| Revision as of 04:35, 25 February 2011 editTarc (talk | contribs)24,217 edits →Serene Branson: - e← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:43, 25 February 2011 edit undoEdison (talk | contribs)Administrators53,890 edits →Serene BransonNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| *'''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. --] (]) 04:14, 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. --] (]) 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 ] and ]. This is DRV; '''D'''eletion '''RE'''view. Not D2G; '''D'''eletion '''2'''nd '''G'''uessing. ] (]) 04:35, 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 ] and ]. This is DRV; '''D'''eletion '''RE'''view. Not D2G; '''D'''eletion '''2'''nd '''G'''uessing. ] (]) 04:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
| **'''Comment'''Please discuss the merits of the case without continuing the vituperation you found necessary in the AFD. ] (]) 04:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:43, 25 February 2011
< 2011 February 24 Deletion review archives: 2011 February 2011 February 26 >25 February 2011
Serene Branson
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)
- CommentPlease discuss the merits of the case without continuing the vituperation you found necessary in the AFD. Edison (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)