- Simon Davies (lawyer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
<Relist>
- The discussion was closed without proper discussion by a non-admin that did not properly measure consensus. I request admins to revert the page for proper discussion until a consensus is reached.
Pirlo's Spoon (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The original discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Davies (lawyer). --‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General ‖ 02:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- –Davey2010Talk's assertions aside, I don't think that consensus is a tally, nor have I advocated as such. I objected to the closure, he responded with a comment alluding to a tally. "The Keeps outweighted the deleted so consensus was too keep" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Davey2010#Simon_Davies_Closure. While the keeps established that the sources met the bare minimum, there are exceptions to sources satisfying basics, they failed to establish that they didn't fall under the exceptions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. At the end of the day, this guy is only known for his role as a managing partner at Linklaters and gets periodic interviews in connection with that position in the firm. The fact that trade journals satisfy the rule for independent sources doesn't obviate the fact that he is known for only one thing. Pirlo's Spoon (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pirlo's Spoon (talk • contribs) 02:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I'm not particularly impressed with the sources, nor with some of the keep arguments, but it's really hard to see how this could have been closed any other way given the material the closer had to work with. As for there not being a proper discussion, that's silly. The AfD was open for several weeks, and got more participation than most AfDs do these days. Also, the nominator of this DRV is a WP:SPA, who's only contributions have been regarding this article. Do I smell a sock? -- RoySmith (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking of socks, I also notice that the user who nominated this for AfD has only ever made two edits, and those were to create the nomination. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ad hominem that I don't even understand. I'm not sure this sentence makes sense "I'm not particularly impressed with the sources, nor with some of the keep arguments, but it's really hard to see how this could have been closed any other way given the material the closer had to work with." If every keep vote was flimsy, why keep the article. Its no more deserving than Angie Varona or Allison Stokke, or any number of individuals with far more notability that had their bios taken down.Pirlo's Spoon (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - All I have to say is I still stand by my move to Linklaters instead as it seemed there was no independent notability and he was best known for Linklaters. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- My gut feeling is that a merge to Linklaters would probably be the right thing to do, but that's not a matter we're going to decide here. After the DRV is over, propose it on the talk pages and see what consensus emerges. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The page in question was created by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rangoon11, a person that created other similar stub bios for other managing partners who are also not notable, and then was banned for being a troll. This isn't a close call. Pirlo's Spoon (talk) 05:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Given the comments on the AFD there was no way it could be closed as anything other than Keep. Deletion Review is not for arguing the AFD again, it is primarily for deciding if the closer correctly evaluated consensus, which in this case I believe they did. However I would not say the discussion prevents a merge to Linklaters from being proposed and discussed on the talk pages as a couple of the AFD contributors suggested. Davewild (talk) 07:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - it was demonstrated in the discussion he meets WP:N, and nobody even tried to refute that. Close is beyond obvious, and relisting would be a waste of everyone time (but then, so is this discussion). WilyD 07:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. If people !vote keep because of WP:GNG they do not need go on to show that the article should not be deleted under WP:BIO1E or WP:Indiscriminate. It it up to those seeking deletion to raise these matters and to persuade others of their opinion. We do not exclude biographies of people who are only notable because of the job they do. After additional sources had been produced no one seemed to think the article should be deleted. The close was perfectly appropriate and this challenge to it is misconceived. Thincat (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse not sure how one could say it was "closed without proper discussion" when the AFD ran for two weeks. After the 8th of April discussion had stalled so there's nothing to indicate an additional week would have altered the outcome. Some of the keep votes had less than stellar explanations of their reasoning, but I don't see how the discussion could have been closed any other way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse keeping -- Almost all the voites were to keep. The position he holds is effectively CEO of one of the major commerical law firms in London. The article mayu indeed need improvement, but that is not a ground for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, good NAC here, any outcome other than "Keep" with such a clear consensus in favour of that would have been absurd. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Endorse The claim that he satisfies BIO1E/BLP1E appears manifestly ill founded, as being a managing partner is an office, position, job or status, not an event. 1E is "one event", not "one thing" or "one attribute" or even "one office", which would be more general. I don't think that a closing admin, when assessing consensus, has to accept an argument that is manifestly wrong, just because no participant expressly explains why it is wrong. I think, under those circumstances, a bald assertion that it is wrong, in the form of the word "keep", is sufficient. INDISCRIMINATE was not mentioned during the AfD. Even if it had been, his article clearly does not satisfy any of the four criteria of that policy. The article is clearly not a plot summary, lyrics database, collection of statistics or list of software updates. "Other stuff doesn't exist arguments" weren't advanced during the AfD. Even if they had been, they are not valid. "Creator created bad articles and was blocked" arguments were not advanced during the AfD. Even if they had been, they are not valid. I don't think that discussion of the merits of a deleted article should be beyond the scope of DRV in absolutely all cases, but in this case, there seems to be no reason to invoke IAR to ignore the rubric of DRV, even if there was something worth discussing (which I am not seeing), as other processes could be used for such discussion (AfD itself, proposed mergers and RfC). James500 (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
