- Hollie Steel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
While there was a majority arguing for the page to be kept, Wikipedia should refrain from articles about people notable for only one event. None of the "keep" arguments countered this reason for deletion. Additionally, Steel did not have a cultural or societal impact like Susan Boyle did. Finally, she's a minor, and we should show restraint in creating an article about her. Thusly, I find the closing of this AfD as a "keep" to be a error in judgement. Sceptre (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC) [reply- Endorse The closer did not treat the matter as a vote as the closing statement indicated that he had read the points made and considered that the Keep arguments were stronger. The BLP1E argument was specifically addressed and refuted repeatedly so the DRV justification above is false. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that "the BLP1E argument was refuted repeatedly." All I see in the AfD to counter BLP1E is you saying "the person is the topic, not some larger event in which she played an incidental part" (with which I also disagree), and various assertions that the number of mentions she got in the press somehow exempt her from BLP1E. Her article says nothing notable about her outside the context of this 1E. - Brian Kendig (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You should perhaps look at our exchange in which I made yet another point by observing that BLP1E does not indicate deletion. You disagreed but it seems that the closer did not buy your argument. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is, it does. Read BLPDEL: "Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed." 1E is part of "this policy", and it's nearly impossible to fix a 1E objection about someone that's only notable for one event. Sceptre (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- based on the closer's reasoning, probably should have been a no-consensus, but since that defaults to Keep anyway, no point in changing anything. BLP1E was addressed and refuted in the AFD, and besides, this isn't AFD part 2. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it wasn't. To address and refute BLP1E, you need to show notability for a second event. Steel falls way below the baseline for ]
- Endorse that there was no consensus. I think people get too worked up on deleting this stuff just to follow the letter of BLP1E... a policy that was created to deal with negative articles on people of very marginal notability. Maybe when the dust settles we'll want to delete a lot of these articles... but if they're of a person who's getting a zillion news stories at the moment for a positive or neutral reason, it really just seems a waste of energy to run into a buzzsaw trying to get their Wikipedia article deleted on principle. --
Chiliad22 ( talk) 17:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC) [reply- Steel has exactly one news story about her in the past 24 hours, and even that's marked as "satire" by Google. This is just her fifteen minutes. Sceptre (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- but 413 in the past week. --
Chiliad22 ( talk) 17:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC) [reply- Exactly, fifteen minutes of fame. Sceptre (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse close I can reasonably see the BLP1E argument here. Indeed, if I had commented in the AfD, my primary comment would have been something like "let's wait a week and see where this goes. Leave an article for now". If the basis of BLP1E is to do no harm, then we shouldn't too worried about people who are arguably BLP1E when the covered event is clearly extremely positive. A no consensus close in this case seems completely reasonable. If in a month the situation is unchanged then we can AfD it again. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason?
talk) 19:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC) [reply
- I was asked just a few hours prior to the placement of this request for a comment (though not by the initiating editor). I'm not sure of this review generally as I've considered the AFD discussion prior to close and as I noted during the close the keep's were generally more convincing. Further there wasn't a solid consensus, meaning it'd default to keep anyhow. I, like everyone thus far commenting here endorse the close, and I remain confident it was the best choice. I cannot understand why the initiating editor believes I've erred in judgement, surely not because I've came to the opposite conclusion of what they were hoping for.
247 20:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
- overturn to no consensus (Yes, I know that could be said to be pointy as the outcome is largely the same). I'm not sure exactly what to do with huge coverage vs. oneevent, but no consensus probably best summarizes it. Hobit (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Editors can appeal keep closures? endorse.
talk) 02:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC) [reply- Why should the close be endorsed? Sceptre (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse appellant appears to be overlooking the "and is likely to remain a low profile individual" clause of BLP1E. Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - I think consensus was judged correctly in this case-- the "keep" arguments were stronger than the (well refuted) "delete" arguments. Here's my data:
My tally of the arguments
|
keep worldwide coverage in RS
keep no BLP1E argument
keep (author)
keep (per above)
keep newspaper coverage, notable
keep good refs now
keep might be BLP1E, but passes WP:MUSIC several times over
keep and let it develop
keep making headlines around the world
keep passes WP:N
keep good sourcing
merge to series
merge to series
merge to series
delete, WP:NOTNEWS
delete BLP1E
delete BLP1E
delete another reality show contestant
delete textbook case of BLP1E & NOTNEWS (well refuted)
delete BLP1E
delete appearing on a talent show is not notability
delete no real notability besides a few articles (well refuted)
|
— LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How many times must I say that you can only refute 1E by either showing notability for a second event or by arguing that said person had a notable and undeniable societal impact? Steel has neither. Sceptre (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse keep. Cannot see how this article is harmful to the subject as it is very well-sourced. Decisions on whether it passes or fails the NOT#NEWS policy is dependent on consensus, and that was not present for this AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A no consensus result in a BLP discussion should default to delete, and I would overturn and delete bearing that in mind. No objection to recreation if she puts out an album or something.
talk) 08:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC) [reply- Is this your interpretation of policy? Otherwise, I'd appreciate a link to the relevant bit of the deletion policy that supports this view. I understand unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material should be deleted, and the entire article for that matter if the article is bad enough, but what you've stated above isn't that so I'd hope you could direct me in the right direction. Cheers,
247 10:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
- There is no such part of policy. It's not even close. BLP was created to ensure accuracy of the articles and specifically address negative information about living people. Steel's article has no accuracy concerns or negative information. - Mgm|(talk) 10:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But BLP applies to any biographical information about living people. Not just negative information. A positive-slanted BLP would still be eligible for deletion per 1E if said person was notable for one event. That's not even considering the fact she's a minor and thus we should presume privacy over her fifteen minutes. Sceptre (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted above this was addressed in the AFD debate and needn't be rehashed here. I appreciate your tenacity in having your point heard, but please keep this discussion on the deletion closure itself.
247 11:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
- It's not my interpretation of policy, but it is how I have seen some AFDs closed and thought it was a precedent.
talk) 13:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC) [reply
- Endorse. I would have merged and redirected the article, had I been able to figure out where to merge it (there doesn't seem to be a place yet for information about BGT contestants who don't merit their own articles), but I see nothing wrong with the closure of this AfD as "Keep" and the rationale given ("no solid consensus"). - Brian Kendig (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse default keep, but change to "No Consensus" - While there wasn't a consensus to delete this article, there wasn't a clear one to keep it either.--Oakshade (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I guess a "no decision" could also have been the result, but that would have defaulted to keep anyway. The article provides multiple reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability and that was what carried the day at AfD. Alansohn (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But not notability for more than one event. God, I feel like a broken record. Sceptre (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The 'keep' arguments seem to be based on the premise that she's not low-profile right now. Give it a few months, and I believe she'll have become low-profile, and then perhaps an AfD will succeed. - Brian Kendig (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One could argue she's low-profile right now with the emergence of another Auditionee-Who-Does-A-Shockingly-Good-Performance-Of-A-Song-From-A-West-End-Musical. Sceptre (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus. The closing rationale confuses me – keep is bolded, but the extended comments indicate no consensus. Flatscan (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per Linguist. I'd like to say clearly, here and now, that there is no consensus suggesting that a BLP1E should default to delete.
I do, however, think there should be a wider discussion on whether it should.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse but closer may wish to amend to "No consensus". Hard to see that as a clear anything.
-- Banjeboi 21:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC) [reply
- Endorse Keep as sympathetic as i am to the 15 minutes BLP1E argument, this is sociology worthy of coverage, reality shows are culture, and wiki needs to cover, even if the talent quality is equivalent to the average church choir member. pohick (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse but amend to no consensus I think the BLP1E argument was correct, but this is not the place to rehash it. Nja correctly diagnosed a lack of consensus on the matter. We could revisit the topic after a suitable amount of time, at which point I think those of us who supported by BLP1E argument can reasonably expect to be vindicated. RayTalk 16:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
