Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 March 21

Brett Perlmutter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

believe the closer of the discussion incorrectly interpreted that consensus was not reached. All comments supported deletion, except for comments from the account that created the page in the first place, and who has made few other contributions to Wikipedia. Some comments supported merging some data into existing article, but consensus appeared to be for deletion Ksoze1 (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Consensus was reached. Only disagreement came from the user who created the BLP under discussion. Said user's only contribution to Wikipedia was the creation of this BLP. Discussion supported the assertion that the subject fails to meet the notability requirement. Only disagreement came from the article creator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksoze1 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your listing here implied that you wish to overturn the decision, so adding a further bolded comment may incorrectly lead the closer here to believe that there is more support for overturn than there is. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, that comment is factually incorrect. As well as the article creator, the original AFD nominator was in favour of some merging, as were two other contributors. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • You are correct. What I meant was that the lack of consensus was whether to delete outright or to delete and merge some data. From what I can tell, the only editor who argued for keeping the BLP was the creator. I do believe that consensus is possible outside of SadHaas and Lobsteroll's comments Ksoze1 (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarifying here: I was the original article creator and was not in favor of merging or deleting. No consensus was achieved. Keeping the article is very much in play, as editors other than myself have put forth valid arguments as to why subject meet the BLP requirements Lobsteroll (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Per the archived debate, the only editors supporting preservation of the article were Lobsteroll and IP address 67.53.60.250. - No registered account other than Lobsteroll suggested that the article be kept, although Lobsteroll did vote to "keep" three different times Ksoze1 (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. I'm curious whether Stifle realized that the discussion had just been relisted only seven hours earlier. It apparently hadn't been successfully removed from the old AfD log, so it probably looked as though a week had already elapsed post-relist. In any event, I agree with BD2412's relisting comment that further input from experienced editors is needed. The discussion had a high proportion of inexperienced editors making questionable arguments and !voting multiple times, and there's a reasonable change that a second week of discussion will yield higher-quality participation. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that is a valid point and something I missed. Whilst there is no requirement that a relisted discussion be left open for a full week, it might well have been better to leave open and see what develops. If User:Ksoze1 would be satisfied by that, I am happy for the AFD to be speedily reopened and relisted for another week. Should that happen, I would ask that whoever performs that task strike all the duplicate !votes, which I had to wade through. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Absolutely satisfied for discussions to be reopened. I think additional commentary would be very helpful in deciding outcome, and agree that duplicate votes should be struck. Ksoze1 (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep AFD closed. Very Clear that this was a no consensus case. Very clear also that Perlmutter meets BLP requirements of noteworthiness for more than one event. Reopening for discussion is totally unnecesarry . Lobsteroll (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Stifile. I think this discussion page is a good indicator of the !votes that are to amount to a non consensus should the page be relisted. Lobsteroll (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Note SadHaas' contribs seem to be only about this entry Lobsteroll (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @user:Extraordinary Writ, per Stifle's confirmation that this should be speedily reopened and relisted for another week, would you be open to blacking out the close (BD2412's relist is already on the page) so that the original relisting can be fulfilled? To honor concerns voiced by the original creator of the article, I feel that a more experienced user should take this step Ksoze1 (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Relisting was indeed unnecessary here as no clear consensus was reached. I created original page but other users did not support deleter or merging, as Perlmutter DOES meeting BLP notability requirements. See original discussion. AFD should remain closed / not relisted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobsteroll (talk • contribs) 16:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking second bold-faced comment by the same editor, who I will now topic-ban from continued participation in discussions on this subject due to their behavior. BD2412 T 04:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. Agree with BD2412's relisting comment that further input from experienced editors is needed. Seven hours post relisting was insufficient for additional commentary from experienced users — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadHaas (talk • contribs) 16:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I read “no consensus” with no sign of a consensus developing, and no imperative to do anything. Follow advice at
  WP:RENOM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I believe that in the case of a discussion being tainted, or suspected of being tainted, it is better to close and make a fresh start on a couple of weeks (not two months). While a good closer can sift and discard the meatpuppets, this is much more challenging for the average editor, and in these discussions the average editor who should be heard.

  Note that the tainting goes both ways, with the AfD nominator being a

  WP:DUCK. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Relist Need more experienced editors to participate in this AFD. See WP:Discussions for discussion#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brett_Perlmutter. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:4CAE:9DE2:30BC:86D9 (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist (uninvolved) The only established user who made an actual argument and not a brief perfunctory comment was Extraordinary Writ. The claim that I do not believe there will be further useful arguments generated is unsupported as there is no reason to assume other AfD regulars won't participate. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist as original relister. Once the discussion had, in fact, been relisted by me, it should have been allowed to proceed. This was quite frankly a very fishy discussion from the start, with an excessive amount of activity on both sides of the argument coming from accounts that are otherwise very low-activity accounts. A deeper look by more seasoned editors is required. BD2412 T 04:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist because the most recent relist had only lasted for 7 hours and wasn't long enough to generate more consensus.
  casualdejekyll 18:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• endorse I agree with User:SmokeyJoe that better to close and give a fresh start. Given level of noise and discord even among experienced editors, humbly including this opinion as potentially contributing to no consensus, my sense is that is the most wise way forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.220.95.38 (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Could the closer consider relisting as a semi-protected AfD, please. It might also help to semi-protect this DRV.—S Marshall T/C 08:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• A bit of a mess. I agree with relisting and having the AfD semi-protected. Starting a new AfD with semi-protection would also be fine. Hobit (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse - On the one hand, the close was a valid exercise of judgment by the closer, and I concur that both "sides" had already presented their arguments and that neither position was likely to persuade the side. On the other hand, the closer was rude to the relisting admin in cutting off discussion a few hours after a relist. Letting it run for another seven days would have been better, but the closer was within limits. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, as I admitted above, I did not realise the relist had been performed the same day, as it was still coming up in the "awaiting closure" log of the 21st. I politely invite you to withdraw the suggestion of "rudeness"; I was at worst "careless". Stifle (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to say, this appears to be a an understandable oversight rather than rudeness. BD2412 T 14:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Overturn to Relist - It appears that there was a slow-motion
  Edit Conflict, and that one closer was relisting while another was closing. The best action is to Relist, but recognize that the Relist will still probably result in No Consensus, because both "sides" have presented valid arguments. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment. I appreciate the thoughtfulness of
    WP:DUCKs at play. The most effective way forward is to close out the AFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.220.95.38 (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

  Comment. I also concur that extended the AfD will likely result in no consensus. Likewise, as @SmokeyJoe points out, relisting and restricting the AfD is suboptical because it unnecessarily discriminates against less experiences editors. Keeping the AfD closed -- at least for now -- seems like the right way forward for the community. 50.220.95.38 (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  IPs should be banned from all project space discussions. If you have even registered an account, you are breaking WP:SOCK by posting here. Even if you have never registered, your past involvement is not available for scrutiny. Please WP:Register if you want to get into backroom discussions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Is that a policy anywhere? I don't think that it is. Regardless, IP, if you don't want to be affected by semi-protection then you can just register for an account and do the whole four days ten edits thing

  casualdejekyll 23:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  WP:PROJSOCK

  . Editing projectspace while not disclosing their main account is a SOCK violation.

  New accounts and IPs who look like they know what they are doing in this far back room look like

  WP:DUCKs. So I ask the IP: What is your editing history and how do you come to be editing this page? SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment. Given the direction this has gone (and as the editor who initiated the AfD review), might I propose as a compromise that the first AfD remain closed, and per the suggestion of @
  WP:SPA. I would like to defend that although I am not a frequent contributor to Wikipedia, I have had my account since 2015 and am certainly not a SPA or DUCK. I consider myself one of the "average editors" whose voice should be heard here, and I invite (encourage) any established user to reach out to me on my talk page, where I will gladly explain how I landed on this page and my role in this discussion. Ksoze1 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @Ksoze1: You have a grand total of 52 edits, and a five-year period of inactivity before suddenly reappearing to participate in the deletion discussion for this article. That is odd, to say the least. BD2412 T 01:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Odd indeed. I have made occasional minor edits in that inactive period for which I did not bother to login (again, an infrequent contributor). I came across this page through the "notable alumni" section of Kent Denver School, had an opinion on the issue, and made a point to log back in to comment due to the (understandable) distrust of comments made by new accounts and IP addresses. I frankly did not even remember my password and had to reset it, but I will also pose the question: do you think I created this account 7 years ago on the off chance I would one day get to muddy the waters on an AfD discussion for Brett Perlmutter? Please note that of my 52 edits, several older ones were specifically to completely unrelated AfD, an area I have a personal interest in contributing to. I repeat that I consider myself an average user and although there has been plenty of strange activity, I am an unbiased contributor to this topic. Ksoze1 (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll add that I was also inactive for 16 months between April 2016 and August 2017. If I am not simply an infrequent, average editor as I claim to be, you must admit I took some impossibly deliberate steps in my past to appear to be one. Ksoze1 (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Ksoze1 for the explanation, it is more than sufficient. I suggest that you should add something about yourself to your userpage.

    You do not look like SadHaas (talk · contribs), the SPA who started the AfD, poorly. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a theory that SadHaas (talk · contribs) and Lobsteroll (talk · contribs) are the same person, playing both sides in a pitched debate as an elaborate troll. Whether this is the case, or whether they are two SPAs that independently happened to pop up at the same time to argue over this article subject, it's an unfortunate thing to wander into. BD2412 T 03:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting theory. I have been under the assumption that Lobsteroll is Brett Perlmutter himself. Ksoze1 (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    While not impossible, the formatting of citations in the first version of the draft (which was Lobsteroll's first edit) are fairly precocious for a genuinely new editor. BD2412 T 05:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]