Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 23

23 August 2019

Catahoula bulldog

Catahoula bulldog (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closer suggested bringing it here, and has been notified. In the closing statement, the closer pointed out, “The article as it currently stands is woefully lacking in WP:RS, and has been tagged as such for three years.” Exactly. The reason it lacks RS is because the subject is not notable which was stated as the reason to delete or redirect in the AfD - it is a fictitious breed based entirely on anecdotal reports and fails WP:GNG and WP:V. There simply are no RS to cite to establish notability. Members of WP:WikiProject Dogs have spent a great deal of time researching and trying to find reliable sources. Normal procedure for article creation/acceptance is WP:V, WP:NOR and widespread coverage in secondary and third party sources to establish notability, not to create an article and then spend 3 years trying to find RS to justify keeping a non-notable subject. The delete/redirect/merge arguments were strong. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Tomi Thomas

Tomi Thomas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It seems the closer did not want close against a large number of "Keeps." Close like this disincentivizes thorough research of sources and claims, because whatever you do, if there are a large number of empty "Keeps" that will amounts to nothing. And in converse, this promotes "joining the trend" so as not waste your time doing a research that no one cares to read.

Even though I made a detailed analysis that shows how the article was built on more than 10 utterly unreliable sources and user-generated contents (which none of the "Keeps" reliably refutes), the closer felt that since they 'disagree' (without evidence) with my analysis then the consensus was to "Keep." The sole source he based his reasoning republishes WP:DAILYMAIL articles [1] and claims no journalistic professionalism [2]; this shows you can simply circumvent DailyMail ban by finding vanity sites like these that republish them.

I am bringing this close for a review. I discussed it with the closer and he agreed. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse but with leave for immediate renomination. It wasn't the administrator's job to decide who won the argument. Administrators are not adjudicators. It was the administrator's job to decide where the consensus lay. Ammarpad: you might have had the better arguments, but you didn't have anything approaching consensus. After the maximum number of re-lists, the closing admin had no choice but to close the discussion as "keep".. Part of the difficulty you faced was that you didn't start the AfD, and it wasn't started well, with a nine-word non-sequitur nominating statement. So... I suggest allowing Ammarpad leave to re-nominate the article at any time, which would ordinarily be discouraged following a "keep" close. A good nominating statement that lays out the sourcing problems from the outset might result in an AfD that takes a different course. In my view, the keep !votes were so poorly considered, and the sourcing problems so obvious, that here at DRV we should exercise our supervisory prerogative to say "do it again".--Mkativerata (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)