Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 April 17

17 April 2013

Mabel Richardson

Mabel Richardson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe that this deletion debate should have been relisted for a clearer consensus rather than closed as keep. There were two keep !votes for every delete, but of the six people who suggested keep, two were new users who went straight to deletion debates upon signing up, one was user who has made a few edits since signing in late December, all of which were to longevity articles, one was the article creator, and no one provided any policy-based or source-based rationale for their !vote, but instead used their subjective judgement on what they felt was notable. While I certainly don't believe that there was a consensus to delete, given the history of canvassing offline about longevity articles (among other problems with articles such as these), I believe that relisting the debate to allow for more unbiased/neutral opinions would have been appropriate in this case. A recent comment on the article's talk page suggests that the proposed deletion would have benefited from further debate. Canadian Paul 20:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with the above. Boleyn (talk) 07:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse or Overturn (to no consensus to delete). Follow advice at Wikipedia:Renominating_for_deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• overturn The only claim to significant notability is, as is said, from IMDB, so it's worthless. After that the only real claim is for someone else. The keep votes relied on the unreliable notability claim and can be discounted. Mangoe (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - I wrote the article's talk comment, but it wasn't about the worthiness of the article, only the worthlessness of the DYK as worded (and DYK Talk has conceded that a better hook would have been the actress's longevity). I'd mentioned how the original AfD-keep decision had been hampered by a cite-ref to a pay firewall site but I didn't say AfD-keep was wrong! Nor that one shouldn't make a decision based on a pay firewall source (it was all fairly looked into, and the full source-text is readable at '100 Club, topic 1088' although that website's host is unfortunately Wiki-blacklisted, preventing direct cite-ref). Having come across the article from an unbiased/neutral position and looked into the article subject quite deeply yesterday (also read various cite-refs including ones deleted in early April) I feel there's an even stronger case for keeping it. The subject is worthy of remark for a) her longevity, b) her having known and worked with some major film stars, although she herself did not achieve fame, and c) because the article states her husband accompanied Chaplin (!!) to the USA on his first? visit. I think more may emerge about this in time (the article only makes the barest mention), and therefore both this article and a possible future one about her husband could well become important silent film era "stubs". Pete Hobbs (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn Looking at the !votes, I believe a keep close is not justified. Of the six keep !votes, three (Futurist110, sophiahounslow, ExRatargue that the person is notable because of her age. However, notability is not for us to judge but for reliable sources to state so these three keep !votes should have been ignored. A fourth, Oscarlake, states that the combination of age and acting makes her notable. But, again, that's a personal opinion and needs to be backed up by a reliable source. The Listmeister keep !vote is sounder but the "oldest" statement is sourced to IMDB which is definitely not a reliable source. The final keep !vote, Miskatonik, quotes the Press-Telegraph article which, at least in the free summary, doesn't really assert notability. All in all, I'm not sure what the rationale for a keep decision is here. --regentspark (comment) 20:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• There's a clear consensus to keep, and the closer correctly identified it, so no blame attaches to him and I would prefer not to use the word "overturn". If he made an error in not checking the debate participants' contribution histories, then it was an understandable one. But I agree with the nominator's comments about the risk of sockpuppetry in longevity-related discussions, and I can well understand his concerns. There's honest doubt about whether this consensus is real or engineered. Relist with a semi-protected AfD so that we can have a discussion that's convincingly sockpuppet-free and will give the nominator confidence in the outcome.—S Marshall T/C 07:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Somaya Reece

Somaya Reece (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No consensus was reached in the discussion. Discussed with closing admin first. JHunterJ (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse looks like the closing admin explained it pretty clearly regarding triviality of sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse what Andrew Lenahan says. I also took a look at the sources and concur with the closing admins opinion. --regentspark (comment) 18:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn per WP:HOTTIE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review Altho a BLP, I see nothing potential derogatory or harful to prevent temporary restoration. DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Discussion-based processes on Wikipedia are not a sham. They are genuine and meaningful attempts to seek consensus and implement it.

  In my view, the reason why Darkwind, Starblind and RegentsPark are wrong is because their reasoning is based on the closer's evaluation of the sources. It's not up to the closer to evaluate sources. Sysops do not make content decisions. They're not empowered to. Sysops evaluate consensus.

  If it was up to sysops to evaluate sources, then there would be little purpose in discussion-based processes on Wikipedia and we might as well replace AfD with a list of articles for administrators to examine and delete or retain based on their personal judgment. But we don't do that. Our processes are not a sham.

  I was assisted in reaching this conclusion by one of my big red flags of a poor close: the closer uses the closing statement to give you their opinion. That's a really annoying habit because it falsely implies that the closer's personal opinion was actually the consensus in the debate. It's not what closing statements are for. If you want to express an opinion, vote. Your closing statement is your chance to explain your assessment of the consensus in a neutral way. It should be used only for that purpose.

  Overturn and relist for another sysop to close based on an assessment of consensus rather than his opinion of the sources.—S Marshall T/C 08:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  I believe that the sources are evaluated in the discussion itself, i.e., the delete !voters have pointed to the weaknesses in the sources. If a !voter says that the sources amount to "trivial coverage", how can the closing admin evaluate that claim without looking at the source itself? (I assume darkwind did not merely accept the claim at face value.) --regentspark (comment) 13:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  And the keep !voters pointed to the ways the sources met the guidelines, and there was no consensus between them. It's not that the keep !votes were using reasons outside the guidelines (and so the closing admin should have discarded those arguments), it's that there was no consensus whether the guidelines were met. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  There's a difference between a disagreement and a consensus. The difference is that a consensus is based on the weight of previous discussions in the form of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and that consensus is that trivial coverage of this type does not warrant a Wikipedia article; disagreeing does not create "no consensus" in that regard any more than it would create a "no consensus" that VH1 is an independent source for this article. - SudoGhost 15:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse - Per my comment above (disclosure, I nominated the article for deletion). - SudoGhost 15:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)