- Tony Sokol (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
There was no consensus to delete, a supervote negated the references used Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. True to form, the nominator has not attempted to discuss the deletion with the closing admin
or even notified the closing admin of this DRV. In any event, the close was a reasonable reading of the debate and well within the admin's discretion. The closing admin is more than entitled to consider strength of arguments, and did so properly here.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, as the nominator is acutely aware, deletion review is not for use in cases where you disagree with the closure for reasons previously presented. Would suggest restricting this nominator from bringing DRVs due to his continued failure to observe same. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - Yet another bad-faith DRV by the ARS crowd. I'd note that no one ever effectively rebutted Bigger Digger's dismantling of the "it's sourced" argument in the AfD. Tarc (talk) 13:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please participate without name-calling? Jclemens (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you kindly back off? I find interaction with you lately to be rather distasteful. RAN and associates frequently runs to DRV to contest XfDs that they lost; this behavior should be sanctioned. Tarc (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would love it if you would abandon your BATTLEGROUND mentality... or at the very least stop actively injecting it into discussions in a manner that poisons the atmosphere. The very concept of "losing" an AfD is inappropriate: the only loser when an AfD is wrongly decided is the encyclopedia itself. I'm sorry you find me pointing this out distasteful, but the power to avoid such interactions lies entirely within your grasp. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question At the first closure opportunity, it was apparently passed over for closure by every admin who looked at it and then relisted. During the first relisting period, it attracted an additional keep !vote and the article had additional sources added. It was relisted a second time, after we can again presume that every admin who looked at it declined to close it. What is the justification for closing it the third time as a delete, when the numbers favored keep and the recent trending favored keep? At the most, a "no consensus" close seems appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wanted to close it as delete after Bigger Digger, but instead I added a delete !vote hoping another admin could then close it. I was a little suprised at the relisting and I don't think the closing admin should have been bound by any implication arising from the relisting. As for what happened after the relist - we had one more keep !vote, that was (at least in my view) effectively refuted by multiple editors. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd add that (unless I'm miscounting), the relist came before the seven days had expired. So I don't think it was given sufficient opportunity for admins to consider closing it at that point. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't see a delete consensus at any point in the discussion, unless one decides that "I believe the sources found meet the GNG" is somehow an inferior argument. Jclemens (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We could just let afd boil down to stock phrases such as "I believe the sources found meet the GNG" and "I believe the sources fail to meet the GNG". Or abbreviate it further and just have "keep" and "delete". Mere belief that something meets a standard when there is a detailed breakdown of why it doesn't is the inferior argument.--82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - No one provided the sources that would allow us to verify his existence and write a meaningful article. The article's failure to meet that policy means the close as delete was correct. This is confirmed by RAN turning the article into a redirect to a very oddly sourced and written article! Bigger digger (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to NC Reading the discussion I have a hard time agreeing with Tim's close. Reading the sources, it's closer. The book is fairly weak. Though it establishes he's important, it's really a case of three fairly independent mentions from what I can tell. The first NYT article is boarder-line in that the coverage is decent but and would be an acceptable "second" source but lacks enough material to do much with (though the WP:LOCAL argument makes me want to cry it's so messed up). The other sources are largely weaker still. That said some of the arguments to delete were also weak. Claiming that WP:GNG doesn't matter as much as WP:PEOPLE would seem to ignore WP:BASIC. Also, we have 4 to 3 on the keep side. Finally, the question is "can we write an article on the topic?" I think there is just enough there between all the sources to do so. We can use non-independent sources for age and the like and have enough from the sources found for a decent article. Most people involved seemed to agree with that and I don't think is a clear-cut enough case otherwise to delete here. Hobit (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a nitpicking point - the headcount is 4-4. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I should learn to count, thanks for the nitpick. I still would close this as NC though... Hobit (talk) 11:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I detest NC findings, honestly, they usually just prolong the conflict until someone decides to file another XfD. Admins are empowered to make decisions, even difficult ones. Let's let them rather than wade through this endless second-guessing. Tarc (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's fair to detest them, but we should keep NC for cases when there isn't consensus. I don't see any here. Hobit (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Well within administrator discretion for a BLP. Yilloslime TC 17:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closing admin correctly noted that there are fundamental verifiability problems, particularly unacceptable in a BLP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- Consensus is based on strength of argument more than snout-counting. Bigger Digger provided a very in-depth analysis of the purported sources; this was not adequately refuted. The close was well within the discretion of the closing administrator. Reyk YO! 05:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to NC There's no way the arguments advanced in a 4-4 split are disproportionate enough to be a delete... or a keep, for that matter. It's clearly a no consensus close, and no one person here has addressed the fundamental issue of the two previous opportunities for closure without an admin finding consensus. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't comment on why admins couldn't close it sooner, but I can point out to you why consensus is clear. The first keep lists some sources found, the second keep is essentially "per keep 1". Then there's ye' olde "Seems to be enough sources to establish notability". Not exactly a strong !vote when the the most assertive it can get is "seems to...", so that can cancel out the "he's done a lot of stuff, but none of it appears notable". I then (mostly successfully I think, if you ignore the WP:LOCAL mishap) dismissed those sources. So now there are two keeps that have been thoroughly undermined. Mkativerata then adds a delete, so at this point you could suggest the score is 3-0 to delete. It's relisted, you'd have to ask that admin why, and in the next 7 days the only other !vote is a keep which actually shows one of the previously noted sources is alright, but then quotes the requirement for reliable sources, in the plural, and having only provided one he's therefore rather shot himself in the foot. So still 3-0, if you're keeping score. It's then non-admin relisted a whole 18 hours early (perhaps for the experience? Because it's fun? Who knows?), when an admin might have closed with a decision. In the next 7 days there are no more keeps or deletes, which seems (to me) to only happen when editors believe there's nothing more to say on the matter. If all the keeps are dismissed and most of the deletes are unchallenged over a 21 day period, then I think you would be hard pressed to describe that as no consensus. I look forward to the rebuttal of my points, for the learning experience at least ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So did any of the other !voters look at your reasoning on the sources and decide to change their !votes? If not, why not? I'm not saying that the result should have been "keep", but I'm saying that when the votes are split down the middle, calling it one way or the other when any number of previous administrators had the opportunity and had passed on it is simply not appropriate. A 4:4 split looks like "no consensus", especially when the last !vote was "Keep", and admins should not rush to decide keep vs. delete when there are plenty of other options--including no consensus. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The sources provided don't represent significant coverage. Everyone has just passing mentions. I think two keep !votes could easily discounted as speculation ("i belive" and "Seems to be"). So there is a 4:2 ratio for delete. And lastly because DRV is not AfD round two, if you don't like the outcome of the Afd. Armbrust Talk Contribs 02:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, as AfD nominator: One of the keep voters produced one source which gave a few biographical details about the subject, but only in the context of an article about vampire sub-cultures. All other sources were passing mentions and were comprehensively examined by Bigger digger. AfD is not a voting process, my nomination was on the grounds that the subject's notability was not established and did not meet the criteria of WP:CREATIVE or WP:NMUSIC, and nothing changed in that respect. None of the keep votes actually addressed the notability criteria so I believe that the closure with the rationale: "The argument that there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources does not appear to have been successfully rebutted" is correct. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
