Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 July 20

20 July 2016

Octaviano Tenorio

Octaviano Tenorio (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closure is a supervote, imposing the closer's own views against the consensus of the discussion, and without a policy basis for doing so. (I tried a discussion with the closer before DRV (permalink))
Two main probs:
1/ The closer asserts that if a major religion considers a topic notable there's a prima facie presumption of notability.
1/A That is in effect a special notability guideline (SNG), but no such SNG has ever achieved consensus. Those which exist have all arisen out of lengthy debate, and it is wrong for a closer to announce an unwritten SNG without evidence of consensus to create one.
1/B The phrase "major religion" is at best highly problematic here. Several comparisons were made with the Roman Catholic Church, which has existed since the 1st Century CE, and currently claims 1.27 billion members. There are ~1.7 billion Muslims, and ~500milion Buddhists. By contrast the LDS Church has existed since 1830, and claims less than 16 million current members. That's two orders of manitude smaller. So even if there was an existing consensus to treat major religion topics as notable, there would be a further debate as to whether the tiny LDS fits that label. Whatever the outcome of such a discussion, it is a matter for consensus rather than ex-cathedra pronouncement.
2/ The closer's dismissal of the argument that the sources are not independent is eloquent, but it is a personal view rather than a weighing of the discussion against policy. The closer even introduces his own analogies rather than drawing on the AFD. In post-close discussion, the closer claimed[1] that the key delete argument was that "a source is unreliable if it's associated with the organisation from which the article subject derives their notability". This is a fundamental misrepresentation of the delete argument, which is about a difft pillar of the WP:GNG: it's about the independence of the sources rather than their reliability.
The core argument for deletion was that i) Deseret News is not just a supporter of the LDS Church, or run by adherents of the LDS; it a wholly-owned subsiduary of the LDS Church structure itself. ii) No matter how accurate/honest/reliable its journalism, its choice of topics cannot be be regarded as "intellectually independent" of the organisation which owns it; iii) that lack of independence means that the only sources on Tenorio are articles written by employees of the organisation in which he is a senior member. In other words, the only people who write about Tenorio are the wholly-owned employees of his team. (As a general authority, Tenorio is at the highest levels of leadership in the church which wholly owns the paper.)
The closer uses the analogy of The Spectator magazine, which usually supports the British Conservative Party; but the Spec is a friend of the Conservatives, not a wholly-owned subsidiary, and it can be vociferously critical of the party. That confusion between subsidiary and partisan ally blurs the crucial difference between friend and servant.
I restate that argument for deletion not to re-fight the merits of the case, but to emphasise that the closer fundamentally misinterpreted the arguments they were supposed to weigh against policy ... and inserted their own view rather than weighing the discussion. The AFD should be relisted, and the closer should participate in the discussion rather than making a supervote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm sorry about this, BHG, I really am. I can feel the passion in your statement and I can tell that you feel a sense of injustice here. But honestly, I don't think this listing has any prospect of success. When there's been a very long, full discussion and editors can't agree, and the closer calls it "no consensus" and backs that up with a thoughtful and nuanced closing statement, DRV always endorses. Always. It was indubitably the right close. I'm sorry to be so negative but I can't envisage any other outcome.—S Marshall T/C 19:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @S Marshall: But you would concede that this outcome is a one-off and shouldn't be used as a precedent for outcomes of future AfDs? You'd agree that there wasn't consensus to establish any SNGs (which the closure comes dangerously close to suggesting in his close) or any precedent that Deseret News is independent of Mormon leaders despite being owned by the LDS Church? Because there is already talk of using this outcome to restore other Mormon leader articles here. In his close, the closer comes too close to establishing precedent with his wording, and that's why we're at DRV. pbp 19:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I absolutely and emphatically agree that this close should not establish a precedent of any kind. A "no consensus" close of an outlier debate is certainly no basis for a SNG (and deletion review has a long history of taking a dim view of SNGs). Hard cases make bad law and this case was as hard as they come. I am confident that "no consensus" was the correct close. This is not to say that I agree with every word Iridescent typed, and for the avoidance of doubt I don't.—S Marshall T/C 19:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
      • @S Marshall: thanks for your friendly and thoughtful comments. I appreciate what you're saying.
        My own definition of "success" here would be for someone to find two or more independent reliable sources, so that GNG was clearly established. However, unless and until that happens, we are in this mess, where there is no satisfactory outcome.
        I can appreciate the argument for saying that "no consensus" was a likely outcome, but while I disagree that it was a reasonable close, my concern is not really about this particular article. Like Pbp, I am most alarmed at the prospect of this setting some sort of precedent: that because we don't want to appear mean, we overlook the fundamental reasons for requiring independent coverage to establish notability, and thereby chip away at a very fundamental principle of how Wikipedia works as a tertiary publication. I am particularly alarmed at the notion that a closer can pronounce an unwritten SNG, and whatever the fate of this article, I hope that can be nipped in the bud. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
        • It would take a full RfC to enact a new SNG on Wikipedia. I'm sure Iridescent knows this. His explanation of his close is commendably full and thorough, and of course when someone writes a lot of text there's always a weakest point. The implication of some kind of new guideline is there, if you read what he wrote in the wrong light. It's unfortunate and, I'm sure, unintentional. In view of the concerns raised by respected editors, perhaps the closer of this DRV could say that while we endorse the no-consensus finding, we specifically reject the establishment of any guideline or precedent on the basis of that finding.—S Marshall T/C 20:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
          • @S Marshall: thanks again. It has been an unexpected pleasure to find such a civil and constructive start to DRV after an unusually raucous AFD.
            Your suggestion of a qualified endorsement sounds like a good way of containing the fallout from this saga. It would push the meta-issues off to where they really belong, which is in RFC territory. That would provide some firmer ground for everyone to stand on if this comes article returns to AFD.
            BTW, I should say that while I disagree strongly with this close, I have not lost my long-standing high regard for the closer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse S Marshall pretty much nails it. There was no consensus. Even as someone who leans pretty hard toward being an inclusionist, I've got to say that the keep !votes were on the weak side. But even then, a delete outcome was probably outside of admin discretion. The arguments were reasonable, if weak, and there are sources that maybe count as independent and reliable. The numeric outcome was close and while the delete folks, IMO, had the stronger argument, it can't be said there was a consensus here. I think NC was the only possible outcome. Hobit (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @Hobit: You do also agree with SMarshall that no precedents should be gleaned from it, right? pbp 23:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
• This discussion may have been headed for a "no consensus" close, but I have to agree with those above that the closing statement (and subsequent defense of it) were fucking atrocious poorly thought out. BHG is right about the closer dismissing certain arguments based on his own preferences rather than their strength and relation to policy. I'm also not thrilled that Iridescent gives so much grief to Purplebackpack89 who, though badgery and ranty stayed pretty much on topic, and gave a free pass to people who made wholly inappropriate insinuations of religious intolerance. Finally, from reading Iridescent's talk page it's clear that he fell into the trap of conflating independence with accuracy, or at least is a little hazy on the distinction, despite everything those o the delete side said to explain the difference. So on the whole I'd say overturn to delete just to explicitly repeal the bad close. A borderline and crappy article isn't worth setting bad precedent over. Reyk _YO! 22:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse close – well-reasoned close. It does indeed depend on whether the Deseret News is sufficiently independent of Octaviano Tenorio, which IMO it is. Others disagree. Oculi (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn to delete, or at the very least consider a one-off with no bearing on policy, guidelines or precedent: I'd go so far to say the nominator’s close was uninformed at best, and a biased supervote at worst. Three reasons why:

1. He essentially unilaterally attempted to create a specific notability guideline that doesn't exist. There is no SNG in writing that says that all Mormon leaders are automatically notable. A majority of participants in the discussion said that there either wasn't and/or shouldn't be said SNG. There was also an attempt by the creator of the Tenorio article to try and institute said SNG here; there is a solid consensus against instituting said SNG. Neither discussion produced anything approaching consensus ‘’for’’ an SNG.
2. The close, and in particular comments made by the nominator on his talk page here, indicate a lack of understanding of the difference between reliability and independence. It’s never been argued that Deseret News is unreliable, and never needed to be. We were arguing that Deseret News was not independent from the organization from which Tenorio draws his notability. A solid majority of the participants in the deletion discussion who weighed in on the question of sourcing said that Deseret News wasn’t independent, regardless of its reliability. A side discussion on the independence was started by somebody else here; a majority of participants there also agree that Deseret News is not independent of Mormon leaders. It certainly cannot be interpreted in future AfDs that this AfD resulted in a consensus that Deseret News is independent of the LDS church and its leaders, despite what the closer and keepists might say.
3. Comments within the close, as well as comments and here, indicate that part of the motivation for the close was motivated by an attempt to be punitive toward me and other deletionists rather than ignoring all noise that occurred from either side and focusing on policy arguments. The fact that he even brought it up in the close, and brought it up one-sidedly instead of considering misdeeds of both sides (chiefly baiting by one of the keepists) suggests that the closer did not come to the discussion wholly neutrally. Or, to put it another way, what Reyk said above about giving me a lot of grief while giving a free gave a free pass to people who made wholly inappropriate insinuations of religious intolerance.

Conclusion: that closing the article as anything but delete was likely improper, and that using this article as precedent to create SNGs or sourcing guidelines (which in turn could be used as justification for keeping or restoring other articles) is even more improper. pbp 23:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• I believe that on Iridescent's talk page was the first time I've ever seen anyone describe a "no consensus" as a supervote. I suppose it would be possible for the closer's own personal opinion to be "no consensus", if they had some kind of multiple personality disorder or something, but that's an unusual allegation and I think it'll be a difficult one to sustain.—S Marshall T/C 23:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• The reason I'm calling it a supervote is because he used his close to try and write policy/guidelines without a consensus to do so, and if this DRV affirms anything, I want it to affirm that there is no specific notability guideline and there is no consensus that Deseret News sources are considered "independent" in the context of LDS officials. pbp 23:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• @S Marshall: A supervote may take many different forms. Some of the variants are described at Wikipedia:Supervote#Types_of_supervoting. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse. Given the arguments and the thoughtful closing statement, I can't see any other way this could have reasonably been closed. In particular I find the arguments about the Deseret News being unreliable due to its ownership to be quite unconvincing, unless it can be shown that the church is actively interfering in its editorial policies then such views should be discounted, as they correctly were here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC).
  • @Lankiveil: like so many others, you are confusing the GNG test of independence with the separate questions of bias and reliability. None of us here is any position to say either way what degree of editorial restraint or direction the LDSC places on its newspaper, but that is not the issue in dispute. As sole owner of Deseret News Publishing Company, the LDCS has the power to set whatever direction it likes for its product. Regardless of whether it exercises that power, the existence of that control is not independence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    • @BrownHairedGirl: I understand the argument that you are making, but I'm afraid that I just do not find it at all convincing. Unless there is some evidence that this "control" is actually exercised then we're talking about a hypothetical possibility and I don't see that as good enough to rule the whole newspaper out. Coming back to the AFD discussion in question, it appears that enough of the participants were also unconvinced of the argument that a no consensus close was proper. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC).
      • @Lankiveil: the closer's job is to assess whether the argument was founded in policy, and then weigh the strength of support or opposition. What happened in this case is that closer fundamentally misunderstood the argument being made by those seeking deletion, and on that basis described it as unfounded ... and therefore didn't weigh the support. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
        • @BrownHairedGirl: Didn't you at one point dig up the editorial and advertising policies of Deseret News and find that they were bound to not go against the policies and teachings of the LDS church? @Lankiveil:, that's why I don't trust the independence of Deseret News. Also, we're not "ruling the whole newspaper out". All we're saying is that it can't be the thing used to establish the notability of Mormon officials. I'm still saying it can be used to source statements...if articles on Mormon officials also have non-affiliated sources in them to address notability. And it can be used to establish notability AND source statements of anything that isn't Mormon-related. pbp 01:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
          • Indeed, I posted here[2] about the editorial policies, complete with link.
            However, I was surprised by the requests for such info, and wonder if I was right to post it. When A is wholly owned by B, the proposition that A is independent of B is an extraordinary claim which requires some solid evidence. I didn't see any evidence from the keepists to support their extraordinary claim. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
            • PS As well as the paper's own policies, there plenty of reliable secondary sources to underline the lack of independence. One of the more striking examples is a report[3] of how Utah state legislators interpreted a Deseret News editorial as an official stand of the LDS church. Or here's a journalist's account of how LDSC control is exercised: '"Word came down from church authorities" to editorial staff of the Deseret News "that the First Presidency statement was to stand on its own and that no additional story was necessary"'.
              But really, the onus for evidence rests with those making the extraordinary claim that this amounts to independence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)