- Aubrey Wentworth (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I really think this should have been deleted, as I think the "no concensus" result doesn't actually reflect what is said in the discussion. My arguement was valid and really showed the article for what it is. That is not the issue here, while the passing view is obviously no consensus to an uninvolved admin - looking a little closer and actually reading the comments in the AFD - you can then see the faults and notice there was atleast some consensus to delete this article.
- Casanova88 said Keep because in his view Aubrey is central to the soap opera therefore should be central to Wikipedia.
- Carrite said keep because we should all "Embrace your inner pop-culture cruft"
- 173.241.225.163 voted keep HOWEVER - per another comment, which wasn't a for or against arguement, just a general question to me. The IP in question is also suspect - as his only contribs are to AFDs...
- Phoenix B 1of3, said said keep because the article should exist as a sourced stub to pass GNG - however I highlighted the results of various google searchs in my nomination and this drew attention to the fact that no RS sources exist - therefore failing GNG in the first place.
All those who offered opinions to remove the article, including me talked about policies and guidelines. There were five in favour of deletion, six including me. There was also one "Procedural keep" in which the editor states the article should be deleted because they felt it was non notable. So that makes seven reasons to delete - This is compared to three keep arguements - three because one of the four was the IP who just voted instead of giving a view. So can you see what I mean that there was some consensus present, because at the end of the day, did those with the keep stance offer valid AFD comments. RaintheOne BAM 23:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you want an involved admin closing an AfD debate? I'd think that one would want an "uninvolved admin" being the closer, as that significantly lessens the chances of a conflict of interest arising from an admin who was on the record as holding an opinion on keeping or deleting said article. Additionally, RfA is not a vote. One two three... 00:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant uninvolved in a different way - an admin could involve themselves in the task they are taking on by reading the comments in full. I know RfA is not a vote. However, I struggle to see how you reached your decision other than counting up the bolded words. Otherwise you would have atleast acknowledged that two arguements for keeping, acutally had the editors brand the subject in question as "cruft" and "non-notable" - with one of them adding in capital letter that the article should be removed from Wikipedia and then citing guidelines as to why they beleived so. I also do not think you read my statement above properly either, as you state "RfA is not a vote" - I pointed out what people said, what the general consensus in that discussion was.RaintheOne BAM 00:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you counted up the number of arguments for each side, and then used that to frame what your definition of a "general consensus" is. One two three... 06:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Before two of you reply to each other further, let's read ]
- Hey George, I have read the guidelines a couple of times before nominating here. It is the first time I have ever done so because I feel there has been a breach. It is not personal to One, I genuinely think he was just following procedure and closing a relisted AFD, it is just that this one has an odd chain of comments - So I'd like to back up my general belief that we are all here to improve wikipedia and say sorry - but I still think there is an obvious consensus here and I'd like willing parties to give a slice of there time to read the AFD.RaintheOne BAM 06:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete. As one who voted to delete the article in question, I too am surprised by the outcome. As I mentioned in the AfD discussion, all the keep arguments have been refuted or were based on opinion rather than policy. Raintheone has elaborated on this at better length above so I don't think there is much more I can add. Consequently, I respectfully support Raintheone in questioning the AfD outcome just as I stand by my original view that the article be deleted. ClaretAsh 10:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. This was an accurate close, although it could have benefitted from a clearer explanation by the closer, and I would encourage One to be more expansive with his closing statements in future. It's a pity that the correct outcome combined with its policy-based reasoning did not emerge during the AfD, but "no consensus" was the right route to it.
Where the "delete" voters were right was in their focus on the sources. As a group, they correctly pointed out that there are insufficient sources to sustain an article about the fictional character, and they correctly determined that notability is not inherited from the actress to the character. With the honourable exception of JuneGloom, they then incorrectly construed this lack of sources to mean a "delete" outcome. It does not. What a lack of sources means is there should be no separate article for the character. It does not mean "delete". In fact, per smerge" to a list of characters for the relevant series. Therefore, there should not be a separate article but Aubrey Wentworth should not be a redlink. Because One correctly did not delete the article, interested editors can now get together on the article's talk page and form a consensus about what to do next. If the consensus is in accordance with policy, a merge or redirect will be the outcome. If One had incorrectly deleted the article, then this route would not be available, so his close was correct.—S Marshall T/C 12:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply - S Marshall, how do you reconcile your comment on alternatives to deletion with the outcome of WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect (January–February 2011)? Flatscan (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I recall that RFC very well, and thank you for starting it. The reason why I would distinguish that in this particular case is because I see the debate itself as defective. The RFC was about how to deal with merge or redirect !votes at AfD. In this case, there was about half a merge or redirect !vote (the one from JuneGloom) and the matter was not discussed, but per
WP:ATD, I really do think it should have been. So our role here is not so much to examine a contested close, but rather to correct a defective debate.— S Marshall T/C 09:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC) [reply- The inconsistency I see here is that merge considerations not stated in the discussion effectively receive more weight than explicit merge arguments, since the entire discussion is devalued as "defective". I think that merging was considered and rejected by participants. ClaretAsh wrote that "even a merge is probably unjustifiable" (diff of full comment). Other delete supporters pointed to
WP:PLOT (Jfgslo) and a lack of reliable sources (Raintheone, Stuartyeates) – problems that will not be solved by merging. Flatscan ( talk) 05:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC) [reply- Well, the reason I disagree with that is because One did not close as "merge" or "redirect". He closed as "no consensus". I think that means that in practice, no consideration has really received any more weight than any other, has it? Certainly, in the case of a fictional character who has no inherent notability of her own, a redirect or smerge to the list of fictional characters to the series seems to be the normal outcome per Wikipedian custom and practice, and I think a semi-consensus to this effect emerged after the Pokémon/fictional character Wikiwars of 2006. (I've said "merge or redirect", but in fact I would not see a merge or smerge as correct in this case because the character already has her own very brief section in list of One Life to Live characters, and to expand it would I think give her undue prominence in that list, so strictly, I would see the right outcome as "redirect" rather than "merge".) Early in my first remark I said it's a pity that this outcome did not emerge from the AfD.
Basically, I feel that the February RFC ought to lead to fewer findings of merge, smerge or redirect in XFD discussions, and more findings of no consensus instead; and I think One's close was generally in line with that. I do think that specifically with fictional-character-related XFDs, our normal custom and practice is to maintain one list for each series or franchise, and I don't think it's too unreasonable of me to say that discussions about fictional characters where this option is not fully discussed are defective.—S Marshall T/C 10:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That raises an interesting question: In closing an XfD, is it the closing admins place to make qualitative judgements about the discussion or simply to recognise its thrust? I can see arguments either way. The reasoning behind this deletion review, I think, is that One should have followed the latter course. However, what appears to have happened is that s/he either made a qualitative judgement (justified or otherwise) or merely opted for no consensus as the easy option. ClaretAsh 12:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Qualitative judgments. For example, it's uncontroversial that sometimes a !vote will need to be disregarded, either because the person making it lacks standing (e.g. a sockpuppet for a blocked user), or because it is somehow at variance with our norms (e.g. a !vote of "Keep! The sources are lacking, but who cares?") Closers have to assess the weight to give to each !vote. This is the reason for the epexegesis and tendency towards pleonasm that characterises Wikipedian debates.—S Marshall T/C 13:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It depends whether One meant no consensus for any specific option or the old "no consensus to delete". I think a consensus against a standalone article is pretty clear. Interestingly, I thought that the RfC, by treating merge and redirect separately from keep, would replace imprecise closes like "no consensus to delete, discuss merging on the talk page" with more specific outcomes. Flatscan (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also curious about which of those possibilities One meant. I see what you mean about imprecise closes, but I'm concerned about the possibility that this makes the closer into an edit-on-demand service. The risk I see is that the closer could potentially be asked to carry out quite complex editing actions (e.g. those involving history merges) as part of the AfD closure process, which doesn't seem entirely fair and may potentially put people off making certain closes. Or do you mean that the closer might say "the consensus was merge" without actually carrying out a merge?—S Marshall T/C 12:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Standard procedure, per ]
- I'm concerned that by your own words, this makes a merge, which was previously an editorial action, into something administrators enforce that others do. The closer decides and others are supposed to do his bidding. Does this not seem unsatisfactory to you? I think many users would agree with me when I say that administrators aren't necessarily elected on the basis of their editorial brilliance...—S Marshall T/C 19:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Per S Marshall, there is not a really good policy-based rationale to support a delete !vote in the case of a fictional element that can be merged elsewhere. In fact, a "keep" close (or more specifically, the "merge" variant of keep) would have been reasonable reading of the policy-based arguments in the AfD.
talk) 16:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC) [reply
- Endorse as an accurate reading of the AFD discussion. We should put a summary end to the repetitive debates over "important" characters on US network soaps; they're covered in more than adequate depth in multiple periodicals which infest the racks of supermarket checkout lines, and (because they don't pretend that scripted content is anything but fiction) are more reliable (and often enough more literate) than the comparable sources we accept as demonstrating notability for professional wrestling characters. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If they are reliable, then why these "supermarket racks" have not been archived in libraries as either print publications or microforms of back issues? Never mind the internet and websites. --George Ho (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now if you'd checked, you'd have seen some fairly extensive library holdings of the print editions [1] as well as archiving via microfilm edition [2]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Microfilms in only
UCLA has microfilms; WorldCat's accuracy should be considered. -- George Ho ( talk) 23:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC) [reply
- One, would you provide a closing rationale, either here or amended at the AfD? Flatscan (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - My !vote was the "procedural keep". It seemed to me at the time that, regardless of the merits, there was no policy-based consensus to delete, and that there was unlikely to be during the course of the deletion discussion due to (a) several vocal "keep" editors that at least vaguely strayed into policy-support arguments; (b) a confusing and poorly-written TL;DR nomination, and (c) a lack of significant interest from delete voters despite two re-listings. Long AfDs create inter-editor conflict and rarely benefit the project (particularly with an article this bland and inoffensive) and, with or without policy, articles shouldn't be deleted if the community can't come to a clear consensus to delete. (After all, policy is only a documentation of past consensus.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those of us who opted for delete stated our position and backed it up. My perspective is that we felt we'd said everything that needed saying. In some cases, we went further by responding to the "Keep" supporters. I'd hardly call that a "lack of significant interest". ClaretAsh 08:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant numerically. The delete votes were intelligent and well-reasoned, but you know how it is at AfD - sometimes you see matters where you attract five delete votes in the first hour it's up, and sometimes (as here) you can still count the editors who care on one hand after two re-listings. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse 'no consensus' was the correct interpretation of the consensus at the AFD. JORGENEV 13:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I understand what was meant, that sentence is inherently illogical. Intentional humour? ClaretAsh 13:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete – The reasons for deletion are much stronger than the reasons for retention, in which the latter showed a significant disregard to the need for secondary sources to satisfy notability. –MuZemike 18:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete. This is one of those few closes that strike me as wrong "with the force of a five-week-old, unrefrigerated, dead fish". Flatscan's analysis is exactly correct. T. Canens (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - Is this a perfect article? No, it needs to be worked over with a chainsaw. That is an editing issue. The fact that this fictional character has been (essentially) incorporated on not one but two American television soap operas indicates cultural significance. No consensus means no consensus, and that's exactly what that debate was. Deletion review should be a place for the review of deleted articles, not a back door for disgruntled nominators to shop for a better result. You want to delete the piece? Bring it to AfD again after a decent interval, don't go making end runs around the process. Carrite (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Indicates cultural significance"? Can that be sourced? My interpretation of a character appearing on two separate shows is that some producer majored in marketing. ClaretAsh 07:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to something, probably re-close by another admin who hasn't commented here. A lazy close, made only one minute after the closing admin closed their previous AfD. That gives me no confidence that the admin engaged in any kind of evaluation of the discussion. Such an evaluation was plainly necessary on the face of the debate. Don't get me wrong, some AfDs can be closed that quickly. But not this one. The failure to thoughtfully carry out an administrative function in respect of a contentious discussion is reason to overturn it and have it done properly. --
Mkativerata ( talk) 06:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC) [reply
- weak endorse delete is likely a better reading, but NC is reasonable and within discretion. A closing statement would have been welcome. I'd not oppose a new nomination in the near future. Hobit (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
