Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 July 14

14 July 2024

Thomas Matthew Crooks

Thomas Matthew Crooks (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A user SNOW-closed a discussion after just 5 hours, so short some people in certain time zones can’t respond, and on their talk page, refused to re-open the discussion. And while keepers cited how BIO1E does not apply, this does not take into consideration the WP:RECENTISM concerns, which went unaddressed.Downerr2937 (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Relist Absolutely zero rationale for such an early closure. Based on the policy arguments there wasn't clear consensus for keep. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Kcmastrpc Which action do you support from WP:DRV#Commenting_in_a_deletion_review? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Updated. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse – the consensus was quite overwhelming. Considering the deletion request was based on WP:BLP1E, it stands to reason the majority of 'keep' votes would be addressing it. I would also disagree that concerns regarding WP:RECENTISM were unaddressed; plenty of editors highlighted the article's notability and widespread coverage, particularly with reference to past assassination attempts. I fail to see the value in reopening it, to be honest. GhostOfNoMeme 17:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• The close of this AfD was blatantly inaccurate. There were no "strong policy-based arguments" for an aricle, only for inclusion. Qwirkle (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment as closer. WP:SNOW is a shorthand for taking decisive action to avoid "long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions". I felt, reading over the discussion, that consensus was overwhelmingly in favor of keep, and backed by policy-based arguments. From my point of view, we could spend a full week arguing over the AfD, which would then be closed as keep, or I could close it as keep immediately, reflecting the consensus and saving a lot of editors a lot of time. I did not see any scenario in which this AfD was closed as anything other than keep given the !votes of editors so far, our policies, and the simple fact that over the next 7 days, *more* information is likely to come to light about Crooks, and *more* reliable journalistic profiles are going to be written about him. This is not a case of WP:IAR, but it is a case of WP:NOT a bureaucracy. We are not a bureaucracy, and my close was intended to reflect the discussion's overwhelming consensus and save us all some time and thousands of words of argument. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Which, put another way, was to ignore the strengths of the arguments, and treat this as a simple vote.Qwirkle (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  If I was not clear, what I mean is that the policy-based arguments for 'Keep', specifically, were stronger than the policy-based arguments for 'Redirect' (by far the second-most common position). This was not a vote and I did not read it as such. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense. Looking at the first few votes, I see blatant "other crap exists" arguments. Mmoving downward, I see notability arguments - which do not, at all, justify a separate article, only inclusion . I see a great many people whose balls are apparently crystal, justifying retention because surely an article's worth of information is bound to surface in a day..or a week...fortnight...century.

Vote, done to lessen Dramah. That I get, but I do not think it s a good idea.Qwirkle (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Notability is important due to the third condition of WP:BLP1E, on which the deletion proposal was based. The third condition is clearly not satisfied, owing to the significance of the event and the perpetrator's notability.

"John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented."

This is why the notability discussion.

Continuing the AfD seems like a pointless exercise considering the consensus and weakness (in my view) of the arguments to redirect. GhostOfNoMeme 17:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Relist, the process was short circuited and closed with a rationale that clearly endorses WP:NOTAVOTE ideals than actually looking at the consensus of arguments for and against. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse The vote was overwhelming. Also, I will add that it is a bit strange that the nominee has very few edits and the account was made only 2 weeks ago and they are already aware of terms like "SNOW-closed", "BIO1E" and "WP:RECENTISM"... suspicious is all I'll say.... Inexpiable (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  You may be onto something. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse - While it was preferable that the AfD be kept open longer, there was no way a consensus to delete or redirect were going to happen. --MuZemike 18:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is a worldwide project, your comment fails to address the fact that editors in some timezones were never given a chance to participate. Your comment also fails to address that it was not a WP:SNOW close, as even by the numbers, there were a not insignificant number of !votes to merge, redirect or delete. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse - It is possible the AfD vote can be revisited at a later time once the fire dies down, but the consensus to keep was there. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 18:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Certainly not a WP:SNOW keep, which is what was done. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment The AFD was only around 2/3 in favor of keeping, with strong arguments on both sides. There is a consensus to keep at the time but that close, so early is inappropriate especially when certain editors will not even get to participate, myself included, who would’ve voted redirect if given the opportunity.Downerr2937 (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The odds of a strong consensus to redirect emerging were astronomically remote. 'Keep' was a clear majority, and the longer the AfD remained open the larger, IMO, that majority would have become as coverage inevitably grows over the coming week. That you didn't get to participate is unfortunate, but I question the value in relisting the AfD. The conclusion was never going to be anything other than to keep. It seems like an exercise in pointlessness. GhostOfNoMeme 18:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy close. Based on the discussion, and precedent on other attempted assassins, there is zero chance that the result would be an outright deletion. It is possible, albeit very unlikely, that a "redirect" outcome could emerge, but that is a discussion for an article talkpage, and does not require an AFD to be open. Keeping the AFD open is a time sink. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Is the guy that shot Robert Fico on Wikipedia? Why are we giving the Trump assassin any publicity? He is not famous or notable. No reason he should be on Wikipedia. Kyūka96 (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, he has his own page on the Slovakian-language Wikipedia: Juraj Cintula. Donald Trump is the former president of the United States; considerably more notable, especially for the English-language Wikipedia. :) GhostOfNoMeme 19:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse no reason to run 7 days when it predominantly snow. It was a clear GNG pass with sigcov. Bruxton (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn the snowball close and Relist:
  • • The appellant's point about timezones is well taken. Editors in some parts of the world would not have been able to participate in the AFD.
    • There is a distinction between a Speedy Keep and a Snowball close. The guidelines for Speedy Keep state that they should not be confused. The closer has confused them. A closer who confuses a Speedy Keep close and a Snowball close is a closer who has not reviewed the relevant guidelines in sufficient detail to be making either a Speedy Keep close or a Snowball close. There is no way that this could have been a Speedy Keep. It might have been a Snowball close, but calling the two types of close the same thing shows undue haste.
    • I have tagged the article with {{delrev}}.
    • 56-32 isn't overwhelming. There were policy-based arguments for both Keep and Redirect, and no need for an early close. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse/Keep, What a waste of time. The idea of RECENTISM is hardly a reason, as many historic and notable events are routinely cited with recent news stories and such. I've seen no "strong arguments" that support deletion of the article, before, or now. All assassins and would be assassins have articles for the same reason this one has. What is so unique about this article that it should be deleted?? If an another discussion was initiated, we would only have to relist the prior voters, and wait for the same overwhelming consensus to keep the article all over again. Someone should SNOW close this peckish and ridiculous discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse/Keep For the same reason as the previous deletion. "John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented." Self explanatory! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyexpert2 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS would apply when other stuff does not follow policy. Other stuff was used as an example of policy. Also, not all three prongs were met. More people saying the same thing more and more could not have helped the closed-circle discussion; it could only have progressed that way per WP:SNOW. BarntToust (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse I don't necessarily agree with the KEEP decision (personally I think the redirect arguments based on WP:BLP1E have some weight), but consensus is never going to be anything other than KEEP even if the article is relisted, which is why SNOW was appropriate in this case. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• overturn Most keep votes assumed that there will eventually be enough info for a separate article, ignoring that there isn't such information now. Consensus on a bad position is not what we are about. Mangoe (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  To note, the article has gotten much more expansion now. the most votes were right! BarntToust (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  There's already enough for a separate article; by the end of the AfD - 7 days later - there will be even more. It was always going to be a Keep vote. GhostOfNoMeme 18:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Wikipedia gives this guy an article and a smiling picture, meanwhile Brenton Tarrant gets no article and no picture. Speaks volumes about Wikipedia's inconsistency and bias... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)