From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This page has been created to store archives of significant discussions I have been a part of.

The following discussion took place at the Help Desk.

A question about notability[edit]

Someone is creating articles like Malaysia Federal Route 1283 as I'm writing this. I'm hesitant to mark this for deletion but there must be thousands of federal routes. The information provided in these articles are no more than stubs, so why should we keep them? Is it encyclopedic to create articles about every highway in the world? Antivenin 08:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  • The jury is still out on that. If I were you I'd judge them on potential. Is there anything that can be said about the route apart from the fact it exists? It doesn't have to be included yet, but if it isn't, a stub should have the potential to grow. - Mgm|(talk) 10:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    Well there's not much you can talk about. As stated in the article it's a road that connects two places. Wikipedia is not a map. It should be deleted. Should I put it up for AfD? Antivenin 11:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
You can look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways and Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Precedents if you consider AfD. I haven't followed road discussions and don't have an AfD opinion on the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
This is something that has been debated quite a bit. I know there was a debate (which I cannot find now) when an article about a road became a Featured Article. Someone wanted to know how a road became a featured article. I think Mgm has the correct idea here. Are there reliable sources that support the article? Has anything notable happened on this stretch of road? I'm also reminded of our articles on towns. We have many, many articles that don't go beyond "Town X is a town in the United States, according to the 2004 census". TNXMan 13:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Nothing of any significance has taken place on this route. While I can still stretch my 'tolerance' with towns, making articles about roads is really stretching it. I know there are some roads which have good articles, but that's because they're well known, and notable. So, should I begin an AfD? Antivenin 13:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Significant to whom? Presumably everyone who uses a particular road finds it significant enough. You may consider yourself superior to Malay people, but I'd guess they would differ with your assessment. Stub articles don't hurt anything. You can easily ignore them. Why waste your time destroying information when you could be adding information? Destroying information makes Wikipedia useful to fewer people, thereby driving contributors away from the project and shrinking our pool of potential donors. Jimbo Wales wants to provide "the sum of human knowledge" to every person in the world, not just people who share your tastes. Which parts of human knowledge are people in Malaysia likely to find interesting? Presumably they will want to know about things in their immediate vicinity. Roads are verifiably a component of human knowledge, thus they are encyclopedic. Articles about roads provide a handy way to organize our information geographically. Most roads of nontrivial length will have subjects of our present or future articles strung along them. The subjects of these articles might not relate to each other in any way other than by their location along the same road, and that is precisely the relationship a traveler is likely to find most relevant. Such articles will naturally tend to mention the road; they might as well have an article to link to. Since Malaysia is not an English-speaking country, one must guard against English-centric bias against it. We can expect our coverage of Malaysia topics to develop more slowly than our coverage of topics in, say, the United States, where every article about a U.S. highway can easily link to many other articles about subjects located along the highway. Naturally the often-spurious and cruft-crufty guideline of "notability" will tend to be even more divisive and spurious than usual when applied to non-English-speaking countries. It's already hard enough for Malay speakers to edit on the English Wikipedia with the language barrier in the way. Let's not make it artificially even more difficult by biting them with some cranky nonsense about notability. --Teratornis (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Antivenin didn't say anything about finding Malays inferior... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabberwockgee (talkcontribs) 04:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest we ask some Malays how they feel about having their highways declared "non-notable" by someone who probably doesn't speak their language and probably has not lived in their country. I don't see why topics about Malaysia are less important than topics about, say, Ohio where most inhabitants speak a form of English. Wikipedia has articles about lots of roads in Ohio and I have found some of them useful. Why wouldn't Malays deserve to have similarly useful information about their country? --Teratornis (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear me. Did I say I'd like it deleted because it was an article about Malaysian roads? I didn't. Stop assuming that I did, and stop making this an issue about regions. I have absolutely NOTHING against Malays. Read that sentence again. And again. I would have wanted this article deleted if it was about my country too. But let's face it, Wikipedia is not a map, as much as you might want it to be. And I know notability is relative. An article about some random person X might not be notable, but I bet he'd consider it notable enough. Do we keep that article? No. We don't. Is it because we are carrying out some personal vendetta against that person? No. It's because we prefer following Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and rules.
Maybe you didn't understand me when I first said it. That's absolutely fine. I'll repeat it here. There must be BILLIONS of roads all over the world. Should we sit down and create stub articles for all of them? The road outside my house is not notable by Wiki standards. It's notable enough for me however. Should I create an article about it? Please, just for ONE second look at it from a neutral point of view, and you might see what I'm talking about. I am not here on a mission to delete articles about Malaysia. I'm here to make Wikipedia a better place. So next time you accuse me of being biased or prejudiced, you might want to think about what I just said.
Still awaiting opinion about whether these articles should be AfD'ed. Antivenin 12:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and BTW, you don't create articles first and add information later. Bad policy. Those who come to that article expect to see information, and not a request asking them to add information. Antivenin 13:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Can we not have deletion discussions on the helpdesk? If you think it should be deleted, take it to AfD. Otherwise, do not. There's no point having the whole discussion here first and then rerunning it at AfD. Algebraist 13:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer to continue it here, and then refer the AfD to this discussion. And I want to get my understanding of policy straightened out, so I posted here. Antivenin 13:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The Susan Boyle incident.

An editor nominated Susan Boyle for deletion. I !voted for deletion, and the rest can be explained by the posts below.

Post at Help Desk-

Why AfD frustrates me[edit]

Resolved: Antivenin 07:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really resolved, but I can't go against consensus. Antivenin 07:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've got a question on Wikipedia policies. More specifically, about how they're applied to AfDs. I'd like to direct your attention to this AfD. The nominator suggested that Susan Boyle does not satisfy notability guidelines as she's just another contender on a TV show. I agree with that, as contenders do not merit their own article. Then came a flurry of 'Keep' arguments stating that as she sang so very well and the judges gave her a standing ovation right after she sang the first note, she deserves her own article. Youtube was also being used as a deciding factor about whether she was notable or not. From my understanding of policy, Youtube should not / cannot be considered. Strong Keep over 250K youtube views already amongst well over 50 videos (edit: now over 350K on one vid alone and While I always strive to maintain a NPOV, I must point out the sheer quality of her performance... standing ovation from the judges, the entire crowd, after just the first vocal left her lips. were some of the arguments used. Also, if she is notable (which I doubt), it would be because of a single performance. Wouldn't that come under WP:ONEEVENT or WP:BLP1E? All the news paper articles talk about that one performance too.

So that is my opinion up there. And yet, I must be wrong. As Looie496 pointed out, 31 people wanted to keep it, 5 people wanted it deleted. So he closed it (non-admin closure). I was rather looking forward to an admin closure, as that admin would decide whether (1) Youtube can be used as a measure of notability, (2) WP:ONEEVENT can be ignored by zealous fans, and (3) whether AfD is really a !vote process or a vote process.

So I want to get your opinion on this. What do you guys think?

On a lighter note, here are some of the more amusing !votes:

Keep - it belongs here because I looked for it here on Wikipedia.

VERY STRONG KEEP - This article NEEDS to be on wikipedia. Without it, wikipedia would be a terrible place! Please, please, please keep it!

Keep (no, that's not a typo). ...

Oh yea, and since I'm posting this anyway, I question the relevance of WP:SNOW in AfDs. It's all very well in RfAs where a minimum % of supports are required, but AfDs require consensus. A hundred people could repeat the same wrong argument and it would still get closed by WP:SNOW. Not fair.

(Also posted at the village pump) Antivenin 08:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Arguments based on "I like it" responses should be ignored. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions for more. --Gadget850 (talk) 09:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a case to be made here that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, ultimately, the question asked on AfD is: is the encyclopedia better off or worse off including article X. It is worth noting that this particular article adheres to the more fundamental principles of Wikipedia: verifiability, NPOV, no breach of copyright, etc.
If we'd like to indulge in wikilawyering, notability guidelines are only guidelines, inherently blurry and far from being universally followed. WP:BLP1E does not imply that notability derived from a single event is a criteria *against* inclusion, mostly it invites editors to think twice about it and whether the event or the person are to be covered. Worth remembering also is that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, we do not aim to limit the volume of articles. Also Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is just an essay.
Another note here, in the spirit of Wikipedia not being a bureaucracy, if something does not require admin tools, then it does not require an admin. Makes no difference if an admin or a non admin closes an AfD discussion with a "keep" or "no concensus" result.
Finally, on the AfD process, and more generally on the idea of "concensus", I would argue that "decision by concensus" is a pipe dream. Sometimes it works: get people to sit around a table and exchange ideas, eventually strong arguments are made, people rally behind those and lo and behold, a concensus was built. Sometimes it does not, and you are left with several set of opinions. No concensus was established, yet a decision has to be made. In a professional environment, decision might be taken in a despotic way, by the project manager or whatever. In a purely collaborative environment, the decision making process would naturally take the form of a majority, absolute majority or supermajority vote. I think we are a quite hypocritical about it on Wikipedia, calling "concensus" what is often merely a supermajority opinion or even that of an absolute majority. The hypocrisy of it does not go unnoticed, which is why people frequently joke sarcastically about "!vote". The Afd process, in my opinion, mixes characteristics of a (super)majority vote, despotism (the closing admin gets to decide which arguments hold weight), though occasionally, a real discussion develops and a true concensus is established. One fault of the AfD process is that it attracts people more interested in having something to show for a future RfA nomination (an even more blatant example of a supermajority vote) than in building a concensus, casting !ballots hurriedly and never revisiting the discussion. I'm starting to rant, so I'll stop now. Equendil Talk 11:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The status of Arguments to Avoid and the notability guidelines isn't really relevant, but document common practice and not following either because they're not labelled policy is exactly the sort of wikilawyering that should be avoided. When an admin closes a debate, they should do so based on the strength of the comments each of the comments the original poster mentions are forms of WP:ILIKEIT or big numbers that don't actually prove anything. Occasionally people vote to keep something with the reasoning it has thousands of google hits. (These are often bad hits because the searcher failed to use quotation marks, but even if they do, it's the content of the pages that matter, not the volume). Unless the deletion is clear-cut with no one disagreeing (apart from the nominator or creator), a debate should be closed by an administrator. (Mgm, who's about to go and thus logged out) - (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
(Note that this reply does not come after reviewing the AfD, I'm on my way out the door, sorry) It sounds like you have a valid point, Antivenin. I would suggest putting this case up for review at DRV to see if the closure was handled correctly. TNXMan 11:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Antivenin, Hi. I don't want to bite, but several things come to mind as I read this post. The AfD is actually the place to make these arguments that you're making to delete this article. Some editors may see this type of posting to the Help Desk (for getting help on how to use Wikipedia), and the Village Pump (for discussion of ideas concerning Wikipedia) as Forum Shopping. Arguments such as I LIKE IT work both ways (see I DON'T LIKE IT). You may also remember seeing WP:NOTPAPER in your travels, we are not constrained by a limited amount space for our articles. I think the actual AfD is the better place for this discussion. Best of luck — Ched :  ?  13:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a little hard to do that when the Afd has been closed, rightly or wrongly. – ukexpat (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd say re-open it as an inappropriate non-admin closure. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree with that, but I think reopening the debate so soon after closure (whether proper or improper) runs the risk of being labeled disruptive and pointy. As I mentioned above, DRV is probably the best venue. TNXMan 14:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to note here that since this discussion started, the AfD was reopened...and has since been speedy closed again, this time by an uninvolved admin. --OnoremDil 14:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Well it does certainly appear that this isn't one of those items that will fade quietly into the night. ;) — Ched :  ?  14:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
@ukexpat at the time I started typing my reply it was open - by the time I finished, it was closed, I'm guessing we'll need a calculator before it's over ... lol ;) — Ched :  ?  14:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Open again. I reopened it because of the recent change to AfD that said to quit with the "snowball keeps" and let them run a full 7 days. (I previously !voted to keep, so I'm not trying to get the result to change.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: Due to a cross-posting, this is also being discussed at VPM: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Why AfD frustrates me. – ukexpat (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how long before it's an AN/I listing. — Ched :  ?  15:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
And....cue ANI: Afd now reopened per discussion at WP:ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle again. – ukexpat (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Post at Village Pump (miscellaneous)-

Why AfD frustrates me[edit]

I've got a question on Wikipedia policies. More specifically, about how they're applied to AfDs. I'd like to direct your attention to this AfD. The nominator suggested that Susan Boyle does not satisfy notability guidelines as she's just another contender on a TV show. I agree with that, as contenders do not merit their own article. Then came a flurry of 'Keep' arguments stating that as she sang so very well and the judges gave her a standing ovation right after she sang the first note, she deserves her own article. Youtube was also being used as a deciding factor about whether she was notable or not. From my understanding of policy, Youtube should not / cannot be considered. Strong Keep over 250K youtube views already amongst well over 50 videos (edit: now over 350K on one vid alone and While I always strive to maintain a NPOV, I must point out the sheer quality of her performance... standing ovation from the judges, the entire crowd, after just the first vocal left her lips. were some of the arguments used. Also, if she is notable (which I doubt), it would be because of a single performance. Wouldn't that come under WP:ONEEVENT or WP:BLP1E? All the news paper articles talk about that one performance too.

So that is my opinion up there. And yet, I must be wrong. As Looie496 pointed out, 31 people wanted to keep it, 5 people wanted it deleted. So he closed it (non-admin closure). I was rather looking forward to an admin closure, as that admin would decide whether (1) Youtube can be used as a measure of notability, (2) WP:ONEEVENT can be ignored by zealous fans, and (3) whether AfD is really a !vote process or a vote process.

So I want to get your opinion on this. What do you guys think?

On a lighter note, here are some of the more amusing !votes:

Keep - it belongs here because I looked for it here on Wikipedia.

VERY STRONG KEEP - This article NEEDS to be on wikipedia. Without it, wikipedia would be a terrible place! Please, please, please keep it!

Keep (no, that's not a typo). ...

Oh yea, and since I'm posting this anyway, I question the relevance of WP:SNOW in AfDs. It's all very well in RfAs where a minimum % of supports are required, but AfDs require consensus. A hundred people could repeat the same wrong argument and it would still get closed by WP:SNOW. Not fair. Antivenin 08:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest taking it to deletion review. For one, it is a non-admin closing by someone already involved in the discussion. It should have been left to an admin. --Farix (Talk) 11:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
With my admin hat on, I have reverted the closure and relisted the debate. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Good deal. I honestly didn't think the closing would stand at WP:DRV because 1) It was a contested debate closed by a non-admin. 2) The closer already commented in the debate. 3) The closer merely vote counted instead of weighing the arguments. --Farix (Talk) 12:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, in case anyone wants to know, the reversion ike this is allowable by WP:DELPRO and the advice in WP:NAC, whose contents under "Inappropriate closure" caused me to revert Fritzpoll (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Under a literal interpretation of the current rules, as cited by Anti, I'd say it should probably be deleted. However the voting at this AfD may indicate that these rules reflect only the consensus of those most active at AfD - a complaint that appears quite often on various discussion pages. There's been public criticism of WP's current deletionist tendencies, with suggestions that it's driving editors away (one in PC Pro, where a journalist created a stub on a notable subject, Political Quarterly and it was deleted within hours; another in The Economist).
The article Susan Boyle's only content issue is excessive use of diret quotes, although each is attributed and referenced and only short extracts are quoted from each source, so I expect there's no problem about WP:COPYVIO. I'd WP:IAR and keep it. --Philcha (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

While there might be ground for a procedural relisting due to the AfD having been closed by someone involved in the debate, and apparent vote counting:
1) We should not be wasting time and effort for purely procedural reasons. WP is not a bureaucracy etc. The debate was promptly snow-closed again.
2) Non admin closure ? So what ? What is the rationale here ? If something does not require admin tools, why insist only an admin should do it ? Unless I've missed something since I joined the project, there is no aristocracy here, no prerogatives, only potentially damaging tools granted to trusted users. I have no issue discouraging inexperienced editors from closing AfD debates, but the essay at WP:NAC is taking it several steps too far in my opinion. If the only thing wrong with an AfD closure is that it was performed by a non admin, then there is nothing wrong with it. Equendil Talk 14:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The main issue is identifying experienced users. Admins are already reviewed for their experience. Ordinary users are not, and require separate review. Dcoetzee 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
And on the other side of the equasion, why are we always in a rush to close debates? imo, WP:SNOW should only apply after a certain amount of time (i.e.: 3 days) and only if the !voters are unanimous in their views. I don't like policy for the sake of policy, but I hate unnecessary drama, and allowing AfDs like this to be closed early, especially by an involved party, only creates a ton of drama. Just let the damned AfDs run their length. Resolute 13:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: Due to a cross-posting this is also being discussed at the Help Desk: Wikipedia:Help desk#Why AfD frustrates me. – ukexpat (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Afd now reopened per discussion at WP:ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle again. – ukexpat (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Post 1 at AN/I-

AfD for Susan Boyle‎[edit]

The AfD-

Rootology's talk page post 1-

re: AfD[edit]

Hi Rootology. Regarding your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle, I just wanted to take a moment to say I appreciate you taking the time to state the reasoning behind your closure. I think if more admins took the time to state a clear reason behind the decisions that were made, we'd have a lot less fuss and entries at WP:DRV. Job well done. (perhaps I'm making an incorrect assumption that it won't be re-opened, but one can only hope) ;) — Ched :  ?  05:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If it DRVs, it DRVs... rootology (C)(T) 05:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Rootology's talk page post 2-

Susan Boyle close[edit]

You're three days early, not one.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I closed at 05:07, April 16, 2009, it opened at 12:11, April 12, 2009. But apples and oranges, I suppose... :) rootology (C)(T) 05:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Right. AfDs run for 7 days now.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe that in three days, the "slow news day" stories will have moved on to something else, and this woman will largely have been forgotten. The AfD could have changed quite a bit had it been allowed to run its full length. - Brian Kendig (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
And I believe otherwise. Why is your crystal ball any better than mine? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not, but now we'll never know, because policy wasn't followed. - Brian Kendig (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
You can always nominate for deletion at a later time. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Single AFDs nor single DRVs are ever binding in any sense of the word and can be trivially overturned with another later. "Policy" doesn't hard-require 7 days, nor did it "hard-require" 5 days before for duration. Even since I've closed, I see 2 more sources have been added, and it hasn't been DRV'd, so it seems my extrapolation so far has been thankfully right. Feel free to DRV my close, of course, if you think I was wrong. rootology (C)(T) 13:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Poor closure, simplistic even. I guess 85% does sound impressive when you don't bother with any weighting at all. In a situation where bean counting was obviously innappropriate due to the amount of ill informed newcomer pile ons, why even mention it? Did you exclude anybody from that figure? You didn't even address the elephant in the room - a good number of the keepers you are saying with this closure have won the day with their weighty and considered policy based reasoning, demonstrated they actually have no idea what the presumption of notability is, or how it relates to 1E and current events, because they are under the utterly wrong impression that deleting the article in 6 months if the 'fuss has died down' is actually something we do around here. Point me to a single policy that says that. I can at least respectfully disagree with people who think this woman has achieved lasting notability, but how can ideas like this be openly tolerated? Stating that she is not a private person, and that she is in the next audition, and that she might actually sell an album, were utterly irrelevant to this debate, I am at a loss as to why you mention these and not that. Also, there was a complete disregard for the merge/redirect opinions. As for closing it early after early closure was hotly opposed multiple times, that speaks for itself as just not necessary. Anyway, a good read for next time is the essay section Benefits of recentist articles. When you read that, and read this article, it just makles you want to die inside. MickMacNee (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Mick, if that makes you die inside, I don't think leaving it open three more days would have helped. :-) This isn't the Star Wars kid, who did one thing and wished he hadn't -- this is someone who dared to grab at her dream, succeeded, and is running with it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll concede that when a deletionist doesn't get his way, he dies a little bit. It's like depriving him of food. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Root, I thought I was going to blast you when I came here, but MacNee is scorching you more than even I would. Keeping the article is not a terrible decision, because consensus does enter into these things, but you're all wet on the reasoning, in my arrogant opinion. The "event" in WP:BLP1E should be considered broadly, encompassing related appearances on the same show that essentially are the same experience and depend on her initial appearance (the "event" is really "her appearances on the show" because all the coverage will treat it as essentially the same thing). The strongest Keep argument, it seems to me, is a bit common-sensical: existence of articles that talk about her life as a whole. With enough of those kind of profile pieces, it's hard for the Delete side to say there's not enough detailed sourcing covering this subject as a whole, which is the point of WP:BLP1E. You are right about expecting more coverage in a case like this, which is another common-sense point, and common sense is supposed to enter into this. So you're really not all wet, although it was fun to say. -- Noroton (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Read below. I'm one of the far more rigid people on BLP generally, so I really don't think BLP1E counts here. Read below... rootology (C)(T) 13:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
First off, BLP is not a factor here in any level, to just clear that, and I'll explain why BLP1E is a false argument here. And again, feel free to DRV it. I fundamentally agreed more with the collective weight and opinions from the Keepers being more in line with our history, precedents, and principles, and ideas like this should be openly tolerated, since the presumption that "Internet notability" (what does that even mean?) is "less important" than "real world" notability--that's really what you and many Deleters here are arguing, no matter how it's dressed up--are naive attitudes.
The Internet IS the real world at this point, for better or worse, no matter how hard or vigorously some people like to poo poo the entire web 2.0 thing. It's nothing to do with our needlessly rigid, increasingly irrelevant--each month, it fades in social value as an internal concept--"Recentism" ideas. The press is faster now since it doesn't rely on the permanence of physical media to deliver news. Recentism because of this is a wholly subjective thing, with too many people valuing "physical" news in some vague way over "transient" news, with "transient" being the Internet. Again, what does that even mean? It's a nonsense argument. A well-maintained bit of data that is properly preserved in an open format will last theoretically forever. A newspaper will eventually rot away and crumble. But you see where this is all going?
It boils down to Deletionists vs. Inclusionists, and the foolish idea that an AFD or DRV is binding forever. I closed the AFD as I saw where it was heading, and where it had gone per policy. Consensus clearly supported Keeping already; I agreed that the Keepers had won the arguments and day--and not just by numbers, Wikidemon, Ched, the first few sentences by Stude62 (painfully true, AGF aside), Raven1977, and J Van Meter. BLP1E is absolutely a false argument here as Iakeb points out: her performance; the significance and separate reporting on her unique YouTube popularity after, and since then we have her being signed to a record label and when (in a week?) she performs again we'll have even more events/details. Each passing day there were more and more sources about Boyle visible online and in searches, so presumably as well in "old world" media like physical newspapers, of course. I closed based on what has come before, the opinions expressed, my interpretation of policy, the sourcing there (and growing--23 refs today, 21 when I closed), and the fact that 1) she's not a BLP1E, she's a BLP4E now unless she drops dead before her appearances on the actual show contests, and 2) every single time one of these social culture articles like hers gets AFD'd, if the person isn't really a BLP1E--like hers, they are virtual always a better article later as the sourcing really does not stop.
Many people like to AFD quick, hard, and fast, in the presumption that it will keep something "out" of WP longer. Nonsense--DRV is too smart to allow gaming like that in any pointless Deletionist vs Inclusionist content race. If something isn't a one-off or Deep Fancrust, sourcing will always build over time--it's inevitable, like the tides themselves. And like the tides themselves, the consensus backed by policy was pretty darn clear on the Boyle AFD: keep. Deleting Boyle today would also, in my personal opinion, be a completely pointless strategic move of no benefit to anyone. The day after her next appearance on the show, or the minute the media comes out with the information on the forthcoming album, it would sail through DRV so fast that people's heads would spin. Why nuke the article for a week (or two) then? It would be a pointless procedural exercise that would lead to rules-jockey admins fighting people trying to recreate it for the 10-14 days, and pointless things like ANI alerts. As for your wording of it being a poor close, thanks. But it's not poor because you disagree with it's outcome. rootology (C)(T) 13:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Consider this my expanded close reasoning which I'm adding to the AFD now. rootology (C)(T) 13:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The difference between new and old media is irrelevant, nobody challenged the fact she has already passed the presumption of notability in old media. An online version ofthe Guradian is still the Guardian, the TV news is definitely old media. The idea that because another news story will appear next week, about the same thing, makes this any more noteworthy, is boohockey. I don't want the article gone for a week, I want it gone per policy, not per Afd accepted bad practice, until it is demonstrated that she is notable by our definition (not famous) for more than one thing, and that biographical info becomes demonstrably not news puffery and meaningless backstory, the sort of which you find in any trash magazine every single day (e.g. details given because she does actually win, or she does actually become a recording artist, or she does actually get the congressional medal of honour for changing the perceptions of society). The fact the article has to spell out why she is notable should clue you in that maybe she isn't really all that notable for Wikipedia - that sort of desperate self justification has no place in article prose. Transient puffery is transient puffery, no matter if it appears in one article or eight hundred. This is what the presumption part of the notability criteria means, simply source counting is not the bar of inclusion. Another issue with the close is that you seem to have bought into the idea that was wrongly pushed that deletion really does mean that this woman gets no mention at all on Wikipedia. Quite obviously that ignores the possibility of coverage in the show article, with the proper weight. Appearance on a show + media attention + possible music career = 1 Event. Period. 1E is not simply about protection of people, it is also about not giving undue weight to people known for one thing. This woman is no presidential assassin, she is no hero pilot, waving that away because this is 'pop culture' and that is a misunderstood aspect of web culture, is simply not going to fly, and is patronising in the extreme. If the basic policy definition of an 'event' for the purposes of interpreting "passes/fails BLP1E" is the issue here and why the deletes were discounted, then I definitely think DRV is in order. If an Afd on this article in 6 months time actually succeeded, then obviously something is not being done right, either now or then. Notability is not temporary, and demonstrating notability is not the only bar to inclusion. These are core ideas, you would expect their application to be consistent by now, not flip flop from Afd to Afd in the space of months, certainly not when it is the same article being debated. MickMacNee (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Just one last point, on your sentence, "These are core ideas, you would expect their application to be consistent by now, not flip flop from Afd to Afd in the space of months, certainly not when it is the same article being debated." That simple point is: consensus can change. Articles that were shit for years are gone now in other cases, and articles inappropriately nuked in part for various pointless internal political reasons of the past are back now. If the community supports your views, consensus will change, DRV will reverse me, and this will fail at AFD #2. Or, DRV will say I was right, and you might see AFD #2 six or twelve months from now result in Boyle's deletion. Wikipedia is not about getting your way, or your way in interpretations of things we do, "today". That sort of mindset is the fundamentally wrong way to approach things, and I advise anyone who thinks that way to clear such ideas. We're not here to win, we're here to keep growing the encyclopedia with quality content. DRV today, or next week, or next month, AFD in 6 or 12 months. If the community goes against my close later, then I was wrong. If this is a Good or Featured Article later, I was right. It is what it is. rootology (C)(T) 15:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that this discussion is continuing on your Talk page is evidence that the AfD was closed too soon. And I'd like to remind all present that an alternative to "keep" or "delete" is "merge with Britain's Got Talent (series 3) and redirect." I don't see anyone saying in the AfD that this woman is noteworthy for anything outside her appearance on one episode (and likely, a few more episodes) of "Britain's Got Talent." Perhaps your crystal ball shows her having a noteworthy recording career, but that hasn't happened yet. The strongest argument right now for her having her own article is that lots of people are talking about her around the water cooler this morning and they really really like her. - Brian Kendig (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we have a fundamental disconnect here between how people view notability and consensus, and how it applies to AFD. To say the AFD was wrong because discussion continues here is a fictional argument vs. the AFD itself, as you're both clearly in favor of deletion, while the majority of users that weighed in (135 or so) disagree. Only the minority that wanted it gone are continuing discussion. ;) If you all want to DRV, please go ahead, it's the natural course of things. I am disinclined to reverse my decision at this time. rootology (C)(T) 15:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I suppose it's pointless to try to explain any perceptions, viewpoints, or reasoning to those who are so steadfastly determined that this woman is not notable and doesn't deserve to have a BLP here. And I'm not calling out any individual editor, I'm just asking for a moment of Root's and all his visitor's time here. Even if we throw out the IAR, there are still enough points to cover the inclusion of this lady. If it were simply a matter of a great performance - sure, merge to the show's article. When you take the whole picture into perspective however, it becomes a bit more of a keeper. It's not just the performance, the ability to shock the judges, the huge impact on YouTube, or the media frenzy that followed. It's about perception on a global scale. The sheer numbers of people who were reminded of the old adage "Don't judge a book by it's cover" has an intangible factor here. Looking at the new editors who signed up at Wikipedia just to contribute to the discussion alone is enough to convince me that keeping the article is the right move. Perhaps many of the "keep" votes were not the most clueful reasoning in regard to our policy - but the intent and the effort alone speaks volumes. I suppose that there are a few editors who may bide their time, and try to push this through another AfD as some later date; all the sadder I'd think. If you try to stick so close to the letter of the law, that you've got your nose buried up against the individual words, you lose perspective of the intent of the guidelines that we've so carefully put into place. We're not sending people to jail here, or deciding on some monumental earth-shattering changes. We're trying to build an encyclopedia that contains the sum of human knowledge - something for future generations to look back on, and to learn from. If it doesn't exist, they don't learn a thing. I apologize for my ramblings, but these were things I felt I needed to say - discard at your whim. — Ched :  ?  15:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I think your decision was the only sensible one, we have BLP policies to protect unwilling public figures from privacy violations and prevent people using Wikipedia for self-promotion. Arguments over how the exact wording of these policies applies to this case miss the vital point that this is not what the policies were written for. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I voted delete but it was obvious that the article was going be kept. DRV would be a lost cause as it would be a repeat with even fewer deletionists (I am sure). But I just wanted to remind you that you kept a biography for a person who spent no more than 8 minutes on the screen, and that less than eight minute clip is the only thing she is famous for. Therefore, it is a one event case, and that was enough reason to delete the article. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to say a bit more about why I think an early close was a good idea. Wikipedia, as "the encyclopedia that anybody can edit", depends a great deal on how the public perceives it. When you combine a very high-profile article about which people have strong emotions, with actions that the great majority of the public see as bizarre, it harms Wikipedia significantly in the eyes of the people whose good-will we depend on. If the article on such a famous person is up for deletion, who is going to dare to try to create an article? With certainly well over 100,000 article-views by the time the AfD would run out -- over 1,000,000 if the current exponential growth trend continues -- the factors of intimidation and loss of good-will add up. Looie496 (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
An excellent point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the masses. People come here looking for information and they couldn't care less about our pedantic rules. If they don't find it, they'll think wikipedia is out of touch.
Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
"Such a famous person"? I must have been asleep in that history class back in college. Wikipedia is not a catalog of the current Youtube-sensation-of-the-week. Please stop appealing to emotional arguments and instead back up your reasoning with Wikipedia guidelines, which have been honed against thousands of cases like this one. - Brian Kendig (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
You can always post it for deletion at a later date. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
"Assume notability; delete later if not" is not a Wikipedia guideline. - Brian Kendig (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
And a guideline is not a rule. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I think this close was totally in line and if I had the cajones I would have done the same. Putting aside the fallacious BLP1E argument for a second (there is no obvious "one event" and even if there was one event can generate permanent notability in some cases), sometimes it's as if people forget why we're here. What does the encyclopedia gain from deleting a well-sourced, informational article about an individual who is notable, at least for now, and generating tens of thousands of page views per day? Does keeping a big ugly AfD tag on top of a page that's generating this much traffic when the AfD is a foregone conclusion make the encyclopedia better? Oren0 (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Who's still talking about deleting it? I would like to see it merged. - Brian Kendig (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
You could propose that it be merged. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll do that. I don't know why it didn't occur to me sooner. Thank you for the idea! - Brian Kendig (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
That was your idea. I merely restated it back to you. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm reminded here a bit of the second AFD for Chris Crocker, in 2007, and this version of the article, when it was AFD'd, compared to this version here when the AFD closed. It went from a handful of sources to 40, all ensconsed in the BLP1E fears. Now look at it today--over 100 sources and only a halfwit would reasonably argue for deletion. rootology (C)(T) 17:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Or a deletionist. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Or dream killer.Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break ...[edit]

(... since Root seems to be more popular than either Jimbo or ANI today). Sometimes I think these people so firmly entrenched in "XfD" are so caught up in the letters and words of our guidelines, that they've lost touch with the intent to build an encyclopedia. I'll avoid all the "D" words, but even Al Gore knew when to give up ... well, sort of. ;) — Ched :  ?  18:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats, Root. I argued delete, but I perfectly understand why others voted keep, and why it might close as keep. However, leaving a pompous closing message that suggests we're all "Web 2.0 haters" and substituting your own opinion for an even evaluation of opinions presented is a right poor idea. The expanded soliloquy just made it more obvious. Way to create way more drama than was necessary... I would have expected a bit better. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't (and re-reading it, I don't see it that way) smashing of "web 2.0 haters", but as an expanded explanation of my entire thought process on the close that I did last night based on reading the entire AFD and the views presented on it.
The first paragraph is why the close should have been a Keep in line with collective consensus of the AFD, and with the previous decisions I've read on similar AFDs. The second paragraph was an evaluation of the AFD as I read it based on the opinions expressed in the AFD by some that her notability may have been transient, or "internet" driven, and why in the pure face of notability it doesn't matter where or how the notabilit is generated--WP:N and it's sub pages don't say x notability via it's origination source is ever more or less valued. The third paragraph was aimed at the feedback here that I'd somehow "closed a door" on the entire process of the article, which I found plain nonsensical, as consensus can change. The third also went on to the specific people that swayed me the most, and why I rejected BLP1E as an argument here--I'm one of the bigger supporters of BLP, and so for me to brush aside BLP concerns as a deletion reason here I hope have some value in my interpretation of that consensus. The third went on into how the sourcing has increased each day of the AFD, and not just sourcing that's actually included in the article, but that could be.
On a borderline or perceived borderline close, the closer has to evaluate sourcing in that way. My point there was also based on precedent, and the Chris Crocker situation is a great example. The sourcing always gets better over time--a merge today would need to be undone tomorrow as she got too big for the parent article on the show. We've seen it time and time again; so precedent carries there. The last paragraph is basically why I disagreed with the consensus of some users for a merge, and how it would generate needless cycles of work. Was my language perhaps a bit overly firm? Probably, but I've never been good at political delicateness. It's a wasted art on me, and I think we spend far too much time dancing around sometimes instead of just getting to the point.
Or maybe I should have just said "Keep", let it get DRV'd, and start up another round more easily... :( rootology (C)(T) 03:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what advantage you feel closing early has done here. Better not to have invited drama by closing early a case that is generating such interest. It might be worth considering undoing your close and just letting the AfD run the full seven days. The outcome is almost certainly going to be the same, but done without the quibbling and nit-picking. Regards SilkTork *YES! 12:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC) And, just for the record, I feel that notability has been well established in the article, and Susan Boyle should be kept. It's just the process of allowing people to have their say fairly that is in question here. SilkTork *YES! 12:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure 1E was ever exceeded, but only time will tell if she fizzles out (and I will agree consensus, discounting all the crap votes, was probably for keeping in some respect). I think at this point reopening it again will only create more drama. Either way, Root, you should have realized that closing it early was a Bad Idea. What was wrong in letting more comments in (especially after they were likely to support keeping). As to your expanded closing, you still talked about your opinion more than the AfD--I don't care one bit about how much you love BLP in any other respect, if you didn't comment in the AfD your personal relations with the policy are not german. This is on top of the seeming misunderstanding of "AfD is not a vote"; keep/delete percentages (especially when you are apparently counting comments like "she's an inspiration") are irrelevant. You throw out google news hits like that's an actual viable rubric for keeping an article (nevermind the fact that they must be nontrivial and reliable, I see a lot of ghits, must be notable). As to precedent, last time I checked no one in the AfD brought up Chris Crocker. As you state yourself, consensus can change, so applying "precedent" to an unrelated AfD is, once again, a Bad Idea. Please read this again, as I'm not sure it sunk in the first time. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys, thank you for all the feedback.

I strongly disagree that I somehow--I get the feeling this is implied in a vague way in some of these comments, even if you didn't actually intend it--that I somehow closed this almost as a voter based on my personal views, I did not. I closed the AFD based on my reading of the AFD itself, and the consensus there, and my interpretation of the policies involved and the opinions presented. I reject utterly any suggestion that the number of comments from the number of users plays no role in a discussion's consensus, and I will reject that till the I die as a user on this site. The arguments matter, but just as well do the number of opinions presented by the number of users. "Not a vote" is "not a policy", and I reject it. If 200 people support something, but 10 oppose, the weight of the 200 by volume must be considered. Abstractly vague precepts of the 'wikiway' semi-influenced by fringe ideologies like objectivism, circa 2002, are not binding on us and never were. Everything changes over time, and in this way, for the better as it decentralizes the power of the discussions and places it back in the community realm and common sense, rather than whomever can throw the most political power or written heat. I decided the AFD based on the overall consensus of the AFD, and if I was wordy or flowery in the interpretation, that's just how I am. I'll explain why I see something to the most painful level of detail, and given how some admins historically do literally the opposite, I figured that would be a good thing. You know exactly what you get from me, and are likely to get from me, and always have.

And one final point, the idea of new decisions not being influenced by modern precedent I utterly, absolutely, completely, and 100% reject as bogus. That's exactly what we are supposed to do. Precedent became practice became policy. Are people unhappy with my close being influenced at all by previous precedent on such AFDs? That's how policy works. That's just how we roll.

If you'd like a simpler explanation of how I looked at it, then here's a formula. In the AFD, consensus is c; weight of arguments that actually invoke policy or interpret is w; previous practices on similar cases is p; the closer's read of the sourcing and it's actual adherence to V, RS, and N is r; any possible BLP factors are b; number/volumes/!votes is v; and finally the closer's own interpretation of policy as it relates to AFD is m:

c+w+p+r+(b*2)+(v*0.5)/m=AFD close.

As for closing a bit early, Silk, yes, it could have probably gone a couple days more... but the consensus with each passing day was going to swing even more into the Keep side as it had been. In truth, there was only (I believe 20~ odd Deletes) and nearly all the Keeps came later on by volume and the "metrics" of it all. It would have been "nice" for everyone else to get to say something, but AFD isn't a Board or Arbcom election, or site wide discussion. When it's served it's purpose and the consensus is solidly locked in, any admin should be able to close one. I love process--I really do, since good process often keeps bad or nasty little fingers out of any theoretical abuse, if people hew to and closely monitor the good processes--but process for the sake of process is just a waste of everyone's time.

And finally, I'm still disinclined to reopen or change my close, and I really can't think of what else to say about it at this point. I believe wholly that my close was 100% in line with the policy arguments and clear consensus by argument and volume in the AFD discussion. I'd be happy for someone to DRV it, if they disagree and have a solid policy-based reason, but I note it still has not been. Thank you, all. rootology (C)(T) 14:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people working towards consensus". So in other words you put the reasonable comments based in guidelines and policy behind such comments as "She has already touched thousands, and the ball is rolling, even if she by some fluke shouldn't win there will be records and concerts in her future, the word is already spreading like wildfire across twitter,facebook, email and even word of mouth on the street. Today the UK, tomorrow the world." Nice to know you're willing to disregard the entire concept of consensus; as the policy page states, "Consensus is not in numbers". The issue here isn't Susan Boyle, it's your hasty close which makes me lose all faith in your conduct. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Nice to know you're cherry picking in bad faith now, which for you of all people to be doing disappoints me terribly. Why would you quote IceHunter from that AFD, and imply that I simply counted votes? If you choose to lie and misrepresent everything I've written utterly out of context, you're welcome to not post to my talk page again. I have zero tolerance or patience for political games or political point scoring. I explicitly said the number of users weighing in must be considered, but I explicitly said as well that it's one small part of the consideration; anyone willing to use both hemispheres of their mind can see that this is the case. If that's a political unpopular thing to say as it rains on our precocious wikiways of old, that's a shame. It's the truth. If you're really this unhappy with my close, please take it to DRV, as I will remove without comment anything else I perceive as bad faith from this page. rootology (C)(T) 15:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
How am I cherry-picking in bad faith? I grabbed a support not based on any policy or guideline at random; according to your own words above, that kind of support influenced your decision even when the deletion guide exhorts us to not consider any sort of argument like that. It's not enough that it was a "small part" of your consideration; it's not supposed to be a consideration at all. We aren't a majority vote for good reasons. If the fact that I am calling attention to your selective reading of the consensus is troubling to you, remove it. I'm not trying to take this to DRV as that accomplishes nothing; the issue here is your conduct. You refuse to accept that closing an AfD early, when it was clear that was not a supported action, was a bad idea, and that considering bad arguments in your close was a bad idea. This has nothing to do with politics, this has everything to do with misuse of tools and bad judgement. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Both of you need to take a deep breath at this point, and dial down on the emotionality. Looie496 (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Misuse of tools and bad judgement? Please sir - as Looie496 says, let's dial it down a notch. The public, the people who make this site what it is, have clearly voiced a desire to have this article. When you start picking at the foundation of our domain by using words and letters to undermine the potential of Wikipedia, you're essentially tying our hands an cutting off our legs. Root got it right, I'm sorry to disagree with your premise, but to be blunt - you're missing the "big picture". Please, let's put this behind us and move on to a more constructive task of building the world's best repository of knowledge. — Ched :  ?  20:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC) By the way, referring to a new editor's, or any editor's, contributions as "crap votes" is hardly what I'd expect from an administrator! — Ched :  ?  20:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Rather than continue to make disruptive accusations I strongly suggest you just let this topic die its death. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
And rather than stick your pithy comments into a discussion between Root and me, I suggest you ignore it if such talk bothers you. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you need to be reminded to be civil Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
If you don't like it, don't respond. And I hope you were trying to say "do" instead of don't. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

←@Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs: David, first let me say that I appreciate your valuable contributions over 3+ years here. Anyone who would not take those efforts into account in a discussion would be naive. Also, I'd like to say that if my comments about what I expect in an administrator came across as snarky ... then I do apologize. I noticed that you've put the best interests of Wikipedia above your own beliefs in endorsing closure at the DRV. My compliments to you sir - truly admirable! While it's common to see editors disagree about various aspects of Wikipedia, it's an eye-opening experience to see editors come together in collaboration to benefit the project. I tip my hat to you with all due respect sir! Good Form! — Ched :  ?  23:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to sugarcoat your comments, Ched, just be plain! While I disagree with Root's judgement in this matter, the AfD was pretty much plain, garbage votes or no... opening a DRV doesn't help solve anything 'sides generate more discussion than needed. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
ummm .. OK... then flat out? .. You were wrong this time around - big time. But I still respect your efforts. ;) — Ched :  ?  23:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Peter Symond's talk page-

Susan Boyle[edit]

I'm kind of perturbed that after I reopened giving clear reasons why I was doing so, you came along and closed it again, ignoring what I had said.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ignore what you said, but it came to a point of WP:SNOW. There was really no further need to keep it open. If you want to reopen it, go ahead, but it seemed highly unnecessary to keep it open any longer. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
As I noted in my reopen, WP:SNOW is not supposed to be used anymore.
Concerns were raised during the discussion about existing early closing, especially SNOW closes. AfD guidelines should now be rewritten to incorporate the decisions in this discussion, and to direct people to allow AfD discussions to go the full seven days unless there is a reason given in either Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion to close early.
Hence my previous changes. Since you don't object, I will reopen again. I know it's POINTy, but it's a recent change that needs to have attention called to it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
That is your call, but I find it alarming that such a rule has been put in place. Quite disappointing really. Anyway, thanks for the links; I'll bear that in mind. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not WP:SNOW can be used, WP:IAR could still be cited, as it's an official policy. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
From having a quick look at the link discussion, it appears that there is no hard and fast rule that SNOW cant be used, just that it is discouraged. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but there's no point in making a change if it's going to be completely ignored, right? Besides, the BLP1E argument isn't invalid. This should go the full length to properly establish consensus.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, for a start its an inappropriate change that goes completely against common sense. Taking the common sense argument further, its common sense that this AfD was closed, it is a classic case of SNOW. Right now you are creating admin for admins sake. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll obviously go along with the 5-7 day change, but I think it was kind of a stretch to pull that "NO SNOW" thing into that close (the AfD discussion on 5-7 days) at the very end of the discussion. — Ched :  ?  17:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
IMO WP:SNOW is pointless in AfDs. It's been misused too much, like in the Susan Boyle thing. An AfD is not an RfA, where % of support votes counts. 20 people might cite a wrong policy, and 5 people may cite the correct one, and it would be closed due to WP:SNOW. Not fair. Antivenin 00:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

<* cough, cough *>, ahhh .. yea. I think I'm probably the guilty party on this one folks. I ran across the AfD here while checking through the Help Desk. I then mentioned the issue to Peter in IRC. At the time it looked like a clear SNOW issue, and to be even more frank, I also thought it was a forumshopping issue as well (probably an unfair assumption on my part). So ... all cards on the table, I'm most likely the one that everyone should be looking at if there's a finger of blame to be pointed here. I'll just go ahead an pick up my trout on the way out ;) — Ched :  ?  05:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, I don't agree with that. The AfD crowd are generally a sensible and clueful bunch, who have a strong knowledge of Wikipedia and its policies. They read the article and come up with a decision. Granted it could happen, but no, it would be highly unlikely for 20 people to cite the wrong policy. Now, that excludes cases of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and any off-site canvassing, but from every AfD I have seen, this is obviously not given undue weight in the closing decision. So I believe your concerns about an unfair vote are unfounded. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Well it happened with the Susan Boyle thing. That's all I'm saying. A non-admin closed it citing WP:SNOW without addressing the concerns raised by those who wanted it deleted. Antivenin 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Posted at Deletion Review (WP:DRV)-

Susan Boyle (closed)[edit]

AN/I post 1-

AfD for Susan Boyle‎[edit]

Resolved: AfD cannot be snowed at this time because people are still !voting to delete. Oren0 (talk) 06:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder whether some admin might consider closing WP:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle as a snow keep. The article got over 3000 hits on its first day of existence, and the AfD doesn't serve any purpose except to create drama. I'm not quite bold enough to do a non-admin close. Looie496 (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No, definitely not snow keep, but I just voted keep.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd really like to close this, but given that an established editor just recently !voted to delete based on BLP1E (which really doesn't apply here IMO, but I digress), a snow closure would be inappropriate. Oren0 (talk) 06:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh well, in the next 6 days 20000 people will read the article and see the AfD template, and 1000 of them will go to the delete page to cast angry Keep votes -- but so be it, that's Wikipedia! Looie496 (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
In theory we're not a bureaucracy and it seems very unlikely the page will be deleted. But throwing around WP:IAR to close a deletion discussion tends to piss people off. Maybe in another day or so if there really are a flood of keeps then it can be snow closed. Oren0 (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

AN/I post 2-

WP:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle again[edit]


Closing discussion, AFD is closed.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Okay, with the !voting at 26 keep vs 5 delete, and the last 11 all keeps (mostly in tones of incredulity that it is up for deletion), I am shortly going to do a non-admin snow close unless somebody either objects here or beats me to it. Looie496 (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Done as proposed (now at 31-to-5, by the way). Since this is the first time I have closed an AfD, it wouldn't do any harm if somebody would verify that I've dotted all the i's properly. Looie496 (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Its usually best to note you did a non-admin close in the closing statement, and that you closed as keep per WP:SNOW rather than just keep. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I've added that info.Looie496 (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
You shouldn't close an AfD discussion in which you have commented, particularly 'snow keep'! Leave it someone uninvolved. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
All right, I won't do such a thing again. I did at least state quite clearly here that I was going to do it unless anybody objected, and nobody did. Looie496 (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Especially when the majority of the early keep votes were based upon YouTube pageviews, which aren't in line with policy. AFD isn't a vote so 31-5 is meaningless and an inappropriate metric, especially for a snow discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Though I agree that it would have been better if someone uninvolved had closed it, it looked decidedly like a ski resort. Whether it's a merge if necessary (IMO it isn't) or just a straight redirect, the one outcome that wasn't going to happen was deletion. Someoneanother 00:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

AFD reopened per discussion at the Village pump and the Help desk. D.M.N. (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Per village pump and help desk? Oh brother. There's a certain irony to complaining that a non-admin close is out of process, then re-opening based on a few comments in those two forums. Closures should not be reverted lightly. That becomes a process problem as well. Wikidemon (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, it's open yet again. Time well-spent. --Moni3 (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I re-opened it because of the recent change to extend all AfDs to 7 days, and only close sooner for WP:Speedy keep and WP:CSD scenarios. If we don't insist on it now, it'll never get done properly. (Note that I did !vote to keep, I'm not trying to get the result to change.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
...and User:PeterSymonds ignored my reopen reason and closed it again.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
That article will be deleted or merged within six weeks so I wouldn't worry. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I doubt it/hope not. :-) In any case, PeterSymonds agreed to let me re-open. Bouncy, bouncy, bouncy... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
It was a silly and wholly inappropriate action to reopen that AfD, has common sense been excluded from Wikipedia these days? Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Not at all. There's a valid question as to whether BLP1E applies or not. The only way to determine the answer is to let it run the full length so that people can weigh in. I don't think it does, but I'm not going to assume that my opinion is the correct one. See the discussions about the Snowball clause during the recent AfD change discussions for why I'm doing this.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Oi, I'm getting dizzy here. Who's going to stop this crazy wheel. But all in all, what is the harm in letting the discussion run the full 7 days, especially since there are editors disputing the early close after less then 48 hours? --Farix (Talk) 17:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Especially since the most recent response was a 1E-based strong delete.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Groan. I apologize for creating drama when my intent was to reduce it. Probably if I hadn't closed the debate some admin would have by now, and we wouldn't be in the ridiculous position of having a deletion template on an article that has had 23,000 views in the past day. Looie496 (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A bit of advice for future occasions: when you leave a note stating you'll do X "unless somebody either objects here or beats me to it", wait far longer than an hour -- especially if it involves a speedy keep/delete. At the worst, someone will get to enjoy having egg on her/his face. :) -- llywrch (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Outside admin intervention needed[edit]

I've just withdrew my nomination to have it deleted, as consensus is clearly merged, only now it appears to be turning into a lame edit-war. Looking since the start of the debate:

  1. Closed @ 23:44, 13 April 2009, reopened @ 12:19, 14 April 2009.
  2. Closed @ 13:26, 14 April 2009, reopened @ 14:46, 14 April 2009
  3. Closed @ 16:21, 14 April 2009, reopened @ 16:39, 14 April 2009
  4. I withdrew the nomination at 13:06, 15 April 2009, as consensus was clearly emerging (although this was called inappropriate by MickMacNee (talk · contribs)
  5. Closed @ 14:52, 15 April 2009, reopened @ 14:56, 15 April 2009
  6. Closed @ 15:07, 15 April 2009, reopened @ 15:26, 15 April 2009

I think we need an uninvolved admin to step in (and when it does get closed properly to fully-protect the page to avoid someone reopening it). D.M.N. (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

  • When you discount the IP votes, and the keeps from brand new users who have not given a policy based argument, then the argument is pretty even. But that is beside the point, because withdrawing after that many votes and three days, when it is clearly not a case of SNOW, is simply innappropriate. If you are confident in the apparent consensus, where is the harm in leaving it open for the full term? MickMacNee (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • In addition, when I previously enquired about a nom withdrawing a nomination, the consensus was that if the debate is well underway, it belong to the community and the withdrawal is *not* a reason for closing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • At this point, it's probably be best to let the AfD run its full course even if it's pointless and forget about it. From WP:SNOW: "the snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions from the start". Now WP:SNOW was rejected, however, we still do not need to get tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic meta discussions about it all. Equendil Talk 16:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • With all do respect, it is an obvious keep and the re-opens look like a WP:POINT violation. Can anyone in their right mind imagine closing this as a delete without a lot of wikidrama? Further, although the "delete" opinion is respectable (albeit in my opinion a misunderstanding of policy), the claim that delete wins because it has the better argument and everyone who thinks otherwise does not count is basically a rejection of the consensus approach. Wikidemon (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks to me like a case of "the merges have it", prolonging the debate is unnecessary so anyone (including the nominator) could perform a non-admin close as no consensus and then either boldly merge or start a merge debate. WP:BLP1E supports merge, but that's a content issue as this is a likely search term. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I know it looks like I'm making a POINT, but as the guidelines for AfD closing just changed, I think this is an appropriate time to insist on the full AfD.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
It looks that way yes. Just because the guideline has changed, its stupid to ignore common sense! This is just disruptive. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that it's disruptive to keep closing a non-unanimous discussion in the face of guidelines specifically saying not to.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle seems to have plenty more keeps than deletes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • If I had to close the AfD now, I would do so as no consensus to delete. Setting aside the keep arguments based not on policy but on popularity / public interest, several contributors believe that the coverage in multiple reliable sources is a demonstration of notability. However, there is no pressing need to close the AfD now. It seems to me that the most likely result of prolonging the discussion will be the writing, publishing and discovery of more source material, thus reinforcing the case for a Keep result. On the other hand, there is also the possibility that many editors will offer their opinions that this is a BLP1E case and as such not encyclopaedic material, regardless of the amount of media coverage. Perhaps that will be sufficient to constitute a consensus to Delete; perhaps not. Rather than attempt to predict the outcome, I support keeping the AfD open, in line with policy. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion[edit]

All AfD discussions run for at least seven days. However, a closure earlier than seven days may take place if a reason given in either Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion applies.

What part of "all" is unclear here?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, the section you're quoting basically says, "AfDs should run for 7 days unless they shouldn't." -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
And neither of the "shouldn't"s actually applies in this case, so let it run.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I hate it when people throw this around, but WP:IAR anyone? There is no way in hell this AfD is going to be closed as delete and it's only for reasons of process and bureaucracy that people are insisting the AfD continues. Oren0 (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
And sometimes our rush to close debates causes a pile of drama, which is a common theme with these one event tv show contestants. Lacking a unanimous concensus, I would rather the debate simply ran its course. There is no harm in letting it run, but obviously there was a lot of nonsense created by closing it early. Resolute 14:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
    • As one of the people who has most strongly been urging the extension of time from 5 days, for years now, actually, I think nobody intended that there would not be common-sense exceptions, if necessary justified by IAR in the absence of something more specific. But this is not one of those times. When two responsible editors both urge SNOW closes, but different SNOW closes, it would seem that this is not the time to use IAR, of which SNOW is a special case. DGG (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Without revealing my position on how AfD's should be handled, that sentence is awful from a basic logic standpoint. Someone go rewrite the policy to say "AfD discussions generally run for at least 7 days. However tktktktk."Bali ultimate (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Not completely pointless[edit]

  • Being the optimist here, the prolonged AfD is not a complete waste of time. It is giving new and previously uninvolved editors a chance to learn about policy. Spirits do seem high and very civil for such a hotly opposed deletion nomination, and supporters of the article will be very happy with a "keep" outcome or else they will get much craved melodrama with a "delete" result. The danger of course is that easy cases make bad law... if the article is kept it is not a repudiation of BLP1E, it is either an exception, or a decision that the case simply does not fit BLP1E. Wikidemon (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Of course, when an early close upsets people, then it was a poor choice for an early close. However, Wikipedia "rules" tend not to deal in absolutes, and an interpretation that AfDs can only be closed early by satisfying certain rigid criteria is... inaccurate. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Pointless and increasingly dangerous[edit]

We now learn that she grew up with learning disabilities -- so now we have a deletion template on an article about somebody the whole world sees as a story of hope and inspiration. Our article has been doubling its readership every day, and got almost 48,000 page views yesterday. The AfD has 3 more days to run. Looie496 (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You're saying that you think it's "dangerous" to keep this AfD open? Lychosis T/C 02:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it is best if I don't explain, per WP:BEANS (maybe being paranoid). Looie496 (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved now[edit]

I closed the AFD, and just expanded my close rationale:

Feel free to DRV/throw tomatoes, etc. rootology (C)(T) 13:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.