Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 May 10

10 May 2019

Chuck Whittall

Chuck Whittall (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe that Closer Jo-Jo Eumerus has erred in closing this article with delete. I see no WP:CONSENSUS for a delete of the article after 4 weeks of afd. After clear consensus to keep in week 3, the afd was extended a fourth week which produced one delete and one weak delete. In addition the original nominator was not confident in the rationale for nomination "Not sure he passes WP:GNG" I am requesting the undeletion of the article per Wikipedia policy no consensus keep (4 weeks of discussion yielded no consensus). I have questioned the closer on the closer's talk page and found the explanation not in accordance with wikipedia policy. Another user has also expressed concern on the closer's talk page. Lubbad85 (☎) 18:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I've seen this request and commented on my talk page about it. In my assessment, the delete consensus exist mainly by virtue of the uncontested claim by the delete camp that the coverage, even when it exists, is not about the subject and only mentions him in passing. As for the third relist, at that point we had one potentially detailed source by Dream Focus, a unsupported argument by Lubbad85, and the statements by the nominator and Comatmebro that the coverage did not appear to satisfy WP:SIGCOV criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse (copied largely over from Jo-JO's talk page where I was unaware this had been opened) I think there's an article to be had on the topic of his company. However in terms of coverage that I would say that I didn't find anything which would support a BLP - it just wasn't there for me. The only thing that gave me pause at all, and led to the weak delete, is that he does seem to be famous with-in his area (Orlando if I recall). I'm not saying anything new that I didn't say there. The fact is that there are only so many sysops working at AfD and so Jo-Jo acted up on this more than once does not trouble me in the least especially as the second relist was done by a different sysop. As Jo-Jo knows I'm not a huge fan of third relists without explanation and I think it's possible to have closed it as keep after the second relist when there was no comment. However, it was relisted a third time and two delete comments came in which seemed to have carried the policy weight - correctly in my judgement (but then I would say that given my !vote) - and so I don't see how you unring that bell. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn the original decision in accordance with Wikipedia's no consensus Keep policy. One weak nomination, one weak Delete and one delete. Two strong keep votes. A no consensus keep is the right closure action. There was ample time to gain consensus during the 4 weeks of afd Lubbad85 (☎) 19:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse (I was a participant in the AfD, but I'm trying to leave opinions aside and look at this as if I were an admin evaluating the article.) Lubba has a pretty narrow view of what "consensus" is, and looking at his hectoring of other admins over closes and relisting it seems pretty much "consensus is what I want it to be." Two administrators decided to relist, and I see no reason to dispute that opinion. I would have done the same. My only issue with Sandstein and Jo-jo's relists is that they really should have added commentary on what needed consensus or clarification/debate per WP:RELIST. It's more useful than a straight relist with no commentary and helps ward off these sorts of accusations of 'abusive relisting.' @Lubbad85: You are fundamentally misunderstanding how consensus works. It's not a balancing equation of "weak" and "strong" votes but of arguments based in guidelines and policy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

User:David Fuchs I am not sure I would characterize my communication as heckling. I was appropriate and measured, I disagreed and voiced that on the appropriate talk page...and I thanked the admin for response. It is very appropriate for me to question those actions that appear to be "not within Wikipedia policy". You are also characterizing my comments as saying there is consensus on the Afd - there is not. Which is why keep is the right course of action. The article can always be renominated. WP:RUSHDELETE instead the closer inflicted "wikipedia capital punishment" on this article. WP:Not paper. There is time to delete it later if that is consensus. The action was premature. Lubbad85 (☎) 20:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse. Maybe some would have preferred for another admin to close the discussion and maybe some would have preferred the AfD closed after the 1st or 2nd relist as no consensus, but I don't see how no consensus would be appropriate after the GNG challenge is well supported and not in any way countered. The relists and close were well within discretion, and I don't think a no consensus would be. As a side note, Lubbad85 I'm fairly sure the nomination counts as a !vote to overturn, like it counts as a delete by default in XfDs, so you don't really need to specify your !vote again. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse- As mentioned above, it could have been closed as keep or no consensus before one of the two last relists. But after the last relist we got two substantial, well-argued posts that refuted the previous keep !votes. We can't chuck those in the trash just because some people would prefer it not to have been relisted so often. Reyk _YO! 07:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse several people agreed with the nominator that the notability guidelines aren't satisfied and they effectively rebutted the arguments that they were. Relisting three times is the maximum that is usually permitted, but it is permitted and it did produce a consensus for deletion. Hut 8.5 11:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Olympia Nelson

Olympia Nelson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The administrator who closed the AFD, Seraphimblade, declined, when I requested userification, saying those who called for deletion had claimed their opinion was justified by BLP.

While it is true that the nominator and two contributors who weighed in, did say they were basing their opinions on BLP, specifically BLP1E, those claims were transparently incorrect, as Nelson clearly had two events in her young life, separated by half a decade.

Note: the nominator and one of the two contributors who voiced delete were indefinitely blocked for long term disruptive editing, not long after this AFD closed.

I am requesting userification of the article, and its talk page too, please. Geo Swan (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I can't see the article as I don't have admin vision but reading over that AfD I have to say that numerous comments, both in response to others and unprompted, by the appellant shouldn't hide that the consensus was correctly assessed. If there are BLP issues, especially about someone who would have been a child in what was being written about, that would indeed argue against allowing the article to be userified. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
• Allow userfication. The arguments about BLP1E seem to be that the first event (being a naked model) is notable but the second (being the author of an op-ed) isn't, and the first event should be covered on her mother's article - this seems to me to be an argument for a merge and redirect (or just a redirect if everything is covered there already) rather than deletion, and this would leave the history available for if/when she does something else that is clearly notable. If on the other hand we accept that the second event is also notable then BLP1E is not a reason for deletion. A large part of the motivation for nomination does seem to be "a creepy person was linking to this article", which is not a reason for deletion (if it was we'd be deleting large swathes of the encyclopaedia). Given all this, the poorly attended AfD (of the four users expressing opinions two have since been blocked, and both of them seem to have spent considerable energy hounding the article's principle contributor), that the discussion is 18 months old, and none of the comments seem to be alleging the article was a BLP violation (and I don't see anything obvious in a scan of the deleted article), I don't see a reason not to allow userfication if Geo Swan wants to work on improving it. Thryduulf (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Google keeps tuning its search engine to make it more useful for general readers - which has meant seriously eroding its usefulness for serious users, like wikipedia contributors. When I worked on the article, in 2017, I found a relatively large number of both serious newspapers republishing her op-ed, or commenting on her op-ed, or both. And I found multiple scholars, writing about the peer-pressure teenage girls experienced, who quoted her - the only actual articulate teenage girl to write something really notable about this issue.

    My recollection is that I thought the op-ed was the more important event.

    When I approached Seraphimblade I looked for an email address for Ms Nelson, or reasonable equivalent. I found an online presence, told her I thought her article could be restored. When an individual's notability is near the cusp of our inclusion criteria, we generally agree to delete, as a courtesy, when the BLP subject requests deletion. I offered to email her the last version of the article, and told her I would not work to get it restored, if she was uncomfortable about being covered. I figure she is near enough to the cusp to offer this courtesy prior to doing more work on it.

    Of course I won't be able to follow through on this offer if I can't get access to a copy. Geo Swan (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse An I the on!y one who thinks contacting the subject is a bit creepy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)