Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 26: Difference between revisions

Administrator instructions

Help

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Deletion review‎ | Log

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:13, 3 August 2011

< 2011 July 25

Deletion review archives: 2011 July

2011 July 27 >

26 July 2011

The Leading Hotels of the World (closed)

The Leading Hotels of the World – Has been relisted – Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Why do you consider this a notable organization????? This company doesn't even own hotels and is not a hotel brand. It's only a marketing organization to which hotels subscribe and this page is simply an advertising exercise for a company that in its own Mission Statement (http://corp.lhw.com/default.aspx?page=94) claims to be "the most successful luxury hotel sales, marketing, and distribution company in the world." It doesn't offer any notable content. More importantly, by advertising in Wikipedia the hotels that subscribe to its services, this organization is very simply exploiting Wikipedia, its contributors and its readers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivyleague100 (talk • contribs)

The previous discussion was in 2007, and on reviewing it I think it can simply be disregarded as old and stale. I've started a fresh deletion discussion for you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Leading Hotels of the World (2nd nomination). I agree that we shouldn't retain this organisation on Wikipedia and I hope that it will be deleted in due course. Thanks and all the best—S Marshall T/C 22:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to AFD. I fixed the XfD link above. Turns out there was a no consensus close at an AfD 4 years ago, which caused someone to remove a recent prod. Rather than revisiting procedurally, let's discuss notability and verifiability versus our policies, which have been clearer in the intervening 4 years. I share the nominator's concern about the marketing tone of the article coupled with poor sourcing. I also suspect there are reasonable sources to be found on this organization - I didn't find them with a quick google check myself, though someone with hospitality industry expertise might be able to. If that is the case, stubbing and removing the huge list of member properties, leaving just a for-instance reference to 3-4 member hotels that are notable in their own right, is likely a better solution than deletion. Martinp (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC) (amusingly sitting at a desk in one of the member hotels as I write this).[reply]

Oops, edit conflicted with S Marshall above. Martinp (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Marcus Bachmann (closed)

Marcus Bachmann – For such a contentious deletion its interesting that the views expressed here are so evenly split. I count 24 overturn votes (ignoring two votes from spas) and 23 endorse (or keep deleted) votes. Finding a clear consensus within this is impossible so the clear outcome of this is no consensus to overturn = endorse. That said, its clear that this could have legitimately have been closed as no-consensus and that deletion is towards the far end of acceptable outcomes. I'm mentioning this specifically because I think it should be made clear that this outcome should not be taken as any kind of precedent and that this outcome is an outlier rather then a generally accepted interpretation of community consensus for this kind of discussion – Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

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]

COATRACK is perhaps your main argument in both the AfD and now at the DRV, but it is not a valid reason for deletion per WP:LIKELYVIOLATION; and it certainly isn't a reason for anything in a DRV (Tarc, please keep in mind that we aren't re-arguing the AfD). His notability was demonstrated per WP:GNG. The primary issue is that 37 people--all established editors but two--voted to keep, and only 17 delete, and many of those deletes were weak WP:PERNOM !votes (evidenced here). Closing admin ignored the strength of the 2/3rds of established editors who wanted the article kept based on policy and guidelines, had an opinion on the sources and the merits of the article, and made his opinion a super!vote over obvious consensus. --David Shankbone 23:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I'm amused that it's taken 2 days for you to formulate a direct response to me while you take potshots elsewhere in the DRV. Second, "likelyviolation" doesn't fit, because I didn't argued to delete because it is controversial, I argued to delete because it was an attack page on a controversy masquerading as a BLP. Third, as you have been told over and over and over again, AfD is not a vote. Whether the keeps numbered 37, 7, 87, or 1,630,457 does not matter. An administrator who comes along to close an XfD weighs what people say, not how many of them say it. Finally, I find it ironic and hypocritical that someone who pitched a fit about AGF during the AfD to repeatedly accuse the closing admin of bad faith. If you can't practice what you preach, you may find many will simply tune you out. Tarc (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument boils down to WP:LIKELYVIOLATION; it's a caricature of this example found on that page: "Delete: So many people hate this person that a fair article free of BLP violations is impossible. – Already Judged" This has been the crux of your argument, and you are raising it here at a DRV where it is irrelevant. This isn't AfD II - we are discussing the closing admin's rationale and judgment, which evidenced vested opinion and not a neutral review of the consensus. The closing admin needs to have a very good reason to discard 2/3rds of the participants when those numbers came from established editors who cited policy reasons, and many of the deletes were just PERTARC, (evidenced here). But I did get a chuckle at the idea you think it only takes one awesome argument--yours, perhaps?--to win the day against a million others. Wasn't that sort of the plot of Braveheart? --David Shankbone 05:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion. I'm just here to stalk and harass Tarc. :) - Wikidemon (talk) 23:51, 28 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]

Yeah... If you put enough monkeys with enough typewriters in a room together... Tarc and Jclemens will actually agree on an AfD/DRV. :-) Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 28 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]

I don't know how many times you have to be told this, but AfDs are not votes. We could have a discussion where there are 10 calls to keep an article and 80 to delete. If those 10 are reasoned, thoughtful opinions supported by policy and guideline, opposed by 80 "I like it" calls, then the 10 should win. That's how it works here. Tarc (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, which is why I pointed out how weak your deletes are, and since so few people voted delete, it really stands out how many !votes on the delete side fail your own criteria. --David Shankbone 01:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You would be within spitting distance of a point of the delete votes were actually weak. Protip; they aren't. Tarc (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are trying to say, but many of your delete votes were WP:PERNOM, evidenced above. Closing admin disregarded 27 (out of of 37) established editors who voted keep with policy and guidelines to back up their opinions, and chose 10 deletes (out of 17 that weren't PERNOM, etc.). That's not how things are supposed to work. You were the nominator, so I get you think people should just see the brilliance of your rationale. But we can't disregard everyone else's opinions just because the closing admin disagrees, which is what you advocate. You seem to believe that the closing admin is a super!vote, but they are just a neutral reader of the consensus. --David Shankbone 05:58, 29 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]

Endorse. AfD is not a vote and notwithstanding that the majority of participants there supported keeping the article, the closer accurately applied policy: the sources indicate notability only in connection with his wife. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just say Keep. Mary is notable only due to Jesus. Point is???

Notion that view of one anonymous unknown Wikipedia editor is superior to the massive weight of ALL the editorial desks of ALL major newspapers and wire services in USA and beyond, is simply not worthy of any comment.

The simple fact that overwhelming majority of opinions on Wikipedia favored keeping the article is perhaps another matter. Yet another, certainly lesser matter, is the endlessly problematic "Wikipedia Policy" and its always attendant and all too-often pointless wikilawyering, which apparently in this case, formed the meaningless "rational" for deletion.

That the article has been deleted exhibits nothing more than an obvious and 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]

Overturn per the number of keep votes as well as both the precedent of articles on candidate spouses and the preponderance of sources covering Dr. Bachmann and his activities independent of his wife. Gamaliel (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) Citing the number of keep votes without further elaboration is not a reason to overturn a deletion at DRV; 2) Neither is citing "the precedent of articles on candidate spouses." Additionally there does not appear to be a precedent. We have articles on many if not most governor's wives/husbands because they are also "First Ladies" (or "First Dudes," er something) of a given state. Michele Bachmann is a member of Congress, more specifically the lower chamber. While we have an article on Elizabeth Kucinich (probably unfortunately), we don't have one on Ron Paul's wife (Carol Wells) nor the wife of Thaddeus McCotter (Rita McCotter). The husband/wife of a governor is quite different from the husband/wife of a congressperson, so I'm not seeing precedent helping you here; 3) Making an assertion about the "preponderance of sources" is an AfD argument. Nothing you have said here explains why the admin close was "incorrect" per the standard of a DRV. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that overturn because of the number of supporters or an unknown precedent is not justified. However, in regards to #3, such sources actually were brought up during the AfD discussion that addressed these issues of independence. These sources were not well discussed (and instead, editors chose to focus on other issues). I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's an AFD argument! I'm arguing that this was improperly ignored when closing the AFD. Gamaliel (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure the "precedent of articles on candidate spouses" really helps the overturn or keep case. This probably is more of an AfD discussion, but after this comment I couldn't resist doing some research. I checked every Republican presidential nominee who never became president. These were nominees, not just contenders to become the nominee, as Michele Bachmann is. There were surprisingly few such nominees - just 9. Of those 9, only 3 of the spouses have articles - Jessie Benton Frémont, Elizabeth Dole and Cindy McCain. And one of those, Dole, is a US Senator and former Cabinet member. Among the spouses lacking articles is former NY 1st lady Francis Hutt Dewey. The Democrats are more complicated, but the results are similar. There were 19 never-successful Democrat presidential nominees, going back to Lewis Cass. Of those, 2 were apparently unmarried at the time of their nomination(s). Of the remaining 17, only 7 of their spouses have articles. The missing include former US 2nd lady Mary Cyrene Burch Breckinridge (wife of the vice-president), former NJ 1st lady Ellen Mary Marcy McClellan, former NY 1st ladies Mary Bleecker Seymour and Catherine Dunn Smith and former Ohio 1st lady Margaretta Blair Cox. So basically we have articles on spouses for about 1 in 3 party nominees who were never President. The ratio for candidates for the nomination almost has to be lower. I did check a couple who interested me - Gary Hart and Jack Kemp - and neither of their wives have articles, even though their husbands were candidates multiple times, even though Hart was at one point considered the front runner for the 1988 Democratic nomination and was torpedoed by an issue related to his relationship with his wife, and even though Kemp was the Republican Vice-President nominee in 1996. Rlendog (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Colosing admin's rational was solid and event though AFDs are not votes the 27 keep votes v. the 17 delete/3 merge votes was not exactly a super majority. - Haymaker (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There were more keep votes than that, and if you're only going to count "good" votes, how about being honest (!) and counting only good delete votes as well? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of the main factors the closing admin mentions in his statement is "that significant coverage on the article's subject independent of his wife did not appear to exist." [Emphasis in original]. However I believe that is a incorrect standard. The notability of countless topics is dependent on other topics. Neither WP:GNG nor WP:BIO say that notability must be independent of other article topics. Will Beback talk 22:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The thing you're grasping for here is WP:NOTINHERITED, particularly the "ordinarily, a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative" part. Absent the marriage, there wouldn't be the slightest consideration given to such a person. Tarc (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines take precedence over essays. In any case, no one asserted that the subject was notable solely due to his connection to his marriage. He is notable because he has met the standard for notability: he has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. WP:NOTINHERITED does not say that someone who otherwise meets the notability standard is deemed non-notable simply because his notability is connected to another person's. Will Beback talk 23:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't subscribe to "X is over Y" wiki-bureaucracy. For me, common sense takes precedence over all. All we had to consider for this case is if this were any other conservative Christian who ran a reparative therapy clinic, we wouldn't be here discussing this. Reliable sources that make hay out of someone because of his famous spouse are not the basis for an article that is beneficial or useful to the project. Articles that consist of a smidgen of "born in X, grew up in Y, attended Z" errata before launching into a fat pile o' controversy and criticism is not an article that is beneficial or useful to the project. I value an admin who can use his brain rather than tick off how many guidelines (remember that guidelines have exceptions) one needs, like a monkey pulling a lever for his banana. Tarc (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Bigtimepeace's post below.

You're the one who said that WP:NOTINHERITED is the applicable standard, and I responded that even if one considers that more important than the core Notability guideline it still does not require the deletion of article about people whose notability is in some measure dependent on a connection to another person. That essay simply says that a connection to another person does not impart notability by itself. Once media coverage kicks in and a person becomes the subject of significant coverage then the original reason for that interest is largely irrelevant. Will Beback talk 00:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That comment from Tarc was relatively okay I think, mainly because it gave me a terrific idea for a sock account if I ever create one, namely User:Monkey Pulls Lever, Gets Banana. (Note: If anyone reading this steals that account name I swear I will block them for....something....something real bad.) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessary in a civil discussion to tell another editor that he's not using his brain and is acting like a monkey. Will Beback talk 01:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You completely misunderstood the comment then, if you actually think it had anything to do with you. The "monkey" bit was in regards to the general role of the closing admin, and how I was glad that in this case we got someone who did not think like that. As for "inherited", yes, that still carries the day here, for reasons I explained; all the coverage stems from who he is related to, not from anything that he has done or accomplished. And if you're just going to fall back on bean-counting sources, i.e. "a person becomes the subject of significant coverage", well that argument was punctured quite handily in the AfD. Tarc (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're all over the place Tarc. You've elevated an essay over established notability guidelines, and even the essay doesn't seek deletion in circumstances like Marcus Bachmann; it seeks deletion in circumstances like Courtney Carter. You are making up standards as you go along, misrepresenting the sources, discounting a large swathe of consensus by criteria the delete side itself fails, trying to make essays into policies, and moving the goal post when people, like Will above, point out to you repeatedly that the article passes even whatever new criterion that you happen to brandish in the moment. The only thing consistent about you in these discussions is your incivility. --David Shankbone 01:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh David, as the meta-creator of this entire mess, I will not be rising to your bait this time, sorry. My point is not "all over the place", but rather quite consistent and quite clear. we are here to review the AfD close for serious error, misjudgement or wrongdoing. That is all. "I disagree" is not a valid reason to overturn. "I would have closed it differently" is not a valid reason to overturn (Please take not of Bigtimepeace's endorsement here, specifically the "So while I think my close would have been different..." line. That is the heart of the matter here). If the closing admin's view of notinherited and independent coverage is a result that one would reasonably arrive that, that is the bar to meet. Sometimes the letter of our cherished wiki-acronym guidelines is given less consideration in favor of common sense. Otherwise we never would have been able to finally delete the Daniel Brandt article on, what, the 19th try? Tarc (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And at what point would Marcus's actions, statements, or coverage by the press be sufficient? Never? He is always going to be the husband of a (for now) presidential candidate. You seem to be blanketing every source to him as insufficiently independent. He and his clinic were specifically targeted ([12][13]). His poor treatment in the press is also a (subject of commentary). To continually deny this coverage as insufficiently independent ad nauseum seems dishonest. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This shit needs to stop. The number of people in this DRV and in the AfD--and it isn't just from one side--who have accused others of dishonesty, or bad faith, or pushing an agenda, etc. is completely unacceptable (hint: saying that something merely "seems" dishonest doesn't avoid the problem). The failure to AGF here from multiple parties has poisoned two different discussions. If you feel yourself about to type something that impugns the motives of another editor, go drink some tea or whiskey or something instead. Thanks. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Tarc's actions is that regard are significantly worse than anyone else. Silverseren^C 00:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, and I'm not surprised. One thing I've learned from these recent discussions is that you and Tarc will probably never buy each other drinks in a bar and toast to good fellowship. On the other hand I'm guessing neither of you will vote for Michele Bachmann for president, so that could be a point of camaraderie. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain Mrs. Bachmann would say that I am trying to kidnap her the moment I step into the room, considering i'm probably less trustworthy than a former nun. But that's neither here nor there really, in terms of this discussion. Silverseren^C 00:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, BTP. 99 times out of 100 I would agree with you that people should just suck it up and assume good faith, no matter how distasteful or disagreeable they find a person's comments, or how much they think the person is acting in bad faith. In this particular instance though, perhaps assumption of good faith should be taken in a similar light as presumption of innocence. A person is assumed innocent until proven guilty. Likewise, while editors should assume good faith to the utmost threshold possible, eventually there does come a point where that threshold is passed, and the assumption of good faith can no longer be reasonably maintained. And I would say that Tarc has passed that point. The first time he attacked somebody, in AfD, I assumed good faith. The second and third times, I assumed good faith. When he attacked David Shankbone for politely (admittedly, this is where general politeness ended, but this was polite) asking that he tone down his belligerent tone and stop attacking people, I assumed good faith. Going back on the AfD and the DRV though, this is something like the ninth time that Tarc has been grossly incivil to somebody or personally attacked somebody, and a not a single comment has had a tone that could even approach civility. My goodfaith-o-meter is on empty where it pertains to Tarc. TDiNardo (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that many of these sources have the same issues as the earlier ones. The first 2 links are about the clinic, which may well be notable enough for a standalone article at this point. The last link is more problematic, even though it more directly addresses Marcus Bachmann. It is not about "his poor treatment in the press." It is about his poor treatment from Dan Savage. Are we to have an article about anyone Dan Savage (or someone else, of whatever political stripe) mocks? Here's an article by Dan Savage mocking person X. Here is a commentary by someone saying how terrible it is that Dan Savage is mocking person X. There are now 2 reliable sources covering person X. Does that make person X notable? I'd say not. Rlendog (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to mentioning, again, the really sketchy decision to discount only the bad "keep" votes and not the bad "delete" votes, I'd also like to reiterate a point I made above in response to a comment: Part of AB's closing rationale was "significant coverage on the article's subject independent of his wife did not appear to exist." This is not a closing rationale. This is a vote rationale. If AB felt strongly about the sources, he should have voted like every other user, rather than casting a supervote against consensus and calling it a close. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I notice that (just as in the AfD discussion) the "delete" arguments seem to focus on, not WHETHER the subject is notable, but rather WHY he is notable - or why the person commenting thinks he SHOULDN'T be notable. Notability is notability. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that says a person who meets the criteria of GNG - that is, a person who has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources - should be subjected to this kind of personal-value-judgment filter. No, not even WP:INHERIT. Certainly being related to a prominent person is not a reason in itself to deserve an article, but it's also not a reason to DENY the person an article regardless of how prominent they become. We have hundreds of articles here about people who first came to the public attention because they were related to someone else - but became notable in their own right. --MelanieN (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is exactly the kind of argument that was discounted to some degree by the closing admin, which is not necessarily inappropriate because you are not fully grasping (or at least engaging with) the delete arguments (most of which had nothing to do with a "personal-value-judgment filter"). First of all, you are taking it as a given that Bachmann meets the GNG--that is very much not a given, because what "significant" means is up for debate, particularly when all of the sources that talk about Marcus are referring to his wife at least in part, and many are heavily talking about her. Second, the BLP1E arguments were an important part of the debate and, yes, this was also connected to WP:INHERIT. A living person can actually receive what some might deem "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" but do so almost wholly in the context of an "event" (the meaning of which is again up for interpretation--my argument is that the "event" is Bachmann's still pretty new campaign, with 95% of the stuff written about him coming in that context) and in the end we can, and often do, decide not to have an article about them. This is all basically a rehash of things that have been repeated over and over, but it is not the case that "passes GNG = automatic article," nor is it the case that those arguing for deletion/merge were conceding that he passed the GNG and is therefore notable (I really don't see where you get that idea from). This is the stuff we were debating about, and you are basically just explaining again why you think your argument is right. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As are you. Bottom line, Bachmann is the spouse of a member of Congress who has a very high national profile. Some such spouses receive enough individual coverage to have their own article (Callista Gingrich, Paul Pelosi, Elizabeth Edwards, Elizabeth Kucinich, Richard C. Blum) and some do not (Carolyn Paul, Karen Santorum). It's the degree and significance of the coverage that matters. They are not EXCLUDED from having their own article simply because their prominence resulted from their marriage to a high-profile member of Congress. And yet that seems to be the basis of the peculiar argument advanced by the closing adminisrator and some others here, that any coverage about him that even MENTIONS Michelle Bachmann must automatically be regarded as not significant because of WP:INHERIT.--MelanieN (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to Keep as per User:Calamitybrook. As someone who hasn't been editing for a while but read the relevant discussions here - The fact that this article was deleted and that Tarc's remarkably uncivil attitude toward competent editors goes seemingly without reprimand indicates that some things are very wrong at Wikipedia. --UhOhFeeling (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Query to DRV admins. Would it be helpful to note which people voting here were previously involved in the AfD? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be useful. NW (Talk) 18:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to Keep per Thomas Paine. So, here I am checking to see what the article looks like after that mind-baffling discussion I commented in like a week ago and lo and behold it has magically disappeared and so instead of having an article covering a historically relevant man whose role in a presidential election's campaign season for the most powerful country on earth will be studied for ages (barring Ragnarok) it seems yet another discussion about said artickle(get it?) has started. I see that since Tarc can still not present any actual reasons for deleting the article (and nor will anyone ever be), we have yet another mud sling off that is at least not as disgusting as the final video clip shown on Tosh.0 this past Tuesday. If you saw the most recent episode, well, you know what I mean. So, I guess there's that. So, yeah, I am not going to vominate policies at anyone, but as someone who reads Wikipedia and specifically came here to learn about this particular feller, come on! The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 06:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Note that this looks to be a SPA editor whose only edits are here and on the AfD for the article in question.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would go as far as to say that this appears to be an SPA by the editor's own admission TDiNardo (talk) 06:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close Closing admin was deliberate and thorough. The decision is a fair representation of the discussion. I see no irregularity supportive of overturning the decision. There is nothing to prevent the article from being recreated: this time without the shortcomings exposed in AfD. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion, like the original AfD, demonstrates once again that there was not and is not a consensus to delete. (Nor is there a consensus to keep, but in cases of No Consensus, the default is Keep, i.e., it requires consensus to delete and without consensus the article is not deleted.) I asked the closing administrator on his talk page, several times, whether he had considered the option of closing as No Consensus. He did not answer. --MelanieN (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of these detailed so-called arguments concering Wikipedia Policy, are about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin," which in other words, is silly, and this instance certainly, without interest.

Perhaps the reason a number of the Keep statements didn't bother with detailed argument (and were discounted) is that the question is so transparent and unworthy of debate?

Obviously common sense is insufficient for (I'm sorry) power-mad editors.

Shame shame, is best that one can say. Calamitybrook (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense is actually what led to a finding of delete, one side made a better case than the other. Are you seriously arguing now that the keep calls were weak because they presumed an easy "win" ? That strikes me as a Casey at the Bat-ish level of presumption. Tarc (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, plenty of secondary reliable sources with significant coverage about the topic were provided in the AfD and as well as this discussion.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have rejected the bean-counting of sources already, why are you making this same argument to me again? Tarc (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's the very definition of notability. Has this topic received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? The answer is yes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But there's a reason we have rules or guidelines for other circumstances. Especially when it comes to elections, we have to be careful with inherited notability. Hell, if it was just about existing in sources we would have an article about Mitt Romney's family dog. That got a ton of coverage, even more than this guy. Ick.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. "But it is reliably sourced!" is never a sufficient argument; we have other situations that defy simple sourcing, such as WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP. That is whyWP:N is a guideline, and not policy. It can be set aside. Tarc (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so are you finally admitting that the article satisfies WP:N just like the majority has been saying all along? So on what basis are you arguing for it's deletion? WP:IAR? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you re-read Tarc's comment (you are drawing from it a conclusion that is not remotely there), and his other comments here, and the other comments of other editors here who basically endorse the AfD close. This has nothing to do with IAR, and the arguments for deletion have been expounded upon ad nauseum here and in the AfD. I cannot fathom how you still have to ask "on what basis are you arguing for deletion." No one is asking keep supporters why they want to keep--those arguments have also been expressed ad nauseum. Also your comment, like the majority of "overturn" comments here, is simply relitigating the AfD. Your question to Tarc not only can be answered by simply reading his comments again, it literally has no bearing on this discussion, since nothing about this discussion requires Tarc or anyone else to explain why he voted to delete--in no way, shape, or form is that why we are here, because we are not just starting the AfD over again. If more people understood that this discussion would be half the size. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one who said WP:N is a guideline (not policy) and can be set aside. In any case, the point of DRV is to determine whether the closing admin interpreted the debate correctly. The closing admin said nothing about the notability guideline being set aside. Instead, he cited lack of secondary reliable sources about the topic. This has been proven wrong (both during the AfD and in the subsequent DRV). Simply stated, the closing admin interpretted the debate incorrectly. He did not properly weight the strength of the arguments and he ignored the the majority of the community. Both are clear reasons to overturn his decision. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is saying that just because a number of reliable sources mention someone, they still don't necessarily warrant an article. For example, Salon.com may be a reliable source (I am not sure, but I will assume it is). This is the 2nd time in this thread that you posted an article from that site that refers to Marcus Bachmann as an "uncredentialed bigoted quack." Even though it may be a reliable source, such a piece is still has no relevance to the appropriateness of including a standalone Marcus Bachmann article in an encyclopedia. Rlendog (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But they don't just mention him, these are articles that are predominantly about him. As the closing admin, he should have recognized this. As for Salon.com, all sources have a bias. That doesn't make them unreliable or unusable as evidence of notability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:N, "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." The Salon.com piece has more than a bias. Name-calling pieces are not of appropriate quality to count towards the necessary number and nature of reliable sources to establish notability, especially in light of WP:BLP policies (some of which Tarc linked to at the start of this sub-discussion), at least in my opinion. And apparently the closing admin found arguments to that effect convincing. Rlendog (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, tell you what? I'll ignore the fact that this wasn't part of the closing admin's explanation. My argument doesn't rest on a single source, so it makes no difference to me. Let's discount this one article. It's only one among many. What's your rationale for ignoring all the others sources?[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but there doesn't seem to be a coherent rationale for deleting the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already basically said this above in the same thread but I'll say it again. This is DRV, not AfD. When you are asking another editor about why they are rejecting certain sources about a subject you are engaging in an AfD type discussion. This is particularly true when, as is the case here, we already had a fairly exhaustive discussion about sources during the AfD. No one advocating for delete or merge or redirect denied that many links to articles which discuss Marcus Bachmann could be dropped into the article (i.e., "I'm not finding more than a few secondary sources that say anything about this fellow" was an argument made by exactly zero people).

Like it or not, your question "what about all of these sources?" is completely irrelevant to this discussion, which is based solely on the issue of whether or not the admin who took on the difficult job of closing the discussion did so "incorrectly."

DRVs routinely devolve into "AfD #2" type situations, but this one is a particularly notable example of that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point of DRV is to determine whether the closing admin interpreted the debate correctly. Please read this if you don't believe me. The closing admin specifically cited a lack of secondary reliable sources about the topic. This has been proven false repeatedly. You can claim that the issues don't matter until you're blue in the face, but in the end, the questions remain the same: Did the closing admin correctly interpret the debate? Was there consensus to delete the article? You can deny this all you want but I really don't know what you expect to happen if you can't address the fundamental issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Observation. While one may or may not be convinced by the process arguments being put forth on either side, the fact remains that almost everyone here was involved in the AfD and is voting the same way they voted there. Pretty much everyone voting to endorse deletion originally supported a delete or merge, and pretty much everyone voting to overturn originally supported a keep. These are the users so far who were uninvolved:

I, Jethrobot supported overturning the decision.
Colonel Warden supported overturning the decision.
Martinp endorsed the decision.
Snottywong endorsed the decision.
Eluchil404 wanted to keep the article deleted, but specifically observed that there was no consensus to delete in the AfD, so I don't really know what you want to do with that.
Sam Blacketer endorsed the decision.
UhOhFeeling supported overturning the decision.

--Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Sandstein supported overturning the decision.
2. Crotalus horridus endorsed the decision.
3. Oakshade supported overturning the decision.

--Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I have been involved in dozens, perhaps hundreds, of DRVs over the years and I never ever recall a time when someone picked through the related AfD and noted who !voted how in the DRV. This strikes me as a very bad precedent to set, and attempts to color people's DRV contributions. I reverted the in-line "this person voted this way" entries, and I see no value in the above list, either. Tarc (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Roscelese was just trying to be helpful here, but the inline notation of how each person !voted in the AfD is not something I've ever seen at a DRV either, and I don't think it is appropriate. I suppose it's fine to note who commented in the DRV but not in the AfD as Roscelese did in the above comment, but even that is basically a wash (3 endorses, 3 overturns, and one "keep deleted but won't endorse") and is still somewhat a form of bean-counting regardless. So in the end I don't think considering whether and/or how people commenting here commented in the AfD is a useful metric for the admin who closes this DRV. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, in-line comments weren't what I was looking for; I had thought that Roscelese would post a list on the DRV talk page. Obviously I (or anyone else) wouldn't discount people's opinion because they had already posted, but in a controversial situation like this, I think it can be useful to glance at (a) what the uninvolved editors are saying (and that means those that are actually uninvolved, not just those who didn't manage to catch the AFD) and (b) whether anyone has changed their mind since the AFD. NW (Talk) 21:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we move the individual messages about each user's participation in the AfD that are under our comments to the talk page or something? Not only does it make it look like we're trying to base the strength of an argument on how one !voted in the AfD, but it also just screws with the entire flow of the discussion.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And for a second time, I have removed this in-line junk. You can't annotate everyone's DRV entry like this. If this TRULY were to become something possible/permissible, it'd have to stem from some centralized/formalized discussion, not from one-line agreement by one admin here. Tarc (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion — no evidence of impropriety on Aaron Brenneman's part, and DRV is not AFD part 2. The deletion rationales (BLP, NOTINHERITED) had more policy weight than the keep rationales. *** Crotalus *** 20:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is accusing Aaron Brenneman of impropriety - simply of failing to follow procedure. The closing administrator is supposed to evaluate the discussion and the weight of the arguments to determine what the consensus of the discussion was. They then (usually) simply announce the consensus: "The result was keep," "The result was delete," "The result was no consensus." But that's not what he did. Instead he engaged in the arguments, decided how HE felt on the issue, and then closed the discussion that way. He is perfectly entitled to have an opinion, of course, and to argue for it - but not from the "referee chair" as closing administrator. --MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't think anyone is accusing Aaron Brenneman of impropriety" ? Most browsers default to control-f to search for text in page, yes? Do that, pop in "supervote" and "super vote", and let's see how many accusations of impropriety there are. Tarc (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said "supervote" myself. I don't consider that an accusation of impropriety - simply shorthand for failing to follow the proper procedure. --MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and default to keep. There was no numerical consensus to delete the article, and both sides advanced valid arguments ("he's got plenty of coverage" vs. "he's only being covered because of his wife"). Which of these arguments is the stronger one is something that experienced editors can and do disagree about in good faith, and therefore it's not the closing admin's decision to make. (I was not involved in the AfD.) Sandstein 20:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. ZHurlihee (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ZHurlihee, it has been pointed out by people on both sides of this debate that DRVs, AfDs and the like are not simply votes. It would be helpful if you could expound on this by providing your reasons for endorsing the deletion. TDiNardo (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Zombo.com and keep as per I thought this was supposed to be an encyclopedia (WP:N is clearly established)--208.102.220.35 (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC) — 208.102.220.35 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Overturn to Keep - Not only was consensus very strong to retain this separate article, most "keep" voters cited analysis of official policies or guidelines like WP:GNG and why WP:NOTINHERITED didn't restrict this topic from having a separate article. Even users like DGG who didn't actually make a link to a guideline had arguments that supported the relevant guidelines and policies (a lot of closing editors unjustly ignore participants that don't make some WP link). --Oakshade (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. What is Marcus Bachmann notable for? According to the sources, he's the controversial husband of Michele Bachmann, and he's managed to stay out of the news for more than ten years until he was targeted by a political campaign against his wife. It may be newsworthy for Wikinews, but there's not a thing encyclopedic about the guy, and everything is already covered about him in his wife's article. A standalone article about Marcus only serves as a clearinghouse for negative information about his religious beliefs, his business, and his relationship with his wife. I admit I don't like any of those things, and I agree with many of the points raised by the LGBT activists who are waging this campaign (and I personally enjoyed the glitter bomb/barbarian video very much) but we need to keep the encyclopedia separate from the political machinations of special interests. Is Marcus Bachmann notable for his business practice? No. Are his religious beliefs notable in some way? No. Perhaps he's published a notable book of some kind? Again, no. There's nothing here, folks. Viriditas (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- These comments would have been appropriate at the AfD. The thing to take away from your contribution here is that you are not even trying to argue that the way the AfD was closed reflected the consensus actually developed there. The fact that you are not trying to make that argument does you credit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the closing administrator, I've answered quite a few questions on this already on the Bachmann section of my talk page. I'm happy to continue to do so, and/or any direct questions here as well. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, 37 people voted to keep the article and out of those, Tarc, the most virulent critic of the article, only felt that 10 of those keeps weren't substantive, leaving 27 policy and guideline based votes. Many of the 17 delete votes were similar to Viriditas above, which boiled down to WP:LIKELYVIOLATION. Further evidence showed that many deletes votes were WP:PERNOM and not substantive votes. 37 to 17, or 27 to 10, the numerical consensus of reasoned discussion was a clear 2/3rds keep. Tarc has put forth a novel theory above that it could have been 1,000,000 established editors saying keep, and only one delete with a really good argument is all it takes to 'win' the AfD, that the one argument is actually "consensus" and the closing admin can ignore the 1,000,000 others. Do you agree with this interpretation of consensus, that it doesn't matter how many people vote 'keep', the closing admin is the ultimate arbiter of whose argument was the best and it doesn't matter how many people raise valid arguments against what the closing admin considers the best argument? (We can break down the votes on the Talk page to show you that every policy/guideline-based delete argument was addressed, something you say did not happen). --David Shankbone 12:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- David, there was a fair bit of emotive language in there. This is already a slightly charged discussion, can I ask that you limit the "virulent"s and such? That aside, Tarc didn't close this, I did. I go by Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus,
  Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. For instance, if someone finds the entire page to be a copyright violation, a page is always deleted. If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant.
  [Emphasis mine] Does that answer your question with respect to how I read a debate when closing? With respect to the desire to parse out the votes, you may not have noticed Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review/Log/2011_July_26#The_.21votes_themselves where all the top level "k/d/m/r" comments have been sorted and some annotated. It's a travesty to have done so, but as this argument is simply demanded but some members of this debate, there it is. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- While consensus may not be determined merely by counting heads, it's a perversion of the process to insist, as is argued here, that the relative levels of community support for a relevant policy interpretation may be ignored by the closing administrator. The closer is not the "decider" in these cases, the Wikipedia community is. The strength of an argument is in large part determined by the support it enjoys within the Wikipedia community, not by the opinion of the administrator who happens to close the discussion. There are cases where, legitimately, the closing admin may balance the opinions expressed only regarding a particular case ("local consensus") with the contrary views of the community as expressed in a clearly contrary policy. That is not the case here; instead, there is no community consensus behind the policy interpretation favored by the closing administrator, and there never has been. The arguments on both sides are plausible, and held by significant portions of the Wikipedia community. Nothing in the authority given to or the discretion enjoyed by administrators allows them to override the community, except in clear and extraordinary circumstances. The wide-ranging nature of the debate, and the extensive participation by experienced and skilled editors, should have sent a very strong signal to the closing administrator, a signal that was missed entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 14:59, 29 July 2011
According to WP:PERNOM, "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of keeping or deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by 'per nom'." The nominator, Tarc, did provide a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of deletion, and so these "delete per nom" !votes are substantive. Rlendog (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, why the hell bother with AfD at all, if admins are simply going to decide for themselves and ignore the views of editors as they see fit? If you know better than the rest of us, fine -- but then let's just do away with AfD altogether. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Brenneman: When you closed the AfD, you stated that "significant coverage on the article's subject independent of his wife did not appear to exist". However, numerous sources in both the AfD and this DRV were identified that are predominantly about the subject (not his wife). Can you please explain your thought process here?

Are you saying that the mere mention of his wife automatically discounts the source? If so, on what policy do you base your opinion on? And how do you reconcile that with the fact that Eva Braun is not independently notable without her relationship to her famous husband?
Are you saying that the number of sources provided wasn't enough? If you look at my posts above, you'll see that I cited 10 sources. Jethrobot cites 14 sources (although I'm sure that there some overlap between our two lists). Is that not sufficient? If so, how many should have been provided for you to decide differently?
Or are you saying something completely different?

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I might interject here, Aaron answered this question on his talkpage-- it's not about his opinion, he says. It's what others have to say:

Ahhh, I think this may seem like a small point at first, but it's actually part of the crux of this whole discussion: It's not my opinion of the sources that carries the most weight. (Thus I'm not going to look at those links just yet.) In my closing, the words I used were "the delete arguments focused much more specifically on the sources provided". Given the level of debate that has ensued, I could have made this more clear, but what's important is the discussion by the participants. This is why my frist response to DreamFocus was that he was trying to "convince the wrong person."

I spent considerable time looking at where points were raised in the discussion, who responded to them, and if contributions that came later referred back to those points. In doing so it becomes clear that there is a lack of deep engagement on the part of the "keepers" with the point of individual coverage. If we look at the last two (nicely symmetric) comments prior to the close, this is a bit more obvious:

MelanieN, "The guy has been all over the news lately. [...] WHY he became so notable is irrelevant."
And Adoil Descended, "his "fame" for running some fringe/freakish therapy center would never be notable on its own terms if he was not married to a leading American politician."

MelanieN not only fails to rebutt the "delete/merge/redirect" camp's position on the coverage, she is making a statement that is 100% in opposition to our "one event" policy for living persons: It certainly does matter why they are in the media. (In the spirit of full disclosure, this is one of the comments that I put into the "not supported by policy" basket, along with DGG's nearly identical language above it.)

I am pretty sure that this isn't what you wanted at all, or you wouldn't have brought those sources here. But if you go back and look over the XfD and attempt to see if the people there were convinced by the sources, you'll see that the "d/m/r" group were consistant, and that they continued to echo the language of "no independant coverage" in a variety of forms. The keeps were inconsistant at best, and did themselves no favours by explicitly rejecting the BLP1E concept.

Now it's utterly posible that they didn't mean to do so when they said "any notability is notability." But as the person who's charged himself with reading the consensus I can only go with what's there. Did that help at all, or was it just me polishing my own knob? (End of Aaron's response)

However, I argued that the AfD generally did not focus onthe quality of the sources during the AfD. I don't think most people read them (even the people who originally supported keeping the article). I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't help. My questions are about what his thought process was in interpreting the AfD and how he judged which arguments were stronger than others. Obviously, he should not base his answers on something that wasn't in the AfD discussion. In any case, his answers on his talk page raise another question. He makes reference to BLP1E although this was not in his explanation when he closed the discussion. So I guess I have a fourth question:

4) What role did WP:BLP1E play in your decision? If it did play a role, how do you address the fact that the topic is notable for 2 reasons: 1) His wife and 2) His clinic? I'm not sure his marriage counts as an event, but even if it did, that makes this a BLP2E. Aaron invited us to ask questions so I look forward to reading his responses. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's some debate on the talk page right now regarding the weighting I applied to one comment that I hope speaks to this question. Please forgive a slight reframing of the question, and that I answer what role the one-event guideline (and the other policies and guidelines on humans) played in the debate as opposed to what role it played in my opinion. In a normal AfD closing, the administrator doesn't usually get to "address [a] fact," that's the job of the participants to do that. Here it was the same: There was large-scale failure to respond to concerns raised about the applicability of those sources. Several people flatly denied that it mattered why people were in the news. That's not a policy-based argument. Again looking on the talk page here, compare my note on Buddy432's contribution to that of DGG. Does that somewhat answer your question on what role the policy played? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Brenneman: I asked you a set of 4 questions. You completely ignored the first 3 and gave an indirect answer to the fourth. Can you try again? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I was pretty sure that all the answers were wrapped up in there, but I'm happy to try again.

"Are you saying that the mere mention of his wife automatically discounts the source?" (AND)
"Are you saying that the number of sources provided wasn't enough?"
To both of these: No, I'm not saying that. My analysis of the sources is not the issue.
"Or are you saying something completely different?"
Yes, I am saying something else. That's what I mean when I said above In a normal AfD closing, the administrator doesn't usually get to "address [a] fact," that's the job of the participants to do that.
"What role did WP:BLP1E play in your decision?"
There were multiple claimants to how the policy should be interpreted, but the clearest issues were where participants flatly denied that it existed.

There's a fundamental misunderstanding inherent in your questions regarding the way that the role of the administrator is functioning in these debates. That role is a middle ground between scoring the debate, counting heads, and occasionally just wildly making things up. While I may get to decide what's "logically fallacious," you're not asking for that. To me it feels as though you're asking me to somehow "own" a supervote, in that if I agree with the outcome then somehow that would invalidate the close. If that's not what you're intending, I do apologise.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, I think the closer weighted the !votes correctly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am still seeing no actual reasons to keep this article deleted. It seems that those calling for deletion are taking a few approaches,such as 1) they are jealous of Mr. Bachmann so do not want him to have an article and will spout whatever nonsense they can to get his article deleted and 2) they make illogical non-arguments. For example, some claim that he is only notable because of his wife. Without his wife he would not be notable. Well, Eva Braun would be a nobody without Adolf Hitler, so are you going to delete her article, too, because she is only notable because her husband is notable? The fact is because her husband is notable, she has become relevant as well and written about accordingly. And no I am not comparing Bachman to mass genocidal freaks in terms of character, but just in terms of how you are making arguments here. Anyway, I see above a call to create an article on his clinic because it is at least unquestionably notable and I have gone ahead and done that at Bachmann & Associates based on a draft I found link to at the AfD discussion. See ya! --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
- Bachman & Associates deleted, substantially identical to one section of Marcus Bachmann.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I was surprised at this close, because it is rare that arguments are weighed more than numbers. In this case it does not look like the 'keep' votes adequately explained why the coverage of this person is separate to coverage of his wife and why it needs a separate article. To be clear, the content is clearly noteworthy and should be covered, but the debate is over where it should be covered. Polequant (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of closers actually use this "looking at strength of argument" clause as an excuse to only validate the arguments they agree with and in effect making an afd vote to ignore articluated consensus. In fact "looking at strength of argument" means the editors articulate their interpretations of our guidelines and policies with their reasoning to support their interpretation as opposed to a "Keep as WP:NOTINHERITED doesn't apply" or "Doesn't warrent separte article per WP:NOTINHERITED." In other words, as the closing guideline states before "looking at strength of argument," it's not simply "counting heads." As long as the editors used good-faith reasoning as their arguments pertaining to our standards, the "strength" is there and not to be discounted.--Oakshade (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The keep arguments did not articulate why a separate article was warranted, given that all of the coverage is in the context of this mans wife and her presidential campaign. This is not a WP:NOTINHERITED argument, but a "where is the information best presented" one. Polequant (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what AfD you're looking at but in this one, many of the keep voters went into explicit detail as to why this topic passed our guidelines and most of the others who didn't cited the ones who did. Some of the delete voters, who were in the minority, argument strengths were very weak like, "Yes there is some mainstream media coverage, but nothing where he is covered in his own right" which was immediately debunked by the linking to a 4 page Washington Post article and others. --Oakshade (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That article doesn't debunk anything. It is clearly coverage in the context of his wife and her presidential campaign. All of the commentary regarding him is about the affect it will have on his wife's campaign, including very clearly that washington post article. In addition, it is all part of the wider issue of Michele Bachmann's attitudes to gay people. If you want some alphabet soup then the correct guideline is WP:CFORK. Bigtimepeace amongst others were expressing this in the AfD and I did not see any adequate rebuttals. Polequant (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I hesitate to get involved in such a controversial issue, but having read a good deal of discussion as well as relevant policy pages, I wanted to weigh in. The existing coverage indeed falls within the scope of the single event and BLP guidelines, as well as the coatrack essay. Discussion about editor intent misses the point: It's a straight policy question, and the answer is that the closing admin made the right decision. Marcus Bachmann may warrant a separate article at some point in the future. That point is not today. John Slocum (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
General comment. I've closed extremely contentious AfDs before. I choose to do so and kind of like doing it in a way, but it is hard. You are just making one edit, but generally hours of thinking and work go into making that one edit. You know when you close a contentious AfD that the yellow bar will likely light up on your talk page because folks are angry at your decision, and quite possibly you will end up at DRV with a lot people pissed off at you. But, in the end, someone has to close the damn thing, and whoever does deserves our thanks. In all my Wiki-time, I don't think I've ever seen an admin be as responsive to concerns about the close as Aaron Brenneman has here. He responded to many questions on his own talk page, has invited and responded to more questions here, and has even taken the (as far as I know) unprecedented step of listing out all of the !votes on the talk page of this discussion while offering his thinking on the validity of particular votes. All of that should be applauded, and it speaks to something that rubs me the wrong way in this discussion. Many of the editors unhappy with the outcome don't seem to recognize that the closing of a contentious AfD is often a crap shoot. Some random admin steps in and does the best they can (hopefully), and it's often the case that another random admin would have done differently. That's how this extremely imperfect process works, and anyone who participates in AfD has had the experience of not liking a particular close. That's not special. Like it or not, we give a lot of power to admins to determine consensus in AfDs, meaning we basically defer to their judgment because we need to have some way to stop arguing about whether or not an article should exist. DRVs are for those times when an admin seems to have royally screwed up in one way or another (which certainly do happen, sometimes in a particularly egregious manner). Given Aaron's thoughtful closing statement and his continued willingness to engage with detractors, in no way does the close of this AfD seem to fall into the "royal screw up" category (and, as I've said repeatedly, I basically don't agree with the close, even though I "like" it in terms of the outcome). It's all par for the course to receive criticism for closing a difficult AfD, but I wish more of the folks here lobbing grenades in Aaron's direction could also thank him--and some have definitely done that--for taking on a difficult task. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you don't get a "get out of criticism card" for doing an unpleasant job. We are all volunteers, and all deserve respect for that. But that does not protect us from valid, even vigorous criticism. If closing an AfD is a "crap shot" for you, then don't close it - wait for someone for whom it is not a "crap shot". And if, for some reason, someone forces you to close an AfD where you cannot form a clear opinion, then there obviously is "no consensus". Compare RfA. We grant bureaucrats discretion, by we don't allow them to grant adminship against a majority, or to refuse adminship to someone with 90% support. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm even sorrier, because you are not remotely responding to what I wrote Stephan. Did I say taking on a difficult job entitles one to a "get out of criticism card"? No, I said "it's all par for the course to receive criticism for closing a difficult AfD." I assume you read that part. I also did not say that closing an individual AfD is a crap shoot for the admin in question when they make the close, rather I said that the AfD process is a bit of a crap shoot because one admin might close it one way, while another would close it differently, and thus the end result is determined by who happens to do the close. This is indisputably true, and if you don't think it is than I don't know what to tell you. I also don't know what to tell someone who "compares" AfD to RfA--two processes which are not analogous. If you think "90% of the people voted keep, therefore we are keeping" is a valid way to close an AfD then I sincerely hope you never close AfD discussions. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTP, your points are well taken, and I was the first to thank Aaron for his thoughtfulness, but the fact remains that there was no consensus to delete this article. Admins are supposed to use their judgment to determine consensus, not to determine whether an article should or should not be deleted. That's the fundamental problem with Aaron's close. He didn't determine consensus--or a lack thereof--he determined who, his opinion, had the best arguments. There were valid arguments on both sides. This is a real problem that should be addressed with WP:Rough consensus if that is how it is being read. It's creating an Admin Class. That's not in the egalitarian spirit of the Wiki, and WP:CONSENSUS is policy not essay. --David Shankbone 00:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must respectfully demur on the issue my anti-egalitarianism. I'm fairly sure I invented "administrator recall." - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec with Aaron, replying to David) I specifically had you in mind David as one of the people who thanked Aaron for the close, so thanks for that. Your points about this AfD are basically along the lines of what we've already discussed, and while your point of view is certainly valid, obviously we disagree.

And, like it or not, there very much is an "admin class" around here, which certainly has its problematic aspects, to put it mildly. Admins determine consensus in AfDs, and the fact is that does give them more power than non-admin editors, which does go against the egalitarian aspects of the Wikipedia project. It's just a reality. If there were a better system for determining consensus in AfDs that didn't involve one admin stepping up and making a judgment I'd be all for it, but I'm not sure what that would look like. My initial comment was basically trying to point out the constraints of the system we have now, i.e. that we put a lot of authority in the hands of an individual admin to make what is often a difficult determination, and as a rule so long as said determination is "kind of okay" or "not totally wrong" it stands. Maybe that's a bad way to do things, but it is how this stuff works. Again, none of this is to say that we all must endorse Aaron's close, but I think it's a point that needs to be considered and which many of those arguing to overturn are not really considering. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron - that doesn't mean you shouldn't have closed this as no consensus: by your own parsing both sides had enough substantive policy/guideline-based arguments. Deleting this article might be the right result in some people's eyes, but relying less on policies like WP:Consensus and relying more on amorphous essays like WP:Rough consensus will eventually come back to bite everyone. Opinionated admin closures that don't take 'no consensus' into account will create problematic closures and a lot of disruption. We want people to participate, particularly as our editor numbers continue to decline. You used rough consensus not to discount agenda editors and SPAs, but longtime and respected editors like User:DGG, in order to delete an article where there was no consensus to delete. You decided the keeps valid policy and guideline arguments didn't count as much as the deletes, making you a judge and not a determiner of consensus. --David Shankbone 01:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That "amorphous essays" is the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, and has been stable at that wording since at least January 2008. (I didn't look further back.) We've reached the point of futile repetition here, perhaps we could step back and let other have the mike?
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus to delete this article, and despite several people asking you why you didn't follow wp:Consensus, you have not given an adequate response. Nobody has been prevented from speaking, so perhaps just respond to the people who are asking you why you didn't follow policy and find "no consensus". --David Shankbone 13:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I've done nothing but respond. You're now asking me "When did I stop kicking my dog?" And, again, with respect, "the people who are asking" seem to be disproportionately represented by you. You've well and truly had your chance to discuss this with me. Even if just to give me time to answer someone else, I'm now going to suggest again that you and I are no longer engaging in fruitful debate.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Camping had elaborate argument for why the world would end.

A couple of simple words suffice to answer Camping. In which case the "common sense" of Wikipedia sees that Camping offers more "reasons" and therefore the better argument??

I suggest that some enthusiast simply recreate the M. Bachmann article with due care and sourcing.

Calamitybrook (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn: Even though our page Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions admonishes against using inherited notability as an argument for keeping, as TDiNardo mentioned Mary wouldn't have become famous if it weren't for Jesus, and the articles focused on Marcus Bachmann. The coverage I've seen focused on the question regarding his sexual orientation (which it is possible to write about in a way that does not violate NPOV or BLP). This is his sexual orientation, not an event, so WP:BLP13 does not apply. An event is something like setting your little sister on fire after watching Beavis and Butt-head. Guideline & Policy Wonk (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Mary's case I imagine we'd have waited until the coverage consisted of something other than how she was a welfare queen whose story ("there was no father") was really, really suspicious, particularly while she was alive and Jesus was running for consul. John Slocum (talk) 10:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse- if I had participated in the AfD I likely would have voted Keep. However, I can't see a justification for overturning this close. All those advocating overturn seem to be merely saying "I don't agree with the result" and have not provided any evidence that the closing administrator has misunderstood policy or made an egregious error of judgment. DRV is not AfD round 2. "No consensus" would have been an acceptable close as well, but I cannot fault an administrator who judges comments in the light of policy and actually makes a firm decision rather than the "no consensus" copout. Reyk _YO! 03:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - very well thought out closing made even more difficult from the low of level of civility in parts of the deletion discussion. Aaron was correct in pointing out that those who said keep did not address the arguments for deletion. The arguments against applying NOTINHERITED were that the coverage was about him, not his spouse, overlooking the fact that the coverage related to how his actions might affect her presidential campaign. Look at it this way, it's like when children of celebrities get in trouble and articles are written about them. Yes, the articles are about the children, but they are, by proxy about the childs' famous parent or parents. --Jtalledo (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I should say first that I believe the discussion was closed in good faith and that my intention is to address the closing itself without any prejudice against the closer. I believe there are four reasons this deletion could be overturned. Firstly, the closing rationale did not reflect the substance of the discussion that took place, leading me to believe that the discussion was misinterpreted by the closer. Secondly, some rather novel interpretations of WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP1E were used to rationalize deletion, which appear to extend their meanings beyond their original intention. While those interpretations were refuted in the discussion, there was no indication that their refutation was considered in the decision to delete. Third, the closer admitted that the deletion discussion itself was flawed and seemed to indicate a desire for arguments to be more fleshed out. Finally, more resources on the subject independent of his wife have been found since the discussion that should allow for recreation (see links provided by I, Jethrobot and A Quest For Knowledge).

Strong and weak arguments for deletion and retention existed in the discussion, but I think the closing inadequately summarized the results and demonstrated an incomplete understanding of all the perspectives that were offered as well as the relevant policies that were discussed. The closing summary cited a failure by the keep arguments to address rebuttal points, ignoring several policy-based rebuttals used in the discussion, and instead holding up three of the flimsiest keep rationales as examples [33][34][35] (one is reminded of the straw man).

While editors made arguments that the subject is notable in his own right and provided ample sources supporting their argument, the closing rationale said that there was a "dearth of independent material on this article's subject." While there certainly was not a dearth of reliable sources appearing both in the article (there were 15 sources at the time of deletion) and in the deletion discussion, the closing seemed to adopt the view that WP:GNG somehow incorporates WP:NOTINHERITED to the degree that if the inheriter is even peripherally mentioned in reliable sources about the inheritee, then those sources are not independent and can not be used as indicators of notability.

The closer also referred to the debate as "marred" and "sub-optimal" due to assertions made by participants that were unsupported and to commenters' failure to address the specific issues laid out in the nomination. While recognizing that this could create a gap between the intentions of commenters and what the closing administrator takes away from it, the closing admin did not opt to extend the discussion or otherwise bridge that gap. Instead, while acknowledging that the result was "complex" and "polarising", a decision was made to delete the article. If delete discussions are not up to par, I would hope that admins feel empowered to extend the debate if they feel it is warranted. Gobonobo ^T ^C 16:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've raised a lot of points, so I'm going to break them out into bullets, to ease later discussion.

Your 'firstly' is "the closing rationale did not reflect the substance of the discussion," but you've not expanded on that or given me examples. If you tell me more, I can better understand how you feel I was mistaken.
Your 'secondly' is that, in your opinion, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP1E was used inappropiately. Again, you haven't explained why. You also state that "those interpretations were refuted," but don't explain how.
Your 'third' is that I could have chosen to relist. That's true, but if you'll look at the timeline of comments, there had been four edits in the final two days.

With respect, none of those appear to be more than that you disagree with me. You've effectivly stated that if you had been the closing adminstrator you would have closed differently. That's not the purpose of this venue, and note that some of those who have endorsed did so while explicitly saying that they disagreed.

Regarding the "straw man," (and may I add, that's an assumption of bad faith to say, even when you start with "I'm sure he acted in good faith") if you look again at the closing comments, I'm giving these as explicit examples of poor contributions that came later in the debate. Again saying the substantative debate had trailed off.
With respect to my closing comments on the "dearth of independent material," as I have stated above this was not my opinion, but that of those advocating weight be placed upon the "one event" guideline. You then go on to state your opinion of how this should have been read, but that's your opinion.

I appreciate that you've taken the time to expand fully on how you feel I've erred in interpreting this debate. I think if you read some of the comments by those who've endorsed the close, you'll see that you're not alone in finding that a reasonable close of "no consensus" could have been reached. But that is different from saying that I was unreasonable to have done otherwise. I'm happy to discuss further the factors that led me to making the decision I did. For example,

Would you consider the final keep comment, by MelanieN, to be consistant with policy, and what weight would you have placed upon that opinion?
Similarly, how would you have interpreted the final delete comment by And Adoil Descended?

I've not, so far, been having much luck with getting people to engage specifically on why they felt this was a "no consensus" outcome, but I keep hoping.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but to me this starts to feel like someone who asked why a stone flies roughly parabolically has the math broken down all the way to 1+1=2, and then asks "but why do we chose the Peano axioms for natural numbers" - it's an interesting philosophical question, but has nearly not relevance to the concrete situation. You should have closed as "no consensus" per Potter Stewart. This whole debate smells of sophistry and rationalization. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry as well. To me, the way the commentators interpret the comments I highlighted is key to understanding why they feel this was a no-consensus outcome. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 09:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on Potter Steward: It was a vigorous debate with many established editors on both sides throwing all kinds of arguments into the fray, and no side significantly backing down. That's how you can easily recognize a "No consensus" situation. As I see it, it's not up to the closer to determine if any one of the !voters has understood our policies and guidelines in the one true way. We ask the community exactly because we want to get an understanding of its view, not to question it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You fundamentally misunderstand the deletion discussion process if that is your view of the matter. That is the primary role of a closer; to gauge consensus, yes, but on the strength and merit of the arguments presented, not on how many people show up. Tarc (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to make that more clear. I have appreciated your continued patience with me, both here and on the talk page. I am much better able to see where you're coming from. I really didn't mean to do angels-on-pins with you, I promise. I do think now that our differences are fundamental, though. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus. This was a thankless one to close, and the closure would have been criticized regardless of how it was closed. The majority of the comments on the AfD -- on both sides -- could be described as "sub-optimal" (borrowing words from others), making "no consensus" a valid conclusion. --Orlady (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus, since there simply wasn't any. There was a large number of participants, and varying degrees of argument quality for both sides, and in the end I feel that it came down to NOTINHERITED and BLP1E being the concerns on one side, and the other side simply disagreeing that such concerns were applicable to the subject at hand. I don't find the arguments to keep to be so blatantly out of policy that it would merit disregarding some (or all) of them, at least not to the extent that the view to delete would become predominant or better qualified - frankie (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as there clearly was no consensus, for the reasons well-stated by Gobonobo -- who also correctly points out the that the closing admin acted in good faith. However, the multiple errors require the overturning of the close. Neutron (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about where this discussion is likely to wind up: If the closer of this deletion review discussion follows policy (as the original closer of the AfD didn't), this DRV will be closed as "No consensus" and will be relisted at AfD. Per WP:No consensus#Deletion review, "A no-consensus result at DRV is best addressed by relisting the deleted page at XfD. Without clear direction to either endorse or overturn a ruling, further discussion is always appropriate." Now it's possible we'll get another administrator like the original closer here, who will minutely examine the arguments, decide how THEY feel on the subject, and close the discussion in accordance with their opinion. But it's obvious here, as it was obvious at the AfD, there there are reasoned arguments from established editors on both sides of the discussion, in approximately equal numbers - the classic definition of No Consensus. At the AfD the lack of consensus should have resulted in either a Relist or a Default To Keep; at this discussion, it should result in a Relist. --MelanieN (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the tone of this note. Rereading it now, it sounds like I am trying to tell the closing administrator what to do; that was not my intention. The point I intended to make was that 1) this discussion is at "no consensus" just as the original discussion was, and 2) we are all wasting our time here when we argue over issues that belonged in the AfD. We should save our breath, because we will undoubtedly have another chance at an AfD listing where we can present these arguments. Either this one will be relisted, or else someone will shortly recreate the Marcus Bachmann article and it will get nominated for AfD a second time. Maybe this time around the "delete" folks will be able to explain their bizarre interpretations of WP:INHERIT (where they seem to suggest that if a person has a famous relative, any article about them which even mentions the famous relative is automatically excluded from consideration) and WP:BLP1E (where they have never explained clearly what "one event" they are talking about). Not to mention Aaron's apparent belief that later participants in the discussion may not simply express their opinion and reasons, as the earlier ones did; the later participants also have a duty to specifically refute every contrary opinion that has been expressed. --MelanieN (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not correct Melanie. You are citing an essay, one which contradicts the actual guidelines for closing a DRV. The essay you cite says "A no-consensus result at DRV is best addressed by relisting the deleted page at XfD," a suggestion which was added by the creator of the essay but which has no basis in anything. Compare that with the language on the DRV page itself, which is clearly the place where we get our guidance on this: "If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate."

You have presented no argument for why this DRV is exceptional and thus why "most cases, same effect as endorsing" does not apply. Again, DRV is not AfD, and we generally are deferring to the judgment of the AfD close admin, which is why a "no consensus" will usually default to "endorse." This DRV is pretty equally split, the closing admin has been responsive to concerns, and a number of "overturn" votes are simply saying they don't like the close, not explaining how the closing admin was "incorrect" in terms of the course of action he took. While it would be within the remit of the closing admin to relist the AfD, that's generally an exceptional course of action (per DRV guidelines, not per a random essay) and I don't see any exceptional circumstances here that would suggest a relist is the way to go.

Also I can think of few ideas less appealing than discussing this issue for another week. We have already wasted an extraordinary amount of energy talking about one not-remotely-important article that could well be re-created down the road if Marcus Bachmann's notability becomes more evident, and in the meantime we have a redirect to a page where one can get some basic info on him (plus the whole "controversy" surrounding him can be added to his wife's campaign article, meaning we cover basically everything that the standalone article did). Thus making a no consensus close here that is a de facto endorse of the AfD close is not only in keeping with our standard DRV practices, it's also just common sense. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the AFD close was based in no small part on NOTINHERITED, which is an essay, and more specifically on an interpretation/application of the essay's logic which community sentiment rejected, the logic her should also result in an "overturn" !vote. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is not analogous Hullaballoo and you are not describing the AfD close rationale accurately (even if you were, in a sense you are making a "two wrongs make a right" sort of argument which I don't think is going to fly). Melanie explicitly suggested that this DRV should be closed based on one sentence in an essay written by one person, when our actual DRV guidelines suggest exactly the opposite should happen (with some exceptions). Aaron did not close the AfD based on WP:NOTINHERITED, indeed he nowhere explicitly invoked that section of the essay in question. Rather he invoked delete arguments relating to a lack of significant coverage independent of the subject's wife, paired with the arguments that this fell under our "one event" guidelines relating to BLP. Aaron could have invoked WP:NOTINHERITED and to some degree was implicitly doing so, but that was by no means the point on which the rationale turned.

Efforts to tie my response to Melanie back to the AfD are unlikely to succeed because AfD and DRV are not the same process. The simple fact is that Melanie's description of how we generally close a "no consensus" DRV was incorrect because she based it on an essay with little or no standing--and there's a significant contrast here with WP:ATA, which anyone who regularly participates in AfD has invoked at one time or another--rather than the description on the actual DRV page. This is not a trivial point and there is no dancing around it, particularly because there's a good chance this will be closed "no consensus." --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're clearly in error here. The closer quite plainly invoked NOTINHERITED when he said "significant coverage on the article's subject independent of his wife did not appear to exist," stressing the reference to the essay. In discussion here, which explicitly referred to NOTINHERITED, he said early today that the claim he had not properly applied it had not been properly "explained". And your "two wrongs make a right" suggestion makes no sense whatsoever; my point was that if your analysis of Melanie's argument was well-reasoned, it undermined the closer's rationale as much as it did her argument. That's an argument for consistency, not the handwaving you make it out to be. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He did not "clearly invoke" that essay--had he been doing so he would have mentioned it by name, which he didn't, whereas he did mention other policies, which you are very noticeably not mentioning. I already said he implicitly invoked it, and the fact is there is absolutely nothing wrong with invoking an essay when providing an AfD rationale, particularly one that is cited in just about every contentious AfD there is (which WP:ATA is), and particularly when actual policies or guidelines are discussed.

Again, different essays carry more or less weight, and ultimately all are merely descriptive not prescriptive as is the case with our policies. The principle "notability is not inherited" is described by an essay rather than a policy, but it is clearly a principle which we usually follow. If you disagree then say so now because that would matter a lot to this discussion. If you agree that the concept of notability not being inherited is one we often apply to BLP articles, then you essentially have no point here at all.

You ignored my main point, which was to describe the things that Aaron explicitly did say in the close relating to a lack of sources only about Marcus as connected to the principles found in BLP1E and related guidelines. You cannot just ignore the part of the close that is inconvenient for you since it does not relate to WP:NOTINHERITED, and that seemed to be what you were doing with your response.

All of this is a bit of a side point though, and I take it you don't disagree with my original reply to Melanie, namely that a "no consensus" close here would generally default to "endorse." --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. There was obviously never any consensus to delete as this page and the original afd overwhelmingly indicate. Either relist and eventually close as no consensus or just skip to the "no consensus to delete part" and restore the article. R. Baley (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please, "obviously never any consensus" doesn't give the closer any sense of your reasoning. Can you please expand on why you think there was no consensus? I keep asking this same questions, and I apologise for having done so, but when it comes time to close this (just as in and AfD) the "votes" aren't as important as the reasons behind them. For example, can you state if you believe that MelanieN's comments in the AfD reflected polocy, and how you (if you were closing) you would have weighted that comment? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question to Aaron - Back in 2009 it came out via User:Lar that rogue admins were disregarding "default to keep when no consensus" and that it "is becoming accepted practice... that a BLP that has no consensus defaults to delete, or at least that the admin has the option of so closing it." Aaron, do you subscribe to this view as quoted? --David Shankbone 02:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that's a good question. Like, seriously relevant, and probably should have been asked way earlier in this discussion, big thanks for bringing it up explicitly. My short answer is "no," and my long answer is much longer. Give me a little while. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Longer answer, which winds around a bit, but comes to the point eventually.) I've been editing under this username since July 2005 and have been an administrator since February 2006. The environment here was very different then, and much more emphasis was placed on adminsip being "no big deal." I've always been a strong (some would say over-zealous) proponent of an egalitarian community, not just opposing the "editors < admins" trope, but the "IP < editor" canard as well. I instigated administrator recall, pushed hard for an enforceable community-based dead-minning, and still spend a fair portion of my time on the administrator's noticeboards playing broken record play on this issue.

My joining the OTRS team coincided so neatly with my long break that I never even was assigned a ticket. I do receive quite a large number of emails that amount to "informal" OTRS. (Probably because I'm the first human-like name on the active admin list.) Marginal BLPs are (in the grand scale of things) one of the lesser problems we face as a community, but to these people it's huge. It can be career-destroying, marriage-destroying, life-destroying. Ask literally anyone who does OTRS. In most cases where I'd be contacted thusly, when I went and looked at the article in question there was simply not enough material that, when closely examined, met our standards for reliable sourcing. I then normally either point them at the genuine OTRS list or help them to AfD their own article, or even sometimes just speedy-tag it.

To date, none of these have blown up like this one, or like your one David. Almost all were deleted with minimal fuss and well within the current rule set (such as they are). There are quite good guidelines regarding what's a reliable source, the reliable sources noticeboard delivers no-fuss results most of the time, and once borderline marginal sources are gone from an article about a person, *poof* the article is gone. This I am totally in favour of. In fact, I'm in favour of this approach for all articles, and wish that our AfD regulars spent more time thinking about what sources actually mean than just ticking them off.

While I had missed the discussion that you've pointed to (I didn't know you were famous!) I was aware of similarly contentious events. I felt (then and now) that the answer was not to shift more authority to administrators, but to communicate better with the community. Just as in the case here, many of those who comment in marginal-BLP-AfDs either have not been involved in the issues, don't understand current policy as it's written, or have direct philosophical differences with the community at large. The "rules" are built up largely to narrow the scope of subjective decisions, and to limit discord in a community that has few enforceable controls over its members. We need to work within the system, transparently and fairly. Whatever the trust is we place in administrators, there's simply no reason to give them extra authority when the existing authority will do just fine.

I'll also admit a knee-jerk opposition to Argumentum ad Jimbonem. It's intrinsically destabilising, even if we leave aside all other objections. (I will continue to mourn the loss of User:Zoe from the project for as long as wikipedia continues to exist. Probably even after.)

Did that answer your question? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Zombo.com (closed)

Zombo.com – Allow recreation – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

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 [36] 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]
Unsalt: Was not covered in reliable independent sources in 2007, is covered by reliable independent sources as of 2011. Things that were once non-notable can become notable in time, as pointed out at WP:SCRABBLE. Guideline & Policy Wonk (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_July_26&oldid=442841304"

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 |}
-====[[:Marcus Bachmann]]====
+====[[:Marcus Bachmann]] (closed)====
+{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
+|-
+! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |
+* '''[[:Marcus Bachmann]]''' – For such a contentious deletion its interesting that the views expressed here are so evenly split. I count 24 overturn votes (ignoring two votes from spas) and 23 endorse (or keep deleted) votes. Finding a clear consensus within this is impossible so the clear outcome of this is no consensus to overturn = endorse. That said, its clear that this could have legitimately have been closed as no-consensus and that deletion is towards the far end of acceptable outcomes. I'm mentioning this specifically because I think it should be made clear that this outcome should not be taken as any kind of precedent and that this outcome is an outlier rather then a generally accepted interpretation of community consensus for this kind of discussion – [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 13:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC) <!--*-->
+|-
+| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
+|-
+| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 :{{DRV links|Marcus Bachmann|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Bachmann|article=}}
 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 [[WP:POLL|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.
@@ Line 408: / Line 416: @@
 *: Did that answer your question? - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|Aaron Brenneman]] ([[User talk:Aaron Brenneman|talk]]) 05:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
+|-
+| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
+|}
 ====[[:Zombo.com]] (closed)====