| Revision as of 11:35, 16 May 2019 edit7&6=thirteen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers152,696 edits →Kelly Meighen: O← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:39, 16 May 2019 edit undo7&6=thirteen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers152,696 edits →16 May 2019: moreNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| *'''Overturn''' A ] in which the closer picked their own argument, rather than assessing the consensus of the participants or lack of same. This was contrary to ], "''respect the judgment and feelings of Misplaced Pages participants. ... When in doubt, don't delete.''" Also, there was a large elephant in the room which nobody addressed: she's the wife of ] and the president of the philanthropic foundation created by ]. There are therefore obvious ] such as merger to one of these articles, which we should prefer per our policy ]. As there was no consensus and the elephant had not yet been spotted, the discussion should be relisted rather than closed in this way. ] (]) 10:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC) | *'''Overturn''' A ] in which the closer picked their own argument, rather than assessing the consensus of the participants or lack of same. This was contrary to ], "''respect the judgment and feelings of Misplaced Pages participants. ... When in doubt, don't delete.''" Also, there was a large elephant in the room which nobody addressed: she's the wife of ] and the president of the philanthropic foundation created by ]. There are therefore obvious ] such as merger to one of these articles, which we should prefer per our policy ]. As there was no consensus and the elephant had not yet been spotted, the discussion should be relisted rather than closed in this way. ] (]) 10:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Overturn''' for reasons cited by ]. | *'''Overturn''' for reasons cited by ]. | ||
| :As to the personal attacks above, these are (1) without factual foundation (the alleged copyvio was minimal and in good faith and was quickly corrected); and (2) is |
:As to the personal attacks above, these are (1) without factual foundation (the alleged copyvio was minimal and in good faith and was quickly corrected and that particular article was both a Keep and will be a DYK over the objections of the above editor); and (2) it is an '']'' that is fallacious and irrelevant to this discussion. Indeed, similar attacks are part of the AFD discussion. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 11:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 11:39, 16 May 2019
< 2019 May 15 Deletion review archives: 2019 May 2019 May 17 >16 May 2019
Kelly Meighen
No WP:CONSENSUS should result in a Keep or even a relist. I posted comments on the closer's talk page, I have not heard from the closer. There is no policy reason to delete based on the participation on the afd. There is a policy reason to Keep. The article could be renominated after a time. Lubbad85 (☎) 01:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- Endorse The closing admin's assessment of consensus is consistent with policy. AFD is not about counting votes, even if sometimes some closers give the impression that that is what they are doing. It's about the strength of the arguments, not getting a supermajority of !votes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- Also, while it's not a matter for deletion review, I do have to wonder why Lubbad would previously complain about the AFD being relisted rather than "no consensus; default to keep" and then complain here that the AFD wasn't relisted now that it's turned out that the solution would have been to delete all along. @Lubbad85: Do you understand the concept of WP:RELISTBIAS and how it tends to happen when the consensus is in favour of deletion and/or redirecting, as opposed to keeping? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- Endorse. Consensus was that the article and its subject do not meet the significant coverage requirements of the general notability guideline, which also constitutes the basic criteria for the inclusion of a biographical article. If "likely notable" and "not notable" are both correct, then this is one of the unfortunate exceptions, not somehow Notable despite not meeting guidelines. The AfD does not argue that offline or otherwise difficult to find sources may exist. I will also note that 7 DRVs resulted in an overturn last month, so perhaps whether a closure is beyond reproach actually depends on the merits of the case. There was no other way the AfD could have been closed. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Alpha3031: Just to play devil's advocate,
There was no other way the AfD could have been closed.
is probably not true from Lubbad's point of view; simply counting the bolded !votes, it was split 5-5 and so a "no consensus" result would not have been beyond the pale, and certainly a lot of admins who are either sympathetic to the cause of, or afraid of backlash from, the ARS-types would have likely interpreted it that way. - That said, this is now the second time that Lubbad has tried to creatively interpret "consensus" (or the supposed lack thereof) in relation to this particular AFD. Combined with the recent copyvio concerns over his attempts to "rescue" another article that was at AFD (and the fact that that was not an isolated incident), I suspect this might be a user conduct issue with the OP more than a difference of interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS...
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Alpha3031: Just to play devil's advocate,
- Endorse There really isn't a policy reason to keep based on the discussion. There are fewer delete votes on a count of numbers, but they all explain why the article fails our policies, mostly in depth. There aren't any keep !votes which discuss sources. SportingFlyer T·C 06:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- Overturn A supervote in which the closer picked their own argument, rather than assessing the consensus of the participants or lack of same. This was contrary to WP:DGFA, "respect the judgment and feelings of Misplaced Pages participants. ... When in doubt, don't delete." Also, there was a large elephant in the room which nobody addressed: she's the wife of Michael Meighen and the president of the philanthropic foundation created by Theodore Meighen. There are therefore obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger to one of these articles, which we should prefer per our policy WP:PRESERVE. As there was no consensus and the elephant had not yet been spotted, the discussion should be relisted rather than closed in this way. Andrew D. (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- Overturn for reasons cited by Andrew D..
- As to the personal attacks above, these are (1) without factual foundation (the alleged copyvio was minimal and in good faith and was quickly corrected and that particular article was both a Keep and will be a DYK over the objections of the above editor); and (2) it is an Argumentum ad hominem that is fallacious and irrelevant to this discussion. Indeed, similar attacks are part of the AFD discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)