Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orly Taitz (3rd nomination)

Orly Taitz

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Orly Taitz
• Articles for deletion/Orly Taitz (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Orly Taitz (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Orly Taitz (aborted nomination)

Orly Taitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Relisting per consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 31. Briefly, subject not notable under WP:BLP1E and WP:SINGLEEVENT, as extensively covered in earlier nomination.

At risk of wandering from the topic, because the procedural history here is a little convoluted, I feel that should explain how we got here again. This article was nominated for deletion on July 31; when it was closed prematurely by user:Blueboy96 on July 31st, it was taken to deletion review. See [1] and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 31. It can be debated whether there was consensus at the AFD; it is inarguable, however, that there was no consensus to overturn at DRV. On August 8th, the DRV closing admin, user:King of Hearts, weighed the other two outcomes (endorse or relist) and concluded that consensus was to relist.

That relisting has yet to take place in any meaningful sense. Although King of Hearts reopened and relisted the AFD, it was closed again mere hours later by user:Jclemens. Clemens claims harmless error, but refuses to correct it. Yet error it was, for we don't know whether this would be a keep or a no consensus close, and that matters. It was also error because Clemens has a conflict of interest: he admits to inappropriately closing the debate early ([2]) with a keep that reflects his personal opinion as to the notability question at issue ([3]).

King of Hearts has said that Clemens' "early closure was highly inappropriate" and that the AFD "should not have been closed and should have run the 7 days" ([4]). He's right. That demolishes Clemens' appeal to WP:SNOW, since SNOW itself underlines that "[i]f an issue is 'snowballed', and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause." Both King of Hearts and myself have raised reasonable objections. What's more, even Clemens has admitted that he "made an oversight in the process" ([5]), "shortcutting the process and causing additional consternation" ([[6]). SNOW, by design, melts before such objections.

I have asked Clemens to make this right by reverting his premature close, and he has refused. Since if no further action were taken, Clemens will have unilaterally transformed the DRV result from a relist decision into an overturn decision, the one option that can't be wrung out of the DRV debate, I am manually relisting, per guidance from King of Hearts ([7][8]). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Procedural keep. I feel that the rough consensus at the previous, very recent, AfD was "keep" (irrespective of how it might have been closed), and that consensus is what should be implemented. I think it behoves us not to be overly tolerant of repeated relistings. See WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Respectfully, you're ignoring the fact that the last AFD resulted in a close decision, and that when that decision was taken to DRV, the consensus there was to relist. This IS that relisting. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Lengthy answer from S Marshall, hatted by the author. Edit conflict with subsequent remark.

Well, that combined with your courteous note on my talk page calls for a fairly complete answer. (1) I feel your response is predicated on the assumption that the last AfD was "close", and I do not agree. (2) Even though I was the one who suggested that a DRV closer should be entitled to relist, I do not necessarily feel that was correct in this particular case. I feel that the earlier consensus should have been implemented. (3) I do accept that you have a strong case for a seven-day relisting in view of the procedural issues, and I should be clear that I am not arguing for an early close of this AfD. My position is that this AfD should run for seven days—but that the previous discussions should have a strong influence over the result. (This is because I think procedural irregularities should not be permitted to prevail over a previous consensus.) (4) Where I do agree with you is that this is not an encyclopaedic subject. I also have due regard for the ingenious and well-phrased representations you have made about the need to delete it. (5) However, I feel the general notability guideline ("GNG") is passed in this case. (6) I think it is vital that we retain articles that pass the GNG. This is because the GNG is a very simple, relatively objective inclusion criterion and, crucially, any editor can determine for themself whether or not it is passed. This in turn means that an editor can write an article in the knowledge that their hard work will not be wantonly destroyed. In other words, the GNG is what enables editors to create material without going through a committee process first. I think this is an overriding consideration. (7) I therefore feel that setting aside the procedural matters for a moment, in this case the GNG has to prevail and the article should be kept accordingly. I am sorry that brevity has eluded me in this case, so I have hatted my own answer.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• [Reply to S Marshall: Just to clarify, my response is in no way predicated on the assumption that the consensus at the last AfD was "close." My response is predicated on the fact that the closing admin at the DRV thought that the consensus was to relist, and s/he was correct. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)]

• I wish that we could simply re-open the previous AfD listing (which should not have been closed in either instance) yet again. This is such a messy debate to needlessly rerun from scratch. —David Levy 22:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• I totally agree, but Jclemens closed the previous nomination, no admin is goign to reopen it (that would be wheelwarring), and it would be inappropriate for me as an individual user to reopen and relist it. That leaves two choices: Clemens could reopen it, but even having recognized and admitted his error in prematurely closing, he has refused to. Renominating is thus the only option left. In short, I agree that it's regrettable that we have to do this, and wish that Clemens hadn't forced that on us by refusing to correct his error. I've raised the issue at ANI. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Procedural Keep 1) There's no reason that my close, which is independent of and does not rely on the previous DRV outcome, can't be taken to DRV, 2) I never said I would consider another admin reopening it if that was the consensus of a DRV of my closure to be wheel warring, 3) If no admin will reopen an AfD even after such a DRV, then it's probably properly closed to begin with. Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• That's breathtakingly disingenuous. Another admin did reopen the AFD - and you closed it again! And for someone who is accusing me of process over product (and citing BURO at me on your talk page) to say that this should have been subject to yet another layer of process at DRV, instead of just having the relisting that DRV had already called for, is preposterous.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)