Kaitlynn Carter – Endorse but allow draftification/userfication. This is somewhat confusing. To the extent that the original close is debated it seems like endorse is the correct reading. With respect of whether the topic is now notable, it seems like this also leans towards endorsing as the most detailed discussion of the proffered sources considers them inadequate to establish notability; there is also a discussion about whether WP:ENT#2 is met that is perhaps leaning towards it not endorsing recreation. Finally, draftification/userfication it seems like most people are OK with it if it is requested, although the points about the source quality not being sufficient should be factored in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
She is covered in general reliable sources now, including Fox News[1] and People[2] as well as in countless entertainment news sources. For better for worse, as notable as any of the Jenner/Kardashian clan now. В²C☎ 22:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't get my head around Fox News and People being WP:RS -- RoySmith(talk) 02:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse for now - there's not enough "meat" on the sources to show her notability isn't entirely inherited. WP:REFUND does not apply here at all, the AfD had more than enough participation (four unanimous delete votes.) SportingFlyerT·C 00:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AfD Looked sparse. Two actual delete ivotes and one comment. And the nomination. So three delete ivotes. Perhaps the OP can ask the closer to draftify the article and continue to work on the draft until ready to submit. Lightburst (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At WP:REFUND: "deletion debates with little or no participation other than the nominator." Even arguing the comment wasn't a vote, this was clearly discussed. SportingFlyerT·C 02:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am trying to find solutions for the OP. You are trying to become an administrator. Lightburst (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure what that means. SportingFlyerT·C 04:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t care enough to deal with all this deletionist bureaucracy. Something about her popped up in my google news feed today, and I was curious to learn more about her and was surprised to find no article here. She’s treated as notable by news sources. Even The NY Times[3]. So should we. This shouldn’t be so difficult. —В²C☎ 06:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
В²C Don't get discouraged - editors likely feel that your appeal does not belong in deletion review. Consider building an article in your sandbox, and then ask an experienced editor to have a look. When you feel it is ready with sufficient WP:RS it can be an article. Lightburst (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The two offered sources contain mere mentions, and they are gossip news. See WP:THREE. There is a rush of mentions in the last few days, but the sources are all very low quality, too low, for forming the basis of a BLP. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An insistence on putting the burden of proof of quality references, aka WP:THREE, on the author or other article advocate is very appropriate for an article previously deleted at AfD. Two or three good sources. One thousand mere mentions does not substitute. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. She at least qualifies by WP:ENT #2: Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. WP has thousands if not hundreds of thousands of biographies of people that get far fewer reads than this one will. The benefit of restoring the article to readers searching for sourced information about her is obvious. What is the harm in restoring this article? I'm befuddled by the resistance. --В²C☎ 17:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These sub-notability guideline indicators are just indicators to whether the topic is likely to meet the WP:GNG, which is an indicator of whether the article would be kept at AfD. The article was deleted at AfD, so a re-creation cannot point to loose subnotability indicators. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ENT specifies the criteria for notability determination of entertainers in particular, which applies in this case. This topic qualifies under GNG anyway. --В²C☎ 17:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, not criteria, but mere indicators. To understand WP:Notability, you need AfD experience. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Permit creation of draft to be submitted to AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why start over? We just need to undelete the previous one and go from there. I don’t have much AfD experience but if this is typical, yikes. Way worse than the DMV. —В²C☎ 05:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, restore to draft/userspace. Close looks fine given participation at the time but if an experienced editor wants to work on it there's no reason why it shouldn't be restored on request. While it might have been more usual to go through REFUND or directly to the closing admin, there's no point in process for the sake of process. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mea Culpa, upon reading the DRV instructions more carefully I now better understand some of the comments here. First, in my defense, I saw 3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Purpose and interpreted that to apply in this case. However, upon rereading, I see I should have read the section on when not to use DRV, including: "2. when you have not discussed the matter with the user who closed the discussion first ...", which I did not do, and "9. For uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use WP:REFUND instead.", though I was not 100% sure this request would qualify as "uncontroversial", and some comments above support me on this. So for next time I know to make the undelete request to the closer directly next time. However, now that we're here, can't we just agree to undelete it? --В²C☎ 17:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your position makes sense here, but it's on you to find enough sources to overcome the presumption of notability here. I looked through the sources you've presented and I cannot see any of those articles passing WP:GNG for notability reasons. We do have WP:THREE as an essay which also serves as a good rule of thumb - if you can find three sources which clearly pass WP:GNG, I wouldn't have any objection to creating a draft article for her. Please keep in mind she is not necessarily obviously notable to most of us here - I've never heard of her, for instance, so I'm going to have to look at the sources presented here to determine whether she's notable. Also, WP:REFUND would have been controversial because four users supported deletion, none supported keeping the article, and at least one user noted the original article may have been created by a sock account, which if true would be a perfectly good reason why it shouldn't be restored and we should start from scratch. I hope that's a helpful explanation as to why this may have seemed a bit difficult up to this point. SportingFlyerT·C 19:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, some of the sources are obviously gossipy, but nevertheless reliable. The bottom line is there is enough information out there for people to want to look her up (which is how I got here) and to put together at least a basic article. As to the original article, I don't see why it matters who created it - what's the content? No sense in reinventing the wheel if there is well sourced information in there, right? --В²C☎ 00:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gossipy sources, reliable or not, tend to be primary sources with the passage of not very much time, and thus do not meet the WP:GNG. Be sure to find sources (two or WP:THREE) where the author of the source is making some subjective comment on the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some, most, of these "sources" are unsuitable sources and counterproductive to a request to reverse an AfD consensus. See WP:THREE. If the first 3 are not good enough, no number of weaker sources can suffice. WP:Reference bombing is a reason to decline a draft. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support userfication or draftification with a recommendation to submit through AfC. Time in userspace or draftspace is a good idea give the recent burst of mentions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is beyond ridiculous. If The NY Times, LA Times, and People (published by TIME) are not good enough, I give up. Reminder: WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. —В²C☎ 07:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One problem at least with those you pointed out above is depth of coverage. The requirement is that it's talking about the subject not minor name drops/mentions. As you list them above as "mention" x times. What you actually need is a source which talks about them as the focus of a few paragraphs. i.e. it is about the individual, a source which listed the name once but did dedicate a few paragraphs to the subject is likely a better source than a "big name" who merely mentions the name a dozen time with little or no further coverage. The essay linked a few times WP:THREE is giving useful advice, we are all volunteers here, no one is obliged to go and dig through and evaluate sources, so those who wish to make a case should do the work and present it succinctly, doing the leg work to present the best sources - if those supporting the inclusion of a topic can't be bothered to do the work, why should those who are indifferent (or worse) bother to do it? I don't think NOTBUREAUCRACY means what you seem to imply. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As the closer, I would have been fine restoring this to draftspace upon request as a courtesy, which also would have been the least bureaucratic way of handling this. But per the above, I don't think anything was wrong with the close itself as a reading of consensus. As for while we're here, taking my closer hat off, no, I wouldn't deem the LA Times or People coverage to be significant—the subject's topical coverage needs to exceed mere mentions and be independent from that of her relationship with Brody Jenner. So I wouldn't accept the article at AfC based on the enumerated sources, but it could sit in draftspace for a while until enough such sources appear, but alas, that discussion is way outside the purpose/scope of DRV. (not watching, please {{ping}} as needed) czar 02:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Operation Voicer – List at AFD: It seems like most of the people here are advocating restoration and perhaps further discussion at AFD on the grounds that there are substantial differences between an earlier version of the article - which was deleted under WP:BLPDELETE, an action then reviewed and endorsed on AN review - and the more recent version which goes into less detail about individuals and lacks detailed edit summaries (both of which were flagged in the AN discussion as problematic) than the previous version. Some concerns have been raised about the quality of the sourcing, which bolsters the argument in favour of having a full discussion, thus a full discussion it is. There is also a sub-discussion about copyright/attribution but it seems like that was resolved during the course of the discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I deleted a recreation of page per WP:BLPDELETE after it was summarily deleted by User:TonyBallioni per WP:BLPDELETE, which was upheld on review at AN. My very best wishes has asked me to reverse my deletion on the grounds that there are no BLP violations since it doesn't have as detailed coverage of individual defendants. I'm taking my deletion here for review with the page {{TempUndelete}}'d, as I agree that the argument that this version of the page is acceptable is colorable. Kevin (aka L235·t· c) 19:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restorenew version of the page. I would not dispute that the previous version of the page has been correctly "speedy" deleted because of the BLP concerns. I did not even see the old version. Also, I would not dispute anything that had happen on AN. However, I simply think that the current and presumably very different version of this page (here is the draft) has no significant BLP or other problems, sourced and therefore can be restored.My very best wishes (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Send to AfD Without looking at the diffs of the two articles, I'm making an assumption this doesn't qualify for a WP:G4, and so we should have an extended deletion discussion. SportingFlyerT·C 21:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There’s an awful lot of detail, and the detail seems weak to borderline for a BLPDELETE. This one is not easy. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I guess the WP:G10 was invoked. However, looking at the current version of the page, I do not see any reason whatsoever for WP:G10. Simply naming the officially convicted perpetrators? This is done on every page about criminal cases. Something else? Yes, one can cut a few details, but not at the expense of specific facts related to the crime. Anyway, a well sourced page about an official police operation is not an "attack page". If anyone thinks that was not a notable operation or not a notable crime, they can make an AfD nomination. My very best wishes (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Query - forgive me @L235:, but what does "as I agree that the argument that this version of the page is acceptable is colorable" mean? Nosebagbear (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that means "legitimate". If people feel uneasy to simply restore the page, they can make a "procedural" AfD nomination. But I think that would be waste of time because the page will be kept. I would only shorten this page slightly. My very best wishes (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I broadly meant "plausible" ([11]). I thought it was plausible DRV would reverse, but WP:BLP directs admins to err on the side of privacy and so I brought this to DRV instead of a straight undelete. Best, Kevin (aka L235·t· c) 22:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Was he the sole author of the deleted page? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: Yes, Maternalistic Lioness (formerly Tots & little ones matter!) was the sole author of the originally BLPDELETE'd page. Best, Kevin (aka L235·t· c) 03:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see justification for a BLPDELETE. Reading here, I suspect that much of the rationale for BLPDELETE came from the revdeleted edit summaries. I do read an excessive flavour of advocacy POV, of excessive use of primary source information, WP:SYNTH, a lack of grounding of the topic in reputable reliable secondary sources that comment directly on the topic, which is "Operation Voicer". I think the page is excessively padded with details, including the names of perpetrators. I am inclined towards a WP:TNT WP:AfD !vote. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think BBC and Independent are good. Others might not be so strong, but I do not see any primary sources cited on the page (court documents, etc.). My very best wishes (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There’s a huge amount of pulling facts from news reports. Newspapers reporting facts, the article pulling out the facts. This is preserving primary source information, not secondary source information. It’s something to look at. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the newspapers reported some facts, and these facts have been included to the page. What is problematic? Being "primary" is about the sources, not the facts. All these news sources, like BBC are secondary. My very best wishes (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken about source typing. Source typing depends not just on the source, but on the information extracted and how it is used. Newspaper reports tend to always be primary sources anyway. To be a secondary source, there needs to be a story, commentary, creative input by the secondary source author. The cited sources are very weak there, and the article is sourcing the reports solely for facts. There is an excessive reliance on primary source material, in violation of WP:PSTS, leading directly to WP:SYNTH temptations and WP:POV problems. However, I do not agree that there are serious BLP violations. The worst of the problem is an imbalance in sourcing, too many narrow focus newspaper reports, which is not a speedy deletion justification. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of secondary and primary vary quite a bit by field. As *I* think of it here, a court transcript is primary as is a court filing or the video of a sporting event. A newspaper reporting on the case or the sporting event is generally (but not always) secondary. [13] gives one overview, [14] gives another. There are plenty of others. talk) 11:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia is an historiographical document, and historiography is the field that applies. Wikipedian is not journalism, where primary is the eye witness, and secondary means second hand, processed and less reliable. It is not science. In historiography, if you sift the original facts out of many sources, all you have done is collected the primary source information. Secondary source material a transformation of the primary source material by the authors of the secondary source material. The many newspaper reports cited for facts, for names, crimes and sentences, are strikingly lacking of author opinion, qualitative statements, even abjectives applied to the the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 12:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore New Version, and put up an AfD if you want to: The article was deleted on "speedy" BLP grounds but those have been rectified with the "new" version. If there are non-speedy BLP grounds to delete, then that should go a full AfD with the article restored in the meanwhile. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Nathaniel Phillips – Allow recreation. Closing this a little early because it's basically unanimous to allow S.A. Julio's recreated article to remain. As pointed out, there's no need to come to DRV if things change and the factors that went into the AfD deletion no longer apply. If somebody feels this still doesn't meet WP:N, they're free to renominate it for deletion. I'll restore the full history of the deleted article. I'll also reject Draft:Nathaniel Phillips as exists, but the text will still be there if people want to merge material (with proper attribution, of course). -- RoySmith(talk) 16:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Comment: I am in full agreement with you that a subject playing in a fully professional league meets NFOOTBALL. However...there is a handful of editors who have placed additional hurdles which are not codified in Wikipedia. So I am unsure how to proceed. I gave up since the consensus on AfDs is a matter of about 4-5 people who have made the decision to create additional criteria. Lightburst (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close The player failed our guidelines at the time of the AfD and now passes them, assuming WP:GNG can be shown - there's absolutely no need for this DRV, just go ahead and create the new article. SportingFlyerT·C 20:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation. Circumstances have changed significantly since the last AfD. I cannot envisage a new AfD coming to the same outcome. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close – isn't the closer supposed to be consulted first before a DRV is filed? A DRV is not necessary here. The close isn't being challenged and the article has already been recreated. – Levivich 03:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the AfD. The article is already re-created. The case is made that the new version beats G4. Consider undeleting the history and history merging. Anyone may take the new article to AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AfD/Keep New Article/Merge History: Editors are permitted to re-create deleted articles if the new version corrects the problems cited in the AfD. That's exactly what happened in this case. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
JK! Studios – No consensus. In this DRV, opinions are about 2:1 in favor of having another administrator re-close the discussion because of concerns that the closer was involved in the AfD discussion. This is a clear majority, but short of the required rough consensus to overturn the closure. In such cases, the DRV closer can, at their discretion, relist the AfD. I decline to do so because the AfD was already relisted twice, which is the normal maximum, and had plenty of input. The closure is therefore maintained by default. Sandstein 12:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia policies and guidelines were not followed in the closing of this AfD as delete. Essentially three policies or guidelines were ignored in favor of the minority position. The most egregious of the three departures from policy: User:Lourdes became involved in the discussion siding with the delete ivoters, and when I mentioned that Lourdes should not be the XfD closer of this AfD because of involvement, Lourdes retroactively marked their involved comments as "administrative” with a what appeared to be a taunting note to make a point and then went out of their way to be the XfD closer on this AfD (links and chronology below). Recently another editor asked on Lourdes talk page, to have a copy of the article (in case any editors want to see it) after Lourdes deleted it, and so the original article is here.
WP:CONSENSUS Essentially the XfD closer (User:Lourdes) chose the delete argument that this comedy troupe is a corporation and must pass WP:NCORP instead of WP:ENT A guideline for ensembles.
WP:NOCONSENSUS is the next possible closing result: there was a 7 keep 4 delete ivote result.
WP:CLOSEAFDAn admin who is uninvolved and has not participated in the deletion discussion will assess the discussion for consensus. or An editor in good standing who is not an administrator, and is also uninvolved...
XfD closer Lourdes became involved in AfD discussion both editorializing and commenting
Overturn I participated in the AfD and I believe the delete decision should be overturned for these reasons. Lightburst (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Void close with no prejudice. WP:CLOSEAFD says, An admin who is uninvolved and has not participated in the deletion discussion.... Lourdes participated in the discussion. They argue that their participation was only, administrative comments, but by the time we're down to dissecting exactly what participate means, it's time to move on and let somebody else close it. Even if the close wasn't strictly forbidden, it certainly was poor judgement and troutable. -- RoySmith(talk) 01:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've stuck the trout. I'm sure Lourdes had the best intentions. -- RoySmith(talk) 18:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, by "void close", I mean back out the close, relist it, and leave it for another admin to close. -- RoySmith(talk) 01:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I want to say a bit more on this. My practice on things like XfD closes is that I try (very hard) to only interact with a given proceeding once. If I relist something, I won't close it. This is a conservative interpretation of involved, but I do it to prevent exactly this sort of mess.
Normally, at DRV, there's a mix of two arguments going on: 1) Should the page be deleted or not, and 2) Was consensus judged correctly by the closing admin. In theory, DRV is only concerned about the latter, but often, it's hard to untangle the two. Here's it's even worse; we've got three threads. In addition to those two, we've got, 3) Was the admin involved? My philosophy is to never even come close to letting that third question crop up. Don't be guided by, "Can I justify calling myself uninvolved?". Be guided by, "There's absolutely no way anybody could think I am involved". By only touching an XfD once, I ensure that. This is the, "appearance of impropriety" argument you often hear.
After relisting the AfD, and especially after getting into an argument over the relisting, what Lourdes should have done was walk away. There's plenty of other mops in the sea. Any of them could have done the close, and then we wouldn't be here. Well, maybe we'd be here with people arguing the first two questions, but at least untangling two threads is easier than untangling three. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reclose. While I think the close reflects the notability guidelines for organisations, since it's here partially on basis of WP:INVOLVED, I don't see the benefit of debating the finer points of what counts as involvement. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reclose Someone else should close it. He was certainly involved in the discussion, and only an uninvolved administrator is suppose to close things. DreamFocus 02:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin comment: The AfD was opened by Domdeparis, and re-listed twice, including once by me. Lightburst (who has opened this Deletion review) came to my talk page to query my initial re-listing mentioning that vote stacking was in favour of keep, his preference. I gave them the explanation on my talk page of why the keep !votes were discounted during my re-listing. Lightburst proceeded to the AfD page and mentioned that my explanation was condescending and claimed that I was an involved admin – this is even before I had left any comment in the AfD (post the re-list). The AfD is on my watch; and when I noticed the above statement by Lightburst, I left a reply at the AfD containing the following response (I am breaking down the sentences of that single response to enable editors to decide whether any of my sentences in the AfD shows me as being involved (words in square brackets are for clarity)):
First group of statements in my response: Here, I have re-clarified to Lightburst what my talk page statement meant: "I am sorry if my response [on my talk page...] sounded condescending. I was pointing out to your apparent lack of understanding of our reliable sources/verifiability guideline/policy and misunderstanding of what consensus means. I listed out exactly why none of the keeps were worth consideration [while re-listing]."
Second group of statements in that single response: As Lightburst had alluded on my talk page, and repeatedly thereon, that consensus is a vote count, my response clarified what consensus meant for any article: "While you may continue believing that consensus is equivalent to voting, it is actually not. If you find even two reliable, independent non-primary sources that have covered the subject significantly (please don't include interviews or press releases; read WP:RS), there's no number of delete !voters who would be able to get the article deleted.... And vice versa."
Third group of statements in the same response: This is a response to Lightburst calling me involved even before I had left any comment in the AfD and demanding that someone else should close the AfD. "On your other query, there's no hard and fast rule on my closing this AfD; any other admin can too. Or I will, if I reach here first, when the re-listing period is over."
For readers's benefit, here's my earlier re-listing comment, which Lightburst claims (above) makes me doubly involved: "I would have gone ahead and deleted the article given the evident consensus, but just on the side of caution as someone might find a couple of reliable sources (as suggested by multiple editors), relisting this"
Post my relisting comment and a single response of mine (as described above), Lightburst claimed again that I was involved, a claim assessed and rejected by editors like HighKing[25] and Domdeparis[26].
WP:INVOLVED quotes: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'."
In my clear view, all the statements I have made to Lightburst constitute reasonable discussion and explanation of my re-listing and advice to them on their query about consensus and about what approach they should follow in determining consensus. I don't believe any of these make me involved. If any editor thinks otherwise, please point out which statement makes you feel I am involved. If, like RoySmith says, leaving any statement in an AfD makes an admin involved, then we should simply get rid of WP:INVOLVED and have a one-line rule. Thanks, Lourdes 03:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I'm really not fussed about any of this as I think the analysis of the keep !votes and the close itself was absolutely correct. That being said, there are problems with the procedure - I'm convinced the only reason the involvement happened was because the relist was questioned, but I don't have any problems with this being reclosed by someone else, but I also don't think this should be overturned to no consensus. SportingFlyerT·C 06:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (Came here because of this.) Nothing fishy here; just the normal disruptive keepist revisionism and attacking admins who close in a way they don't like. See also this where the closing admin explained a relisting a week earlier, pointing out that many of the "keep" !votes needed to be dismissed, and no indication was given that this explanation was not accepted. That after a week there was one new SPA !vote and one new delete !vote, and now the discussion has come to DRV seems somewhat questionable. Forcing a relisting admin to make a string of administrative comments so that you can then claim they are too "involved" to make a close seems like a bad-faith attempt to game the system. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri88 has a history of following and hounding me (there are 3ANIs between us). This is not the place for these squabbles but FYI: recently the editor agreed to a voluntary IBAN (Hijiri88 has had 6 enforced Ibans and did not want another one). Lightburst (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri88 has had 6 enforced Ibans and did not want another one is an unsubstantiated personal attack. That's all I'm going to say on the matter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Void closure, best that the closer be uninvolved. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse despite the fact that I opened the discussion I genuinely believe that the closure was done correctly and Lourdes was at no point involved despite multiple efforts to drag them into the discussion and get them involved. The comments made by Lourdes were clearly uninvolved analysis of the arguments made by the different participants. I don't know if this is a usual tactic to try and get decisions overturned but it certainly smacks of WP:SOURGRAPES. At no point in the discussion did Lourdes make any comment about the notability of the subject. They relisted the discussion with this comment I would have gone ahead and deleted the article given the evident consensus, but just on the side of caution as someone might find a couple of reliable sources (as suggested by multiple editors), relisting this. Lightburst went to their talkpage to ask for an explanation about the relisting and seemed satisfied with the reply commenting Thanks! I was not sure you applied the WP:CONSENSUS policy correctly...or our other policy WP:NOCONSENSUS. and then 3 days later had a total change of heart and wrote this I went to the relister's page to question the relisting comments, and I got a very condescending response. I only hope that a different uninvolved admin closes with a fair reading of this AfD.. Admittedly Lourdes' first reply on their talk page was a little short and then they replied with a comment on the deletion discussion that may seem a little peeved (possibly brought on by the volte-face) but still remained in the domain of "advice about community norms". If Lourdes had closed the discussion without relisting it as they were well with their administrator's prerogatives to do so we wouldn't be here. If anyone should complain it's the delete !voters but I for one was feeling magnanimous! --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and re-close. It is not for an administrator to wade into a debate, set a standard of proof for either side to meet, and then close the debate in accordance with that standard. That's called adjudication; administrators do not adjudicate but determine consensus. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I fail to see how the administrator could possibly be accused of being "involved". If anything, the administrator assisted the Delete !voters by pointing out (several days in advance of the closing) their incorrect interpretation of policy/guidelines and their lack of rebuttals. But there's something potentially more sinister and disruptive at play here. For me the most worrying aspect is the "Rescue Squad" participation which smacks of meat puppetery. I provided a short analysis on the !voting of three editors here. Does anyone else see a problem here? HighKing++ 11:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a similar way of canvassing delitionists? From what I can gather from the different comments it is the number of !votes that counts towards consensus and not the quality of the !votes. The simple fact that a group of inclusionists communicate AFD discussions to each other regardless of the subject matter looks very much like canvassing to me. --Dom from Paris (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disturbing accusation from the High King and troubling comments from Domdeparis. The ARS improves articles. Domdeparis nominated the article for deletion, ARS members made improvements to the article - I made two myself... This accusation and or conspiracy theory has no place on a deletion review. Lightburst (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like it or not, but anyone canvassing for delete votes- even to cancel out canvassing going the other way- is going to get blocked for it. ReykYO! 14:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Reyk:Don't worry, my tongue was planted firmly in my cheek! I personally would never canvass either one way or the other. The extra sources that were added were all very clearly analysed by HighKing. I would like to point out that Lightburst totally inappropriately used an WP:ADHOM comment in reply to HighKing's !vote The HighKing votes to delete at AfDs 89.2% of the time. in an attempt to discredit him. This unfortunately backfired because the link he used to show that HighKing is a deletionnist gave some very impressive !voting stats "Without considering "No Consensus" results, 94.4% of AfD's were matches and 5.6% of AfD's were not." despite having participated in nearly 2,000 discussions. When you start to try and discredit a !vote in this way one can legitimately pose the question as to whether this is not some kind of crusade against deletion !votes. This was followed up a few days later by another adhom comment from a a different member of this "Squadron" including some very impressive latin legalese to add gravitas to the accusation. The very fact that they use a military term for their group is worrying in itself and points to some kind of bellicose attitude towards AFD. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that more editors disagreed with the High King's interpretation should carry weight on Wikipedia where consensus is supposed to matter. You and the High King were in the minority and you had an agenda because you nominated the article for deletion. You should take a look at the work of the ARS before you make these wild claims. Demonizing the ARS is a wrongheaded approach on this deletion review. FYI: you can find monsters if you believe in them and look for them. Lightburst (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - I find myself agreeing with the "keep" arguments made in the original discussion. The article had enough good sources to bring it well over stub status. For now, the article is good enough to keep, and there is momentum to continue to improve it. The user Rollidan has a copy of the article in his userspace[27] and has expressed interest in continuing to build it up. However, the article would be more likely to grow and develop in the mainspace.Worldlywise (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Plainly, the Keep arguments are overwhelming and clearly moire numerous than the deletes. To the extent that "policy" was being interpreted, the clear WP:Consensus was that the delete arguments were wrong, and failed on the merits. The closer 'wore too many hats', and conflated the oles of advocate, commentator and closer, presuming to exercise a Liberum veto over a clear consensus. This was a WP:COIand a violation of WP:INVOLVED,The blatant procedural irregularities became inextricably intertwined with the merits, and rendered the whole exercise ultra vires and void ab initio. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- I don't see any issue with the result. It seemed to reflect the strength of the arguments presented. And I don't think procedural quibbling is helpful here. ReykYO! 14:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn or Reclose per RoySmith. Regardless if one agrees with the close result, the closer was unquestionably involved with the AfD. As Roy said, if we are at the level of nit-picking what involvement means, and the closer is defending themselves with a wall of text trying to explain things, it is easy enough to let someone else close it. Also the closer's choice of wording comes across triumphant ("One down! Two down! Three down!") followed by a personal attack directed at Lightburst: "you personally have little idea of what is meant by reliable sources" - there is smoke there is fire. -- GreenC 15:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Not convinced that there was a good cause here to override the majority opinion. Even though it is a new company, there was media coverage that was growing steadily over time. The closing admin had a strong opinion, and, while there is room for diverging points of view, I'd say that, on balance, we'd be better off overturning this for now.Patiodweller (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- Without regard to whether Lourdes was involved or not, the clear result of this this AfD should be delete. The Keep arguments were mostly provided by members of the Article Rescue Squadron who usually vote as a block. Instead of providing policy-based reasons to keep the article, they attempted to attack the nominator's credibility. Declaring that there was not a WP:BEFORE search is a WP:PERSONALATTACK. It is so easy to declare BEFORE was not performed, but it is completely meaningless when there is a complete failure of the person making that declaration to provide the sources that they claim to exist. If sources exist, why didn't anyone add them to the discussion so they can be evaluated?--Rusf10 (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Relist – This is as clear a case of good-faith administrator judgment error as I have seen. First, the administrator found a consensus to Delete although a majority of the !voters favored Keep. That looks like a supervote, and should only be done under rare circumstances that are easy to justify, and should certainly not be done by an administrator whose involvement has been challenged. Also, since this was a controversial close, the details of the administrator's reasoning should have been in the close, not shoved off to the talk page. Second, the administrator appears to have been involved prior to the closure. Third, there is a rule in common law courts that it is not only necessary for justice to be done, but that it is also necessary for the appearance of justice. This is not a common-law court, but common-law wisdom can prevail. A request for an administrator to recuse from a closure should be granted even if it is questionable, only denied if the concern is arbitrary and vexatious. The question about administrative involvement was valid. Even if Lourdes reasonably thought that she was uninvolved, she should have erred on the side of wisdom and let another admin close the AFD. I did not participate in the AFD and do not know how I would have participated, but this is an error in good faith. I am sure that the closer thought that the good of the encyclopedia was involved, so that this was a case of Ignore All Rules, but some rules are to maintain not only fairness but the appearance of fairness. Overturn, and Relist for one more week. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Long time no see, Rebecca.[28][29] You don't seem to have ever participated in any deletion-related discussions at any point in the past (in fact the above was only your 46th edit outside the mainspace and one of only four since 2017), so your showing up here is rather suspect; there's also this[30][31] where you claimed, despite an almost non-existent editing history outside the mainspace, to be very familiar with the activities of an admin I had conflicted with in the past. "I like the editors on this side more than the ones on that" is not a good reason to overturn a valid AFD close. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Correct judgment of consensus, correct understanding of WP policies. No other close would have been reasonable. . I do not think there was excessive involvement, and I tend to be pretty much of a stickler for this. I see this rather as an admin trying to be very carefully scrupulous, and getting unreasonably blamed for it. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong endorse – Lourdes's assessment of consensus was spot on: there was consensus that there weren't two GNG sources, not even close... a.k.a. consensus to delete. In my view, that's not a closer establishing an arbitrary standard of proof, that's a closer upholding policy, i.e., upholding global consensus (WP:NOTAVOTE, WP:V, WP:N). Lourdes was not WP:INVOLVED; I think re-list comments such as the one she made are very helpful in offering participants an idea of how the discussion looks "from the outside", from a closer's point of view. This helps focus any further discussion. I encourage it. An admin doesn't become INVOLVED by making a re-list or because an editor disagrees with the re-list. All of Lourdes's comments were about the consensus of the discussion, not the notability of the subject; thus she was acting in an administrative capacity and was not INVOLVED. Because it was a correct close by an uninvolved admin, it should be endorsed. – Levivich 05:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not a horrendous violation of NOTINVOLVED. It would have looked better, given the late discussion engagement of participants with the admin-relister. The result seems correct. Invite any uninvolved admin to countersign the close, but if that doesn’t happen, overturn for a cleaner reclose. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: Technically, of the three uninvolved admins who have commented here, two said "overturn without prejudice" (Roy explicitly said "no prejudice"; Stifle stated that it would be best to have an uninvolved close, without actually saying they would have closed differently), and one endorsed; does DGG count as "involved" now that he's said he doesn't think Lourdes was involved and supports Lourdes's close, or under your proposal could we just take the other admins (neither of whom said that if it were them they would have done anything different) as saying they would recognize a close from DGG and call it a day? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think, no, DDG is not INVOLVED and could boldly countersign the close, making the DRV moot. That would be very bold for him., I don’t expect it, however it would have been a very reasonable thing to do before this DRV was opened. However, my reading here is that a re-close, which could be an identical close counter-signed, will be the consensus. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely overturn and reclose: per Robert McClenon's excellent overturn rationale. Essentially, the closing administrator issued a supervote cancelling out the will of the AfD editors. It appears the administrator knew that editors might have issues with the rejection of consensus and so further stated in the closing remarks: If any editor has an issue with the closure, they can contact me on my talk page. There was a clear case to be made for either consensus to keep or no consensus.Talrolande (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reclose I firmly believe that Lourdes's action was accurate and done in good faith, and a reclose will very likely be exactly the same result, but I agree that a question of involvement was raised and therefore the wisest course of action would have been to let another admin handle the close. CThomas3 (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
reclose In general there is a really high bar for commenting on a deletion discussion and then closing it. There are plenty of closers, so there it would be very rare for it to make sense. There isn't a clear and sufficient justification for doing so here IMO. Hobit (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the discussion again, I think it's quite debatable if WP:INVOLVED is violated or not. Call this a "reclose due to an overabundance of concern about things not only being right, but looking right". Given that so many admins can, and do, close AfDs, while it was perhaps within guidelines to close here, it was just a bad idea to close after engaging on the topic. Hobit (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question If the result here is "overturn without prejudice" or "reclose", can this DRV's closer go ahead and reclose the AFD themselves based on all the "overturn without prejudice; I personally would have closed the same way as Lourdes, though" comments? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, that would be unwise. The whole point of this DRV is about being WP:INVOLVED. If the same person who closes the DRV then goes an re-closes the AfD, surely that's inviting exactly the same complaint. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Roy, with due regard to your viewpoint, I am repeating a point I mentioned above: WP:INVOLVED quotes: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role [...] is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." Closing the DRV is an administrative act, and therefore the closer would not be considered involved. Thanks, Lourdes 17:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. But in deletion discussions it is generally considered poor form to close multiple discussions on the same topic. There are plenty of admins active in the area. And it might make it seem like the closer has an agenda to handle more than one. If the case is clear, they can safely do just one and let someone else do the right thing elsewhere. Not policy, but it seems to be what we actually do. Hobit (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you Hobit. Telling an admin that they are involved is obviously quite different from suggesting good form. Closing multiple discussions on the same topic over a period of one's tenure is bad form; closing multiple discussions on the same topic around the same period because one saw the common thread (e.g. I've seen multiple articles and lists of pageant winners land up on AfD, and the same administrator cleaning up the whole lot) is absolutely good form. And here, if the closing administrator of this DR decided to re-close the AfD (because they've understood the premise much better than a drive-by admin would), it's absolutely good form in my opinion. Thanks, Lourdes 03:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.