberg 18:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist for being closed too early. We need to strictly enforce the minimum duration of AfDs. Otherwise, we provide an incentive for administrators to abuse the wide discretion they have in closing AfDs. If we tolerate early closures, I as an administrator can make sure that I myself close all AfD I personally care about, by closing them a little early, and by doing so I can make sure that the outcome is the one I favor. We should not encourage this. What we should do is do all we can to make sure that uninvolved, random administrators close AfDs, and we best do that by enforcing the minimum duration. (I'm not saying any intentional abuse happened in this case, and I have no opinion about the merits of this specific closure.)  Sandstein  18:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse: Responding directly to the "it had a few hours remaining" arguments, protecting biographies of living people is about common sense, not about blind bureaucracy; it is highly improbable (per the reasoned and transparent closing rationale given) that the same administrator would have closed the discussion with any other result a few hours later, even if there had been a flood of sound last minute deletion arguments. That being said, I would have determined the outcome of the discussion to have been different from the determination User:Hersfold reached, but I can objectively see why he reached the conclusion he did. There is no violation of process here that harms the project (any future predictions of falling sky notwithstanding), and an overturn would not result in a different outcome. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• "it is highly improbable (per the reasoned and transparent closing rationale given) that the same administrator would have closed the discussion with any other result a few hours later, even if there had been a flood of sound last minute deletion arguments." Reallly? You think "a flood of sound last minute deletion arguments" would have been ignored by the closing admin? And this is supposed to serve as a supportive comment on the closer? Lara 18:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn per harej. --John (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse - A very rational and cogent closing decision and well articulated. Where's the beef (BLP)? Shankbone isn't asking for deletion and there are no BLP issues that require deletion, and certainly none that can't be handled within the normal article editing process. And it was six hours early, not seven. No process issues here than amount to anything significant. There is no "default to delete". I guess this AfD would have gone to DRV either way. — Becksguy (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn - I was in the process of writing up a comment on this matter, knowing that there was still several hours before this would be closed, and was astonished to find that, when I went back to the page to check a fact, the matter had been closed. I think there is a very good chance other people were also planning on commenting today. It's also clear that the closing admin is of the impression that any other opinions would not have swayed his decision.[3] This needs to be reopened, if not restarted right from Square One. Risker (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse- Seven hours? Really? We're going to quibble over seven hours? There was nothing wrong with that close that I can see. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Is 14 hours ok? --Tom (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn I argued for a delete at the AFD, but I can agree with Hersfold's conclusion that the COG of the discussion was closer to a keep, or at best "no consensus". However I don't see any justification for an early close against AFD guidelines, and while I agree that the result is unlikely to change, I think this is a bad practice in general since it leaves open the door for admins gaming the system by ensuring that they are the ones that close. To be very clear: I believe am confident that that was not an issue in this case, but I would like to see the practice of early closure discouraged especially for contentious AFDs. Abecedare (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who say CfD is broken

Category:Wikipedians who say CfD is broken (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing administrator seems to have cast his own vote, without any relevance to the discussion at hand. The closing administrator seems to improperly conflate votes to delete with votes to rename, arguing at his user talk page that a rename indicates that the category should not exist under its current name and is equivalent to delete. There was no consensus here for deletion. There was consensus to rename, and the closing administrator could have simply selected the most appropriate alternative name as long as he was casting a supervote. In reality, the disparate range of votes here makes this a no consensus. The choice to delete, the most disruptive possible option under the circumstances, is not only rather WP:POINTy, but unsupported by the votes actually cast in the discussion. Responding to a "general sink of petty snarking" by casting a snarky close for deletion only amplifies the problems with the close and the problems at CfD, with all discussion of alternative means of improving the CfD process has been deliberately tossed into the bit bucket. The decision was out of process and should be closed properly as a rname or no consensus. Alansohn (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist I agree with Alansohn that the closing rationale sounds very much like the closing administrator has closed the discussion according to a personal analysis instead of the consensus. I cannot see any consensus for deletion in the discussion itself nor is there any other consensus, as such, it should be relisted to achieve a clear consensus to act on. Regards SoWhy 15:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist The Xdamr's rationale is clearly a case of closing the discussion according to a personal analysis instead of according to the consensus. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 16:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist- Consensus was not for delete in that debate, as far as I can tell. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist. It is clear from the closer's rationale that xe's personal view was inappropriately given great weight in the closure. Given the discussion, which I have difficulty discerning a consensus from, there is a reasonable probability that, but for the error, the result would have been different. Relisting is appropriate in such circumstances. Tim Song (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not sure how effective a relist would be. Most active people who care about user categories have already participated, and a large chunk of the community doesn't care enough about them to participate if it were relisted. I really can only see 1, maybe 2 more participants adding their opinion to the discussion, which probably wouldn't be enough to generate a more decisive consensus. I'd support a relist if everyone participating in this DRV who hasn't already given their opinion at the debate commited to doing so after relisting. As the closure didn't preclude creation of a similarly named category, and most participants agreed to a rename (in some form or another), I would suggest simply creating the category under a better name (preferably one suggested in the Cfd, or one similar to a suggested one). VegaDark (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and relisting is optional. The closer doesn't mention anything about the consensus of the debate they were closing, just gives their own opinion on deletion. If you feel so strongly, make a comment, don't close the discussion. Closers shouldn't be supervoters... it trivializes discussions. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Paul LaViolette

Paul LaViolette (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This one ought to have been no consensus. There were at least eight editors arguing for keep, and even the closer agreed (here, post at 15:54) that our arguments are valid. As Juliancolton says, the decision to delete depended on the fact of the subject's request -- but if even he accepts that in this case one should not give weight to the subject's request, then again it is hard to see that there was a consensus to delete, given the number of editors arguing keep on that ground, or that one could delete despite no consensus. There is also the substantive point to consider: if a subject requests deletion only after attempts to control the page have failed (as in this case), it ought to be clear that they are not really seeking privacy but only control, and honoring the request is then a manipulation that subverts NPOV. But beyond the general question, for this particular AfD ignoring all those keep views can't possibly be described as consensus, especially when one accepts that their arguments are valid. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• BLP allows an AFD closer to delete a marginal BLP if the subject requests deletion. I can't see any incorrect application of deletion policy here so I Endorse. The argument is not about consensus but whether or not this is a marginaly notable individual. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse BLP articles ought to default to delete in no consensus cases. Therefore endorse delete to help establish precedent that it does come out that way at least some of the time (and should come out that way all the time). Further, the subject requested deletion. Marginal notability cases, subject request is sufficient reason to delete. Therefore endorse on those grounds as well. ++Lar: t/c 16:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. Subject requested deletion, notability was marginal at best (multiple keep voters acknowledged it as well). Also, no consensus should default to delete on BLPs anyway, as Lar noted. Policies are changed by tradition, and this isn't a new thing. It's not in policy yet, but the tradition is already well on the side of this. Not only that, but Jimbo agrees that those of marginal notability should be able to opt-out. Lara 16:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - Notability was marginal, subject requested deletion, which is a valid thing to take into account per this guideline. NW (Talk) 16:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - I'm not seeing anything clearly erroneous here. The closer appropriately took into account the subject's wishes, and it seems to me that consensus here is that notability is marginal. Tim Song (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)