Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 26

The closing admin's rationale was obviously well thought-out, but I think it was the wrong way to close the debate. There were twice as many "keep" votes as "delete" votes, and "keep" votes outnumbered votes for all the other options combined. To me, this means that there needs to be a strong observation that the "keep" votes are not based in policy and that the "delete" votes are. Closing admin (Aaron Brenneman) did try to do this, saying that late "keep" votes failed to address the arguments put forward in earlier "delete" votes. However, this is both an unfair assessment of the late "keep" votes - plenty did address the INHERITED argument, with vote after vote observing that the reason he became notable does not erase the fact that all this coverage is of him and not of his wife, and that the purpose of NOTINHERITED is not to second-guess our sources when they decide that people are notable - and a failure to discount shallow "delete" votes that did not address arguments put forward in earlier "keep" votes. While deletion votes are not merely polls, the weight of policy that would have been needed in order to tip the discussion to the very-much minority view simply wasn't there. At the least, it should have been closed as no consensus.

Several users have brought up the matter with the closing admin at his user talk page, but it doesn't look like we're going to come to a satisfactory resolution there, due to things like said admin's reluctance to discuss parts of his closing rationale, explain why he did not consider a no consensus close, etc. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to "No consensus". It is my understanding that the closing administrator is supposed to determine what the consensus of the discussion was, not to cast a "super!vote" based on their agreeing with one side or the other. If they feel like engaging in the argument, they are supposed to post their comments and let someone else close the discussion. In this case, the closer's comments basically consist of arguments for the "delete" side. But to a neutral reader of the discussion, it is clear that there are strong policy-based arguments on both sides, and that consensus has not been reached and is not likely to be reached. --MelanieN (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I was on the "keep" side of the debate, but that is irrelevant. This is not the place to re-argue the AfD. The question here is whether the closer was justified in closing as "delete". In my opinion he was not. Wikipedia is supposed to operate by consensus, including AfD discussions - and it is impossible to see how anyone could have concluded that the consensus at that discussion was "delete". Nor was it "keep". There was no consensus, and per Wikipedia's rules the article stays, if there is not a consensus to delete it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to keep - There are a number of sources that have been generated during and after the deletion discussions that appear to focus the majority of their content on Marcus Bachmann. Many of them have been wrongly characterized as "sources that contain information that is not independent of his wife":

I'm a little discouraged that many of these articles (mostly the initial 5-6) were mentioned during the AfD, but were lambasted because some editors believed that Marcus only achieved his fame because of his wife. Regardless of whether this is true or not, the fact that he is covered in-depth by multiple, independent sources cannot be ignored. I would have supported relisting this because of the new sources that were found, but I find no issues with the sources found during the AfD. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do have to say that while the majority of these articles do illustrate your point well, I would say that the seventh one down, the one from salon.com, does not. That particular article is heavily biased and should not be considered a reliable source, or at least not a very encyclopedia worthy source. TDiNardo (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - All this DRV amounts to is a bloated "I don't like the result of the AfD". AfDs are not votes. AfDs are not an exercise in bean-counting. We, the Wikipedia community, empower administrators with certain powers and responsibilities, one of them being the authority to look at a deletion discussion, evaluate (not count) the arguments being made and the support said arguments have in Wikipedia policy and guideline. That is what this administrator has done, and barring a proven and demonstrable wrong turn or error on the admin's part, there is no call to overturn this. We had an article on a non-notable, non-public figure who has received some press for no other reason than the relationship to his politician wife in the mist of an election year. There is nothing noteworthy to be said about the man that is not in connection to his wife or to a clinic he runs that some people oppose on ideological grounds. What we are left with is a WP:COATRACK for an attack against Michele Bachmann, not a legitimate biography. The brunt of the keepers rested on "but it is reliably sourced!" an argument that spectacularly failed to address the concerns raised. When a half-dozen empty keeps are weighted less, the consensus of the AfD was to delete. Tarc (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn either to keep (preferred) or to no consensus without relisting. The expressed community sentiment was rather clear. The discussion (which ranged, on both sides, from well-argued and policy-based to wretched and inaccurate) reflected a fundamental community division on policy issues. It is not the administrator's role, particularly in discussions like this, to impose a policy resolution on a divided community, particularly one where the resolution would be contrary to such strongly expressed community sentiment from experienced editors, solidly grounded in reasonable policy analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close. This article was in violation of WP:BLP1E and any recreation of it will be as well. In hindsight I think merge would have been a better option than delete, but this certainly does not need a stand alone article and the closer did a great job sifting through the noise to determine that.Griswaldo (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. By number of votes it might well be "keep", but by acrimony of argument its probably better described as "no consensus". The subject clearly meets WP:GNG as shown by the sources above (and the ones in the deleted article). The fact that there were problematic arguments (on both sides) does not invalidate the valid ones. Hence I don't understand the closing rationale, which seems to cherry-pick some bad examples and uses these to throw out the baby. Finally, the closer invents the new requirement of "significant coverage [] independent of his wife" (emphasis in the original). That's a bit like demanding coverage of Einstein "independent of the theory of relativity", and using that argument to throw out every source that mentions the theory. There are plenty of sources that focus on Marcus Bachmann and mention his wife only in passing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus Most of the arguments made on both sides by Keep and Delete voters just clashed against each other and didn't make any headway. While I would feel that it was leaning more towards Keep within the discussion itself, it is still a more no consensus voter, mainly because so many people on both sides were either making irrelevant arguments or focusing on things that have nothing to do with notability. I would also note that, because it was such a contentious AfD, this DRV is essentially just going to become AfD part 2, with the people who voted what for each side just coming here to vote again. That's what the above looks like to me (including my own vote). Silverseren^C 17:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that's why you're here at DRV, most ARS-ers seem to use DRV as AFD #2, but please don't paint the rest of us with your overly-broad brush. Above, I addressed the discretion that a closing admin has to determine consensus, and that disagreement is never a valid reason to come here. I can probably count on one hand the number of times I have called to overturn any AfD, regardless of the topic. Tarc (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to keep- Unless one considers marriage to be an event, then I don't think WP:BLP1E shouldn't have been an issue. Also keep in mind- BLP1E mentions that the person should be otherwise trying to maintain a private life, which Mr. Bachmann is not. Also, as Jethrobot pointed out above, WP:NOTINHERITED should not have been given as much weight as it has, given the amount of information directly related to him that has been published in reliable sources. Overall, the strength and number of arguments favored the keep side, and I feel the AFD should have been closed in that way. I realize that in some ways I'm re-fighting the AFD, for which I apolgogize, but in this case I feel that re-iterating those points is the best way to show that I feel the closer may have made a good faith mistake. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to Keep Tried talking to the closing administrator on his talk page about this, as did others. [1] This same administrator has been overturn before for his closures being a supervote. The man doesn't just covered and quoted in the news because of his wife, but for his clinic. There was no consensus to delete the article. Dream Focus 18:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus I agree with "Dream Focus", he is not in the news becouse of his wife, but mostly becouse of his clinic. The man has a famous wife, and of course she will be mentioned in most news articles about him, but that does not mean he is not notable.--В и к и в и н д T a L k 18:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close - Although a close call, the closing administrator correctly judged the weight of the keep versus delete arguments, recognizing that (like the first article linked here), an article stating that Politician X's husband agrees with Politician X's views is hardly sigificant coverage of Politician X's husband, that stories about Person Y's clinic are not substantial coverage of Person Y, and that opinion pieces like at least one of the links here that refer to the intended BLP subject as "uncredentialed bigoted quacks" is hardly a suitable source for demonstrating their notability. Rlendog (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just assume your judgments on the two above articles are correct (which you haven't explicitly pointed out). There are 12 more. If you care to provide reasons about why all of the above articles are inappropriate, I would love to hear them. Until then, your endorsement of a close is questionable. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original AfD adequately addressed the concerns about the sources that were provided for the article. But to be more specific about the articles I am referring to above, the last linked article, "Clinic tied to Bachmann questioned over therapies" is about the clinic, not significant coverage of the subject. The one sentence I saw that discusses Marcus Bachmann personally states "Marcus Bachmann has a doctorate in clinical psychology, and the clinic's website advertises a wide range of counseling from anger management to eating disorders." That is hardly significant coverage of the person, and even half of that sentence is about the clinic. The 2nd linked article above tells us that "Michele Bachmann’s husband shares her strong conservative values." Hardly significant coverage of Marcus Bachmann. The so-called article (but obviously an opinion piece) titled "Marcus Bachmann says he is not anti-gay, is very wrong" includes the marvelously appropriate line for a suggested source to support the notability of a living person "Though it probably shouldn't be used to help people see uncredentialed bigoted quacks like Marcus Bachmann, but no system is perfect." Rlendog (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with e.g.this NYT profile, which gives a detailed description of his education and theses? It only mentions his wife in passing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of turning this into AFD #2, I do not regard blogs as being appropriate for establishing notability, although technically this particular blog may be an appropriately reliable source under WP:BLPSPS. Even if it is, it does not in itself address the WP:BLP1E, WP:COATRACK or for that matter even the general notability concerns (i.e., the need for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources) that were raised in the AfD. Rlendog (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this "blog" falls under WP:NEWSBLOG, not WP:BLPSPS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec, replying to Stephan) Obviously the entire AfD was basically about just such questions. Those in favor of keeping argued that it doesn't matter how the coverage developed, it's there and significant so we should have an article whereas those arguing delete/merge/redirect were concerned with how the coverage developed, the fact that it seemed to be "inherited" coverage and/or in the context of "one event," the fact that independent coverage of Marcus wasn't all that prevalent, and the fact that BLP concerns were paramount. The short NYT blog post, which was mentioned repeatedly as basically the best source, was an addendum to a full newspaper article talking about controversy with Bachmann in the context of her campaign. The blog post was basically saying "here'a a bit more about her husband, who is involved in this campaign controversy." I'm not trying to convince you of anything here since we obviously disagree, but obviously some of us thought that sort of coverage is not sufficient to clear the rather high bar required to have bios of marginally notable people who get into the news due to their association with someone else who is notable. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Aaron Brenneman, why did you reject MZMcBride's view?—S Marshall T/C 19:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to speak for Aaron or anything, but this was also an issue I had (lack of merge/redirect discussion in the close) and Aaron responded here in the last few paragraphs. The relevant portion speaking (more generally) to your question is as follows: "I don't normally close as redirect or merge unless there is an overwhelmingly clear consensus to do. I'm from the slightly older-skool admin vintage, before things like "closing" RfCs and "admin only" comment sections were common practice. Thus I tend to keep to an absolute minimum use of not just the tools but the implicit authority* that goes with. Merging and redirecting are editorial actions, and no one needs an admin for that. A redirect is already in place, for example." To me this was a sufficient explanation to Aaron's thinking and I sort of viewed it as an addendum to the closing rationale, though obviously you might feel differently. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All right. Even taking into account that this is a BLP, I think this close was stretching administrative discretion to its absolute limit, and I don't feel comfortable using the word "endorse". But on the strength of the arguments I won't !vote to overturn in this case; my position is best expressed as keep deleted.—S Marshall T/C 19:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To make S Marshall's question clear, MZMcBride's view was to redirect to a section within Michele Bachmann, reasoning that "The search term is legitimate; this article is not." I'll note that although I endorse the close, this was my view as well, although this view received very limited support (which may be why the AfD didn't close that way). But after the article was deleted, a redirect was created, so far without objection (although its already been vandalized). Rlendog (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close'. First of all I participated heavily in the AfD debate and was on the "we need to get rid of this" side, specifically advocating a merge, and thus personally I am happy the article was deleted. But I did have some qualms about the close, primarily the lack of discussion of the merge position (which was admittedly in the minority). I was one of a couple of editors who asked Aaron about this issue. His response (scroll down to last few paragraphs) was quite good, and for me at least allayed any concern that not mentioning one of the arguments in the AfD had caused him to misjudge consensus. The only question here--and it's unsurprising to see several people relitigating the AfD, those comments should basically be ignored--is "if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly." As anyone experienced in contentious AfDs knows, very often there is more than one legitimate means to close such discussions. What matters at DRV is not whether the closing admin was correct, but rather that they were not incorrect, if that makes sense. Personally, I probably would have closed this AfD as "no consensus" and I doubt many would argue that such a close would have been invalid. But I think Aaron's closing rationale--and clarifying comments on his talk page--were well thought out and demonstrate that it was also valid to close the debate as delete, given an emphasis on strength of argument and the crucial importance of our BLP policies, which were largely side stepped by those !voting keep and which do indeed give admins and editors more latitude in terms of deleting or otherwise scrubbing content relating to people of questionable notability. So while I think my close would have been different, it is not the case that Aaron's was "incorrect" and as such his close should be endorsed, which is not the same as saying I agree with it per say. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn I don't think the closing admin interpretted the debate properly. According to the close, "significant coverage on the article's subject independent of his wife did not appear to exist." This is clearly false as there are many sources that are primarily about this person (and not his wife).[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Several of these sources were mentioned in the AfD, so I don't know how the closing admin missed them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close Many of the 'keep' votes did not address the core elements of policy. Invective abounded. A difficult mess to sort through. I applaud the diligence of the closing admin. →Stani Stani 20:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to keep While Aaron Brenneman's reasons for closing are well thought out, I do think there are aspect that were missed that need review. The main arguments I've seen against the Marcus Bachmann article, and my counter arguments, are these
1. NOTINHERITED, an issue that I feel was sufficiently addressed in the original AfD debate. It has been pointed out several times that people may be over-interpreting the NOTINHERITED policy. Many notable figures in history garner their initial attention from their association with another figure. As somebody pointed out in the initial AfD debate, nobody would know who Mary was if she hadn't been Jesus' mother. But the fact that Marcus Bachmann came to public attention because of his wife does not diminish the fact that he has since become notable and recieved coverage in his own right
2. Lack of sufficient media coverage. If you look through the original AfD debate, several independent news sources have been listed which discuss Marcus Bachmann. The main argument I've seen against these being acceptable sources is that they all reference the fact that Marcus Bachmann is the husband of presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, and therefore are not about him in his own right. I dispute the validity of this argument, as several of these article use said reference simply to identify who Marcus Bachmann is, and then continue to discuss Marcus in his own right.
3. General Notability. The argument has been made that Marcus Bachmann is notable only as the husband of a presidential candidate. However, as has been pointed out, since he came to public attention, Marcus Bachmann has become notable in his own right, covered in his own right, and is notable not only in regards to the presidential race, but also the ongoing issues of gay rights, the religious right in science and medicine, and the controversy surrounding conversion therapy and the ex-gay movement.
4. BLP1E. Several people have stated that this article violates wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people notable for only one event. With this one, I'm trying my best to assume good faith, but here it does seems that people are taking the part of the rule that supports their arguments and ignoring the rest. The guidelines for BLP clearly states "if the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate" (Emphasis added by me). In this case, I would say that the event, being Marcus Bachmann's running of a psychiatric practice which uses controversial conversion therapy has been well-documented, garnered significant coverage and attention, and that his role in it is substantial, as he is one of the main operators of the practice.

Anyway, that's my two cents on the issue. Errr, four cents, I guess. TDiNardo (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to item 4, there may be disagreement over whether the event is significant enough, especially when the example given of a significant event for this purpose is the attempted assassination of the President of the US. I think we can all agree that Marcus Bachmann hasn't done anything quite that significant. Whether he has done anything significant enough is a matter of interpretation, which was discussed in the AfD. Rlendog (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As best I can gather, he's notable for two reasons: 1) His clinic and 2) His wife. That makes this a WP:BLP2E. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to TDiNardo difficulty ~~understanding~~ coming up with a good faith reason for how people came to the conclusion they did on this point. As to your statement, his wife is certainly notable and his clinic may well be. Having a notable spouse does not necessarily make one notable and working for a notable organization does not necessarily make one notable. Rlendog (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find your assumption that I have "difficulty understanding" people's reasons rather insulting. I understand quite well how people came to their conclusions. I was pointing out that there is a defensible counter-argument to the claim that the Marcus Bachmann article violates BLP1E. On its own, yes, it's probably not enough to merit overturning the deletion, but it was merely 1/4 of an argument, which taken as a whole presents a compelling case for the article's inclusion, IMO. Also, if we could "all agree that Marcus Bachmann hasn't done anything quite that significant", this deletion review would not be happening. TDiNardo (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You stated that "I'm trying my best to assume good faith, but here it does seems that people are taking the part of the rule that supports their arguments and ignoring the rest." I was merely responding to this comment, which I assumed in good faith was a good faith difficulty in understanding how some editors came to the determination they did. I meant no insult and I apologize for my misunderstanding. I refactored the comment to remove the word "understanding" and more closely adhere to your statement. As for the last sentence of your reply, I really had no idea that anyone thought that anything Marcus Bachmann has done was as significant as what John Hinkley did. I mean, as far as I know there are 5 men in history who have shot and hit a sitting US president, all of whom have articles, of which Hinkley's is one. I'm not aware of anything Marcus Bachmann has done that rises to that level of significance - not that this amount of significance is required to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. I thought the debate was (in part) whether his activities are significant enough, not whether they were as significant as Hinkley's. But if there are editors who believe that Marcus Bachmann's actions are as significant as John Hinkley's, I stand corrected. Rlendog (talk) 01:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Benjen Stark "My brother once told me nothing a man says before the word 'but' matters". Typically, when somebody says "I'm trying really hard to do such-and-such", it's a round-about way of saying that they're failing at it. I really can't assume good faith on this one, and that was the point I was trying to get across, with the full understanding that that particular part of my argument would count for somewhat less because of it. Less, though, not nothing. Good faith or bad, the argument still should be addressed. TDiNardo (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is consistent with what I thought. And I was merely trying to explain how others may have come up with an alternate interpretation of the sentence you quoted - that the key was the word "significance" and the use of the example of Hinkley. Perhaps I am wrong that nobody thinks anything Marcus Bachmann has done is as significant as what John Hinkley did. But I certainly don't think Bachmann has done anything anywhere close to as significant as what Hinkley did. And as a result, I can see how in good faith different editors can come to different conclusions as to whether anything Marcus Bachmann has done is significant enough to invoke the sentence you quoted. Rlendog (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close: As I said during the deletion discussion, I think this is a legitimate search term, and a redirect in the future might be a wise idea, but I endorse the closure as procedurally and sensibly sound. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep -- the notion that there was a consensus to delete is preposterous; the closer clearly had an opinion of his own (and even offered his judgment as to the availability of sources) and should have added it to the AfD, no more. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. So...in an AfD where I was chastised in some corners for not assuming good faith of the article creator and some of the more fervent supporters, so far in this DRV we have you and Dream Focus assuming bad faith of the closing admin. I find this dichotomy to be quite fascinating. Tarc (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really fail to see the point of a comment like that, Tarc. Personally, in the AfD I saw you assuming bad faith, making ad hominem attacks, and being uncivil to the point that it amazes me you weren't given a temporary block, but not once did I comment on it (or the majority of other participants, though some did rise to the bait). Why? Because it wasn't relevant to the debate. Making little quips and comments about peoples intentions and arguments, and persistently and loudly assuming bad faith does nothing to further your position. It just makes people more likely to ignore you. TDiNardo (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thought he ignored consensus in the past and did a super vote. Some of us believe the same thing is happening here. Its not bad faith to point out the obvious. Dream Focus 21:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And bad judgment, or an error in judgment, would not be inconsistent with good faith. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn There was obviously no consensus to delete and the closer made a mockery of the discussion by failing to "respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants" per WP:DGFA. The argument that the coverage was not independent of his wife was especially unsatisfactory because such reasoning argues for merger with coverage of the wife rather than deletion. Warden (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. On a procedural level: a contentious discussion, closed with a reasonable application of judgment. That's why we pay admins the big bucks. On a content level, let's get names out of it. X is notable. X is affiliated with Y. Y is in the news because of attribute A and the fact he is affiliated with X, taken jointly. It's pretty clear Y is not notable for either alone; in particular, Y would not be in the news for A were it not for X. If in addition there is a reasonable whiff that the whole goal is to smear X by association, then delete the article on Y, or merge Y to X. While not 100% no-brainer obvious, it is a reasonable policy based argument and a lot more valid than saying "but there are (now) articles on Y and A!". Martinp (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC) (disclaimer: did not participate in the AfD, not familiar with US politics, fortunately.)[reply]

It really doesn't matter that he was brought to attention because of his wife, and the attempt to overextend WP:INHERITED on this basis is getting out of hand. This isn't what WP:INHERITED says at all-- none of us are arguing that the Marcus article should be kept because he is Michele's husband. However, because he is now the recipient of in-depth coverage in many, many sources that are primarily about him, and not his wife, Marcus easily fulfills WP:BLP and WP:GNG. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm probably going to get a lot of flac for this one, but one point I think worth noting: Wikipedia, as people have pointed out, is not a democracy, not a place for people to find an article about everything they might every want, not an all-inclusive encyclopedia of everything. At the same time, though, I think those fighting to condense everything down to wikipedia's rules and guidelines might be fighting a losing battle. Wikipedia has more contributors than some nations have citizens, and in many ways it is a living, breathing thing. In this particular case, I would say that perhaps the contentiousness of this issue is itself an argument for notability. This article has been debated, hotly, for a week and a half now. The debate has been fairly constant, relentless, often rude, and certainly polarizing. In my experience, people seldom expend this much energy, time, or angry words on something that is not notable TDiNardo (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't give you flack for this view, but I would respectfully disagree with it (the last part that is). I don't think the passion surrounding this debate stems primarily from the fact that Marcus Bachmann is notable and thus we care. Rather, there is one camp (and I'm generalizing here) who is pretty passionately inclusionist and another camp that pretty passionately takes a firm line on these sort of BLP articles (I don't think it's exactly right to call it a "deletionist" view but I guess that's okay as shorthand). These kind of debates are often heated and lengthy, even when the subject in question is someone with a much less famous name than "Bachmann" (for example this discussion). Also this particular case involves politics and activities that many if not most around here would construe to be anti-gay (something which many of us have a big problem with), so obviously people are going to understandably get a bit worked up, but that doesn't necessarily speak to some inherent notability. --Bigtimepeace | talk |

contribs 00:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely have a valid point, but one that I think itself raises another question, one I touched on a little earlier. The gay rights movement, and general perceptions of homosexuality, etc, are a very important issue in the world right now (some people would even say of paramount importance; I don't get it, but whatever). Could it not be argued then, that Marcus Bachmann's recent media attention as a member of the ex-gay movement, as a proponent of conversion therapy, and the perception of him by many people as an "anti-gay" public figure, serve to increase his relevance, and thereby his notability? TDiNardo (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on - I don't think he is a "proponent of conversion therapy". I added a link to the article wherein he denied it and said that if a homosexual client wanted to stay homosexual, "that was fine with him." (I'm quoting from memory since the article has disappeared.) To me one of the main arguments FOR an article such as this is that it can cite Reliable Sources to counter rumors and mischaracterizations - quite the opposite of those who think that the very existence of an article about the man constitutes "an attack". (Which is a heck of a thing to say about him, and far more insulting than was anything in the article.) --MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the article you're referencing as well, the one from the Nation, right? I think it's still in the Michele Bachmann article; if you look in the section on the Michele Bachmann article that talks about their practice, I think it's one of the reference sited in that section. But I digress. I don't dispute any of what you're saying but the first sentence. I've seen the bit where he said that if somebody wants to stay homosexual, that's fine, etc. But the fact that he doesn't force patients to receive conversion therapy doesn't mean he isn't a proponent of conversion therapy. A proponent is by definition "one who supports something". As Marcus Bachmann's clinic does use conversion therapy (even if we take on good faith that it's only used when asked for, it is used), that would make Marcus Bachmann a proponent of conversion therapy. TDiNardo (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn: The debate should have been closed as "no consensus", as there were arguments saying that his notability is inherit from Michelle's, and just as many arguments saying that since the inheritness of the notability was from outside Wikipedia, the subject passes the general notability guidelines. The closing admin's BLP1E rationale is perplexing at best, as Marcus Bachmann did not have a minor role in a major event, nor did he have a major role in a minor event. Victor Victoria (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The DRV nominator's concerns seems to hinge on the notion that the closing admin didn't count heads well enough. The discussion was contentious, but none of the keep voters made a convincing argument for the quality of available sources. —SW— ^verbalize 23:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the opening argument for this DRV wasn't really a strong enough argument, but I believe that this belongs at DRV nonetheless. One of the main contentions being made in this DRV is that that assessment it is incorrect, and that people did provide convincing arguments for the quality and availability of sources. So, the initial DRV request may not necessarily be valid, but I believe the DRV itself is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDiNardo (talk • contribs) 00:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically pointed out in my DRV rationale that I wasn't asking to overturn the deletion because of numbers alone. Rather, I disagree with the closing admin's contention that the policy-based arguments were overwhelmingly on the "delete" side. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Tarc. (That's two. You can frame this one as well.) Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have expected an arbitrator to have more tact...or less rudeness, I guess. (Note to closing admin: See here for the reason for Jclemens' vote.) Silverseren^C 04:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is rude or tactless about that entry? Ol JC and I have had many a tussle in DRVs past, particularly over application of BLP1E, so this has been just sort of an inside joke that we now actually agree on something. You're simply on the outside looking in one this one, but its nothing shady or conspiratorial. Tarc (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - The closing administrator looked at the strength of the actual arguments, and didn't just count heads. Yaksar (let's chat) 03:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I tried to explain in my DRV rationale is that that's not what happened - that the closing admin chose to discount weak "keep" votes, which is valid, but did not treat weak "delete" votes the same way, which is invalid. What your comment seems to be suggesting is that AB was right to go beyond an evaluation of the policy basis of the votes and go on to an evaluation of the sources themselves - but if he felt strongly about it, he should have voted, not closed. Several commenters above suggest that this admin has a record of casting supervotes against consensus. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On the one hand, I can't find a consensus to delete in the AfD. On the other, a separate article is not really necessary and probably not a good idea given the WP:BLP issues. So call me keep deleted per —S Marshall. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? If you can't find a consensus to delete in the AfD, why are you endorsing deletion? DRV =/= AfD 2.0. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, people here place common sense ahead of process. It is a lesson well worth learning. Tarc (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~S Marshall, you have already voted Keep Deleted up above, which you bolded. Please either remove the bold or either comment, so it doesn't seem like you're trying to vote twice.~~ Silverseren^C 04:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're using the same signature as S Marshall. Okay, never mind then. As for what you stated, so you can't find a consensus to delete, but you're going to then institute your own opinion because you can't? That's not how DRV works. AT this point, the closing admin should consider your vote to actually be No consensus to delete. Silverseren^C 05:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to keep. I thanked Aaron for a thoughtful close, and I think he touched-upon most of the issues. I was surprised that he didn't redirect, but that doesn't matter one way or the other. What Roscelese said above troubled me: "the closing admin chose to discount weak "keep" votes, which is valid, but did not treat weak "delete" votes the same way, which is invalid". The closing admin didn't glean consensus, he made a (thoughtful) super!vote with a primary reason that rested on a misrepresentation of the sources; their focus on Marcus Bachmann is a reality demonstrated in the AfD and again here in the DRV (see Jethrobot's comment above). Closing admin failed to address the glaring fact that WP:GNG requirements were met in abundance, relying on the 'delete' votes' misrepresentation of the sources. Lastly, consensus isn't a !vote, but it's not good to wholesale discount a sizeable chunk of expressed opinions—delete or keep—just because they didn't elaborate on their opinions because they felt someone else expressed their feelings better. These 'inadequately justified' opinions still count. --David Shankbone 04:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, what Roseclese said had no connection to reality. If we're going by seren's "invalid" list on the AfD talk page, those aren't actually invalid, they are just !votes that run contrary to WP:ARS-think. Mine was actually grounded in arguments to avoid...unless someone here rally thinks that that guy that called to "keep per WP:HOTTIE" was making a valid point. AfDs are closed by an admin who weighs the strength and weaknesses of opinions; if there are opinions that are garbage, then they will be discarded as garbage. I'm sorry, but this isn't Mrs. Smith's 1st-grade class where everyone gets a sticker just for trying. People have to back up what they say. Tarc (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few of your deletes: Ched voted delete b/c "WPSHOULDNOTBEACAMPAINTOOL"; Negativecharge voted deleted b/c "Agree with Stanistani"; Peacock voted delete b/c "He is newsworthy...but not encyclopedia-worthy."; LedRush voted delete b/c "The article is very bad"; Lionel voted deleted b/c "if it weren't for his wife running for president noone would care". Tarc, you sound silly arguing out of one side of your mouth that these justifications are rock solid and should be counted; and out of the other side argue that Umbralox's initial 'inadequately justified' vote doesn't count, even though he later added to it with policy arguments. That's a 'keep' that you feel shouldn't count, but all those weak deletes that I mention above you, and ostensibly the closing admin, think are just fine. 37 people voted keep as their primary choice in the discussion on AfD, 17 had delete as their primary choice, and 3 merge. By your own standards I just pointed out 5 of your 17 deletes as weak, but those counted more than the weaks in the 37 keeps. That's not valid, as Roscelese pointed out. --David Shankbone 04:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All you're doing is cherry-picking and selectively parsing the votes of people whom you disagree with in order to make your side look better. Contrast to the list of actual empty, meaningless votes that I listed on the talk page, and there really is no comparison. When you're ready to make an honest argument on this tangent, I'll be all ears. Tarc (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that, even counting all of your invalid Keep votes as correct, that still means that there are more valid Keep Votes than the full amount of Delete votes. So, either way, it should still be Keep or No Consensus. Silverseren^C 05:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a vote Silver, we don't just tally up ballots in AfD. Vote tallies may play a role to some degree, or they may not. As you surely know, in theory 1 editor can argue for keeping, 99 for deletion, and the admin closes as keep--"consensus" can indeed work that way. Any argument anyone here makes based on counting up votes isn't going to go very far. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty shoddy mantle upon which to lay your laurels in the face of such overwhelming votes against your point of view, BTP. --David Shankbone 05:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your overall collegiality here David, but I think you are quite wrong with that statement. It's actually a rather sturdy mantle for laurels (or even heavier objects!), given that we have a longstanding guideline about this exact matter (WP:NOT#DEM is obviously relevant here as well). With respect to deletion, the guideline says, "Wikipedia's policy is that each of these processes is not decided based on a head count, but on the strength of the arguments presented and on the formation of consensus."

Now does that mean that Aaron is automatically right, and that we have to endorse the close? Of course not, he could have still misinterpreted consensus, and sheer numbers can and often do play a factor in determining consensus (as already mentioned I myself probably would have closed this "no consensus," so in a sense I disagree with Aaron even though I don't think what he did was "incorrect").

The comment I made above was just in response to a specific point by Silver, whose remark "there are more valid Keep Votes than the full amount of Delete votes. So, either way, it should still be Keep or No Consensus" is 100% wrong in terms of our policies. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You had me until the last paragraph, and then you basically went back to, "I think my side is right and has better arguments, and that's why I could see how the closing admin would discount half the keep votes as lame, but none of the delete votes as the same." --David Shankbone 05:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're very much misreading me there David, which could be a lack of clarity on my part. None of what I am saying is about this DRV/AfD per say, I am making a general policy point relevant to this discussion. Silver said (roughly) "more valid keeps than deletes, so therefore it is keep or no consensus." This was stated as though it were a necessary conclusion based on some general principle. In those terms, it is absolutely wrong. The fact that keeps significantly outnumbered deletes in the AfD--which is true--perhaps should have had a bearing on the close. Once again, I agree that "no consensus" was probably the best close here, and I would have given more consideration to the numbers than Aaron did. But do the numbers necessitate a keep or no consensus close, as Silver said? Absolutely not, be it in this particular case or in any other. That point is central to understanding how AfDs and DRVs are supposed to work, and the fact that Silver seemed to be missing said point pretty badly is why I brought it up.

Your argument that strength of numbers, in addition to strength of argument, should have played a role in determining consensus is a valid argument, but is not the only valid argument. I hope that makes sense --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You raise an interesting perspective, BTP, and I'm not saying you are wrong in your philosophical underpinnings. What I'm saying is that if you judge this AfD by your own standards then it should have been closed 'Keep'. I've given multiple examples of deletes who fail your standards in the AfD, and you never address those chinks in your armor. --David Shankbone 06:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Seren: Tarc felt there were 10 keep votes that should be discounted; that would still make 27 keeps against 17 deletes and 3 merge at the AfD. There's really no need to cherry-pick weak deletes because the keeps can be generous and give them to you. Closing admin created a delete super!vote, and that's not valid. --David Shankbone 05:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The following remark involves making a distinction with no huge difference in terms of end result, but I think it's still important. While it's not my view, I completely understand those who argue "overturn to no consensus." There is certainly an argument for that. "Overturn to keep" is another matter, even though both options would result in the article being restored. To my mind "no consensus," "delete," even perhaps "redirect" are all valid closes, but given the discussion "keep" was not a valid close. To argue here in the DRV that, not only did the closing admin err by closing as delete, he must have closed it as keep in order to do it right, rather strains credulity. I'm not even sure all of the people !voting that way here really believe that (though it does follow), rather they might just be somewhat echoing their initial keep !votes in the AfD (which, inevitably, happens on both sides of most every contentious DRV--some of the "endorse" votes here likely have a similar problem). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTP, the initial AFD had 37 keeps, 17 deletes and 3 merge. The most virulent delete, Tarc, felt 10 keep votes shouldn't count (including Umbralox's policy-based keep votes), leaving 27 keeps. Above I pointed to at least 1/3rd of the delete votes failing the same standards you set for the keeps, and you haven't disputed they failed your standard. WP:GNG was fully met, and no deletes have touched that argument. It's bizarre that you find it difficult to understand why people felt this was a clear keep and that the closing admin erred. --David Shankbone 05:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not participate in the initial discussion, and I hold that my overturn to keep is validly argued. Sources brought into the AfD that addressed the concerns of editors supporting deletion and the closing admin (that existing sources were not sufficiently independent of Michele) were overlooked. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just say Keep. Notion that view of one anonymous Wikipedia editor is superior to the weight of ALL the editorial desks of ALL major newspapers and wire services in USA and beyond, is simply not worthy of comment.

The simple fact that overwhelming majority of comments on Wikipedia favored keeping the article is perhaps another matter. Yet another, hopefully lesser matter, is the endlessly problematic "Wikipedia Policy" and always attendant wikilawyering.

That the article was deleted exhibits nothing more than an obviously all-too-typical problem with Wikipedia, rather than anything problematic about the topic itself.

One should wonder whether its deletion amounted to some sort of abuse, or perhaps merely a gross misunderstanding, on part of deletionist?

Calamitybrook (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zombo.com

Deleted in 2007 as a straightforward notability case, and salted in 2010. The closing admins, Coredesat and Tbsdy lives, are both retired, so I haven't tried to contact them.

Thanks mostly to Factiva, I have some new references, which I've put together at User:Melchoir/Zombo.com. I'd like to move this user-space draft into article space and also undelete the page history. Unfortunately, none of the references are slam dunks in terms of "significant coverage", so this is likely to be controversial. Thoughts? Melchoir (talk) 07:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is something I would expect to find on Wikipedia. The site is not world-changing, but it was well-known in its time. I'd be fine with recreating the article, although I'm not sure if DRV is the right place for this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it went through a prior deletion and the title was salted, Deletion Review is the place you have to go to get a consensus to unsalt the title and instate the new version of the article after the prior deletion,. Silverseren^C 18:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ABC news has a story reprinted from PC World [12] calling it one of the most worthless websites. All the links in your draft are "This article is no longer available from Factiva." Do you have any links to something that can be checked online? Dream Focus 18:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's odd. The links were working for me yesterday on a different machine, where I was logged into Factiva. Maybe the template needs updating... the links should should the article title, author, and one or two sentences from the body. Unfortunately, even when the links work, they don't show you the entire article.
  I've added three free links for The Guardian in this edit, so that should help. Melchoir (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to see about using this source as well. Silverseren^C 18:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have encountered mentions of this site more often in recent months. Finding nothing about it on Wikipedia was disappointing. →Stani Stani 20:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

26 July 2011

The Leading Hotels of the World (closed)

Marcus Bachmann

Zombo.com