Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 22: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→[[Xplicit]]: closing (del. endorsed) |
→[[Andy Stephenson]]: closing (del. endorsed) |
||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
*'''Weak overturn of this one only''' There is some evidence that the two terms are different. Appropriate header text needs to be put on the categories. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 12:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
*'''Weak overturn of this one only''' There is some evidence that the two terms are different. Appropriate header text needs to be put on the categories. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 12:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
||
====[[Andy Stephenson]]==== |
|||
With all due respect to [[User:Naconkantari]], the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Stephenson|debate over the deletion of this article]] was contentious enough that I don't think it's appropriate to say that a consensus to delete was achieved. The debate was also unfortunately marred by politicized campaigning on other sites, both to keep and to delete, but that doesn't change the fact that there was no consensus. [[User:VoiceOfReason|VoiceOfReason]] 09:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
'''Additional''' from original requester of review. I just wanted to emphasize that, based on ''my'' understanding of the deletion review process, arguments over the merits of the deletion (does the article meet [[WP:BIO]], did it have [[WP:NPOV|POV]] problems, etc.) aren't really relevant. That's what AfD is for. I may be wrong, but it's my understanding that the purpose of the deletion review is to look over the administrator's judgment that consensus was achieved in favor of deletion. So I'd ask those who are arguing here in favor of upholding the deletion: regardless of how you personally feel about the article, do you ''really'' believe that there was a consensus to delete? I don't; I think there was an ongoing controversy with few prospects for resolution in sight, and the proper action to take in cases of no consensus is to '''keep'''. [[User:VoiceOfReason|VoiceOfReason]] 16:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn''' the deletion. Even discounting every account that anyone said was a sockpuppet or SPA, there was at most a slight preponderance for deletion, hence no consensus. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small> [[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]] [[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 10:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn''' result of debate was no consensus. [[User:Catchpole|Catchpole]] 14:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn''' the deletion. Meets WP:BIO. No consensus for deletion. More extended comments here. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Naconkantari#Deletion_of_Andy_Stephenson_article Comments] [[User:NBGPWS|NBGPWS]] 19:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Sustain''' the deletion. Non-notable person that violates WP:BLP. Spammed massively by outside websites but still non-notable.--[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 18:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**'''Comment''' - the above comment is not germane. Such points are appropriate in an AfD, but we are not here to discuss the merits of the article but the merits of the deletion. Was a consensus to delete achieved? I find it difficult to see how anybody could say so. Also, hard to see how the article violates [[WP:BLP]] considering that it's not a B of an LP. [[User:VoiceOfReason|VoiceOfReason]] 20:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
***'''Comment''' it is very germane since policy was cited and policy overrides any consensus even though I also believe consensus was '''delete'''. |
|||
**** See below. Guidelines are not policy. [[User:VoiceOfReason|VoiceOfReason]] 00:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse''' deletion as per Tbeatty. --[[User:Strothra|Strothra]] 18:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Sustain''' the deletion. Perhaps the closing admin should have documented his rationale more extensively, but the closing was still delayed for several days during which I do not doubt much deliberation took place.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]] 18:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Sustain''' If the anon's are removed, there was wide concensus to delete. [[User:TDC|Torturous Devastating Cudgel]] 19:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**'''Comment'''. Unlike the other <strike>deletionists</strike> editors who have commented in this DRV in favor of sustaining the original deletion, TDC has at least addressed the actual issue, because the closing admin is supposed to determine whether there was a consensus, not which side's arguments appeal to him or her. TDC's calculation is incorrect, however. I've attempted to do the work that the closing admin should have done. Discounting all anonymous comments and all users questioned as possible SPA's or whatever, my tally is: Delete 27, Merge 2, Keep 22. By normal standards, 57% for deletion (27+2) is not a consensus. The detailed breakdown is [[User:JamesMLane/Stephenson AfD tally|here]]. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small> [[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]] [[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 20:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::*Alright, first off, can we please drop the "deletionist" accusations? It's really lame, hostile and unbecoming. As to your tally, remember that an AfD discussion is not a vote and the arguments given by each editor actually do count. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::*I didn't intend "deletionist" as an accusation, but as a shorthand. To avert misinterpretation, I've stricken it and spelled out what I meant. As for the closing admin's responsibility, the policy makes clear that, although the admin examines the arguments advanced by the editors, the primary issue is whether there was a consensus in favor of deletion. It's not a vote but the numbers aren't irrelevant. Where, as here, a substantial number of experienced editors believe that [[WP:BIO]] is satisfied, the closing admin should not delete the article on the basis of a unilateral determination to the contrary. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small> [[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]] [[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 00:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::*Okay. I took your use of the word the way someone else used it to describe a perceived bias regarding AfD nominations. Thanks for explaining that. |
|||
:::::I do have to say that sometimes the numbers can be and surprisingly often are somewhat irrelevant. An ''extreme'' example would be 100 "keeps" with no meaningful substance against just one well-reasoned, wholly Wiki-based "delete." Seriously. A lot of the reasonings for keeping the Andy Stephenson article just didn't hold water. I myself thought it should've been kept (albeit only marginally), but it had to have been drastically improved by people with the knowledge, time and ability to do so. I myself know very little about Andy's life, so I wasn't one of those people. Others were, however, yet only about two or three people actually tried to improve it. Unfortunately, their contributions ultimately weren't enough. Perhaps if someone were to recreate the article on their personal pages with more information, better sourcing (possibly depending on how this HBO thing turns out), and a lot less non-NPOV, it could be presented for replacement at some future time. Now is not the time, though. People's emotions are running too high. Many people here and elsewhere are very mad and throwing out ridiculous and uncivil accusations of bias, coordinated conspiracies, "politically motivated deletionists" and "freeper bullying" that, quite frankly, aren't helping their arguments or objections one bit. That this article is gone for the moment is not that big of a deal. There's no reason right now why it can't be re-created in the future - even the near future. People should take some time away from the issue, cool down, and come back to it later. Wiki will still be here. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 03:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''' : '''Please note that even this review is being targetted by an organized effort from the politically motivated deletionists.''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GabrielF/911TMCruft Deletionists] [[User:NBGPWS|NBGPWS]] 19:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**'''Comment''' Please note that accusing editors of being part of a conspiracy is incivil and violates [[WP:CIV|policy]]. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]][[User talk:Coredesat|at]]''' 19:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**'''Comment''' [[There is no cabal]], seriously there isn't. --[[User:NuclearUmpf|Nuclear]][[User:Zer0faults|Zer0]] 19:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**'''Comment''' For crying out loud. Can't people put aside their politics on Wikipedia and just look objectively at the criteria? Must every AfD on a politically-controversial topic degenerate into these silly campaigns? [[User:VoiceOfReason|VoiceOfReason]] 20:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
***'''Comment'''. The fact that they actually AfD'd the 'Nigerian Yellowcake Forgery' article, calling it an (Anti) Bush Conspiracy Theory should tell you something. [[User:NBGPWS|NBGPWS]] 20:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**** '''Comment''' I don't know who "they" is, and I don't really care. It's plain that some people in both the pro-deletion and anti-deletion camps took it upon themselves to make a spectacle and a mockery of this AfD, and shame on them all. [[User:VoiceOfReason|VoiceOfReason]] 21:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*<s>'''Overturn and restart the AfD'''</s>, this AfD was a train wreck, to say the least, and any consensus is extremely difficult to determine. I was originally going to close it myself before asking for assistance. It needs to be restarted (and semi-protected) so a consensus can easily be determined and reached without flamewarring and conspiracy accusations. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]][[User talk:Coredesat|at]]''' 19:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:*'''Comment''' I could easily be in support of this, as long as an admin or two keep close watch on the new AfD and remove personal attacks.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]] 19:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:*'''Comment''' It might also be nice if any new Afd consited of just votes, no lengthy comments and back and forth bickering. [[User:TDC|Torturous Devastating Cudgel]] 20:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:*'''Comment''' I couldn't fail to disagree with you less. The whole purpose of AfD is to achieve consensus, with the closing admin weighing the merits of the positions on both sides. If AfD were a pure vote count, you may be sure that any controversial article will be targetted by bad-faith campaigns even moreso than now. [[User:VoiceOfReason|VoiceOfReason]] 20:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:*'''Comment''' With the HBO documentary [http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/hackingdemocracy/synopsis.html Hacking Democracy], which features Mr. Stepehenson debuting on Nov 2, any deletion prior to this date is premature. I encourage reinstatement, and we can all work to improve the article. As Derex argued convincingly ''"As for notability, the subject had multiple mainstream media coverage of his work on black box voting as I mentioned, He is in an HBO movie, there were 3 articles cited from the Seattle Weekly and other west coast publications, he is in articles cited from the New York Times, the Washington Post and The Guardian (London),plus a story on Fox News. Several of these mention his national campaign for voter verified paper trails and his Secretary of State candidacy. Many Wikipedia bio articles have far less national or international coverage of notability."'' [[User:NBGPWS|NBGPWS]] 20:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::*I believe you're quoting someone else there, though I did find the civerage sufficient for a weak keep. [[User_talk:Derex|Derex]] 10:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::*[[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a crystal ball]]. Given that, I'm now willing to '''endorse the deletion'''. Given how the AfD went, and how this DRV is going, I don't think it's even going to be possible to have a civil discussion on this. Until this documentary airs (and it hasn't, so we have no idea how he will even be covered in it, if at all), he fails [[WP:BIO]]. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]][[User talk:Coredesat|at]]''' 21:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::*Perhaps you should have visited the HBO page on the documentary before declaring ''"we have no idea how he will even be covered in it, if at all"''. You're 100% wrong. He's listed by name and I understand that he's featured at length. [http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/hackingdemocracy/synopsis.html HBO's Hacking Democracy] [[User:NBGPWS|NBGPWS]] 21:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::*Here is the record of Stephenson's name in the HBO documentary: |
|||
::::<BLOCKQUOTE> As the scope of her mission grew, Harris drew on the expertise of other computer- science experts, politicians and activists, among them: Andy Stephenson, candidate for secretary of state in Washington state; Susan Bernecker, Republican candidate in New Orleans; Kathleen Wynne, an activist from Cleveland; Hugh Thompson, director, Security Innovations, Inc.; Ion Sancho, Florida's supervisor of elections; and Harri Hursti, a computer-security analyst. Academics, public officials and others seen in interview footage include: Deanie Low, supervisor of elections, Volusia County, Fla.; Mark Radke, marketing director of Diebold; David Cobb, presidential candidate, Green Party; Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones of Ohio; and Sen. Barbara Boxer of California. </BLOCKQUOTE> |
|||
::::There are a number of additional paragraphs with more names. That doesn't give me confidence that he will be "featured at length". [[User:GabrielF|GabrielF]] 21:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::*I have to agree. The page you link to is a smashing source for [[Bev Harris]], but not for Andy Stephenson. It remains - as stated above - that we don't and cannot know ''how'' he will be covered in it until it airs, and your say-so simply is not good enough. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*LOL! The whole part on Volusia County prominently features Mr. Stepehenson. His PHOTO is on this page. [http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/hackingdemocracy/synopsis.html Hhacking Democracy] Never have I seen such a blatant concerted effort to squash and suppress important information that documents conservative malfeasence. Some might call it cowardice redefined! [[User:NBGPWS|NBGPWS]] 02:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:*So you've seen the show before it's aired and know for an absolute fact that he's "prominently featured?" That's quite a feat! Nonetheless, it is still only your say-so, and that simply will not do for the purposes of Wiki. As for the picture on the HBO page, it is hardly noteworthy, if it's even him. He certainly isn't the focus of the photo. And I think you should can the personal attacks. They're not helping your arguments. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 03:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:and comments like this: |
|||
:* '''04:22, 5 October 2006 Aaron (Talk | contribs) (noting no more AfDs)''' |
|||
;* '''04:21, 5 October 2006 Aaron (Talk | contribs) (all gone! now what will we do for fun?)''' |
|||
: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:GabrielF/911TMCruft&offset=20061012022259&action=history Hit SquadHistory] Deleting articles 'for fun'. Don'r help yours. [[User:NBGPWS|NBGPWS]] 05:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::*Yes, I've seen your "proof" of a "vast right-wing 'deletionist' conspiracy" posted in many places. Quite frankly, your accusations are groundless and disruptive. If you have a dispute you wish settled, please follow the Wiki guidelines for it and cease throwing out personal attacks. And incidentally, your silence on my major points speaks volumes about their veracity. Thank you. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Sustain''' deletion, AfD is not a vote count and the admin made his judgement based on the information presented by both sides of the debate. --[[User:NuclearUmpf|Nuclear]][[User:Zer0faults|Zer0]] 19:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**'''Comment''' - the admin made his judgment, and I've no doubt it was made in good faith, but I believe it was erroneous. I don't believe that [[Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus|rough consensus]] was achieved; there was no dominant position of the non-sock commenters. [[User:VoiceOfReason|VoiceOfReason]] 20:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Sustain deletion''' - NN, POV/vandal magnet. Violated [[WP:BIO]]. - [[User:Crockspot|Crockspot]] 20:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn''' the deletion. No consensus was reached whatsoever, and the article met WP:BIO easily. Closing administrators are not supposed to base decisions on their personal opinion of the material involved. [[User:BenBurch|BenBurch]] 21:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Any evidence that this was decided on the personal opinion of the admin? --[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 21:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::Upon the closing of an AfD, especially one with so many participants and such heated opinions as this one, the closing admin should provide the community with a brief explanation of his or her rationale. In this instance, the closing admin's sole statement was: "The result was Delete, per [[WP:BIO]]." The most natural interpretation is that the deletion was not based on an assessment of whether there was consensus, but rather on the admin's personal opinion of the merits. We can, consistent with [[WP:AGF]], give the admin's words their most natural interpretation. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small> [[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]] [[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 21:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::Citing WP:BIO would imply his interpretation of policy, not his personal opinion of the content. It seems he weighed the arguments and found a policy violation. It's not a vote. --[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 01:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Sustain''' deletion and protect it from being recreated (trust me - it'll save future headaches of having to re-delete it over and over). While I supported keeping the article, I really can't argue against its deletion. Given what certain factions want the article to look like (VERY non-NPOV [http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Andy_Stephenson]) and the fact that many of the people who felt very strongly about keeping it did nothing to try to improve the article and simply complained about some silly, imagined "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" to delete it (complaints that continue here, in fact), I really don't see any reason to overturn the result. In the end, the concensus was delete and the arguments for it were more convincing than for keeping it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
<s>*Request <b>relist</b> [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Stephenson]]. From the closing administrator's comments, decision was based upon the closing administrator's personal opinion about the content rather than consensus of the community. An impartial examination of the discussion would reveal that there was no consensus on this article whatsoever, with established editors favoring keep being in the slight majority. [[User:BenBurch|BenBurch]] 21:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)</s> |
|||
<s>:This is already being reviewed below. [[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">'''kantari'''</font>]] 21:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)</s><small> This was moved from an incorrect section [[User:BenBurch|BenBurch]] has already voted.</small> |
|||
*'''Endorse closure''' My strong bias is to endorse closures unless they are obviously wrong. AFD is not a vote, so the nose count is irrelevant, the strength of the arguments is what is most important. (For example, had the article been shown by one person to be based on a copyright violation, and 100 other people wanted to keep it for any or all reasons, the closing admin is supposed to close as a delete due to the copyright violation.) Unfortunately, in addition to the external spamming for both sides of the discussion, we had a discussion that almost entirely consisted of low quality discussion. And we got a low quality close at the end, not one with a solid explanation of the closure rationale. Sigh. Well, we all knew this review was coming... and here it is. The strongest keep arguments were made by [[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]] and [[User:VoiceOfReason|VoiceOfReason]]. Neither one contained both an explanation of how he met WP:BIO in their eyes and a specification of the sources that established it. VoiceOfReason had a specific criteria. About two hours after VoiceOfReason's opinion, I reviewed the article and discussion and issued the contrary opinion that the he did not meet that specific WP:BIO test because the only [[WP:RS|reliable source]] in which he was the primary subject was his obituary. Jayron32 was less clear as to the specific tests, but did add sourcing to the article. The strongest deletion arguments were those by [[User:Wwwwolf|Wwwwolf]] and myself ([[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]]). Both of these opinions were issued after Jayron32 added sourcing to the article. So I think they are stronger arguments than the keep arguments, but that is a decision that reasonable Wikipedia editors could differ on. As I believe that the stronger arguments were made by the deletion side, I can endorse deletion. The numbers count (after eliminating anonymous, single purpose, and vandalism accounts) meant I could have endorsed a no consensus close also. I wouldn't be able to endorse a keep closure for this discussion; fortunately we don't have one. So I can follow my bias and endorse the closure. (Should it prove necessary to relist, I ask Xoloz to semi-protect the new discussion and everyone else to make explicit arguments from policy - keep opiners to make it clear which sources support notability on which criteria of WP:BIO (or other standard) and delete opiners to make it clear which sources they evaluated, rejected, and why.) [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 03:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:*I won't offer an opinion on whether the article should be relisted but I wholeheartedly agree with GRBerry's conditions for relisting - otherwise it will just be another mess. [[User:GabrielF|GabrielF]] 04:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Sustain '''And protect from readding. Reading through the comments and the original AFD I am unpersuaded of this individuals nobility and I find the decision to delete correct. It seems quite apparent to me that most(but certainly not all) of the efforts in keeping the article are simply politically motivated and/or attempts to create a "memorial" of sorts on Wiki. Thats not what wiki is for. I feel that Naconkantari reached the correct decision and I see no reasons to overturn. [[User:Dman727|Dman727]] 04:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment ''' :Comments from the deletionists to provide context: |
|||
:* '''04:22, 5 October 2006 Aaron (Talk | contribs) (noting no more AfDs)''' |
|||
:* '''04:21, 5 October 2006 Aaron (Talk | contribs) (all gone! now what will we do for fun?)''' |
|||
: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:GabrielF/911TMCruft&offset=20061012022259&action=history Deletion Squad History] Deleting articles 'for fun'! [[User:NBGPWS|NBGPWS]] 05:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:*What the heck is a deletionist? Is that another attempt at humor ala "scholarly tome"? Just curious if I should be chuckling or annoyed by personal attacks.[[User:Dman727|Dman727]] 07:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:*You should try not to label your fellow wikipedia editors, especially since your use seems to be in a negative light, "Deletion Squad" / "deletionists" etc. --[[User:NuclearUmpf|Nuclear]][[User:Zer0faults|Zer0]] 12:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:*That the AfD was placed on a userpage noticeboard has ''no bearing'' on this Deletion Review. The Deletion Review Process is intended to see if the closing admin did the right thing, and your continued harping on this page, vandalism and [[WP:POINT]] violations are making a circus out of this. You've already been blocked for an hour, and subsequently for a day, all for the same reason. Stop this nonsense.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]] 14:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse closure''' per Coredsat and GRBerry. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 14:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Sustain''' the deletion per Tbeatty and Dman727. [[User:Junglecat|<font color="green">JungleCat</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Junglecat|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Junglecat|<font color="blue">contrib</font>]]</small> 14:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn''' per above. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 16:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Sustain''' The decision was made after extensive debate. Let it stand. [[User:Ruthfulbarbarity|Ruthfulbarbarity]] 17:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse closure'''. I don't know if I would have closed it as '''delete''', but there are no plausible arguments presented here for overturning that decision. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 20:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:*'''Comment''' Failure of the closer to accurately discern the consensus is a plausible argument in my mind. Indeed, this entire discussion should be about whether the closer 1) accurately discerned the strength of the arguments, 2) accurately discerned consensus, or 3) accurately closed the discussion contrary to consensus but in line with mandatory policy. I happen to think they were close enough to right, but the nomination is a plausible argument in my mind. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 21:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn''' Seems to be that the very fact of such a vigorous debate here by well-established editors is ''prima facie'' evidence that there was not "consensus". That's the objective is it not? So a "no consensus" closure seems most reasonable to me, which should not prejudice any future debates after the article has a bit of time to evolve. [[User_talk:Derex|Derex]] 21:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:*Unfortunately, a good portion of the "vigorous debate" here is not about the merits of the close, it is about the merits of the article (or even worse, accusations of a conspiracy). The only discussion that is relevant is about whether the close was correct, the rest of it is just wasting everyone's time and making it harder for the DRV closer to do their job. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 21:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::*I don't really see your point. There is clearly considerable controversy whether the closing admin properly read consensus. To the extent that some people are still argueing the merits of the case, that simply mirrors the original lack of consensus in the AFD. I mean, if most people agreed about ''either'' the closure or the article, then we wouldn't be here yapping about the whole thing. [[User_talk:Derex|Derex]] 11:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus Policy overrides consensus]. Citing WP:BIO is policy. 100:1 in favor of keep is still a delete if the article fails to meet policy. THis article was majority '''delete''' plus it has policy issues. '''Delete it'''. [[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 00:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::* Actually, [[WP:BIO]] is a guideline, not policy [[User:VoiceOfReason|VoiceOfReason]] 00:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::* He failed both the [[WP:BIO]] guideline for notability as well as the [[WP:BLP]] policy as it related to accusations against PayPal and bloggers. --[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 01:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::* I asked earlier, I'll ask again: how is it possible for this article to violate [[WP:BLP]] when it's not a biography of a living person? [[User:VoiceOfReason|VoiceOfReason]] 03:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::::*The good people who were defamed at PayPal and the conservative bloggers accused of contributing to Andy's death are, indeed, living people. --[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 05:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::::*Again, with respect, containing false and/or defamatory information does not make this article a violation of [[WP:BLP]]. It may have said bad things about some people, but that doesn't make it a ''biography'' of those people. The article was a biography of Stephenson, who is not living, and therefore the article can't violate [[WP:BLP]]. If it did in fact contain false and/or defamatory information, the remedy is rewrite, not deletion. |
|||
:::::::The fact is that this article was no violation of policy which justified ignoring the lack of consensus, and there was no consensus. [[User:VoiceOfReason|VoiceOfReason]] 17:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::*The meaning of "Policy overrides consensus" is spelled out in the section that [[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] links to: |
|||
:::<blockquote>Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be [[WP:V|verifiable]], avoid being [[WP:NOR|original research]], and be written from a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates such policies . . . . (from [[Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus]])</blockquote> |
|||
:::By contrast, [[WP:BIO]] isn't one of those key policies. In fact, it isn't a policy at all; it's a guideline. |
|||
:::Furthermore, even if a policy were involved, it might be meaningful to say that "Policy overrides consensus" if five people favored deletion based on a policy (or even a guideline) and 20 favored retention based solely on the subject's being a nice guy. In this instance, however, experienced Wikipedians who applied the [[WP:BIO]] guideline divided on whether the article qualified. There simply was no consensus on that point. To say that the closing admin should ignore the numbers and close the AfD based on the side that he or she happens to prefer would give far too much weight to the closing admin's position on a contested issue. That isn't the procedure contemplated by [[Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators]]. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small> [[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]] [[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 07:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse deletion'''. The allegation that anyone who !votes Delete is part of the conspiracy to conceal The Truth<sup>TM</sup> about the Evil Gubmint's role in the 9/11 attacks is patently absurd, as indeed are the conspiracy theories themselves. Naconkantari's close is valid, and the delete arguments are also valid. This is a ''very'' minor figure and there is insufficient data on which to base a verifiably neutral biography. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 11:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:* '''Comment''' For the record, I'm the one who called for this deletion review, and I never alleged the existence of a conspiracy. In fact, in the AfD itself I specifically said that I do not share the subject's politics. The arguments for deletion may be valid, but they didn't lead to a consensus. [[User:VoiceOfReason|VoiceOfReason]] 17:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:*'''Comment''' I missed that alleged allegation. I've certainly seen some concern over votestacking in the original AFD, but that's a far cry from saying that "anyone who votes delete is part of the conspiracy". Nor is that concern even the source of this debate; I believe one editor has mentioned it, so it's a strawman argument. I see no less hyperbole in your own comment here than in the remark by NBGPWS to which you presumably allude above. [[User_talk:Derex|Derex]] 22:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse deletion''' per Guy. --[[User:Aaron|Aaron]] 15:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse deletion''' per Guy. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 22:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn and Relist''' per [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]]'s relist suggestion. [[User:Sparkhead|<font color="green">*Sparkhead</font>]] 22:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn''' Sufficient grounds were presented in the article and the debate to show the subject was notable based on numerous mainstream writeups and a current HBO movie. The article was edited to be NPOV. Even discounting alleged SPA's the tally was about 25 for deletion, many of those simple votes without extended reasons, and 20 against, not any sort of consensus, and hardly a rousing call to delete and protect against recreation. The fact of his life, his work, and his death cannot be WP:BLP violations per se. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 18:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse''' per [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]]. More importantly, endorse GRBerry's comment. (BTW, the only mainstream writeup of this poor guy I've seen was a (rather good) [http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0528/050713_news_andy.php human interest story] in the ''Seattle Weekly''.) [[User:Chris Chittleborough|CWC]]<small>[[User talk:Chris Chittleborough|(talk)]]</small> 10:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 14:45, 27 October 2006
- Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 October)
22 October 2006
Blake Bowden
Creator of page has asked for it to be deleted after the recent "keep" decision. It's not in the most proper place, but the request began at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blake Bowden. Deletion was also requested by an anon user claiming to be the subject of the article. -- Tim D 22:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse closure, keep article. There were only two actual !votes, and both were "keep"; it's kind of hard for the closing admin to mess that up. There's no evidence that Theguyinblue is the original creator; it was created by an anon using an IP address with a very long history of vandalism (possible proxy?). There's also no evidence that the anon claiming to be the subject actually is the subject (though his IP does trace back to Cincinnati, where the subject lives). If the anon is truly Blake Bowden, then he should probably take this up with the office. --Aaron 23:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I don't really like calling people out, but check the contribution history of Theguyinblue. He signs
his third oldestthis edit as "Dr. Blake Bowden." From that,which was from before the existence of the Blake Bowden article,I see the request as legitimate. -- Tim D 23:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC) - Relist. The notability of the subject is questionable. There are assertions of notability in the article and in the AfD, but all are tagged with {{fact}}. Of the two keep reasonings in the AfD, one relies on how many hits he gets on a search engine, not on whether he has actually written or done anything notable, and one is apparently from the subject and along the lines of "he's a great guy", with some assertions of notability but similarly unsupported by actual credible sources. An AfD with a decent level of participation is needed, I think. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have blanked the article as a courtesy while we establish what Dr. Bowden's problem is with the content; I have asked at User talk:Theguyinblue since he seems to be, or be known to, the subject. As far as I am concerned we can delete, relist or fix up, but if the subject has an issue with the content we need to do something to fix it without requiring him to first chop down the tallest tree in the forest with a herring. I don't think DRV is necessarily the way to fix a WP:LIVING issue, but whatever. Guy 10:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Given that Dr Blake Bowden's article was apparently written by one Dr Blake Bowden [1] [2], I would be interested to hear what problem Dr Blake Bowden has with the article Dr Blake Bowden has written on him. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. The original discussion had no support for the deletion nomination, two people in favour of keeping the article and one comment disputing the grounds for deletion. I stand by my closure of the discussion as a keep. However, the fact that one of the people in favour of keeping the article hs now changed their mind and blanked the article may be a reason to relist it, especially given the low participation. I can't find the occasion Tim speaks of where Theguyinblue signs as Blake Bowden (his third edit was this, but whether he or the anon are actually Blake Bowden is irrelevant. A request from the subject is not grounds for deletion. If there is a problem with the content, rather than simply the existence of the article, then we can fix that as soon as we know what it is, but I would be surprised if that is the issue, given that Theguyinblue was in favour of keeping the article a weak earlier. JPD (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. For some reason I thought that the first screen of contributions was the only screen (whoops). The edit that I was referring to is here. As for the original arguments for keeping, that may have partially been due to an obfuscation of the content from a lack of organization. But the question now would be whether the claims made in the article can indeed be cited. Personally, from what I've checked out, it seems that most of them cannot be. I don't doubt what Dr. Bowden has done in his career, but if there are no third-party sources of the info, it doesn't really fit in an encyclopedic article. -- Tim D 14:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- If so, that's a matter for a later AfD moreso than a Deletion Review. The process here is geared more towards appealing a closure on the grounds that it was improper.--Rosicrucian 14:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Macau categories
To overturn Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 15#People_by_nationality_sub-category_pages concerning Macau. Macanese often refers specifically to natives in Macau with partial Portuguese parentage. People from Macau is broader than Macanese people. - Privacy 13:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Overturn. It appears that there is a distinct difference between the two. Perhaps similar to Native Americans vs. People from America. See Macanese people. -- Tim D 05:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Weak overturn of this one only There is some evidence that the two terms are different. Appropriate header text needs to be put on the categories. GRBerry 12:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)