- Matt Smith (illustrator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD2)
I don't believe there were any valid reasons given to keep this article only valid reason for deletion. One look at the article shows a non-notable person with no coverage in reliable sources. neon white talk 20:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As the closing admin, I'd like to explain how I came up with a close of no consensus. While the arguments for keeping the article were weak (no real references provided; the best argument was that the subject has won several awards), the arguments for deletion were equally weak. The nominator's argument was that sources showing notability had not yet been added; another editor gave a reason of "per nom" (and also per someone who had argued to keep). This left neon white's argument of "Doesn't appear to have the reliable second party coverage required."... "There are literally thousands of illustrators in the world who work on magazines etc. everyday. None of them are notable." This was the best of the delete arguments (well, the first part was; the second part can quickly be proven false by finding a single notable illustrator, such as Norman Rockwell.)
- No where did I see an argument saying someone had looked for notability and didn't find it; the arguments centered on notability not being shown in the article as it currently is. While the burden of showing notablity certainly is on the article's creator, in an AfD it's also important to make a good faith effort to find evidence of notability, and none of the delete arguments mentioned having made that effort.
- With weak arguments on both sides, I couldn't justify closing as delete, nor could I justify closing as keep. My choices came down to no consensus or relist; as the debate had already been relisted once, no consensus seemed appropriate.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article makes no mention of any notable awards won only that he won an art contest on a minor website that itself struggles for notability and a small art grant. Neither of these are criteria for notability. The only valid points made in the afd was that there is absolutely no coverage of this person to be found in reliable sources, this was made by several people and no reliable sources were found to refute that. Web searches were performed and only find his personal website, no news articles or books appear to mention him. I am astounded that this wasn't an obvious delete. The fact that the article has had no improvements made since the last afd which also in my opinion was a clear delete, shows this article is going nowhere and connot be sourced. --neon white talk 00:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You might note that I said above the awards argument for keep was weak. Minor awards can bolster other evidence of notability, but aren't enough on their own. It sounds like we are in agreement on this.
- The fact that the article has had no improvements since the last AfD is an editing issue, not a deletion issue, and does nothing to show that notability cannot be shown (emphasis mine). It would have helped immensely if you had mentioned in the AfD that you had done a thorough web search -- the way both you and the nom phrased your argument for lack of notability, it appeared you were going strictly off the article as it stands.
- Since you initially expressed your concerns here, I have reread the discussion several times, and still feel that, based on the information I had at the time, I would have closed it the same way again. If you had made the argument about having done a thorough gsearch, it is certainly possible that I might have closed it differently. However, just now I have done my own gsearch, and I do come up with several mentions of Matt Smith, but it is difficult to tell him apart from Matt Smith (comics). It's a murky issue, and if the article comes up again for deletion, I hope there will be more research and discussion than happened at the last AfD.
- If any neutral party here at DRV has some constructive comments on the close, I'd certainly welcome them.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, if two afds have failed to provide any sources then that should be taken into account. The arguments for keep at both afds make claims (by the creator of the article i should add) that are not verified in the article and all attempts to verify them have failed. I still cannot see any decent argument to keep that is based on policy. An art contest on a minor amateur website can hardly be considered an 'award'. It should at least be given by a reconised body to be considered an award however minor. It is true that there are problems with searches due to a number of people with the same name but this simply further hightlights the lack of notability here. All search hits of this person seem to be largely from his personal website, there is no evidence that he appears in journals, art magazines or news articles. I must point out that this is all irrelevant as the burden of proof is on the article to assert the notability of the subject not the opposite. I feel the decision was made because of a failure to disprove notability during the afd rather than contributors proving notability. --neon white talk 23:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete or relist. Sources apparently weren't found... sufficient sources certainly aren't in the article now. The burden is on people wanting to keep content to find sources... someone who doesn't think the sources exist can't truly prove they don't exist, you can't actually prove something like that any more than I could "prove" no polka-dotted aliens exist, but you can say no one has found any evidence yet, that's why the burden is on those who want to make claims to find sufficient evidence. --Rividian (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fabrictramp didn't make a bad call here. However, given the relatively low participation, I'd be happier with an overturn and relist than anything else. I'm of the opinion that short "no consensus" XfDs should nearly always be relisted in an attempt to see if consensus can be gathered one way or the other with a longer discussion period. Besides, this seems like the least contentious way to go. If the nom is correct that it should be deleted, the consensus should swing that way after it's reopened and relisted. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sustain the no-consensus close, and renominate in 1 or 2 months in the hope of consensus then--I really dont see the point of overturning a non-consensus close when it can just be nominated again after a while, but if people want to relist now, maybe it will get enough further attention. DGG (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the no consensus close, there is no need to rush to deletion in this case. The article can be relisted at any time, though I'd suggest leaving it for a month or two as DGG said. Chances are that the next AfD will see a consensus emerge. RMHED (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, there is certainly nothing wrong with a no-consensus closure here as there was certainly no consensus. Sure, it could have been relisted but it had been once and still failed to attract much attention in the way of discussion - sometimes that just happens. Re-listing ad nauseum is not any better than just closing as no-consensus and letting the issue rest for a while before renominating in hopes of more participation down the line. Shereth 16:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- that is true, so i think a relist may been appropriated but you have to consider that half of all afds end with no consensus due to poor arguements. --neon white talk 22:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close with no prejudice to a relist. I should specifically like to thank Fabrictramp, the closing admin, for fully explaining the reasons for the close. We only overturn closures at DRV when the close was clearly wrong and that is plainly not the case here. Smile a While (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. It should not be relisted, that is trying to take a second bite at the apple right after the first. This was closed properly. No consensus at closure means keep. I propose we give it more time, you can then bring it back if significant improvements have not been made. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
