Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 19

19 July 2011

Ellen Kennedy

Ellen Kennedy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Meets secondary guidelines, so the GNG does not matter. Consensus was that the first guideline at WP:ACTOR was met, but the closing administrator said that didn't matter because the GNG weren't. Consensus has long showed that as long as an article meets one of the guidelines it is notable, those guidelines existing since not every notable thing gets coverage. Spoke to closing administrator about this at [1] Dream Focus

The guideline is "discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first" (the bolding is mine); leaving a neutrally-phrased query is hardly "I have some concerns and am thinking about opening up a DRV, can you comment/reverse your decision", is it? I did not dispute whether or not the GNG was met - my issue was that WP:ACTOR was not met, and it's rather silly to suggest that "Consensus says X" when what consensus says is precisely what we were there (and here) to discuss. Ironholds (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

We discussed it. Your closing statement is clear. Consensus was to keep the article. Three said KEEP because WP:Actor was clearly met. One said delete because he didn't think it was. One said delete because it didn't matter if it met Actor or not, it had to meet GNG, and another said to delete because they didn't think it met WP:Verifiability. Your closing argument stated you thought it didn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability despite the fact that the information is referenced, other than what they have stared in which is in the credits of the shows and films they have worked on. WP:V is clearly met. Dream Focus 12:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Consensus is not a matter of mere bean-counting. Ironholds (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. You should also dismiss invalid arguments, such as the claim that meeting Actor doesn't make it notable, and that it absolutely needs coverage. Your closing arguments were quite clear. Hopefully everyone will take the time to read it before commenting here. Dream Focus 12:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." I'm disturbed by the trend that administrators who take the time to write decent closes are effectively being punished for doing so, in that quasi-legalistic arguments about the exact words they chose are being used to take a second bite. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to the article you closed that I sent to deletion review where your closing was undone? [2] Dream Focus 16:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - Another example of Dream Focus' denial that WP:V actually matters. The closing admin gave a very clear and detailed rationale, and then DF brings it to DRV with "Meets secondary guidelines, so the GNG does not matter." Since when does GNG not matter on any article? Clearly, he either didn't understand the closing rationale or just didn't read it. I think DF has been here long enough to know that secondary guidelines don't override the GNG, and there is nothing that is going to make the GNG "not matter" for a particular article. The secondary guidelines exist to provide us with an easy way to estimate whether an article passes GNG. In other words, if an athlete has accomplished x, y, or z (as covered by multiple reliable sources), then they probably pass the GNG. The secondary guidelines also give us an idea of what qualify as notable events in a particular field, so that even if an athlete has been covered by reliable sources for winning a high school tennis tournament, we can determine that such an achievement is not notable even though it is covered by reliable sources. —SW— ^express 19:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment on the issue at hand, not me. And I have been in enough AFDs to know that the secondary notability guidelines always matter, and always have mattered, for keeping something. Until very recently I never heard anyone say otherwise. Dream Focus 22:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:Other stuff exists apply to deletion discussions? Dream, I don't think there is any precedence which will be created from this one badly closed Deletion review. Instead, there is a general trend toward a more closed site, with increasingly more good faith contributions being purged. The majority of active editors who are in leadership and who write policy have the same constricted view on wikipedia that Jimbo has. In this very deletion discussion, I see a "whos who" of editors who share this constricted view, and also happen to be admins. That is no accident. In the big picture, this deletion review is not important, it is just one more indication of hundreds showing this negative trend, a trend which you can't change. Okip 20:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse- This appears to be to be a close made according to strength of arguments rather than just strength of numbers, and the closer gave a very sensible and detailed rationale. This DRV nomination leaves a lot to be desired as well. Firstly, it is not true that secondary guidelines trump the GNG- they never have and, hopefully, never will. Secondly, DF did not "discuss" the close with Ironholds at all- just repeating your keep vote on an Admin's talk page isn't really discussion is it? Finally I agree with Aaron Brenneman's observation that closing administrators are increasingly being attacked for leaving good rationales. This needs to stop. Reyk _YO! 20:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• There's a lot of things wrong here, and I'm conflicted about it. Dr Ellen Kennedy is arguably notable, and indeed she already has an article at Ellen J. Kennedy. Professor Ellen Kennedy is also quite arguably notable, and she doesn't have an article at all. Ellen Kennedy the voice actress doesn't seem notable to me. The discussion was unsatisfactory in that it failed to consider the possibility of a redirect to Ellen J. Kennedy. Per WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, it should have done. So we have a questionable discussion.

  A corollary and a consequence of Ironholds' close is that the general notability guideline overrules specific notability guidelines. I would dearly love for that to be correct. If it is correct, then let's start demoting all the SNGs to essay status right now—beginning with WP:PORNBIO, please. But, is there any consensus to that effect? Link it for me.

  If there's no such consensus, then we don't have a consensus-based close. What we would have in that case would be a close based on the closer's personal reasoning, which is spelt "supervote". I think closes like this (and this isn't the only example) show that my remarks in Ironholds' 5th RFA were right on the money.

  Reserving my !vote for the time being until there's been more discussion.—S Marshall T/C 20:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Hold on a moment, redirect an article about one person to an article about some other person? That's not common practice. Best practice would be to delete the info on a non-notable person, and then create the redirect. Or better yet, Move the undoubtedly notable Ellen J. Kennedy to the simple Ellen Kennedy title. A redirect to an entirely different topic would have been a very, very odd outcome to the AFD indeed. Courcelles 21:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Why would it be odd?—S Marshall T/C 21:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Because the redirect's history would have a bunch of stuff in it about a different Ellen Kennedy. It would be far better to delete the article and then create a fresh redirect without a confusing history. In any case, this argument is no reason to invalidate the entire result of the AfD. If you think there should be a redirect, then there is nothing stopping anyone from creating it. The AfD doesn't need to be overturned to allow for the creation of a redirect. Also, every SNG includes some requirement that the article "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent..." (essentially a rehash of WP:GNG), so claiming that SNG's can override the GNG is perplexing. —SW— ^babble 22:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
        • I didn't say that the argument should invalidate the entire result of the AfD. What I said was that it was one of the things that were "wrong" with the discussion: Either none of the participants had done the few minutes' research necessary to find our article on Ellen J. Kennedy, or else they had found it but a redirect hadn't occurred to them as a possible outcome. Which means what while I'm sure the debate participants were in good faith, they were collectively either insufficiently attentive, or insufficiently competent, or both, to be making decisions about a BLP. See?

          I don't necessarily think that Ironholds was wrong. What I said was that I'm conflicted about it. I'd love to follow Spartaz in saying that our new practice is that all SNGs are subordinate to the GNG, at least insofar as they concern BLPs, and because policy documents practice, policy will eventually catch up.

          My concern is that our current rules don't say that. Going back to first principles, DRV's job is to check whether the deletion process was correctly followed. In this case, Ironholds followed a rule that we don't seem to actually have. Make sense?—S Marshall T/C 11:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus despite the completely inadequate rationale set forth by the nominator, probably relist. The AFD is a grisly mess, and never really discusses the issues it should. SNGs do not override the GNG, although meeting most SNGs will create a presumption of notability that can be overridden by a strong case that the subject fails the GNG. That case wasn't made here, because the delete arguments seemed to focus more on sourcing listed in the article than on overall available sourcing. I'd also note that a quick GBooks search suggests the Jessie Awards might pass the "well-known/significant" standards for awards, even though basic notability for an award might not be sufficient to demonstrate notability for all its recipients. Overall, the AFD never got to the issues it should have, and therefore the necessary consensus wasn't reached. And you know, I'm not even sure that I see a reliable source that says Ellen Kennedy, stage actress in Canada, is the same person as Ellen Kennedy, voice actor. The stage actress's website doesn't mention voice acting, but it does list a few live action films, which don't seem to turn up in the voice actress's IMDB credit list. This needs a better and more careful look. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - while SNG are useful, they do not negate the primary criteria of the need for verifiability, as the verifiability policy says The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. I am also concerned by the criticism being levelled at admins for leaving more detailed closing rationales - it seems that whatever we do in that regard we are criticised (a plain "The result was delete" is criticised as not being enough, a short rationale is likewise criticised - yet if we explain in more detail, then we are then accused of "supervotes" and the like) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse The relationships between the GNG and the specific notability guidelines are undefined, except in those instances where we may specifically define it. er. Hullabaloo, above,and SW, also above, are wrong when they say that SNGs never over-ride the GNG--they can over-ride it in either direction, depending on what we want them to do. The proof of this is very simply that the basic WP:N guideline says that the GNG is not the exclusive standard of notability. The standard in this and every case of notability in Wikipedia, using any guideline, is what is reasonable, not the literal word as would be interpreted by a robot. I do not think it was ever the intention of notability for performers to consider voice actors as of generally the same level of importance as the usual film or stage actors. (radio voice actors may be different again & might more realistically be considered as equivalent). I'd therefore say going just by my sense of reason that for a voice actor it would be reasonable to require a clearly major national level award, and I do not think that an award limited to Vancouver would be sufficient. The closer worded it differently, but I think he in essence meant just the same. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact she was a voice actor and not a regular actor wasn't a reason for closing it as delete though. He insist that the secondary guidelines, even if met, didn't matter. That ruling should be overturned. As for the voice actor bit, please be aware that the voices must convey emotions, it just like regular acting, only you don't see their faces. I linked to in another AFD, a large number of news sources that report when a notable voice actor, even those who have done nothing else but cartoons, has died, as well as those who mention them for other reasons. There are also reviews of things, including the first Gantz movie, which had horrible reviews of the voice actors for the America dub. This is a significant part of any movie, that can make it watchable or unwatchable, depending on the skill of those chosen for this important work. Dream Focus 00:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Dangit, ANN and IMDB list her as having a rather large set of contributions to diverse series. She's done a lot of work! I'm kind of surprised that there are no other sources that list her. It's sad that we still haven't found a way to work with sources that work just like ourselves (aka. eat our own dog food) , else this would have been a shoo-in. Endorse deletion for now, but without prejudice for recreation either when RS have been found in future, or alternately, if ANN and IMDB might become recognized as RS(-ish) in future. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Just pondering; we have documentation on referencing wikipedia, Might we use the same documentation as the basis for some guideline on referencing other user generated sites?

Wouldn't her name in the credits of these series be reliable sources? Primary sources are allowed if the information is not in doubt. She is already listed in the Wikipedia articles for these things. Also, the official websites of the shows and films list credits at times. PBS's Dinosaur Train for example. There was no doubt expressed she was in these things, or even that her work was notable, but whether the secondary notability guidelines of WP:ACTOR mattered if the GNG wasn't met. Dream Focus 00:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes but that is irrelevant to the issue at hand which is verifiable information and the application of notability for a BLP around GNG an sub guidelines. The inclusion standard for wikipedia is multiple secondary reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail. Comeon Dreamfocus I know you believe that there should be no inclusion barrier but please please when you are arguing at discussions try to keep your contributions at least loosely based on the guidelines. And anyway WP:NOT indoscrimate might apply here too. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Stay on topic and stop targeting me. Didn't you agree to stop closing AFDs after I brought one of your closures to deletion review and it was overturned? If you knew more about guidelines than me, would that have happened? Dream Focus 09:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Nice Ad hom. No I never agreed to stop closing AFDs. Where on earth did you get that from and how is that relevant to the issue? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Whoops. My mistake. After the deletion review at [3] you just took a Wikibreak for a bit [4]. I may have you confused with another editor. Dream Focus 15:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Look I can cherry pick diffs too Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse This is an interesting one. 2 years ago this would be an automatic overturn to keep as meeting a valid subguideline but there has been a tangible shift in attitudes over BLP since that time and community expectations about sourcing articles about people have definiately hardened. I'm also mindful that policy is what we do not what we say so I'm also basing my vote on my experience of what people say in AFDs and what DRV has been doing recently. My take is that the relationship between GNG and subguidelines has altered slightly and no doubt written policy will eventually catch up but the practical application is this. The community expects articles to be sourcable to be retained. They expect high standards of sourcing for BLPs and will not accept inclusion of articles where that sourcing doesn't exist and the concept of inherent notability for BLPs is not entirely depreciated but isn't being applied if proper searches for sources have failed to turn anything up and there are not reasonable expectations that sources can be found. The attitude to sub-guidelines standards is that they indicate where sources are very likely to exist but that where a thorough search has failed to turn anything detailed up then GNG has primacy over the sub-guideline. I have increasingly seen a lot of arguments to this effecrt over the last 12 months and DRV is increasingly willing to endorse deletions on that basis - especially for the weaker sub-guidelines such as PORNBIO which is now clearly depreciated by DRV at least. On that basis, I'm reading a very thorough search for detailed sourcing for a BLP that has not turned up anything useable. Applying administrative discretion to delete on the basis of acknowledging community expectations for sourcing BLPs over subguidelines seems entirely reasonable to be and consistent with how the community as a whole expects admins to close these difficult discussions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as community here. Its just whatever small random group of people show up to state their opinion. That's always been how things are determined. The only way to judge the community would be to have a strawpoll that got more than a dozen editors there. If the guidelines are relatively the same as before, then why is it they suddenly mean something else? And this isn't about it being a BLP, since all information is easily verifiable on the person's official website, and elsewhere. When books are nominated for deletion, despite meeting WP:NBOOK, will we delete them also? What about films and whatnot? Dream Focus 09:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Are books BLPs? No community? What interesting observations. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse - The SNG-clingers seem to forget about the "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" part. We are not robots, following a flow-chart to arrive at a decision. We are editors who can and should use editorial discretion on occasion to decide borderline notability cases. No fault in the closer's rationale is found. Tarc (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)