Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 August 11

Paul Shearer – Close resoundingly endorsed by everyone, including the DRV nom; requested redirect has been created, by the deleting sysop; and that leaves nothing to be done.—S Marshall T/C 12:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I was just watching some old clips of

WP:ATD-R, this should have at least closed as "redirect" really. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not disputing the reliability of your single source, but why not discuss it with me before filing a DRV, per the instructions at the top of this page? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well there wasn't anything to discuss, other than "Hey, you didn't do anything wrong but just a head's up I want to discuss this with a wide audience". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you intend to work on the article and find more than the one source; I would've just restored it for you, no need for all this formality. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I'm not even sure you can redirect this. If PMC is willing to restore this to draftspace, though, I have no problems with that outcome and we can close this early. SportingFlyer T·C 15:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close but allow restoration in draft, as per SportingFlyer. While it is no longer required to discuss with the closing/deleting admin before filing a DRV, it is recommended and might have saved time and effort in this case. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any source material beyond the Fast Show link - my intention was to get a redirect out of this. If it goes to draft I'll probably forget to do anything about it (as I seem to have a tendency to given how often G13 notices turn up on my talk page). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If all you want is a redirect then just create one - this possibility was not discussed in the AfD so there is no consensus against it and you can just create one. Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut the gordian knot and created the redirect. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fabioso! Muchoso grazioso! Sminky pinky, eth eth eth eth eth eth eth Arbotros Commitos. Boutros Boutros-Ghali! Poutros Poutros-Podremos 333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment - Huh??? Robert McClenon (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Do a Google video search for "sminky pinky" or "chanel 9 fast show" Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. It's not much of a source, brief, non-dependent, promotional, while it verifies, it does not support notability. Add the source and content to
WP:BEFORE and failing to mention the possible redirect target. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Endorse but allow re-creation in draft if that is what is being requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Isak Hansen-Aarøen – Endorse. There is some feeling that the AfD didn't do a good job of analyzing sources, but there's a pretty good consensus here that the close was correct. If somebody wants to take another shot at writing a better article (i.e. with sources that clearly address the issues raised at AfD), I'm willing to restore the old content to draft space. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I added some reliable sources and made comment on the deletion discussion page, but Malcolmxl5 ignored them and deleted the article. Comments made on discussion are misleading (he HAS played on an international level for Norway U15 and U16, he has played MORE than 1 minute and so on). The Norwegian First Division may be not fully professional, but there are many existing articles about footballers who played in not fully professional leagues (say Charlie Allen (footballer, born 2003)). He has already played in 7 games in Norway. I don't understand the difference between his case and Luqman Hakim Shamsudin, Hannibal Mejbri, Charlie Allen (footballer, born 2003) & many others. Some sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] Corwin of Amber (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The discussion's outcome was clear. Youth internationals do not count towards international status for notability reasons, the comparison to other articles is irrelevant (I question whether Shamsudin or Allen should have pages yet or at all), and while there's a
WP:GNG. I would have !voted delete myself.) The good news is he will likely be notable enough for an article as soon as significant non-transfer coverage is generated, but that doesn't mean we should restore the article now. SportingFlyer T·C 15:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Not all of the coverage is of his transfer: he is the youngest Tromsø debutant ever, he was the captain of Norway U16 team and scored a hat-trick against Slovakia. Yes, the transfer attracts a lot of attention but the kid actually plays football for professional football club and internationally. WP:GNG argument was not rejected by any arguments, it was completely ignored. Corwin of Amber (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The consensus is clear and Malcolmxl5 role is to only assess it. Accusing the good admin of ignoring your comment is totally wrong and I'm not in support of it. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 17:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The close was proper, and it seems that other editors considered the sources and did not agree that the GNG was met, nor that a professional club in a not-fully-professional league counted for notability. This seems to have been a case of
WP:TOOSOON. No bar on recreating with additional sources, either in draft or in the main article space. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The problem with the AfD is that folks just said things like "doesn't meet the GNG" when there are, in fact, plenty of sources that appear to be way over the bar. And some of them are from more than a year ago [10] so they greatly predate the transfer in question. relist in the hopes the sources can be discussed. I get that the SNG isn't met, but the GNG seems to be plenty fine. Hobit (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The appellant appears to be re-litigating, saying that the closer didn't supervote. Even if the facts were as the appellant says, it was still a valid close. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by re-litigating? Malcolmxl5 who closed the discussion advised me to review of his close here. I saw no analysis of sources during the discussion. I don't blame "the good admin", I want to see the assessment of provided sources and I don't see it. I added sources to the article after other editors' remarks and they were ignored. Corwin of Amber (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what bothers me is how do we treat statements like "doesn't meet the GNG" in a !vote when there are sources that certainly appear to meet the GNG. Lots and lots of them. I think the closer can't *keep* on that basis, but certainly could, and IMO should, relist in that case. Hobit (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that we have a situation where there are literally more than a dozen sources that are in-depth, have good coverage, are independent and in reliable places but everyone is just okay with "doesn't meet the GNG" or similar things. I mean what's wrong with the sources we have? I listed one. Take that and say the first 2 listed in the DRV by the nom here. Can anyone say why they don't meet the requirements of the GNG? We are very much in
WP:VAGUEWAVE-land here. Hobit (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Overturn and relist to allow analysis of the sources (which doesn't appear to have happened), basically per Hobit. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but allow draft. If new material exists it will be examined when resubmitted. Wm335td (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

IDLC Investments Limited – Endorse -- RoySmith (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

)

Added secondary sources. The company is notable on the ground that it is awarded the best institution in its category by a reputed international organization for three consecutive times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itrat2019 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who closed the discussion as "redirect" to parent company, I took a look at this. If by secondary sources you mean this edit, I don't see how that gets close to
WP:NCORP. (t · c) buidhe 08:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Endorse. The consensus of that discussion was clearly in favour of redirecting the subsidiary companies to the parent, without prejudice against merging content to the parent company and additional sources and content not in the original articles can be added there. If the content about a subsidiary grows to the extent a separate article is justified then consensus for a split will be easy to obtain and override the older consensus here. Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I'd like to see the 3 best sources you have for meeting
WP:CORP. But the AfD close reflects the discussion. So unless something really important got missed, redirect is the right outcome. Hobit (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Endorse - A valid close, and the right close. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse good close. Wm335td (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

WP:V, a significant majority of participants seem to consider this a step too far in the fuzzy line between "weighing of arguments" and "closing as a supervote", and that the closer would have been better advised to make a contribution to the debate. Opinions are split over whether the solution is a keep or a relist, but User:BD2412 has now relisted it, so any further participation would seem to be best directed towards assessing the article's suitability for inclusion, rather than the process - particularly as improvements to the article seem to have been made. ~ mazca ^talk 17:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

There were 3 participants in this discussion, all of whom voted to keep the article. The closer instead chose to draftify the article on the grounds that the sources were not independent, but this was not mentioned in the discussion. See also my conversation with the closer at User talk:BD2412#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Smith (DJ). – bradv🍁 02:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are zero independent sources in the article; irrespective of statements by editors participating in the discussion, all three sources are webpages of the BBC, for whom the subject works. No indication has been given that any other sources exist, so this can not meet the GNG, no matter what the headcount is for people who say that it does without providing the necessary secondary sources. The job of a closer is not to count heads but to weigh the arguments in light of policy, and in this case the applicable policy is crystal clear. The article could have been deleted, but draftification at least allows for the possibility that secondary sources might be found. BD2412 T 02:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. BD2412 should have participated in this discussion rather than closing it given his thoughtful analysis above which was against the clear consensus of the participating editors. So we should relist it with his close as a !vote. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the discussion had already been relisted once, and there was no additional participation in the second round. I took that into account when closing the discussion. BD2412 T 03:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did note that. All the more reason to participate rather than close in this instance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you wrote what you did here at the bottom of the afd instead of the top, then any subsequent close other than delete or draftify would have been solidly incorrect. Instead, we're probably going to end up overturning this purely on procedural grounds and giving this more weeks of discussion. Your options as a closer aren't limited solely to "close" or "relist" merely because a discussion's fallen onto
    Cryptic 03:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - Had I written something to the effect of, "hey, closing admin, you should consider this", I would merely have been kicking the can down the road for someone else to handle. BD2412 T 04:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - And this entirely-predictable DRV isn't? —
        Cryptic 04:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      - That's called a !vote, and it's the thing to do when you have an opinion on a consensus discussion. – bradv🍁 04:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I did not express an opinion; I weighed the arguments in light of policy. BD2412 T 04:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        You literally ignored every opinion in the AfD and substituted your own. – bradv🍁 04:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Overturn to keep~~. Relist. It's rare to see something like this from a respected and generally level-headed admin, but this close is well wide of what constitutes admin discretion. Weighing arguments is one thing, but the close has to reflect the basic thrust of the debate, and if a potential closer doesn't see merit in any of the points raised, they should refrain from closing it and cast a new vote instead. That allows others to scrutinise and debate the new point, which is why we have AFDs in the first place. — Amakuru (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Amakuru, I think overturn to keep is procedurally fair, if not correct, but BD is correct in the flaws pointed out. I think our encyclopedia is best served by letting others weigh in on those points because, as you note, that kind of reasoning is why we have AfD discussions in the first place. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, fair enough. BD had a point to make, and it's right that it should be heard. I don't think it's in any respect a clearcut delete though, even with BD's viewpoint added. The others argued that the sourcing is sufficient and that's the point of having the debate. Changing vote to relist. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse from
burden for showing compliance with verifiability lies with those who want to keep or reinstate material. Enforcing compliance with core policy is something the closer is expected to do even if it wasn't brought up in the discussion. Here all the sources cited were written or published by the subject's employer and are clearly not independent. I suppose the closer could have relisted the discussion but it was relisted once already with no additional participation. Given the state of the article at the end of the discussion it can't be allowed to stay in mainspace. Hut 8.5 06:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
- I am really rather shocked at the number of experienced editors who think that the verifiability policy can be ignored because of a local consensus, or even that one of our core content policies is a "bad argument at AfD". Yes, the closer is absolutely justified in bringing in verifiability even if nobody else did. From
  WP:DGFA, the guideline on how to close a deletion discussion: Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, [...]) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies. Where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, policy must be respected above individual opinions. That's exactly what the closing admin did here. Hut 8.5 17:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  That same argument could be used to justify any out-of-process deletion though, couldn't it? Do you really think that admins should be free to boldly delete things that they don't think are notable? If so, start an RfC to get "not notable" or "no independent sources" added to the speedy deletion criteria. – bradv🍁 17:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  That's not remotely comparable. We're talking about what happens when someone closes a deletion discussion, not speedy deletion, and notability isn't a core content policy (or even a policy). However the passage I've just quoted is taken verbatim from the relevant guideline, so if you don't like it then I suggest you start an RfC to get it changed. Hut 8.5 17:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:DP, a core policy, that states "If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators normally will not delete it." Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Well nobody deleted anything here and there's that word "normally". And

WP:DP isn't a core content policy, it's just a policy. Hut 8.5 06:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Endorse Upon closer review, a fantastic close which correctly applied
WP:BLP. The remedy is simple: find reliable secondary sources, add it to the article, and and move it to mainspace. SportingFlyer T·C 07:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

If the closer believed that, they were free to make the argument. Ignoring a discussion and implementing their preferred outcome that had exactly zero support in the discussion is a truly awful outcome. Heck, you could even close as no consensus, then boldly move it or start a discussion, but abusing your administrator position as the closer did, just because you think it's the right outcome, is never okay. Wily D 09:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: Only admins can verify this since the article was deleted, but editors such as Rillington were doing exactly what you suggest while the AfD was happening. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, anyone can verify it - it's been draftified! And Rillington added a single reference two weeks before the close which is a not-independent citation to reference material, which was clearly taken into consideration by the closer before the move. You're now clearly lying to try to support your argument, which is incredibly disappointing. SportingFlyer T·C 21:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the AfD starting; this is the source being added the next day. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The BBC profile is very likely a reliable,
independent" source. Independence is, for us, not an absolute. All biographical material has been written by one person about another – same species, same planet – so it is the degree of independence that counts. In this case reasonable people may disagree about the status of the BBC item. And it is not unreasonable to speculate that it might not be secondary – for example it might have been composed by Smith's agent rather than by a BBC researcher. It is for considerations like this that we have discussions and respect community consensus. Thincat (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't see how you can possibly argue that that's an independent source. According to Wikipedia:Independent sources#Examples (the very page you linked to) the subject's employer is not an independent source. The subject here has spent almost all his career working for the BBC, according to the article. Even if the BBC didn't write the profile they definitely published it, which means they had editorial control. And if it was written by the subject or their agent that doesn't help either. Whether a source is independent has nothing to do with whether it's secondary, those are separate concepts. Hut 8.5 12:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have clearly expressed myself very poorly. I was not arguing it was an independent source, I was trying to say it was arguable. My point about it possibly being written by the agent was against its suitably. And I was trying to make the very point that being secondary is different from being independent. What I was trying to say is that different people can reasonably hold different views on the fitness of the source(s). Thincat (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are cases where it's arguable whether something is an independent source, but this isn't one of them. I don't see how anybody can reasonably hold a view that this is an independent source. Hut 8.5 12:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relist - blatant supervote, without even the pretense the closer was trying to act appropriately. If they thought it should be moved to draft, then they should've made an argument to that effect, which could be agreed with, refuted, or whatever. Using your admin status to impose your preferred outcome on a discussion that in no way shape, or form supports that outcome is not okay, even if that outcome makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs) 10:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This is going to be relisted, but this position really does not make any sense at all to me - there wasn't a "preferred outcome," this appears to been something that was about to close as keep but upon closer review could not have remained in mainspace. Consensus can't keep an article that's not supposed to be in mainspace in mainspace if the article has fatal flaws, and those flaws are crystal clear here. SportingFlyer T·C 15:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @SportingFlyer: BD had more options than just "close as keep or close as draftify". I can think of two actions that would not have raised an eyebrow (participate with a comment as done here or relist with a more strongly worded version of the first relist message) and a third action which might have raised an eyebrow but I think would be unlikely to have landed here and if it did land here probably wouldn't have been overturned - close as no consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - In my reading, the fact "less controversial" options existed doesn't make the decision any less correct. Obviously that's not where the community's going here, but the fact we're spending time on this at DRV when "find a source and move it back" exists as a remedy is a waste of volunteer time. SportingFlyer T·C 15:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I myself couldn't find more sources other than his employer's (BBC), but that doesn't mean that BD is correct in his close (supervote). I think the discussion should be relisted one more time and who knows, more sources might come into light and until then. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 12:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Seems like the easiest way out of this log jam. In the meantime, I'll suggest to BD2412 they might consider how unfair it is that new admin candidates would get pile-on opposes if they suggested closing the AfD this way (the recommended answer is to !vote yourself), whereas nobody is crawling for a desysop here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. To be honest, I'm a bit surprised there are people here who want to endorse. Of course the closing administrator should have offered an opinion rather than closing the discussion; this ought to be the classic example of such a case. A couple notes: (1) We shouldn't treat draftify as a real ATD. Functionally, at AfD, a draftify is no different than a delete. Both indicate that the community has come to a consensus that the article is not appropriate for mainspace, and I would G4 an identical recreation of an AfD-draftified article just like if I had if the article had been deleted at AfD. (2) Closers may evaluate arguments presented at AfD for weight and policy correctness, but should not rely on arguments that simply have not been presented. Here, if the argument "it meets GNG" had been responded to with an argument about independence, the "meets GNG" argument could be given no weight. But if the independence of sources argument had been presented at the AfD (rather than being surprise-announced in a closure), participants would have an opportunity to make arguments in response to that (e.g. SNG notability, or there are indications that more sources exist even if they can't be found, or IAR notability, etc.). I don't think those apply in this case, but those who want to keep the article must be given a chance to refute the argument used to delete rather than see the closer's preferred outcome imposed as a supervote. Offering a !vote, rather than closing, would therefore be the appropriate choice for this AfD. t · c) 16:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, the
t · c) 16:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I am frankly disheartened by suggestions that I "ignored" the !votes in this discussion. To be clear, I did not. I considered them very carefully in light of policy, which absolutely requires coverage in independent sources. The votes to relist in this discussion are appeals to the hope that the discussion, once relisted, will draw some delete votes pointing out what is already clear, to give another administrator a pretext to close this according to policy without having to say out loud the fact that this is what we are required to do no matter how many !votes support including an article with zero independent sources. I would also point out that this entire discussion would be mooted if any editor could find and add any independent source to the article and submit the draft for review. BD2412 T 16:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand why that comment would be disheartening. What I would hope you would take away from this is that there are limits to how much you, and other closers, can weight !votes, and as such there are times when you'd be better off participating rather than closing. The idea is to not give pretext for a closer but to give them actual text, through discussion, which is the basis of our consensus process. It is a matter of fairness to editors who are not admins to be given an opportunity to rebut the conclusion your drew (and one which I think is a correct conclusion).
The other thing I would hope you would consider taking away from this is adjusting your reaction to feedback, especially feedback from respected community members, knowing how far out on a limb you were with a close. This was a bold close and I would hope you knew it was a bold close; the more bold the close the more willing I think a person has to be to walk it back when there is pushback. When Bradv, being who he is (a clearly respected and experienced member of the community and a sysop to boot) came to you, not having been involved in the deletion discussion, and raised concerns, that should have meant something. This discussion would have also been mooted if you'd given all the reasons you've given here and on your user talk about why you disagree but ended with "However, in light of your concerns I am willing to do X". To Ritchie's point, as an admin you have the privilege of getting away with things that non-admins cannot. Being cognizant and responsible with that privilege is, in my mind, the reasonable trade-off we admins have to make. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: I am not disheartened by the proposal to overturn the close, but by the apparent presumption that I did this without due consideration. Believe me, the easiest thing to do would have been to pretend that the "keep" votes had justified their positions and close it as a head-counting exercise, or to relist it again and say, "some other admin can worry about it". The original deletion nominator may not have articulated the issue with the sources, but it is apparent, and can not be cured anything other than the provision of policy-compliant sources. I did not do this flippantly, nor did I move it to draft as a means of backdoor deletion, as has also been implied. Subjects are moved from draft to mainspace regularly, once they meet the criteria for inclusion in mainspace. Could a draft reviewer possibly evaluate the article in its current state as meeting that criteria? BD2412 T 19:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are no "draft reviewers". Draftspace is not patrolled, except for the articles that are submitted to AfC. The whole namespace is a wasteland – this article will languish for six months until a bot scans a database report and tags it for deletion, at which point an admin will batch-delete everything in the
G13 category without looking. Draftifying an old article is the same as unilaterally deleting it, except with extra steps and less oversight. – bradv🍁 19:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:AFC. Any editor can submit any draft for review, and a draft that has been submitted will be reviewed in due course and promoted to mainspace if it is minimally compliant with criteria for inclusion. BD2412 T 19:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
You're not getting it. No one will submit it to AfC because no one knows it exists. There are no tracking categories for unsubmitted drafts, no queues, no NPP feeds. The only people that could possibly save it are the 11 watchers of the page. You might as well just move it into your own userspace. Actually, that would be preferable as then the article won't get deleted in six months. – bradv🍁 19:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this discussion is happening at all demonstrates that editors know this exists. My close was not secreted in some hidden corner. It is clearly visible to any editor who comes across it, and to those who participated in the discussion. It clearly links to the draft. You yourself could submit the draft for review right now, if you think it meets the criteria for inclusion in mainspace. BD2412 T 19:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BD, since you pinged me, I'll say that I think I know something about reviewing articles given my experience with New Page Patrol, where I serve as a coordinator, and my lesser though non-negible experience at AfC. There is a reason I've been pretty adamant that we shouldn't just overturn this to keep - I agree with your underlying point and am not saying this article should be kept. However, the community has not, in my opinion and seemingly in the opinion of multiple other people here, authorized you to use the toolset in the way that you did. I think you get this - I appreciate that you haven't mentioned IAR or NOTBURU once in this discussion even though you could have - and I appreciate you want to make your point about the quality of the article at hand. You've convinced me. Chalk up the win. I just hope that I, and others, have convinced you on the use the admin toolset in making it, otherwise I'll admit to feeling disheartened myself. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To add to Bradv's and Barkeep49's comments, BD2412, no one doubts that you carefully read and evaluated the comments. The issue is that you did so and then completely discarded all of them, and replaced them with a decision entirely of your own judgment. As many point out above, your logic wasn't faulty, but the role of a closer isn't to be the one "in charge" who merely reads the comments to inform their final decision. That's now how the consensus process on Wikipedia works. If you believe that they are wrong, and aren't taking into account a vital policy, you don't close the discussion: you point it out, and let another closer take that (and any followup opinions) into account. If that closer feels you are right and the discussion still hasn't reached that consensus, they should weigh in as a participant themselves. That's not "kicking the can down the road", that's properly establishing consensus for the correct outcome. We can't short-circuit that, no matter how right or how grounded in policy we think we are. CThomas³ (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relist A closer should not close a discussion with an argument that has not been presented in that discussion. If local consensus is ignoring policy, the correct course of action is to point that out in a !vote and allow discussion participants to properly evaluate the claim. Otherwise, we wind up treating !votes as mere suggestions for omnipotent closers who can unilaterally decide which policies apply and which ones don't. I think BD2412's opinion was absolutely valid, but it should have been a !vote and not a closing statement. CThomas³ (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to keep. A paradigmatic supervote. Despite what the closer stated, there are circumstances where an article may be kept even though sources may not be sufficiently independent -- for example, legislators whose bios are sourced to documents published by the government they serve in. No one has presented any evidence or reasoned analysis indicating that this national/major market radio host for more than three decades would not be covered in appropriate sources, and no one, especially the closer has even claimed to do a satisfactory search. No doubt it will be difficult and time-consuming to perform such a search because the subject has a common name, but "I don't have the time to do it right" is not a valid reason to ignore WP:BEFORE's requirements. No encyclopedic purpose is served by removing accurate information about a subject which it is plausible a reader might turn to an encyclopedia for information on. There are way too damn many editors who treat Wikipedia as a GOTCHA! "notability" game rather than an information resource. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that our criteria for inclusion should be amended to give radio presenters the same pass on independent sources that legislators get, by all means propose the creation of such an exception. As it stands, no such exception exists, and the only sources that reference this individual are promotional efforts by the entity for which he has worked, which the applicable policy currently deems insufficient. For the record, I have searched fairly extensively for sources on this subject, and found nothing outside the BBC referencing a "Tim Smith" who works for the BBC, although I found a number of references to Tim Pigott-Smith, a different person. BD2412 T 19:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you should realize that your reliance on your own search is pretty much an acknowledgment that your close amounted to a supervote. Second, I was rather plainly not claing any sort of special treatment for radio presenters, but noting a consensus practice, rooted in the "common sense" standard for applying guidelines, that certain institutions are so reputable that they may be treated as sufficiently independent sources for affiliated people. Cambridge, Harvard, Stanford are, for example, appropriate sources regarding their own faculty. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@
systemic bias there, and guess you're not British, aged between about 40-55 and a keen BBC Radio 1 listener in the 1980s, otherwise you might have remembered Tim Smith. If you do a Google search for "tim smith radio one" you get this page with a comprehensive biography, which shows he's been a long standing co-host for Steve Wright in the Afternoon. Now, if you've never heard of Steve "Love the Show" Wright and his Zoo format, particularly when (IIRC) they used to be enthusiastic about when Bum Gravy were gigging c. 1991, then consider yourself fortunate. However, it does mean that this is a far more notable subject than you give credit. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@Ritchie333: Can you point to any source that is independent of the subject's own employer? The entire issue here is that Wikipedia requires independent sources to demonstrate notability. Going through newspapers.com, I saw numerous passing mentions in radio schedules, but nothing more than that. If the subject is sufficiently notable, is there any discussion of them in any other source? BD2412 T 20:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, here, here, here and here; however, I'm not interesting in arguing over GNG right now, that's for the relist (if consensus goes that way). You're also missing the point that not every Tom, Dick or Harry gets to present on BBC Radio 2 - in fact it's quite a prestigious position, so to have a formal biography on the radio website is certainly "worthy of note". They don't write about any old bloke who's presented a radio show, otherwise I'd have a page there. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it's in draft, rather than deleted altogether. BD2412 T 21:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong overturn to keep There was no coinsensus to delete, and this is as clear an attempt at a supervote as i can recall. I might add that while our usual standard is that an employer is not independent of an employee, in the case of a large institution such as the BBC, consider that the pages are sufficiently independent to establish notability. I am not saying that I would have taken that position, but it is not irrational, and an editor could have found in good faith that this should be kept. No one in the discussion besides the nominator favored deletion, so BD2412 should not have closed it in the way that it was closed, but rather should have added a view and allowed someone else to close based on that view. Now I8 gather that Ritchie333 has additional sources to cite, which could be added to the draft as it stands, and brought back to main space with the draft if the close is overturned or the draft is approved. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to keep or Relist. That's the most blatant example of a supervote I've seen in a long while. If an admin thinks that there is an important point that an XfD has not considered the only correct courses of action are to (a) present that point in the discussion so that other editors can consider it, (b) close the XfD in accordance with the expressed consensus with that point remaining unconsidered or (c) move on and leave the XfD for someone else. Note: I have not considered the reliability or independence of the sources as DRV is not XfD round 2. Thryduulf (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think almost everyone is more-or-less wrong, sorry. First, I think a closer, when faced with a !vote that they feel doesn't touch policy, should probably contribute to the discussion rather than close. Doing so might have generated a more robust discussion, or at least left space for another closer to do something other than keep. Secondly, I don't think this is as clear as either the closer or those suggesting an overturn to keep are making out. There really is a strong argument that we lack independent sources. And that is a huge problem. That said, the BBC isn't some fly-by-night operation. And just how far from the part of the BBC he works for one was to get to be "independent" is a reasonable matter for discussion. So... relist seems like the best bet. There is a good argument that the subject doesn't meet WP:V or (for that matter) WP:GNG. That should be discussed. But it isn't so clear cut that a closer can just say "all these !votes are utterly wrong" and make the call on their own. So more discussion is the answer. Given the contributions to this DRV, I think it will be a much more robust discussion. So all to the good really. Hobit (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. A closer's job is to evaluate consensus in a discussion as presented by the participants of that discussion, and not to substitute consensus with their own opinion, no matter how "wrong" the consensus arrived at may be and/or how correct or policy-grounded the closer's opinion is. Closing the discussion as drafity, an option suggested by no one other than the closer themselves, is the definition of a forced-compromise supervote which is frowned upon. I quote a helpful statement from Wikipedia:Supervote: It is supervoting to close in favor of an undiscussed or unfavored compromise idea, which may satisfy no one.. That said, given the closer's sound rationale, and as suggested by others above, the discussion should have been relisted and his contribution should be restored as a vote. --Dps04 (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn with option to relist. Supervote. A potential closer who feels the discussion has tended towards the incorrect outcome should vote and attempt to convince others of their position. Closing against the consensus is not an action open to a reasonable closure, with the possible narrow exception of where the consensus contradicts a foundation-level policy such as
WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

comment for anything that seems uncertain, I generally think I can be more helpful joining the discussion than closing it.' DGG ( talk ) 15:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. ++++ Hobit (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very true. If there were an admin manual, this would be one of the first entries in it. And, as already noted, this frequently comes up as a question at RfAs too. I have the greatest respect for BD2412, they're one of our good admins. But the doubling down here on what was a fairly textbook example of a supervote, is certainly puzzling. Nobody is saying the point made was necessarily incorrect, just that it didn't fit as a closing summary. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 08:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to keep WP:GNG is not policy, but a guideline. The very nature of a guideline is that it is only the suggested usual thing to do in most cases, that it if there is clear consensus is to do something different, we can do it. That's IAR, which is policy. DGG ( talk ) 15:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~I don't know how much it really matters (policy vs guideline here) but WP:V, which is the basis for the deletion, is a policy. Hobit (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]
No,
Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Wow, you are right. Not sure what I was thinking. Hobit (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V specifically says "base articles on reliable, independent, published sources". Requiring independent sources is expressly an element of that policy. BD2412 T 04:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I thought I'd seen you make that argument, but didn't see it in the close, which is where I looked. I'm rocking it out today. Good night! Hobit (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to Keep - As per previous arguments, this was a supervote masquerading as a close. The fact that the closer thinks that they were right only means that the closer is in good faith mistaken. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn (to "Keep"). The close was a WP:Supervote. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Pursuant to this discussion and the improvements to the article resulting from my moving it to draft, I have reverted my close and relisted the AfD. BD2412 T 16:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.