Misplaced Pages

Zonnon (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

is a guideline, which states, "This page...is a generally accepted standard..."  At the AfD discussion, , the AfD reached a stopping point based on SpeedyKeep criteria.

Regarding the new activity at the end of three days, compare with the activity at (ref#1, and ref#2).  Also note the discussion after the normal 7-day period, which discussion can only take place in the context that the closure can occur at any moment.

The closing decision found that there was a delete consensus, but ignored the influence of the SpeedyKeep criteria.  As per WP:Guide to deletion the closing admin should explain the closing.  It is not credible that a closing statement could ignore that the nature of the discussion, including those willing to participate, had been changed by the SpeedyKeep criteria.

This request resulted in this refusal.  The response was of the form, "see my closing statement", and "take it to DelRev", with the explanation being that individual editors do not need responses.

Now that the discussion is at DelRev, a responsible course for the encyclopedia is to uphold the standards in WP:SpeedyKeep, and in doing so give polite inferential support to WP:Guide to deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse -- while there was a short amount of time a speedy keep would have been valid, as soon as the next delete comment came in 27 minutes later, it was no longer valid. Closer clearly gave appropriate weight to points made. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse - If someone had come in and closed the discussion in the period of time between the nomination being withdrawn and the first delete recommendation coming in then Speedy Keep would have applied. Since that close did not happen and the AFD continued to run the Admin's job is to assess the consensus of the complete discussion. The admin correctly determined the consensus at the time he closed the discussion. ~~ GB fan ~~ 18:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I think Unscintillating's characterization of the closing admin's response does not do him justice. What he said was by no means as curt as your quotation indicated. DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• I don't see a procedural error here and I concur entirely with GB fan.—S Marshall T/C 19:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, & permit rewrite in user space only when there is in fact some substantial 3rd party references. Some of the programming languages nominated by the user who nominated this one were in fact notable, having decent third party sources that could be identified, but some do not seem to have them. This was among those for which nobody has yet found any. DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse- Community consensus should not be overriden by procedural quibbling. Speedy keep was on the table for 27 minutes, between the nominator withdrawing and the first delete vote. Once a good faith discussion of the merits was underway, with opinions on both sides, it would be irresponsible for an administrator to close it as speedy anything. Reyk _YO! 21:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse Proper procedure was followed with regards to Speedy Keep, per SarekOfVulcan. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse-Let me get this straight: the argument to overturn this AfD is based upon the idea that it should have been speedy kept immediately upon the nominator's withdrawal, and that the following comments were somehow null and void because of that? Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. That's not how things work. We had valid discussion, and a valid result based on that discussion. There's no reason to overturn this.--Fyre2387 22:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Serene Branson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Should have been closed as "No consensus for deletion" rather than "Delete." Long before the on-camera episode of speaking gibberish which gained her worldwide news coverage (leading to WP:BLP1E arguments for deletion,) the subject had at least two instances of significant newspaper coverage as well as a local Emmy nomination. The raw count was 25 deletes, 24 keeps, showing near parity. The closing admin chose to ignore 2 of the "deletes" and 8 of the "keeps," leaving 23 delete arguments against 16 keep arguments, which still does not appear to amount to a consensus. Several more of the "deletes" could have been ignored, based on their denial that the award and two newspaper articles provided any support for prior notability. The original nominator argued finally for a "No consensus close" and I believe his judgment is correct. Edison (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm going to ignore the numbers entirely, if no one minds. They tend to distract from determining consensus. It's not a vote, so the exact numbers don't matter.
  Anyway, the issue here is clear. Pretty much everyone favoring delete mentioned WP:BLP1E, and few who favor retention did much to rebut this argument. A couple of users mentioned some awards she won (such as you, Edison). However, these claims to notability were weak and not accepted as beating out the BLP1E argument (I note that the former does not matter, but the latter does). Phantomsteve made a good call on this one. Endorse his closure as properly reflecting consensus.
  The claim that Safiel requested a no consensus closure seems to be a bit of a red herring, as well. Stifle made the comment, just before Safiel requested a closure, that any result would end up at DRV (*cough*). Safiel probably read this and misinterpreted it to mean that consensus does not exist, rather than that consensus isn't well-liked by some. If I have misinterpreted his reasoning, he can feel free to correct me. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 03:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete This is a tough case for the closing admin. This is a clear "no consensus". So, the real question, is does "no consensus" default to keep. Normally it does, except for BLPs with contentious material and week sourcing. So, is this a BLP exception? No. Here, we have largely non-contentious material (early misreports, but not a lot of serious disputes about event) and strong sourcing (of the event). There's an entirely reasonable argument for doing a merge (probably to the station), which requires using sources from this article (necessitating undeletion). There's also a case for making it an "event", not a bio article. Keepers did refute the 1EVENT argument. The only thing they didn't refute, which annoyed me, was the issue of whether a regional Emmy matters. I think nobody did a great job in the AFD in addressing all the issues, up to and including the most recent and comprehensive reporting. A new AFD in the future would be a good opportunity for a better discussion. --Rob (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - To "whine" doesn't accurately reflect what this DRV is; the Brit's notion of a "whinge" just seems to capture the essence far better than us colonials can muster. This is whingeing, the classic case of filing a DRV not over admin wrongdoing or mistakes, but because one disagrees with the result. All that needs to be said here is that the closer evaluated the strength of the arguments rather than engage in rote bean-counting. The keepers tried valiantly to dig up some past scrapings of notability such as regional awards, but what that sort of action amounts to is a sort of wikipedia-form of confirmation bias; they have already concluded that the person is notable, so they go out and cobble together whatever scrips and scraps can be found to support the already-formed conclusion. This effort failed, the results were judged to be insufficient in overcoming the concerns of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. This is DRV; Deletion REview. Not D2G; Deletion 2nd Guessing. Tarc (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Please discuss the merits of the case without continuing the vituperation you found necessary in the AFD. Edison (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Protip; it helps to read past the first line of the post. Tarc (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
      • No contribution to the discussion, just more insult and vituperation. Edison (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Enough with the strawmen, please. If you can address the points I actually raised...DRV is not for second-guessing, the closing admin considered and discounted the regional emmys and such as not being sufficient, etc...then feel free. Tarc (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• • A "classic" case would be where there is a clear consensus to delete. The closing admin themself acknowledged, by giving a detailed explanation, that this isn't a typical obvious close. So, there's no need to insult somebody for requesting a review. This is exactly the type of case to bring to DRV. There are two separate issues: was deletion appropriate and was the close as delete appropriate. I would suggest what you're doing here, and to some extent, what the closing admin had done, is to make their own AFD arguments. That is what you, and closing admin did, is what really belonged in the original AFD discussion. But, the issue for the closing admin, and this DRV, isn't whether there should be a deletion (which I supported), but whether there is a consensus for deletion. There is no consensus. One issue, which nobody seemed to properly raise, is that 1EVENT, doesn't necessarily call for deletion. A merger is equally appropriate for dealing with that. In fact, there was no discussion whatsoever about a merge, by ether side. Generally, there was a poor discussion in the AFD. So, a new AFD, now, or later, would be a legit option. --Rob (talk) 04:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Just wrong and misguided all around, and a very warped notion of what consensus actually means here. Everyone presented their arguments, and the closer considered the actual arguments made rather than doing a simple tally. Consensus doesn;'t mean "everyone agree", it means "what is the general leaning of the overall discussion. In this case it was, clearly, to delete. There would also be no merit at all to an article on the event. What event is there? A woman was confused on-camera for a few seconds and some news outlets talked about it? Big fucking deal. There is no lasting historical impact of an on-screen mishap. Tarc (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Yah, we're all misguided, because we disagree. Anyhow, I'm not advocating a simple tally. It's ok to discount week arguments that ignore or misrepresent policy. However, both sides actually misconstrued policy. 1EVENT doesn't require deletion, as many implied. In fact, it often results in merge, which wasn't even discussed. So, if you want to discount bad arguments, do so on both sides. Using your logic, any discussion that occurred would be a "consensus" for deletion. What is the purpose of having a discussion if an admin substitutes their own view of what should happen? There are exceptions, where an admin can delete, despite the lack of consensus, in the case of BLPs. But, this isn't such a case. Anyways, are you seriously telling me there is a clear consensus that this shouldn't even be kept for a merge? (e.g. restore history, but keep the redirect currently in place). --Rob (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I really have little time or patience to deal with ARS-tinged talking points, i.e. "an admin substitutes their own view". You disagree with how the admin read consensus. Whoop-de-doo. DRV's should not be abused by simple "I disagree" filings. Tarc (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse- after reviewing the discussion and the closing rationale, I find that the closing admin acted sensibly. DRV is for correcting it if the admin makes a mistake or acts improperly, not just because someone doesn't like the result, and I cannot see that the closing admin has done anything wrong. Reyk _YO! 09:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse as being just (but only just) within administrative discretion. It is very helpful to have a detailed analysis by the closing administrator, in this case nicely presented. I do not think that less weight should be given to arguments "per someone else". If my opinion is the same as someone else's it is entirely appropriate I should say so and not have to do a copy and paste. However in this AfD no one seemed to vote in this way: the nearest was "delete per all previous arguments" for which I think less weight is appropriate. It is a shame the AfD nomination was not explicit on the BLP1E matter because less experienced editors might not have felt the need to adddress this aspect. Never mind, the nomination was on grounds of notability and BLP1E was raised early in the discussion. I wonder whether significant material was added to the article in the course of the discussion (the "other notability" argument did seem to gain support as time went by) making earlier comments less apposite. The closing administrator did not address this aspect so maybe it did not apply. I agree with the closing admin that many of the keep votes were weak on rebutting BLP1E but to my mind there were sufficient cogent arguments that "no consensus" would have been the best call. However, it is close and not at all as head counting would have suggested. I think it reasonable to live with a "delete" close. What can I say about Tarc's arguments? I'd best say nothing. Thincat (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: It would be nice if people actually read WP:BLP1E and WP:ONEEVENT sections they like to reference, and also consider the context they exist in. WP:BLP1E is specific to BLPs (obviously). It is designed to protect otherwise private people, who get caught up in a single event. So, if a private person had a speech impairment, known only to family/friends/co-workers got a similar YouTube moment, deleting would be appropriate to let them keep their anonymity. A TV reporter for a major outlet, is not a private person (yes I know being a reporter doesn't make her notable). WP:ONEVENT suggests that the article be made about the event, or be redirected to an appropriate larger topic. At this stage, there is now a redirect. So, the more relevant current question to ask, is should the history of the page be restored, so it can be used in the target article. A merge/redirect is a more common way of handling public figures, who's individual notability is minor, and are closely associated with a larger topic (in this case, the station). When the AFD began, there was nothing worth keeping, but over time, more developed. It makes keeping (which may or not mean a separate article) a reasonable alernative. Still, not a single "delete" or "endorse" has cared to address the point. I think, sadly, both saids, have used cookie-cutter arguements, that can be copy-pasted to a million articles, without noting distinctions, or changes over time in the process. --Rob (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse per my typical DRV test; the closer did not give weight to something to which he should not have given weight, nor did he omit to give weight to something to which he should have given weight, nor did he arrive at a decision at which no reasonable administrator could have arrived. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. The BLP1E point was wrong (notability is for being an Emmy award winning journalist plus recipient of Frank Shakespeare award for Outstanding Achievement in Journalism -- source was noted in the article). Therefore the BLP1E-based "deletes" should have received no weight, leaving no consensus.—S Marshall T/C 16:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  That is quite a lie there. Many of the calls to delete, or responses to the award-harping, dismissed them as regional and of little significance, in terms of establishing notability. Tarc (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  • More vituperation from Tarc: if you disagree with him you "lie." Edison (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Yup. You'll find that Tarc's an expert at giving the absolute maximum amount of offence possible without quite saying anything that would get him blocked or RFC'd. He's been getting away with it for years.—S Marshall T/C 09:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
      • My dear Mr. Marshall, one hardly needs to be an expert to recognize demonstrably false assertions. Please, re-read the AfD and note what those who cite WP:BLP1E are actually saying rather than what you appear to be projecting. I'm reading down the list right now, and find many that clearly address the issue of either regional Emmys or that Frank Shakespeare thing, or both. You are certainly welcome to believe otherwise, that these two awards establish prior notability, but I'm afraid that many editors do not agree with you. When someone says "Item X confers notability", the burden of proof is on said person to, y'know, prove it. No one did to anyone's, esp the closing admin's, reasonable satisfaction. On the contrary, those on the deletion side of the matter clearly explained that the "emmy" was a regional award for local news coverage, and the Shakespeare thing was something given by a student political organizational. Local coverage generally does not translate into notability. So back to my original remark, you claiming that 1E-based deletes were wrong and should have been discounted is, as seen above, demonstrably false. Quod erat demonstrandum. Tarc (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
        • The problem with that train of thought is that local coverage does translate into notability. A local newspaper, for example, is usually a reliable source. Equally, many blogs purport to provide global coverage, but they usually aren't reliable. In fact, whether something's local or global has no bearing on its reliability.—S Marshall T/C 18:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
          • No, local coverage generally does not translate into notability. See WP:GEOSCOPE. Tarc (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Pathetic. Stretching a guideline far beyond its reasonable application. WP:GEOSCOPE means that a report in the One Horse Town Review from One Horse, Massachusetts, about the local church fete doesn't confer notability. It was never meant to exclude the fricking Los Angeles Times or the KCBS.—S Marshall T/C 21:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
              • As I see it, local coverage often but does not always show notability, for a paper covering a small area is sometimes indiscriminate: we don't accept it for notability of high school athletes, for example, and I am reluctant to accept it automatically for the notability of local writers or artists. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse -- closer's detailed rationale makes it clear they did not make an obvious error in evaluating consensus. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. First, the closer erred in giving !votes early in the discussion, before coverage of the subject had fully developed, the same weight as those after detailed coverage had emerged. The !votes over the first day or so, when the coverage was mostly "weird event" type stories, overwhelmingly favored delete (and properly so). Expressed community opinion shifted drastically after the medical diagnosis was disclosed, and coverage focused on genuinely newsworthy matters. Moreover, given that Branson has voluntarily accepted her role, at least for the present, as the "public face" of the medical condition involved, the protective aspects of BLP1E clearly don't apply. Second, in cases like this, where the community is divided over basic aspects of the policy involved, it is not the role of the closing administrator to settle the policy debate without a clear consensus, particularly since the level of support for the conclusion reached is clearly lower than than the level required to reach consensus on the policy debate itself. BLP1E has historically been problematic situations like this; although incorporated into a policy, it provides only rough guidelines as to how editing discretion should be exercised, and therefore is a matter where it is particularly appropriate to recognize the lack of community consensus, in the absence of substantively objectionable content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn to no-consensus. Classic case of the closer using his own judgment, not the community's. When policies are unclear about the interpretation, the interpretation is decided not by whatever admin cares to volunteer to make a closing statement, but buy what the community thinks. Otherwise we would close inconsistently 700 different ways, according to the views of the individual admin. I would have one view on w what the policy meant, and close in accord with that. PhantomSteve would have another, and close accordingly. There is no intrinsic reason why his view is better than mine, or mine better than his, or why the view of whoever closes this is better than either of us. The admins are supposed to have a basic understanding of policy. They are not screened to be experts in the interpretation of it--if they were, nobody at all would pass rfa, for there is no disputed question where 70% of the people here agree on the right interpetation--if there were, it would not be disputed. The role of the closer is to determine what the good faith community thinks about the matter. They do this by discarding the views of people with clearly invalid arguments not based on policy, and , usually, spas. Then they see what the consensus is. If there is none, they are supposed to say so. When rules contradict, and half the community who cares to be present says one thing and half the other, the closer does not get a casting vote. Anyone who does more is going beyond their remit and undertaking things for which they are not qualified. Nobody at Misplaced Pages is qualified to say authoritatively what the interpretation of policy is. Not even an individual member of arbcom is, for policies within their scope: they decide as a body. Not even an individual member of the WMF board, for those policies that come within their jurisdiction--they too decide as a body. Not even the WMF attorney--he does decide what we can legally do, but aside from that, not what our policy is. No admin has a role beyond anyone else here in making policy. They have the role of interpreting it in accord with the way the community wants, and the only individual decisions they can make are when they determine what it is clear the community wants--whether explicitly, at xfd or rfc, or implicitly when they do admin tasks like speedy deletion. If the decision is not clear according to the community view at xfd, the admin may not make it. That's a supervote. There are some cases that might look otherwise: If the decision needs IAR, he can do that, but he must be reasonably sure the community will support him. If the editors present at an xfd are not representative or sufficient, he can decide that, and continue the discussion. If it is absolutely clear the community always interprets a policy one way, and the temporary majority seems to say otherwise, he can continue the discussion or even close in accord with the known general view, if this is unambiguous.

Here we have a case where it is ambiguous. I'm not sure myself. Normally, if this received only sporadic local coverage, there is no question that BLP policy would prevail, and the article deleted. But the NYT wrote an article giving this a general significance with respect to public health, and other newspapers did similarly. hat's pretty strong evidence that it's of relative importance beyond the event itself. Is it enough to prevail? I suspect there will be further publications using this event as an example,and if there are, it will determine it in the direction of keep, but I wouldn't want to say my suspicion is conclusive. Frankly, I just do not know. The course of this discussion and the previous one indicates that neither does the community.

There is room for a compromise solution, at the moment it's a redirect, but a redirect to an article without any relevant content at all. A redirect and merge is a possible compromise close, that avoids having the article under her name. I can see saying that, or I can see saying no-consensus. when it's as equivocal as this, I can't see any admin reasonably making their own keep or delete decision. The only people who think its a reasonable close are, as usual in a divided situation, the people who agree with it. ILet me for argument's sake adopt Stifle's test: I think no reasonable administrator should have closed in this manner. Not that the closer is unreasonable generally, just mistaken in this instance. DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Extremely long-winded, but once again DGG attempts to substitute his own opinion for that of the closer's. Once again, that is not a valid reason to overturn a deletion discussion. Tarc (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  You are saying that the closer made the close based on his "opinion". I think you are exactly right; so he did, but he should have made it according to his judgment. That's the difference between a supervote and a conclusion. People who cannot separate the two should not be closing discussions. DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

  I say "opinion" in terms of judging consensus and weighing the relative strengths and weaknesses of those that have weighed in. Nice try, but the "just a supervote" card will have to be reshuffled into the ARS deck. Tarc (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not know why you think I'm doing this in any connection with ARS. I haven't paid any of their labels or pages any particular attention in many months, and am just technically a member, as I am of many other wikiprojects. As for the role of a closer, I have given my opinion the way of have stated it here repeatedly, regardless of whether it will support deletion or keeping. Some of my inclusionist acquaintances are surprised (& annoyed) by how frequently I support deletions at deletion review--they don't realize that I support all clear & representative community decisions. I can distinguish between what I think should be done and what the community thinks should be done. They are not always identical. I'll argue for my position, but I'll go with the community. Those who do otherwise think they are so much wiser than other people, that they can decide for them--but I do not think that of myself . DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record: I did not put my "opinion" into the close - my opinion was that of weighing up the arguments and deciding whether the arguments for deleting were stronger or weaker on the whole against those for keeping. Obviously I have an opinion on this article's existance - earlier I re-read it - but that had no influence over my close. If I had wanted my opinion considered, I would just have !voted myself, as I have in the past when I went to close an AfD but upon looking at the arguments and article, have decided that I had a very firm opinion. In this case, I did not have such a firm opinion. I never think I am so much wiser than other people, that can decide for them - my job as closing admin is to gauge the consensus, which I believe I did here. To be frank, DGG, I am a bit hurt that you do not know me better than that - we may not always agree when we comment at AfDs, but I've always respected your opinion, but in this case, I just don't know what to say (says he, having written hundreds of words....) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• overturn to NC per S Marshall. Just with those awards and the bits of local coverage she qualifies under WP:BIO without the one event. That said, I'd strongly favor using WP:UNDUE and the spirit of WP:BLP to limit coverage of the "one event" to a couple of sentences.Hobit (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • To be more clear, I believe that that discussion reached no consensus about if the local sources were enough before the event in question. Further, I don't believe that the keep sides arguments can reasonably be found to be significantly weaker than the deletes. So NC was the only reasonable close. Hobit (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn per DGG, Hobit, and the fact that WP:BLP1E does not apply to public figures, which an award-winning journalist certainly is. Jclemens (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  Let's not invent notability policy that is unsupported by the Misplaced Pages community, eh? An article about a person who wins 1) a regional award and 2) an award from a student organization is unable to reach even the low-hanging fruit of WP:ANYBIO. Local/regional awards do not make one a public figure. Tarc (talk) 05:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

  You're confusing "public" with "notable", eh. You can be a public figure, without being notable. BLP1E is designed to protect non-public (aka private) figures. The policy protects people from having their privacy violated, because they were caught up in a single public event, often unwillingly. So, a private person, of marginal notability may be deleted, in such cases. But, with a public figure, there's no issue of privacy. If the public person doesn't quite warrant a stand-alone article (as is the case here), we can merge/redirect to a larger, notable topic. Serene Branson is obviously a public figure. So, are you going to finally discuss the issue of merger, or are you just going to throw more insults? --Rob (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

  Rob, I would have to first toss out a single insult before I could toss out more. If you feel otherwise, stop cluttering up DRV with endless carping and head to WP:WQA if you feel you have a case to make. But no, just because someone has a job on tv doesn't warrant the "public figure" tag. There are thousands upon thousands of reporters across the nation on par with Ms. Branson; they do their job, day in and day out, without a whiff of national recognition or reference. By your, ahem, "standards", any one of these people who does something that goes youtube viral for whatever reason is suddenly article-worthy because they are classified as a "public figure" ? That's where I call bullshit. As for a merger, there's nothing to merge to. She stroked out on-air, you want to make an article about that ? Tarc (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

  You still fail to distinguish between the word "public" and "notable", and I never suggested every public person warrants their own article. Please only respond to my posts if you fully read and comprehend them first. As for the merge target, that would be the same as the current redirect target. The incident easily warrants some mention in KCBS-TV. I've actually never advocated a stand-alone article (you'ld know that if you read my comments before replying). Personally, I would have preferred people had put the content straight into KCBS-TV from the start, and made a redirect for the name. Nobody would have objected to such content (if kept concise). But, since the Serene Branson has been made, with sourced content, a merge/redirect works fine (which requires an undelete). Regardless of what I want, the fact remains, there was never a consensus, which is the point of this DRV. --Rob (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  I read you loud and clear, you're not all that complex; you're simply scrabbling for any half-baked reason to overturn the obvious consensus found in the AfD. The incident has really very little to do with the tv station, so no, a mention there is not warranted. Anything else? Tarc (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse Closer gave rational and sound logic behind the final decision.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn as no consensus and undelete The strict scrutiny placed on Keep votes used to discard votes without enough of an argument to discard votes for retention was applied only in one direction. Equally incoherent votes for delete were accepted as truth. Arguments provided by keep voters countering the claims of BLP1E seem to have been inappropriately discounted. Rather than engage in a hagiographic analysis of which keep votes should be ignored, the most appropriate conclusion would have been a recognition that there was no consensus. Alansohn (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I've gone back over the entire discussion and I cannot find a single delete !vote that I could justify discarding because it was "incoherent". Could you point some out? I would discard two of the keep !votes, one because it had literally no content and one because it consisted solely of personal attacks, but none of the deletes. For the rest of the discussion, the closing admin gave more weight to the delete !votes and less to the keep ones because this genuinely reflected the relative strengths of the arguments presented, not some lack of impartiality on the part of the closing admin as you seem o be suggesting. Reyk _YO! 06:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Did you notice that 11 or so of the "Deletes" did not acknowledge that she had any coverage, whatsoever, before the aphasia episode, ignoring the award nomination and the two newspaper articles about her which were cited, as if the YouTube were the only event which had ever been noted by reliable and independent sources? They made it sound as if she were some random soccer mom who stood in public and got on YouTube for uttering gibberish, rather than a TV reporter in a major market who had some minor notability previously. The other Delete voters appropriately noted her modest prior claim to notability, and judged that it was just not great enough. Edison (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Every single delete vote doesn't have to address every single possible issue in order to be considered valid. I, for example, did not address the local awards because the arguments had been stated numerous times as to why they weren't notable, and I saw no need to re-hash it, preferring to address another issue I felt hadn't been covered enough.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• • • • (ec)Since, from my reading of the debate, the relevance of the minor award and run-of-the-mill local coverage had been thoroughly refuted early on in the piece I see no reason to discard delete !votes that did not bring it up again. Reyk _YO! 07:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
        • It still appears that Keep !votes were more casually dismissed than Delete !votes with equivalently slight rationales. Edison (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Perhaps because the keeps rested largely on the "she was notable prior to this event" argument, which was largely debunked. Tarc (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn to no-consensus (suggest that article be undeleted for two weeks at WP:Under_construction/Serene_Branson to allow development before next AfD, and that during this time Serene Branson redirect to WP:Under_construction/Serene_Branson)

  Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy states (blockquote follows),

  If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators will normally not delete it.

  The existence of doubt is documented:  (1) The fact that the administrator went to lengths to explain speaks for itself to the existence of doubt.  (2a) The AfD discussion was taking place as events continued to unfold.  (2b) Opinions came before the 2nd event which is the erroneous speculation as to the existence of a stroke.  Most mistakes like this are ignored through the WP:UNDUE weight clause; however, this is an example of an interesting mistake which has long term effects on society, because we now know how easy it is to confuse a migraine aura with a stroke.  (3) We do not have a guideline regarding two closely related events, nor has anyone so far provided a theory with which to discuss such a case.  (4) The AfD could have been snow closed as "No consensus", as indirectly documented by the nominator.  (5) As a practical matter, it is still too soon to be considering either the notability of Serene Branson, the notability of the initial event, or the notability of the 2nd event.
  
  Regarding the clause in the policy, "will normally not delete", the closing administrator has a guideline in WP:Guide to deletion to "transparently explain how the decision was reached", and unless I've missed it, there is no consideration in the closing statement that we should consider this as an "abnormal" deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

1) Wait, what? People usually bitch because admins close AfDs with simple "the result was X". Now people are bitching about in-depth and detailed explanations? Damned if you do, damned if you don't, eh?

2a) The event is over.

2b) There is only one event, not two

3) See 2b.

4) There is no such thing as a "snow close no consensus".

5) It is never too soon to nip a worthless piece of news trivia in the bud. People that crate these sorts of article sin the first place should have the contents of WP:RECENTISM tattooed on their foreheads. Tarc (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

And as a practical matter, I do not believe article space can redirect to project space. Tarc (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Wait wait, Unscintillating, just to be clear, are you saying that the discussion and speculation about the first event should be considered a second event?--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• What was said during the AfD here was, "there were two events, (1) the video of the event, and (2) the misreporting regarding a stroke", and such existence was not disputed during the AfD.  However, the issue here is whether or not there exists doubt about a consensus to delete, as policy states that an administrator will normally not delete such an article.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• That no one responded to it is no surprise, given how absurd the claim was. There were not, in any conceivable fashion, 2 events. Tarc (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• The respondent stated here, eight hours before the above post, that Branson "stroked out on TV".  The first event has the long term effect on society that we know what a migraine aura is.  The second event has the long term effect on society that we know that experts confuse migraine aura with stroke.  What is the relationship of two closely related but different events to WP:BLP1E?  The question being examined here is, should the closing admin have had doubt as to the existence of a consensus to delete.  The closing admin did not attempt to refute or integrate the point made at AfD, "the positions based on WP:BLP1E fall".  Unscintillating (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Say it with me; there is no second event. A reporter had an incident on-air that went into the Viral Video Hall of Fame, with discussion about what said incident actually was. That is all part of the same "event", in terms of determining notability here. Hell, JetBlue Guy can't even get a standalone article (thankfully), and his attempted "second event" credentials were an appearance in a musical and a mention in Time magazine. You're trying to pull a "second event here" out of...misreporting of her on-air spasm? Ridiculous. Utterly. Tarc (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Great example. Stephen Slater of JetBlue fame was *kept*, not deleted, and it was redirected to another article. All of the history of Stephen Slater, is available and visible to everyone. With Serene Branson we can do the same. It could be made into an article on the event, or a better choice would be to restore and merge/redirect to the article on the TV station KCBS-TV. Unfortunately, you insist on assuming that the only two choices are a stand-alone article, or outright deletion. It should be noted that the original AFD did not even discuss merging. So, it doesn't matter how you weight the !votes, there's no consensus on merging. You can't have a consensus on something that's not discussed. --Rob (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in terms of this DRV, the only choices are a standalone article or outright deletion. There were no !votes at the AfD for anything but these two outcomes. Therefore there is no possible way this DRV can turn out except for the result to be overturned to "keep" or, hopefully, that the original result will be endorsed. Reyk _YO! 01:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Where's that rule from? An AFD determines if we delete the content. Where the content goes (stand-alone bio, event article, or merge/redirect) is a content issue, that can be discussed like any other editing issue, typically on the talk page. It's quite often the case, when a page is kept in AFD, with no discussion of merge, that there is in fact a merge later on. That's especially true in borderline cases, like this. --Rob (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Then why are you, Edison, et al wasting our time at DRV? Go to Talk:KCBS-TV and raise the matter. Tarc (talk) 02:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, you are saying I should just go to Talk:KCBS-TV and suggest merging content that's been deleted. That's even more than the usual dose of non-sense. Do you comprehend what a merge is? Do you understand what's required to do a merge? Anyways, the reason we're all here at DRV, is that there was "no consensus". That's it. I think it's very harmful when an admin misreads an AFD, and insert their own judgement. Tarc, you've repeatedly shown you do not comprehend what it means to delete an article, what the available alternatives are, what a merger is, and how a merger is performed. Please read Misplaced Pages:Merge and delete. --Rob (talk) 07:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yay, more condescension from the peanut gallery. Robbie, nothing is stopping you from going, right this very second, to the talk page I noted and initiating a discussion as to whether or not discussion of this "event" is worth mentioning at the KCBS-TV article. Following that, assuming there isn't disagreement, nothing is stopping your creative little fingers from writing a sentence or two of the incident at that page. Hell, being the cheerful helpful guy I am, I'll even pen it for you;

"On Sunday, February 13 2011, while covering the Grammy Awards, Serene Branson appeared confused and disoriented while trying to speak on camera. The incident, which quickly went viral to youtube and other social media websites, was initially surmised to be a stroke but was later found to have been a migraine aura."

There ya go buddy, reword for prose, google for a few citations and you're off to the races. Since we don't need anything else from the article; no dribble about personal life, background, the non-notable proppings of student awards and regional Emmys, there is no article history that needs to be preserved. You can use the redirect that is there now. Now the "I disagree with the AfD result so I'll falsely claim there was no consensus" caterwauling can come to and end. An admin did not misread the AfD, nor insert their own judgment. As Roy Rogers was fond of saying, "happy trails to you". . Tarc (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the suggestion above is a good one, but I wish it had been expressed without insulting a good faith editor. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse - Admins are selected through RFAs to determine consensus on discussions such as this one. Our admins are all different and if a different admin had stepped up and closed this discussion there might have been a different read of the discussion. PhantomSteve did a great job of explaining how he determined the consensus. His conclusions are reasonable. ~~ GB fan ~~ 13:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment from closing admin I am not going to say much, as most of what I would say is in both the close, and the comments on my talk page. However...
  1. As I have explained, the fuller-than-usual explaination of my close was purely for the fact that I both knew this would be controversial (and so whatever I decided, it would probably end up here!), and the fact that I knew that because of work commitments, I would possibly be unable to comment at a Review;
  2. Redirection and Merging (or creating an event-based article) were not options - here we are arguing whether there was consensus to delete or not... however, there was definitely no consensus for any of those options, and to choose any of those would be (in my opinion) forcing what I think should happen as the result, rather than the consensus. Incidentally, I make no comment on what I feel should happen here, my opinion is irrelevant. If I wanted my opinion to be considered, I would have contributed insteading of closing!
  3. With respect, I disagree with the statement it is still too soon to be considering either the notability of Serene Branson, the notability of the initial event, or the notability of the 2nd event.. It is never too soon to consider notability - she/it/they are either notable (in which it should be kept) or not notable (which would mean it should be deleted). You could apply that logic to other articles as well... a film which is being released next month, by a new director, new producer, new actors and new company: we should keep it, because it is too soon to consider the notability of the film. OK, that is an extreme example, but the principle is the same.
  4. The main claim for notability is the Emmys. The awards she was nominated for, and those she won, were all regional awards. So the question is "Are regional Emmys sufficient as evidence for notability". Before closing, I looked into this a bit. Although we have a list of the 20 local regional chapters (see Regional Emmys), there are no lists showing the winners of any of these, with the exception of 4 individual events (2010 Southeast Emmy Awards winners (not referenced, so I can't verify how accurate it is), 22nd Midsouth Emmy Awards (referenced, but I could only find details of the 25th Awards at the site), 23rd Midsouth Emmy Awards (again, I could not find details of the 23rd Awards at the site, apart from a call for entries here), and 24th Midsouth Emmy Awards (again, no details at the official site). Ironically, the only Nashville ceremony which does have a list of winners at the website (the 25th) doesn't have an article yet!

     This appeared to indicate to me that although the regional boards are notable, the ceremonies themselves would appear not to be so.

     In the WP: namespace, there were about 50 hits for "regional emmy" (see here) - however none of these are at policy/guideline pages (most are AfD or AfC). There has been no definitive community consensus that regional Emmys are something which can demonstrate notability. Obviously, no one would argue about national Emmys - they are covered by the major papers of the world!

That will probably be my last comment here (unless it's open for another week!) as I've got 6 night shifts coming up, and so although I will read this page (as I have every day, even if unable to comment here), I will probably be unable to comment - and I also feel that everything that I need to say has been said PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out how the approach you take could ever result in you closing an AFD differently than how you would contribute as a late !voter. Normally if one is a late participant in an AFD that's already had a lot of input, they should read the previous contributions, consider them carefully, do their own research on the article (like you did), and then present their own position, which is likely to correspond to at least some prior opinions. That position should be based on an understanding of policy, and past consensus, and not what whether they personally like the subject. So, somebody making an appropriate contribution as a late !vote, would produce roughly the result as somebody using the close approach in this AFD. Basically, I think the closer did a great job contributing their opinion, but just not as a closer. As for the merge issue. I agree there was no consensus for that. But, only delete requires a consensus. --Rob (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus. I !voted "weak delete", and I still think that's a legitimate opinion in light of the facts, but I did not see a consensus in support of deletion, and I was surprised by the close. A large number of editors, citing policy and pointing to specific facts and sources, expressed the well-reasoned conclusion that notability was established. To the extent that these !votes were discounted on their merits (e.g., on the basis that local Emmys don't convey notability), that seems to me to be a substitution of the administrator's judgment about the facts for that of the editors who reached the other conclusion. I don't think that AfDs should be closed that way. As has been pointed out, there's no indication that Ms. Branson needs special protection as a private person who has now returned to private life; indeed, here she is, back in the public eye at the Academy Awards and the subject of more coverage on February 28 at CBS News and the Los Angeles Times. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment The line between closing a/c one's opinion and evaluating opinion is not always clear. I think the closer intended to do it right, and did not mean to suggest otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment  Closing admin has expressed a viewpoint with which I think few people would agree, that the absence of information is believed by "Keep" !votes as a reason to keep an article.  "...we should keep it, because it is too soon to consider the notability of the film."  I have consistently taken the view that we continue to waste our time here as we did at the AfD, that the judgement of history provides perspective and in this case provides additional information.  My viewpoint is to object to "both articles that lack the perspective of history, and premature AfD discussions." (ref).  The closing admin also states, "It is never too soon to consider notability - she/it/they are either notable (in which it should be kept) or not notable (which would mean it should be deleted)."  This note 3 specifically does not include "no consensus" as a possible result of a notability discussion.  Reductio ad absurdum reveals that one hour after Branson had the event, we could not already be deciding notability.  I speculate here (with note 3 as a reference along with the initial quote above) that because a "no consensus" outcome at Misplaced Pages results in a "Keep" decision, the closing admin discounts ideas that would lead to a no consensus position, on the grounds that they result in a "keep" result.  C.f., the statement, "Secondly, I have left Safiel in the 'delete' camp, as the nominator. Although s/he said that it should be closed as no consensus, this is not the same as saying "I now think that it should be kept" - if this assumption is incorrect, then please accept my apologies."  Unscintillating (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

A look at the 100s of AfDs which I have closed will show that I have no problems either closing as no consensus or as keep. Some people here are obviously thinking "Oh, he wanted it deleted regardless". At the time, I had no opinion on the matter - I went (as best as I could judge) by what I saw to be the consensus. That may have been correct or it may have been incorrect (this discussion will decide that point), but for anyone to suggest that I was intent on deleting it regardless (or unwilling to close as no consensus) shows that they know nothing about my attitude towards AfDs and their closure. For what it is worth, if the AfD was to be open now, then my !vote would actually to be to keep, but my opinion is not important here. Of course, those of you with the afore-mentioned opinion will just say "Oh, he's just saying that", but that is your perogative, even if wrong! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus in accordance with the comment of Arxiloxos. Though I !voted keep at the AfD, I was skeptical as to its chances at the time. As the AfD went on, legitimate arguments for keeping and additional information surfaced. The knee-jerk BLP1E reaction to the origin of the article by a number of editors was understandable, but did not develop into a consensus view.--Milowent • 18:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse. I had been only barely aware of this incident, and unaware of this article, before coming here with the intention of closing this DRV. I find, though, that I am simply not comfortable undeleting this content. Yes, the information is sourced, even if much of that consists of reputable news sources indulging in surprisingly irresponsible speculation. But we find here a paradox typical of borderline BLP1E candidates. If this person was indeed notable before the event in question, then it seems like a violation of undue weight to have her biography completely dominated by one incident which, in her life and career, is quite minor. But without that incident there's virtually nothing verified by reliable sources to say. To me, that problem is evidence that this is, indeed, a case of BLP1E, and the close was not only correct, but the only truly responsible way the debate could have been closed. Chick Bowen 04:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)