Pantherskin (talk | contribs) |
Anti-Nationalist (talk | contribs) →Richard Tylman: overturn and delete |
||
Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
* '''Endorse''' – I share the view of Lankiveil above that the 'delete' side of the debate is suspiciously well-organised (not all, but at least 6). This article would be kept without demur in ordinary circumstances. [[User:Occuli|Occuli]] ([[User talk:Occuli|talk]]) 09:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC) |
* '''Endorse''' – I share the view of Lankiveil above that the 'delete' side of the debate is suspiciously well-organised (not all, but at least 6). This article would be kept without demur in ordinary circumstances. [[User:Occuli|Occuli]] ([[User talk:Occuli|talk]]) 09:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
*: Nope. If you would also discount those involved on the other side of the EEML arbcom case the outcome would have been even clearer for delete. The only difference is that only those who voted delete were named by Poeticbent, whereas those involved in the arbcom case and voting Keep are not known to the outside observer. [[User:Pantherskin|Pantherskin]] ([[User talk:Pantherskin|talk]]) 09:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC) |
*: Nope. If you would also discount those involved on the other side of the EEML arbcom case the outcome would have been even clearer for delete. The only difference is that only those who voted delete were named by Poeticbent, whereas those involved in the arbcom case and voting Keep are not known to the outside observer. [[User:Pantherskin|Pantherskin]] ([[User talk:Pantherskin|talk]]) 09:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
* '''Overturn and delete''': granted, I was on the opposite side of Poeticbent (Richard Tylman) on the [[WP:EEML]] Arbitration case. But this is not about sides{{ndash}}it is about notability, meeting standards for biographical articles on Wikipedia, and the sources that are required in order for an individual biography to do so. Let's take at them: |
|||
# We can rule out notability for Tylman as a painter. True, he was selected to represent his hometown in 1981 at a competition of promising young Polish artists. But there is nothing to tell us that Tylman was recognized as the best artist of those selected for being represented at the exhibition. Nor did he win any award. Outside the brief news notice for the exhibition as a whole (and the existence of its catalogue), there is no evidence of any individual notability. |
|||
# We can easily see the absence of notability for Tylman as an airbrush illustrator: the "sources" for his works are the commercial works that have appeared in magazines. This does not meet notability, since airbrush illustrators who work on ads in magazines are not therefore inherently Wikipedia-notable. A team of illustrators that he was part of did win a Graphex Award in Canada (1991), but this is not evidence of individual notability, since Tylman himself was not named as an individual artist. The source for this is Tylman's own site. |
|||
# As regards Tylman's crative endeavors as a poet, it's already been explained in the AFD nominations that these works of poetry are entirely self-published. Significantly, there are no critical reviews or commentary, so notability as an author/poet is non-existent. Tylman's ''Grand Owl'' award{{ndash}}the only individual prize mentioned for any endeavor at all{{ndash}}is a student-level prize given by Jagellonian University.<br/>As was already explained previously in the nominations, the Anglophone Tylman poetry collections published by "Aspidistra Press" are in fact works produced by a [[vanity press]] (Tylman is the only published author for Aspidistra).<br/>The Polish-language poetry also appears to be as non-notable: the only interesting thing from ''Koty marcowe'' was the poem "O próbie wysadzenia pomnika Lenina" (An Attempt at Blowing Up the Statue of Lenin), which was included amidst the photographs in photo anthology ''Nowa Huta: Okruchy zycia I Meandry Historii'' by photographer Jerzy Aleksander Karnasiewicz. The work is published by a non-commerical printer{{ndash}}the little "Wydawnictwo Towarzystwo Słowaków w Polsce" ("The Association of Slovaks in Poland"). There are no critical reviews.<br/> Tylman's article gives us two interviews connected to "O próbie wysadzenia pomnika Lenina". The first is an interview with Jerzy Karnasiewicz (not Richard Tylman) in a local Nowa Huta] supplement to the Krakow-based ''Gazeta Krakowska'' (there, Karnasiewicz simply mention's Tylman's identity as the author of the poem in the book).<br/>The other is an interview with Richard Tylman in ''Głos – Tygodnik Nowohucki'' by Małgorzata Szymczyk-Karnasiewicz. Given that Małgorzata's last name is Szymczyk-Karnasiewicz and the author of the photo anthology in which Tylman's poem is to be found is Jerzy Karnasiewicz, this seem to have a deep [[WP:COI]]... Even if we are to assume no COI, though, ''[[Głos – Tygodnik Nowohucki]]'', where Tylman's interview appears, is just a small local publication in Nowa Huta (its English-language Wikipedia article was made by Richard Tylman (Poeticbent) after the third time that [[Richard Tylman]] was nominated for deletion; its Polish-language Wiki article was created by Tylman's [[WP:EEML]] buddy [[User:Piotrus|Piotrus]]. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G%C5%82os_%E2%80%93_Tygodnik_Nowohucki&action=history] [http://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G%C5%82os_-_Tygodnik_Nowohucki&action=history]) |
|||
Well, then{{ndash}}my rationale{{ndash}}and so far so good. What, then, do the Wikipedia biographical guidelines tell us? |
|||
# For [[WP:ANYBIO]] (or [[WP:ANYBIO|Any biography]]): <blockquote>1. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one.</blockquote><blockquote>2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.</blockquote> No notability per [[WP:ANYBIO]], it seems to me. The only individual award won by Tylman was the ''Grand Owl'', a student-level award from Jagellonian University. |
|||
# For [[WP:ARTIST]]/[[WP:AUTHOR]] (or [[WP:CREATIVE|any "creative professional"]]): <blockquote>1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.</blockquote><blockquote>2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.</blockquote><blockquote>3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.</blockquote><blockquote>4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.</blockquote><blockquote>5. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for guidelines on academics ''- not applicable to Tylman''</blockquote> There is no evidence (or even suggestion) to be found that Tylman either <blockquote>1) is an "important figure" or is widely cited by his peers;</blockquote> <blockquote>2) is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique;</blockquote><blockquote>3) has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or review;</blockquote> or <blockquote>4) has created work that (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or is to be found in many significant libraries.</blockquote> |
|||
Accordingly, I do not see the basis for anything other than a deletion. Tylman is simply non-notable. [[User:Anti-Nationalist|Anti-Nationalist]] ([[User talk:Anti-Nationalist|talk]]) 11:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
====[[:ioquake3]]==== |
====[[:ioquake3]]==== |
Revision as of 11:53, 19 January 2010
18 January 2010
3D Pose Estimation (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Unfortunately I cannot discuss the reason for deletion with the original admin, Maxim, as they are on wiki-break. However, the reason for deletion is weak, "Deleted because expired WP:PROD; Reason given: Seems to be an essay based on a couple of papers by a single author, describing a single technique.. using TW", while yes it does seem an essay describing a single technique, it must be noted that this technique, and in fact the entire "thing" described is a crucial part (and not well understood) region of computer vision. While essay-ish in nature, this deleted article does well in describing 3D Pose Estimation and how it is handled. Any University level student wishing to know more about 3D Homographies and 3D Pose Estimation would find this article a handy, short, yet powerful description; it rightly highlights some of the short falls of available techniques. The article shouldn't stand alone as 3D Pose Estimation, but should be merged with Pose Estimation (Computer Vision) under the relevant heading. I am not sure why this was not done originally. I will conceed the article does need a bit of a clean-up. The deleted article can be found at: http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=3D_Pose_Estimation_(deleted_17_Jun_2008_at_02:04) Ratzian (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Richard Tylman
- Richard Tylman (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This was a fairly nasty AfD with some sort of WP:EEML-related pre-history and it was closed as no consensus by Lankiveil. My impression, however, is that, once the EEML-related acrimony is peeled away, there was in fact a consensus to delete. The closing admin has been approached twice about re-evaluating the close (there are two threads at his talk page, related to this AfD; the first, rather brief, thread by me and another, extensive, thread, by the nominator, User:Triplestop). The closing admin has indicated there, first briefly[1] and then in more detail[2], that he is not going to change the close. The closing admin said that "In this case, given the fact that a significant minority of editors participating in the discussion argued that the article's subject was notable, I determined when closing the discussion that there was currently no consensus among editors that the subject of the article fails WP:N." In determining consensus it is necessary to look at a combination of factors: raw numbers, expressed strength of the !votes and the strength of the arguments. In this case there were 20 delete !votes (21 counting the nominator) and 10 keep !votes (11 counting the subject of the article, User:Poeticbent, who did note !vote but commented extensively in favor of keeping the article). Of the delete !votes none were expressed as "weak deletes" and there was one "strong delete". Among the keeps, there were several expressed as fairly weak ("weak", "weakish", "seems borderline notable"), namely those by User:Kotniski, User:OlEnglish, User:Alex Bakharev; the "keep" !vote of User:Abd was at least in part procedurally based. The "keep" of User:Collect was based largely on the argument that there is an article about the subject in Polish Wikipedia; a rather weak argument as was pointed out by several AfD participants. There were a few brief perfunctorily expressed !votes on both sides but IMO the delete side was, on the whole, better argued and more policy rooted. The basic delete argument was that there was insufficient amount of specific coverage to justify notability. Given that this is a WP:AUTO case (the article was created and extensively edited by User:Poeticbent), the notability bar should be a little higher rather than lower here. With all due respect to the closing admin, I request overturn and delete. Nsk92 (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Just because the article was created and edited by the subject does not mean that the bar for its inclusion needs to be set any higher than if it wasn't, there were multiple editors that voted to keep and saw no reason to delete the article and the result was clearly no consensus to delete. Off2riorob (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Overturn and delete. I was surprised to learn that the Afd was closed as no consensus, just because a minority of editors had tried to assert the subject's notability without being able to substantiate that claim. Also, it seems the closing admin did not address the grave conflict of interest concerns with this subject/editor. -- Matthead Discuß 12:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sustain No reasonable person can fail to see the lack of consensus in the AfD. And DRV is not the place to attack any edoitor for having a "weak argument" -- I would ask that such material above as appears to directly attack me be struck forthwith. "Weak" and the like are not relevant to weighing !votes -- the issue is that arguments were presented on both sides, with neither side getting a consensus. Lastly, DRV is a place to assert that the closer erred. The nom here appears to argue that the AfD erred. By the way, those who shout "EEML" as a reason for deletion appear to have a pretty weak argument themselves <g>. I did not find it anywhere on the reasons for deletion lists. And if the nom wishes the article deleted from the Polish WP, there is a valid process there for him to pursue which should be followed. Collect (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you're mistaken. Admins weigh the strength of arguments when determining the outcome. "Weak" is a valid descriptor of arguments that do not support policy. And the fact that an article exists on a foreign language Wikipedia is rather weak. Those Wikis do not always adhere to the same policies we do, and the article could simply exist because no one has bothered to delete it yet. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reread the above. The editor said some people described their own !vote as "weak" which does not mean that they felt any argument was weak, but, far more usually, that they felt there are arguments on both sides of the issue. Nor does "weak" have anything whatsoever to do with "policy" or non-policy based arguemnts. I would note, moreover, that the Polish Wiki does have a deletion procedure. If the people on that Wiki see fit to delete the article as being "non-notable" that would have some weight. Absent such an act, I tend to believe that we should respect opinions of other Wikis, just as we expect them to respect us. This discussion, which ought to be a review of the closing of the AfD, has turned into an ersatz new AfD, which is, imn my opinion, not a wise use of DRV. Collect (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you're mistaken. Admins weigh the strength of arguments when determining the outcome. "Weak" is a valid descriptor of arguments that do not support policy. And the fact that an article exists on a foreign language Wikipedia is rather weak. Those Wikis do not always adhere to the same policies we do, and the article could simply exist because no one has bothered to delete it yet. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please read WP:CIRCULAR. Wikipedia can not ever be invoked as a reliable source to pass WP:V. Triplestop x3 16:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- And you will note I made no such use of WP. What you apparently object to, and which is not WP:CIRCULAR, is the reasoning that the primary place where a BLP is located (in this case, in the Polish WP) is the place where deletion should first occur on the basis that the subject of the BLP is, oddly enough, Polish. This is unrelated to WP:V entirely. If you feel strongly enogh that the person should have his BLP deleted, it is reasonable that you do so first on the Polish WP where an orderly process exists. Collect (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please read WP:CIRCULAR. Wikipedia can not ever be invoked as a reliable source to pass WP:V. Triplestop x3 16:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- We are here to assess the closure of an AfD on this wiki. Your argument is irrelevant. Triplestop x3 22:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Overturn and delete. or alternatively relist to generate a more thourough discussion by uninvolved editors. Only one keep! actually addressed the notability and presented third-party sources (though in my opinion not sufficient as one source is an interview with the subject himself, and the other is an interview in which the subject is mentioned in one sentence - not enough to create an article that satisfies WP:V), whereas most deletes! discussed the lack of sources and the deficiencies of the sources presented. I also note that there are some apparent BLP problems as the subject of the article himself complained several times about alleged BLP attacks. Pantherskin (talk) 13:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Overturn and delete. After carefully reading over the whole AfD, it seems that WP:ANYBIO is not met. The Glos article is the only source that appears to meet WP:V. Multiple independent sources would need to be provided to establish notability, particularly because no one succesfully argued that the Glos article meets WP:RS. J04n(talk page) 13:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Overturn and delete. I find it a little troubling that a point-of-view is put forward that in order for there to be consensus, all !votes must be delete. There was a clear minority keep !votes: a handful of keeps do not mean no consensus automatically. If that were the case, we may as well stop AfDs altogether, as one keep would cancel any deletes. Other factors are obviously at play here and I feel the delete !votes, clearly in the majority, were also, and most importantly, stronger in their arguments for deletion. There was a clear consensus here for delete and the proper closing should have been as delete. I find the arguments for keep to be mostly vague and I don't see sufficient evidence of notability per WP:BIO. freshacconci talktalk 15:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- As the closer, I think this is a mischaracterisation. A lone dissenter wouldn't break consensus, but in this case a third of editors commenting disagreed. Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC).
- Endorse If this had been closed delete I don't think I'd call for an overturn, at the same time I don't think it's clear enough to overturn the NC. IMHO it's right on the edge between NC and delete, but NC seems to be within admin discression.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Overturn to delete The keep votes that stated the subject is notable were either mere opinion or assertion, not substantiated by fact. The one keep vote that was actually well reasoned was refuted extensively. Per WP:Rough consensus, the result should have been delete. Both strength of arguments and head count clearly favor delete. I note that the closing admin claimed to have weighted arguments, yet justified the no consensus close based upon there being "multiple votes for Keep". Triplestop x3 16:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Overturn to delete While it is true there were a significant minority of users looking to keep the article, all but one of those attempted to advance a reason based in policy and evidence to justify their opinion. Every single one of the points made by this solitary keep commenter were soundly refuted by those looking to delete. So discounting the WP:ILIKEIT-style comments, the many and extensive ad hominem comments and other non-policy based recommendations, there was a clear consensus to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Overturn and delete. As per comments of J04n, this article lacks any sources which meet WP:RS or WP:V. Without such sources, WP:BIO requirements can not be satisfied. WP:ILIKEIT should not be the basis of whether or not an article is kept or deleted but the vast majority of the minority of votes for keep were based on very very little more than WP:ILIKEIT.Varsovian (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Overturn to delete The sources do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability standard. The solitary "Keep" comment which attempted a rationale worthy of consideration relied on an interview in the Głos – Tygodnik Nowohucki (a weekly neighborhood magazine). That doesn't cut the mustard. Nor does an award given to an advertising team by Graphex either. Several others who would like to see this article remain in the Encyclopedia stated that keeping the article does no harm to the project. I have to disagree. If anyone wishes to write a vanity article about themselves, that doesn't pass the requirements needed to not be deleted, it ultimately brings ridicule to the project. If that isn't harmful, I don't know what is. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Overturn and delete closure was not within reasonable bounds of admin discretion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse There were no procedural problems with the way the AfD was closed. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- This appears to be some kind of campaign, all the people that voted to delete are here again pressing for deletion, this is simply not correct, if any weight is to be given to this desire to delete then the article should be relisted correctly. Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse closure as no-consensus. Many fewer people watch DRV, appeals of no-consensus or keep are problematic unless there is some blatant error, not merely a difference in opinion. This is a the third deletion discussion in a short time for this article. Bad idea, not to be encouraged. If it were up to me, I'd prohibit DRV of no-consensus or keep decisions. That is, if you disagree with a Keep, renominate when a decent time has elapsed. I've seen far more heat than light in the use of DRV as if it were an AfD renomination; we are above seeing some of the same irrelevant arguments asserted. There *are* relevant arguments, but they were given in the AfD, and the issue is balance. What is proper for review here is the process, and there was no abuse of process. --Abd (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- By your logic, any admin would be able to prevent an article from being deleted forever by closing it as no consensus for any reason they want again and again. Triplestop x3 22:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- That certainly is not my logic. An admin who closed as "no consensus" repeatedly in order to "prevent an article from being deleted forever" would probably see DRV based on an involved close, and might even, possibly, see more fuss than that. I've never seen repeated closing by the same editor, except for speedy close of fast-renominations. If you suspect a biased close, that's a reason for a deletion review. Rather, DRV without abuse, of a keep or no consensus decision, defeats the purpose of avoiding fast renomination, for it effectively is a renomination, a kind of forum-shopping. DRV was designed for review of deletions, primarily. Fast renomination is discouraged because it does not allow the normal editorial process to clean up the article, which would include removal of poorly-sourced text, through editorial consensus, a process that can take time. In other words, ordinarily editorial process will address the sourcing issues in detail, one source at a time. That can't be done here. If all that is left, after this, is a stub without sourced evidence of notability, that's it, the next renom will remove the article. Note to Keep editors: make sure that the article is adequately and justifiably sourced, and Delete editors, keep the Keep editors honest. Be nice. Don't edit war. Seek consensus and use dispute resolution where it's difficult. --Abd (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- By your logic, any admin would be able to prevent an article from being deleted forever by closing it as no consensus for any reason they want again and again. Triplestop x3 22:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Overturn and delete on the basis that all but a few of the keepers were members or associates of the mailing-list, including User:Abd (who befriended them as a fellow ArbCom malcontent, and gained access to the list). The contributions of Abd, Loosmark, Biophys and so on, makes the division look deeper than it is. I assume if Lankiveil had realised that he would have deleted. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know what is Deacon is trying to imply above but for the record I am not a member of the EEML and I never was. I do remember that during the EEML case Deacon was an opponent of the EEML and in fact he was so aggressive that the clerk Manning had to ban him from all ArbCom pages for a week or two, I don't recall. In view of that and his above attempt to paint my contributions in a bad light, I am not sure if his vote should even be counted here. Dr. Loosmark 05:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I joined the EEML list before there was an ArbComm decision, and I didn't base my !vote here on that, the only relevance is that I probably wouldn't have become aware of the article if not for the EEML interest, and that was during the previous AfD, where I couldn't comment because I was blocked even if I had wanted to. If my arguments aren't sound, disregard them, these comments on EEML are irrelevant and simply add to the mess the closing admin must read. --Abd (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse, I did realise that there was some EEML chicanery going on in the discussion, but from my point of view it was coming in from both sides (both associates of the mailing list, and those eager to settle scores now that many of the principal actors have been banished). My approach was to weigh the arguments themselves, not the people who made them. Even so, I cannot see any consensus that the notability standard was not reached, despite certain editors repeated claims to the contrary. Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC).
- I'll note that many people also cited the fact that it was an autobiography or that the subject of the article is one of its principal editors, as reasons to delete. While obviously problematic, this is not an out-and-out reason to delete an article, and can be dealt with in other ways.
- Lankiviel, do you personally believe the notability standards were "reached" in this article? If so, where or how. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's "Lankiveil" :-). And my opinion as to whether the article meets notability guidelines is not really relevant when I'm attempting to read consensus at a contested AFD discussion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC).
- Somehow I just know the article would have been deleted ages ago if it weren't for all the cabalism in this area. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry for the typo, Lankiveil. I'm sorry to hear your response. It is a simple cop-out to say there is no consensus and ignore the basis of the argument put forth concerning Wikipedia policy. Stating that your opinion concerning whether the article meets notability guidelines is not really relevant is truly amazing. Incidentally, Poeticbent personally asked that the Afd's time frame be extended. Since you do not care to explain why or how the article reached notability status, could you share your views on how you perceive consensus should be reached in such matters. Non-consensus seems to be an easy way out. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree that it's a cop-out, the role of the closer of the AFD is to determine whether a consensus exists, not to project their own opinions of the article into the close. If I had felt strongly either way I would have !voted, rather than closing the discussion. Not allowing your own opinions to sway you is an established principle and as far as I'm aware standard operating procedure for those involved in XFD. For what it's worth, I do agree that there are some issues with the article (the COI issues are worth a look), but they don't need deletion to be sorted out. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC).
- Sorry for the typo, Lankiveil. I'm sorry to hear your response. It is a simple cop-out to say there is no consensus and ignore the basis of the argument put forth concerning Wikipedia policy. Stating that your opinion concerning whether the article meets notability guidelines is not really relevant is truly amazing. Incidentally, Poeticbent personally asked that the Afd's time frame be extended. Since you do not care to explain why or how the article reached notability status, could you share your views on how you perceive consensus should be reached in such matters. Non-consensus seems to be an easy way out. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Somehow I just know the article would have been deleted ages ago if it weren't for all the cabalism in this area. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's "Lankiveil" :-). And my opinion as to whether the article meets notability guidelines is not really relevant when I'm attempting to read consensus at a contested AFD discussion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC).
- Lankiviel, do you personally believe the notability standards were "reached" in this article? If so, where or how. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- You weighed the arguments? Didn't you say on your talk page that no consensus is "multiple votes for Keep"? Triplestop x3 23:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest you have a read of Wikipedia:What is consensus?, which is generally how I determine consensus. I agree in principle with you that in a 20-10 split as we have here, if the 66% side is making good arguments, and the 33% side is dominated by poor arguments and sockpuppetry, that we could say that there is a consensus. If I believed that to be the case here, I'd have closed as Delete. However, I think the difference here is that we disagree on the relative strengths of the arguments here - I found many of the Delete arguments to be poor, and some of the Keep arguments to be stronger and more convincing than you did. In particular, I found Abd's argument insightful, and had to take into account those that argued that the subject was notable due to the coverage (Biophys, Loosmark, etc). Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC).
- Endorse. According the closer substantial leeway in light of EEML, I cannot say that the close was clearly erroneous. Tim Song (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please read the history. EEML influenced both keep and delete votes. That in no way affects the validity of uninvolved editors who made strong arguments that the article is not notable. Triplestop x3 22:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm the subject of this article, but also; a prolific content creator with considerable seniority. Please be advised that a number of editors who cast their !votes in this discussion have serious COIs stemming from their joint participation in the EEML case. User:Triplestop was banned from all Arbcom pages related to the EEML case for one week, as a result of a number of unacceptable and inflammatory statements. Others, have been listed in Evidence or warned against their aggressive language. The EEML lobbyists who tendentiously voted "delete" in the last AfD including those who came here to continue their wp:game include: Triplestop (talk · contribs), Pantherskin (talk · contribs), Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs), Dr. Dan (talk · contribs), and Matthead (talk · contribs), most engaged in perpetual POV wars over the articles I helped to create and thus seeking revenge any way they can. -- Poeticbent talk 22:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not an "EEML lobbyist" thank you very much, and I didn't vote on your article. I am however disappointed to see this nonsense is being carried on beyond the case. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not a helpful comment, Poeticbent. You insist on attacking other editors, but you are silent about the warning you received on the arbcom case for your unacceptable attacks. You are silent about your history of repeated sockpuppetry and canvassing. You are also silent about you misleading other editors about the sources in the Richard Tylman article. You are also quick to label anyone commenting here with overturn as an "EEML lobbyist", but at the same time you are silent about those involved in the EEML case who comment here with Endorse. Pantherskin (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not an "EEML lobbyist" thank you very much, and I didn't vote on your article. I am however disappointed to see this nonsense is being carried on beyond the case. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note The fact that this is a COI vanity article is not a reason for deletion, the same way the peripheral involvement from that EEML mess is not a reason to retain the article. Triplestop x3 22:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, Triplestop. The vanity argument was raised again and again at the AfD, and now here, which is unfortunate. Same with the EEML arguments from both sides. The only issue for deletion, outside of real BLP problems, is notability, because every other issue can be handled, as a default, by stubbing to the minimum that can be established from reliable sources, an ordinary editorial process. Those editorial decisions, item by item, source by source, should not be made at AfD, but in ordinary editorial process, and it can take time, this is no place to do it. I'll address this above. --Abd (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Right, my argument is that, based on the AfD, all claims that the person is notable are unsubstantiated and thus the result should have been delete. Triplestop x3 04:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, Triplestop. The vanity argument was raised again and again at the AfD, and now here, which is unfortunate. Same with the EEML arguments from both sides. The only issue for deletion, outside of real BLP problems, is notability, because every other issue can be handled, as a default, by stubbing to the minimum that can be established from reliable sources, an ordinary editorial process. Those editorial decisions, item by item, source by source, should not be made at AfD, but in ordinary editorial process, and it can take time, this is no place to do it. I'll address this above. --Abd (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Poeticbent, you keep letting us know that you are "the subject of this article". That you are, and you are also the creator of this article. Have you ever read WP:AUTO, because it would have been helpful. This is the third time that you have implied that my motives concerning this case are the result of the EEML case, or some other desire for revenge. I've interacted with you on many occasions and I want to assure you that if you were notable I would have voted keep. Where I have agreed with you or disagreed with you did not influence me. You write an article about yourself, tell us that you are "a prolific content creator", a "notable Wikipedian", and "have considerable seniority". Perhaps you might want to add that you think you are notable enough to be included in this encyclopedia. I look forward to the day when I will read about you in another encyclopedia (one that you cannot edit yourself). When you establish some notability it might possibly happen. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse closure as no-consensus. The no consensus closure was a correct one simply because there was no consensus. Really it's time to move on. Dr. Loosmark 00:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Overturn and delete. I was pretty surprised by the decision to close it as no consensus. 20 delete to 10 votes seems pretty obvious to me. But even if you don't count any votes on both sides that are remotely related to the EEML case or topic area, the result paints a clear picture. Abductive, Jwy, Nsk92, Quantpole, Karanacs & Starblind voted for delete. OlEnglish & Collect for keep. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 01:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Question, I note that in the seven or so hours after this DRV was created, there was a flood of "Overturn" arguments, all largely from those that participated in the AFD. After that time, there has been a much slower rate of replies coming at about 50/50, more or less in line with the usual DRV traffic. My question is, was this discussion advertised at another venue, because there is something of an appearance that one side of the debate seems to have been very well informed about what was going on, whereas the other was not. I cannot see any talk page notifications (well, except on my talk), to indicate that this might have happened. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC).
- Anyone who had either the article or the AfD on his his or her watchlist would have seen the DRV notice. That is how I was alerted. And for the record, I find your characterization of a flood of overturn arguments, largely from those who participated in the Afd a bit misleading, to say the least. Pantherskin (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Misleading to say the least given that there were as many "endorse" arguments by those who participated in the Afd as there were "overturn" arguments in the first few hours. If you have the impression that there was a flood of "overturn" arguments it is because there were several uninvolved editors asking for an "overturn". (In the first five hours three overturn by involved editors, two endorse by involved editors; in the first twelve hours six overturn by involved editors, four endorse by involved editors. As much a sign for a coordination by the "other" side as it is a sign for coordination by the other side.) Could I ask you to refactor your statement to reflect this simple fact? Thanks. Pantherskin (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Anyone who had either the article or the AfD on his his or her watchlist would have seen the DRV notice. That is how I was alerted. And for the record, I find your characterization of a flood of overturn arguments, largely from those who participated in the Afd a bit misleading, to say the least. Pantherskin (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse – I share the view of Lankiveil above that the 'delete' side of the debate is suspiciously well-organised (not all, but at least 6). This article would be kept without demur in ordinary circumstances. Occuli (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Nope. If you would also discount those involved on the other side of the EEML arbcom case the outcome would have been even clearer for delete. The only difference is that only those who voted delete were named by Poeticbent, whereas those involved in the arbcom case and voting Keep are not known to the outside observer. Pantherskin (talk) 09:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Overturn and delete: granted, I was on the opposite side of Poeticbent (Richard Tylman) on the WP:EEML Arbitration case. But this is not about sides–it is about notability, meeting standards for biographical articles on Wikipedia, and the sources that are required in order for an individual biography to do so. Let's take at them:
- We can rule out notability for Tylman as a painter. True, he was selected to represent his hometown in 1981 at a competition of promising young Polish artists. But there is nothing to tell us that Tylman was recognized as the best artist of those selected for being represented at the exhibition. Nor did he win any award. Outside the brief news notice for the exhibition as a whole (and the existence of its catalogue), there is no evidence of any individual notability.
- We can easily see the absence of notability for Tylman as an airbrush illustrator: the "sources" for his works are the commercial works that have appeared in magazines. This does not meet notability, since airbrush illustrators who work on ads in magazines are not therefore inherently Wikipedia-notable. A team of illustrators that he was part of did win a Graphex Award in Canada (1991), but this is not evidence of individual notability, since Tylman himself was not named as an individual artist. The source for this is Tylman's own site.
- As regards Tylman's crative endeavors as a poet, it's already been explained in the AFD nominations that these works of poetry are entirely self-published. Significantly, there are no critical reviews or commentary, so notability as an author/poet is non-existent. Tylman's Grand Owl award–the only individual prize mentioned for any endeavor at all–is a student-level prize given by Jagellonian University.
As was already explained previously in the nominations, the Anglophone Tylman poetry collections published by "Aspidistra Press" are in fact works produced by a vanity press (Tylman is the only published author for Aspidistra).
The Polish-language poetry also appears to be as non-notable: the only interesting thing from Koty marcowe was the poem "O próbie wysadzenia pomnika Lenina" (An Attempt at Blowing Up the Statue of Lenin), which was included amidst the photographs in photo anthology Nowa Huta: Okruchy zycia I Meandry Historii by photographer Jerzy Aleksander Karnasiewicz. The work is published by a non-commerical printer–the little "Wydawnictwo Towarzystwo Słowaków w Polsce" ("The Association of Slovaks in Poland"). There are no critical reviews.
Tylman's article gives us two interviews connected to "O próbie wysadzenia pomnika Lenina". The first is an interview with Jerzy Karnasiewicz (not Richard Tylman) in a local Nowa Huta] supplement to the Krakow-based Gazeta Krakowska (there, Karnasiewicz simply mention's Tylman's identity as the author of the poem in the book).
The other is an interview with Richard Tylman in Głos – Tygodnik Nowohucki by Małgorzata Szymczyk-Karnasiewicz. Given that Małgorzata's last name is Szymczyk-Karnasiewicz and the author of the photo anthology in which Tylman's poem is to be found is Jerzy Karnasiewicz, this seem to have a deep WP:COI... Even if we are to assume no COI, though, Głos – Tygodnik Nowohucki, where Tylman's interview appears, is just a small local publication in Nowa Huta (its English-language Wikipedia article was made by Richard Tylman (Poeticbent) after the third time that Richard Tylman was nominated for deletion; its Polish-language Wiki article was created by Tylman's WP:EEML buddy Piotrus. ([3] [4])
Well, then–my rationale–and so far so good. What, then, do the Wikipedia biographical guidelines tell us?
- For WP:ANYBIO (or Any biography):
1. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one.
No notability per WP:ANYBIO, it seems to me. The only individual award won by Tylman was the Grand Owl, a student-level award from Jagellonian University.2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.
- For WP:ARTIST/WP:AUTHOR (or any "creative professional"):
1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.
There is no evidence (or even suggestion) to be found that Tylman either5. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for guidelines on academics - not applicable to Tylman
1) is an "important figure" or is widely cited by his peers;
2) is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique;
or3) has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or review;
4) has created work that (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or is to be found in many significant libraries.
Accordingly, I do not see the basis for anything other than a deletion. Tylman is simply non-notable. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 11:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
ioquake3
This entry was deleted for being non-notable when it is the defacto standard in Quake 3 engine technology on which many projects both commercial and noncommercial free software games are based on it. I created ioquake3 in 2005 and it has continued since then with the help of many contributors. To say that it is irrelevant does the project and those that use it a severe disservice and I think contributes to the overall discouragement of smaller open source and free software projects, as if they and the contributions made to them are without merit. id software created the original code base and released it onto the internet. To say that projects based on the original source release are not notable is like saying that it wouldn't be notable if Ray Bradbury had released a book under a creative commons license solely to the net and someone took that and made an entirely new and popular work of fiction based on it. I have already attempted to contact and discuss this matter with the admin who deleted it. This is the third time that the ioquake3 page has been deleted, every time it seems as if the administrators of wikipedia either do not understand or do not care about open-source software. I find it somewhat discouraging that a mostly internet-published encyclopedia cannot find notable an internet published open source project.
- Even on the assumption that we can review a merge/redirect close, endorse. DRV is not AfD round 2. The closer appropriately discounted canvassed !votes and !votes not based in policy. Nom's rationale has absolutely nothing to do with either WP:N or the closer's assessment of consensus, or indeed any policy or guideline that I'm aware of. Tim Song (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- The article was redirected, not deleted; WP:ND3 would suggest that the next step is a talk page discussion. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)