Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 April 21

21 April 2016

Florence Devouard

Florence Devouard (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Nobody in this discussion offered any sources that would show that the subject passes the general notability guideline, and nobody explained how the reason given for keeping in the previous discussion, that the subject is a chevalier, the lowest level of membership, in the Ordre national du Mérite, an order with about 187,000 members, meets WP:ANYBIO. Most of the discussion consisted of name-calling and failure to assume good faith, so this should be relisted rather than closed as "keep". I discussed this with the closing administrator but he claimed that "in a AfD discussion, you have the burden to prove that the article does not meet the notability standard", which is obviously impossible to do for any article, because nobody can prove that sources don't exist, and then tried to fob me off with an accusation that I am an SPA, which, if you look at my contributions, is obviously untrue. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse. The exceptions raised here are mere disagreement with the consensus and a rehashing of the arguments below; under DRVPURPOSE ("Not" points 1 and 5), neither is a valid reason for overturning the close. (Disclosure: I voted "keep.")  Rebbing  18:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• No, what I am raising here is point 1 of the "may be used" side of WP:DRVPURPOSE, that the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly. There was hardly any discussion of the article or its subject, and that there was certainly didn't come to a consensus to keep, so this should be relisted. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Transparency: I speedily closed this, and I've been convinced that I was wrong to do so based on a conversation at the IP editor's talk page, so I've reopened it with apologies.—S Marshall T/C 21:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• The more I think about this, the more I come to the view that Yamamoto Ichiro's closure of this debate was correct. He was right to discount the SPA !votes. We're Wikipedians, and we're always taught to look not just at what the source says, but whether the source is reliable, has a good reputation for fact-checking, etc. Debate !votes have sources. When the debate !vote comes from an account with a long history of well-considered contributions it's given lots of weight. When it comes from someone without a history, or who is hiding their history as Luridaxiom plainly is, then that's rightly given less weight. We don't need to overturn this close. Instead, we need to rewrite WP:SPA so it tells the truth about how Wikipedians deal with people who have no checkable contribution history. Otherwise we'll end up having to give full point-by-point rebuttals to trolls, Wikipediocracy members and page-move vandals who like to use HAGGER???! as an edit summary and then reset their modem so as to join in a proper discussion. We have no reason to take people without a contribution history seriously.—S Marshall T/C 16:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• reply If you concede that WP:SPA needs to be re-written, then you surely also concede that "Luridaxiom" was operating within present policy and was entitled to full weightage by the closer. FYI the closer admin also has undeclared alternate account User:Ichiro101 and long gaps in his contribution history which may be contributing to poor judgment in recent AFD closures after his return. I look forward to reading your Wikipedian opinion of the inline refs, for eg. the 2 cited as evidence for Devouard's professional qualifications. Luridaxiom (talk) 06:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• What I concede is that the "Luridaxiom" identity was operating within FT2's essay WP:SPA, and that I think the closer gave that essay the appropriate amount of weight. If this was an AfD then I would be expressing a view of the quality of the references, and indeed looking to see if there are other references that are better, but it isn't so I'm not.—S Marshall T/C 15:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• So the closer could ignore objections in this instance that the references were non-existent, bogus and weak ? Obviously not a "Wikipedian" by your standards, ie. We're Wikipedians, and we're always taught to look not just at what the source says, but whether the source is reliable, has a good reputation for fact-checking, etc.. As a Wikipedian myself, I can recall a past Chairman of your own Wikimedia UK whose BLP references satisfy WP:N infinitely better than Devouard's but whose article was scrubbed with the edit summary .. bio based on one event and very low quality sources for a bio. 22:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luridaxiom (talk • contribs)

• I'm not associated with Wikimedia UK in any way at all. I'm a British bloke who volunteers as a Wikipedian, but I'm uninvolved with Wikimedia UK and I have no control whatsoever over anything it or its staff or volunteers might do. I don't necessarily approve of their actions or choices. I do choose to publish my real name with every edit, and my location, date of birth and photograph on my userpage, because I edit biographies of living people and I think it's appropriate that these people should know who I am. Who are you, and why are you not using your real account?—S Marshall T/C 22:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Re:"Who are you ?". As a Wikipedian, you would be well advised to read the WMF official privacy policy. Because we believe that you shouldn’t have to provide personal information to participate in the free knowledge movement, you may: *Read, edit, or use any Wikimedia Site without registering an account. *Register for an account without providing an email address or real name.. By this policy, the weightage given to edits by an IP or account without a real name is exactly equal to those by an editor with an account allegedly with their IRL name attached. Did you ask similarly ask the "mathematician/physicist/engineer" closer admin to verify that he is not impersonating an IRL "Ichiro Yamamoto" (google faculty: Nippon Veterinary and Life Science University, Tokyo) associated with the University of Alberta, or to explain the account's sparse contributions in the past 8 years which either suggests they need a policy refresher or that yet another defunct admin account has been compromised for paid editing, (eg. to promote Devouard's internet consulting business) in violation of law !!! 06:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment 2 of the 3 deletion !votes (including the nomination itself) in this XfD are made by SPA's. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• This comment exemplifies my reason for asking for relisting, as it is an ad hominem comment that doesn't address the issue at hand, just as most of the comments in the deletion discussion were. Can we please talk about whether particular comments in that discussion were valid arguments rather than about who made them? For example, can you point to one comment that was a valid argument for keeping? And can you explain why, as you said on your talk page, my argument for deletion was invalid? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• WP:SPA - a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comment given full weight regardless of any tag. Luridaxiom (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse solid close based on sources provided. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse. Refer 86.17.222.157 to Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse The history is 1/withdrawn , then no-consensus, then withdrawn. I consider withdrawn to be the same as keep, and I think a renomination should not take place for a considerable time, at least a year or two. Frankly, looking at the discussion at the latest afd, I would have closed it as a speedy keep on the grounds of evident malice and attempted retaliation. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• Eh, about the only person I can't find fault with here is the original closer of the discussion. The nomination was pretty clearly not made in good faith, the delete votes were from drive-by accounts, but none of the "Keep" votes made any attempt to demonstrate how she met our notability guidelines either. The closing admin can only work with what they're given, but I'm not sure where the comment about WP:N came from since nobody made any argument based on that other than unsupported assertions that she met the criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC).
• Relist. I am not IP 86.17.222.157 which can be verified by checkuser. The declared in advance SPA status of this user name does not invalidate my objections raised at the AfD. My other WMF global account (since 2004) is in good standing and active and I am hence an original contributing member of the WMF trust. The WP:BURDEN to retain challenged information is on those who assert it. Several of the inline sources for the article are bogus, self published or inferior. Had this been a BLP article for a non-Wikipedian such sources would have been unacceptable under policy. Lankiveil is correct in observing WP:N was never raised, however, WP:BLP1E was raised by me, but the closing admin never addressed my objection. The closing admin did not address the issue raised by the nominator and also IP:157 that the award of Chevalier is an insignificant one. Clearly the only issue here is whether there are double standards for BLPs of insiders (Wikimedians) qua those for outsiders. Luridaxiom (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse The closer provided sufficient, policy-based reason for the close. DRV is for errors in applying policy. It's not a general, all-purpose court of appeals for participants in an AfD who don't agree with the result. David in DC (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

This DRV is for discussion on the closers judgment, point #1. The closer failed to apply the applicable policy which regulates WP:N. Devouard is not known for anything significant outside of her Wikimedia voluntary work, hence the notability is squarely regulated by WP:BLP1E. Both sources being repeatedly reinserted by the "keep" !voters to justify Ms. Devoaurd's irrelevant and insignificant educational qualifications don't support in any way the claims made in the article. The nominator had correctly pointed out that WP:BIO for such persons requires she will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. to justify her notability. The keep side failed to provide any such sources. The "minimal enough coverage" statement in the close discloses the closer utterly failed to examine the below par quality of the inline citations, which have been highlighted time and again in this and all previous AfDs. Luridaxiom (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• weak endorse This does seem a bit too much inside baseball and I don't think most BLPs would survive an AfD with the relatively weak sourcing we've got on hand. That said, WP:N is a guideline and subject to interpretation at AfD. So while I, a fairly strong inclusionist, wouldn't have !voted to keep this, the sense of the discussion was that she met our inclusion guidelines. Further, it also feels like the folks arguing for deletion are _also_ playing inside baseball and have some kind of an ax to grind. That makes me a bit less sympathetic to similar issues on the other side... Hobit (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)