Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 April 21
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)
- 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)
- 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)