- Richard Tylman (talk|edit|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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- No, you misread. The OP does discuss people who use "Weak Keep" and such, but he also discusses arguments who are weak (ie. strength). I was clarifying your misread of that point. Regardless, that's not an "attack" to point out that an argument is weak. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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).[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Overturn and delete closure was not within reasonable bounds of admin discretion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse There were no procedural problems with the way the AfD was closed. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- You are IMO incorrect on the issue of the design of DRV. I was one of those who helped draft the proposal that converted the old Votes for Undeletion (which was strictly designed to consider undoing allegedly improper deletions) to Deletion Review. One of the main design goals in that change was to treat reviews of Deletion discussions symetrically: to reveiw allegedly improper Keeps in jsut the same way as allegedly improper Deletes. In neither case should the reveiw be a simple re-run of the deletion discussion. I have not read the AfD at issue here, and have no specific opnion on whether it was properly closed or not, but iMO arguiing that non-policy-based views were accorded equal weight with policy-based views is a legitimate point to raise here, anc could be a reson to overturn a keep outcome. DES (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Loosmark, yeah yeah, heard it before. I'm the opponent of the EEML in that I was the admin who figured you guys out, and you hated me. That's supposed to be a bad thing, how? You were very lucky not to have joined the EEML list before it got busted, but that's all I'd say. @ Adb, the association of yourself, as well as Loosmark and others, with the list is very relevant. Because you guys uniformly voted and are still voting to keep the real-life vanity article of a member, it shows that the community is not as divided on the matter as the pure numbers indicate. Neither you nor Loosmark nor the others (who I won't name to avoid conflict) voted on the AfD because of your interest in deletions or notability policy, let's be honest. Everyone of course finds an excuse to vote keep, but the matter should be decided on policies and deletion criteria, not out of group bonding or sticking up for one's friend. All EEML members and their friends, as well as their [actual] "opponents", should observe a personal CoI and stay away from these votes. At the moment you're only highlighting one of Wikipedia's worst flaws: the ease with which its procedures can be turned against it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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).[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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).[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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).[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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).[reply]
- You found the keep side's unsubstantiated claims that the coverage is signficant more convincing than the extensive discussion on why specific sources are not ample? Why didn't you just say that? Triplestop x3 18:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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) Wikipedia: hounding me since last November,[3] Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs), Dr. Dan (talk · contribs), Matthead (talk · contribs), Novickas (talk · contribs),[4] and finally, user Anti-Nationalist (talk · contribs) a.k.a. PasswordUsername (talk · contribs) prominently featured in EEML Evidence, and user Varsovian (talk · contribs) now lobbying at EEML Amendment,[5] with the account created four months ago to argue over a single article. Most of them participate in the never-ending POV wars over the articles I helped to create, and thus came here again in order to seek revenge, any way they can. They perceive this DELREV as an extension of previous arbitration cases concerning Eastern Europe, which go way back, beyond the original Piotrus 2.
The many angry voices in this tread belong to my long-term opponents: like the nationalists who don’t read refs, because they already know the right answers; flame warriors, goading their adversaries into blind rage; and, egomaniacs who wrote about me to Encyclopedia Dramatica (you know who you are). Some of the comments here come from age-old enemies of the contributors with whom I used to work, and therefore, don’t merit a personal reply. But, some of them do. For example, the nominator obviously has no clue about the depth of the Eastern European conflict in Wikipedia. Most notably though, he designed a template for his own deletion review the way another EE editor devised a barnstar for Tylman’s AfD. Please remember: four years in the life of Wikipedia is an exceptionally long time. This article was created in April 2006. I did not touch it in two years. Meanwhile, many experienced editors (including at least five admins) contributed to it since then, in a very productive way. The article is balanced, stable, and full of references. So the ultimate question is: "How would this project benefit from having it deleted?"
Note: this WP:GAME against our behavioral guidelines just escalated beyond the realm of the English language. Inside the Polish Wikipedia, a single purpose account called pl:Wikipedysta:Zawodnikslupsk (meaning: a player Slupsk, clearly one of us) without a single contribution to pl:wiki, just sent the Ryszard (Richard) Tylman article to AfD (1/21/2010), with an interwiki link to this DELREV. The immediate response was: "get yourself a pair of Wiki glasses." Meanwhile, there are also signs of puppetry in the following brief exchange there.[6]-- Poeticbent talk 17:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- "Full of references" - note that most references lead back to the personal webpage of the subject of the article; that the subject of the article has repeatedly mislead other editors about sources; that he has used sources that did not support the claims in the article or even worse did not even mention the name Richard Tylman. (See [7] and [8]; and see [9] and [10] for two different, uninvolved editor not being able to verify the sources provided by Poeticbent.) Pantherskin (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: For anyone believing the attacks by Poeticbent, please check out the article talk page history, the first AfD, and the discussion on the corresponding Polish wikipedia article - Poeticbent has consistently attacked and accussed anyone who dared to question the validity of the article or parts of it. This despite the fact that completely different editors were involved there, editors such as User:Victoriagirl who was not even involved in the Easter European content area. I am not sure whether Poeticbent truly believes that there is a pattern of harrassment or whether this is a tactic to drive away editors - but the end result is the same. Pantherskin (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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).[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- In the first hours (between 12:41 and 19:06), the !votes were running 9-2 in favour of endorse. Then there was an hour or so of quiet, before Malik Shabazz moved to endorse at 20:57. After that time, it's running 5-3 in favour of endorsement. I accept your assertion that you found out about it from your watchlist, but it does seem a little odd. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Could you explain why it is odd that I put the AfD on my watchlist? I see this as an important test case for WP which will set a precedent: if it is possible for somebody who very clearly fails to satisfy WP:ANYBIO guidelines to write an article about himself/herself and to use sources which fail to satisfy WP:RS or WP:V and for that article to not be deleted simply because some friends of the subject use WP:ILIKEIT justification to stop consensus being established, WP has very serious problems. Do we really want WP to become the number one home for vanity articles on the web?Varsovian (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Understandably, you are upset that there are many arguing to overturn you. However, please do not make insinuated attacks on those who disagree with you. Given the history behind WP:EEML I would be more concerned about the other side canvassing and whatnot. But that does not change anything.
- Back on topic: how the participants in this found the debate does not change the unsubstantiated nature behind all but one of the keep arguments. Triplestop x3 18:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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 second time that Richard Tylman was nominated for deletion; its Polish-language Wiki article was created by Tylman's WP:EEML buddy Piotrus. ([11] [12])
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.
2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.
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 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.
5. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for guidelines on academics - not applicable to Tylman
There is no evidence (or even suggestion) to be found that Tylman either 1) is an "important figure" or is widely cited by his peers;
2) is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique;
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;
or 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)[reply]
- This is an excellent argument and dissection of the issue, the problem is that the place for this was at AFD, not here at DRV. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Thanks for the compliment on my dissection, but the arguments on which it's based were all made (perhaps in less dissecting ways) at the AFD by other nominators. Most were given multiple times – and not once refuted by the opposing side !voting to keep this bio. Which arguments did you find convincing, Lankiveil? You've mentioned Abd's comment from the AFD at one point above, but Abd's !vote was just
"Keep. Who originally created an article is completely irrelevant to the notability of the subject, and any !vote based on that argument should be deprecated. I further become suspicious when a nominator or single editor argues tendentiously against every keep vote, but that, too, is irrelevant as to keep/delete. Where there is reasonable doubt, as there is in this case, the default is properly Keep, because having a non-notable article, provided the information in it is adequately supported by reliable source (which information can be very brief, the article can be a stub), does no harm, whereas deleting it makes article growth much more difficult and wastes or even insults the work of all those who contributed. --Abd (talk) 23:49, 10 January."
If you do believe that I've spelled everything out persuasively (ie, you do not think that there exists appropriate sourcing to substantiate the contention that Richard Tylman really is notable), supporting a deletion now at DRV would be a good way to resolve the conundrum at this point in the process. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed with Anti-N. No one has been able to refute that all but one keep argument were unsubstantiated, and even that argument was extensively refuted. Triplestop x3 18:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see several questions before us. First, to what extent may arguments be disregarded on the basis of the identity of the poster, rather than the merit of the argument? Second, if there are some that may be disregarded, can we also say that there are any that must be disregarded?
I think EEML members still have a voice on Wikipedia, though their credibility has been somewhat damaged. And I do not think the closer is obliged to disregard what they say in closing an AfD; I think this is a matter for the closer's discretion. I will not censure Lankiveil for allowing some of their arguments to stand, and accordingly I think I have to endorse this close.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- EEML has no relevance to the quality and validity of arguments. The concern is that all but one of the keep arguments made unsubstantiated claims, while the delete side discussed extensively why the sources are not enough. Triplestop x3 18:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete. - there were almost no external sources about Richard Tylman, definitely no significant coverage and nothing that could be used to write an article that is independent of the subject (as the only article was an interview). This was pointed out by several voters, who tried and failed to find independent coverage. Some searched library holdings, some tried to evaluate the notability of the awards given to the individual. I do not see anything similar from those who voted delete, just assertions of notability without any accompanying evidence or explanations. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note by Loosmak for the closing admin: The Deletion review is meant to be to review if technically speaking the result of the AfD was correct. Instead it seems to me that this thread was simply hijacked by the users who want to delete the article to continously repeat their arguments. This is a very dangerous precedent, if allowed from now on users who are not happy with an AfD will just use the "Deletion review" as another AfD. Especially interesting is the behavior of User:Triplestop who made a grand total of 15 posts in this thread in less than a day. This clearly demonstrate that this Deletion review has turned into a battlefied. My proposal is to close the review as fast as possible because it completely doesn't serve its purpose anymore. Dr. Loosmark 18:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comment above is blatantly misleading. In no way has anyone argued that Tylman is not notable as a justification for overturning the result. The point is that all but one of the keep arguments were unsubstantiated. Please actually read peoples' comments. Triplestop x3 18:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do read peoples' comments (although I admit that in your case that gets a bit difficult, it's quite enough to read one's opinion 2 or 3 times, reading same stuff 10 or 15 is IMO a bit over the top). As for the arguments there are currectly 2 views: one is that mr.Tylman is notable enough and the other is that he isn't. Both positions are valid, however where opinions are split the closing admins have no other option but to close an AfD as no consensus. Dr. Loosmark 19:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, and when those arguing one way side provide no evidence then it is obvious that the rough consensus goes the other way. I don't like saying the same thing 10 or 15 times either, but it appears that you still haven't read my argument. Triplestop x3 19:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with your logic is that you are not in charge to decide who presented evidence, which side's evidence is valid or better etc etc etc. That's the job of the closing admin. Btw congratulations on the Barnstar awarded to you by Skapperod. Dr. Loosmark 19:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone who can read can easily see who had the better evidence. That is all I am going to say. Triplestop x3 19:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(OD) By now one can see that this has nothing to do with the evidence or arguments. It's obviously easier to sweep this one (a vanity article) under the carpet. The closing administrator will not provide any proof of notability, nor explanation for the vague concept of "consensus" (again using the cop-out stating non-consensus was the basis for his decision). Despite the fact that only one "keep" vote made an attempt to rationalize their vote, and even now no one else has been able to do so, that is because there is no notability of the subject. If those in favor of keeping this article will do so, I will review my own activity concerning this article, and act accordingly. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that "I'll hold my breath if I don't get what I want" is a valid DRV arguement." Just because you've turned this single article into a proxy for some larger cause doesn't mean uninvolved AFD closers need to. Struck portion mooted by refactoring--Cube lurker (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cube, I'm not holding my breath. I'd take your comment to heart much more if you could tell me how the subject of the article meets the notability standards. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck out that part after your rewording. I'm not sure it does meet notability. If it were back at AFD I don't think I'd rush to get in my keep !vote. On the other hand I don't think that a no consensus close is so unreasonable as to shake Wikipedia to it's core. It seems to me that some of you have transfered some larger battle into this article. I think some perspective has been lost and is reflected in this bloated DRV discussion.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again Cube, or anyone else, this matter is not shaking Wikipedia to its core. What larger battle? Why is it so hard to comprehend that earlier and continued interaction by the parties involved with the creator of this vanity article brought it to their attention. Why is it so hard to believe that despite this interaction, the involved parties could not possibly analyze the Afd in an objective manner? I've already stated that if Richard Tylman was notable I'd vote "keep". He simply isn't. What is particularly disappointing is the attempt to portray this as "payback" or something of the sort. In the first Afd [13], the solid argument was made by objective editors why this article should be deleted. The author/subject and friends jumped in and brought it to "no consensus". The second Afd [14], was halted because of the EEML ArbCom. The third Afd [15] was brought to a halt, with a controversial "no consensus' call, despite overwhelming evidence that the article did not satisfy Wikipedia standards of notability. One "keep" vote at least made an attempt to rationalize that basis. None of the others "keeps" did so. As for "... If it were back at AFD I don't think I'd rush to get in my keep !vote.", I don't blame you.
- Endorse (no consensus). Relist, due to substantial new interest. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (no consensus). Counting votes is particularly dangerous here because WP:EEML involved organized campaigns of AfD votes (no bang here). Clerely there was split opinion in the AfD whether the sourcing was adequate or not. Users like User:Malik Shabazz, User:Off2riorob, and User:OlEnglish, who were not involved in the EEML battle one way or the other expressed their opinion that the sourcing was marginal, but !voted keep nonetheless. Others, equally not involved in EEML, like User:JzG, User:Starblind and User:Abductive voted delete based on the same sources. I suggest a new AfD with anyone involved in the EEML case staying away from it. Pcap ping 07:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good proposal. Relisting without allowing anyone involved with the EEML case or having significantly interacted with Poeticbent would be a good idea given the circumstances. Note though that your list of uninvolved editors who voted keep is a quite a bit shorter actually - that is the problem with Poeticbents comments who poisned the well by pointing out only those who voted keep. Pantherskin (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not opposed to a relisting in theory, but how should we ensure that the new discussion is not equally "contaminated"? Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Relist which is the best way to handle possibly contaminated discussions. If it's going to be deleted, better at AfD than here. DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above and in my original comment this is a good and pragmatic proposal. Question: Would it be possible to name an admin who would ensure that only those comment who were not involved in the EEML case (i.e. did not comment there in whatever form) or did interact with Poeticbent in the past? Pantherskin (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I oppose that idea. This would be giving in to the Abd-cycle: Do something disruptive, someone comments, declare them involved, and on that basis declare their arguments biased/void and prohibit them from taking action [16]. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be the most pragmatic solution. Ideally the AfD should have been evaluated on the basis of the strengths of the arguments, but unfortunately this has not happened. Yes, Poeticbents disruption was obvious and the attacks on other editors were severe. I intend to file a request for an arbcom enforcement or amendment once this mess is over. But the Afd is probably not the best place to deal with it. As I said, relist and make sure that an admin enforces a no-partipiation rule for anyone ever having commented at the EEML arbcom case or having interacted with Poeticbent in the past. That is obviously a pragmatic as any votes during the Afd discussion should have been evaluated based on the merits of the argument, and not based on who voted. Pantherskin (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To closing admin. Weight of arguments is not the same as frequency or length of them posted on the DRV. Nor does saying another person's argument is "wrong" actually help matters. What it boils down to is -- did the closing admin err in saying "no consensus"? Those who wish deletion, if this is upheld, should wait a reasonable period before going once more to AfD, lest this become a perennial fixture there (rather like the Robert of Holy Island case.) Collect (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There very much was consensus between the editors who made any attempt to address the issues (some 20 to 1). The voices which did not agree with the consensus made no attempt to address the issues (i.e. the problems that the article has with multiple WP policies) and instead voted to keep based purely on WP:ILIKEIT. The issue is whether editors who make no effort at all to discuss the issues which have been raised should be allowed to prevent consensus from being reached.Varsovian (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record: Varsovian is one of the editors who voted for deletion. His "20 to 1" comment above is comical but seems that now everything goes here so... Dr. Loosmark 12:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also for the record: Loosmark is one of the editors who voted 'keep' and also made no attempt at all to address the the problems that the article has with multiple WP policies. His vote was based purely on his "opinion that the subject of the article is notable enough to have an article", he had no comment whatsoever on the problems that the article has with WP:RS or WP:V or WP:ANYBIOor WP:ARTIST or WP:N. While his opinion is valid, WP does not rely on the opinions of editors: it relies on reliable verifiable secondary sources state. WP:ILIKEIT is no more sufficient to justify a vote to keep than WP:IDONTLIKEIT is to justify a vote to delete. That equal weight it given to a vote based on the opinion of the editor and to one based on what reliable verifiable secondary sources state and multiple WP policies shows what is wrong with the current deletion process.Varsovian (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that the "Deletion review" is the appropriate place for user:Varsovian to discuss my voting in detail because if we all start to do that with each other this thread will go on forever. For the record I have better things to do than to throw around and discuss all those countless soapboxes (and lets be frank many of those are contradictory with each other). Dr. Loosmark 13:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If deletion review is not the appropriate place to discuss your vote, why did you discuss mine? Varsovian (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not discussed your vote other than noting that you voted to delete. Dr. Loosmark 13:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure, support relisting This could have been closed as "delete," given the strength of the arguments for deletion. There were some valid votes on both sides, but it's difficult to ascertain the complete effect of the canvassing. There may have been canvassing on the "keep" side, but it sounds like there might have been canvassing on the "delete" side as well. All things considered, at this point it's probably best to proceed with caution by endorsing the "no consensus" close, relisting, and ensuring that the subsequent AfD is not contaminated by canvassing, either by the EEML or by the other side. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist at AFD. In the interests of good faith, not excluding any editors with established, non-topic-banned accounts. If this is done, I'd suggest the relisting open with a statement urging participants to focus on notability policies rather than past conflicts. I'd also like to request, given its multiple troublesome AFDs, that the next closer post several paragraphs analyzing the strength of the arguments, the number of votes in either direction, and how he or she evaluated these two factors. Novickas (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from the nominator. It is a pity that much of the discussion thus far centered on the EEML matters. I think it would have been better to disregard EEML connections and related acrimony altogether and view the case purely on policy grounds. (In this regard I agree with Collect: any EEML connections should not be viewed as a reason to delete the article; however, neither should they be viewed as a reason to keep it). When I was casting my !vote in the AfD itself, I tried to filter out the EEML-related part of the discussion altogether in deciding how to !vote. I brought the case to the DRV because I thought (and still do) that there was a solid consensus for delete in the AfD. In terms of canvassing suspicions, I would rather AGF everybody. I think there are perfectly benign and plausible explanations for why various groups of users participated in the AfD and are participating in this DRV. Several users, on both keep and delete sides, participated in the previous AfD for the article. I would assume that they naturally had the article watchlisted, so that when it was nominated for an AfD, they participated. Also, the AfD was listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Poland, so some users with interest in EE topics probably would have seen it there. Similarly, after the DRV case was filed, a DRV notice was placed at the article itself and at the last AfD page. Naturally, many of the participants from the last AfD came here and expressed their opinions. I think these explanations are rather more plausible than various suspicions of behind-the-scenes canvassing. I am not opposed to relisting the AfD, to the extent that it may generate additional participation and perhaps a clearer picture of consensus. I do not believe, however, that it is procedurally possible to prevent any of the editors who have participated in the previous AfDs from participating again. None of them are, as far as I know, under any kind of topic bans or other editing restrictions in relation to EE subjects. So some kind of a limited type of a topic ban (or bans) would be needed and I doubt that there is a practicable chance of getting a consensus for that. Let me repeat again that, EEML-related exchanges aside, I believe there was a solid consensus for delete in the AfD. There were 20 deletes and 10 keeps, a rather significant advantage in raw numbers. Several of the keeps were expressed (by the users casting those keep !votes) as as weak or borderline. Some other arguments, like that of Collect regarding the existence of an article about the subject on Polish Wikipedia were properly rebutted by other AfD participants (including by one of the keep !voters, Abd). There is no policy basis for deferring to another wiki in deciding wether to keep or delete an article. En-wiki is a separate entity with its own set of inclusion criteria. In relation to something that Collect said: I am not at all interested in deleting the article from Polish Wikipedia; however I do believe that it should be deleted from English Wikipedia. Another consideration: the most substantive, IMO, keep argument, actually addressing the sources, was offered very early on in the AfD, by Malik Shabazz. Obviously, the subsequent AfD !voters have seen this argument and still, by a 2:1 margin they were not persuaded by it. (If a substantively new keep argument was offered late in the discussion, or if the article would have been substantially improved, the initial delete !votes might have been given less weight.) Finally, this is a WP:AUTO case and WP:AUTO strongly discourages autobiographies on Wikipedia. In marginal cases WP:AUTO considerations should strongly weigh the final decision towards delete, and I feel that the closing admin should have given more weight to this policy point. So I still feel that there was a solid consensus for delete in the AfD. However, I agree that relisting might be beneficial in terms of attracting wider participation. Nsk92 (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As an aside -- several AfDs were in the past decided with the argument concerning foreign language wikis being held valid. I do not post them here, but only wished to make the record clear about that position. Collect (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Its now one year and ten months since this articles first AFD and this expanded discussion is now the appeal of the third AFD, it is obvious that there is no clear consensus, which defaults to Keep. Off2riorob (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is obvious after the third Afd that there was always a clear consensus to delete as no one, not even the subject of the article was able to present any significant coverage that is necessary to establish notability. It is also obvious that Poeticbents tactic of attacking and smearing editors who vote delete is quite successful, and that once again there is a strong suspicion of ongoing canvassing given several keep votes of involved editors right after Poeticbents first comment. Pantherskin (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes there are clearly two opposed sides, nationalistic I think, I haven't looked into it, I hate all that, one side wants to get rid of it the other side wants to keep it, no consensus, its a harmless article, take it off your watchlist and move on. Off2riorob (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You make it sound as if you are uninvolved. Harmless not so given that the subject of the article repeatedly complained about BLP attacks. What is your interest in keeping this article? And why oh why is no one able to present any significant coverage, and why oh why are those who point out the lack independent third-party sources attacked by the subject of the article? Pantherskin (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I am totally uninvolved in the nationalistic issues, I came to know of this article through my work mediating about a content issue at the BLP noticeboard, The subject of the biography may well have brought up BLP issues, that is his right and no reflection as regards his position, from his comments here and elsewhere he clearly supports keeping the article, as do I. Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not about "nationalistic issues", it's about notability. It appears that this Afd will probably be re-listed. It would behoove those who want to retain this article to simply present their arguments as to how this vanity article meets the notability requirements. Not how keeping it is "harmless", not how the EEML case somehow absolves the need for the article to meet the notability requirements, not by sweeping it under the rug with suggestions to "take it off your watchlist and move on". Perhaps if a cogent argument explaining this article's notability (which so far has not happened) is presented the next time around, some of the editors wanting to delete the article might even be persuaded to change their opinions. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete. Firstly, as nationalist issues have been brought up here, I'll put my cards on the table in regard to any potential interest. I am British, but have spent between 15% and 20% of the last 32 years in Poland, am married to a Pole and own property in Poland. I am fluent in Polish and have some knowledge of the Polish media. Having got that off my chest I must say that the Afd discussion of this article didn't come up with any more in the way of reliable sources than a very local (i.e. not covering a whole city) article in a glossy magazine of the type that you'll find as part of the free advertising on the coffee table in any hotel room. The existence of such a source is in no way a strong enough argument for keeping as to override the valid arguments provided for deletion. If those editors caught up in the EEML fiasco want to rebuild their reputations here then I would suggest that the worst way to go about doing so is to try to defend the existence of such an obvious vanity article. Surely your effort would be better spent on the important work of being vigilant about possible POV-pushing by those whose viewpoint you distrust? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Only that almost all the editors who voted for keep were not part of EEML. Dr. Loosmark 23:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that so? Is this incorrect [17]? I believe that it was at the 2nd Adf that the proceeding was halted due to the EEML case and most of its participants voting keep. That list is incomplete. Loosmark, just present some evidence that the subject is notable enough to be included in the Encyclopedia. That would be greatly appreciated by all. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously, Dan, I meant this last AfD which is the subject of this Deletion review. (Of course you are free to open deletion review on those previous AfDs). Dr. Loosmark 01:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any comment to make about the actual subject of the debate here? Can you explain why your vote to keep, which made no comment whatsoever on the problems that the article has with WP:RS or WP:V or WP:ANYBIO or WP:ARTIST or WP:N or WP:AUTO or WP:COI, should be given equal weight to a vote which did address those problems and concluded that there are no WP:RS which meet WP:V and either prove WP:N or satisfy WP:ANYBIO or WP:ARTIST? The consensus among the editors who addressed the issues was very much to delete but the AfD was closed as “no consensus” due to certain editors posting their opinions. I wonder why you have so much to say here but so little to say about the evidence.Varsovian (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
