Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 10

10 June 2021

Christian Saunders – No consensus, endorsed by default, but allow recreation as a draft with better sourcing. If somebody wants to create this as a redirect, they can do that too. Most of the people arguing to endorse noted that while various AfD participants asserted that there were good sources, nobody provided specific examples. On the other hand, most of the people arguing to overturn felt that sourcing was adequately demonstrated at the AfD. One thread explored the limits of the closer's discretion. Should the closer be limited to determining which arguments are policy-based, or may they also weigh the relative strength of the arguments that they've determined are indeed policy-based? This question was raised both in the DRV itself and in a side-discussion on the closer's talk page. I don't see any consensus on that, but it's a fundamental enough question that I thought it worth noting here. Finally, I urge everybody to avoid ad-hominien arguments. Discuss the close, not the closer. If you have problems specifically with the closer, there's better forums for that. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Christian Saunders (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The nomination argument was Gets some mentions, but not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Five editors participated in the discussion. Two !voted delete. Three !voted keep, two of whom said there was enough coverage to pass WP:GNG (this gentleman, incidentally, headed a major organ of the UN and has been described in one article cited on the page as one of the most senior British officials of the UN). The closer, however, went with "delete", with the comment The "keep" opinions are weaker because they do not address the sourcing problems. But they did. It is an opinion that sourcing is not sufficient; it is an opinion that it is. There was no reason to give less weight to the arguments of the keep !voters, who were in the majority, given they had addressed the concerns of the nominator (and did not agree with them). With all due respect to the closer, this appears to be a supervote. It should have been a no consensus at worst, a keep at best. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC) Endorse I think that was a reasonable close. The Keep comments focused on him being notable by virtue of holding certain positions. Two of them mentioned the GNG but they didn't provide any supporting evidence or argument ("Clearly enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG" and "Easily gets enough coverage in reliable independent sources to pass WP:GNG"). The debate was relisted with a request for the Keep side to point to specific sources, nobody did. And the OP seems to be ignoring the nominator in concluding the Keep side were in the majority (the debate was tied). Nor is it exactly obvious that the GNG is met based on the sources in the article. While the article did cite plenty of sources, almost all of them were published by the United Nations and therefore aren't independent. The only ones which don't originate with some part of the UN are [1] (doesn't mention him) and [2]. I'm not surprised the participants didn't think those constituted significant coverage. Hut 8.5 12:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC) Overturn Yet another Sandstein supervote. It's not the closer's job to frame the debate, decide what issues are or are not vital and then make a casting vote. The !voters were reasonably experienced and knowledgable editors and the purpose of the close is to establish whether the particpants arrived at a consensus or not. In this case, they did not and so the correct close is therefore no consensus or a relisting to get further input. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC) I'm clearly involved (and had I participated later in the discussion, probably would have made a more substantial argument to !delete, since I thought this was a pretty easy call) but considering the relist came with the note "are there any sources which show the GNG is met?", the delete !vote after that didn't think so, and the final keep !vote just made another "must be notable" argument, I don't think this was an unreasonable close - and I also think it's the correct result, based on the sources I've been able to identify. SportingFlyer T·C 19:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC) As closer, I stand by my assessment and refer to my comments at User talk:Sandstein#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Saunders. Sandstein 19:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC) Endorse one side making vague waves that the person must be notable and the sources meet the GNG without any description of how they do, on the other you have claims that the sources aren't upto the requirements of the GNG as being passing mentions. Given the keep opinions stated there was "easily enough coverage" and "clearly enough" I would seem absolutely trivial to refute the delete arguments so I don't see that a fault of the close that they didn't (particularly in light of the relist comment). Delete opinions cannot prove the negative (sources absolutely don't exist), keep opinions on the other hand can demonstrate the positive by citing those sources and how they meet the requirements of GNG. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC) Endorse The Keep !votes largely amounted to "he's a notable aid worker" which is not a qualification listed in the subject-specific notability guidelines. The Delete !votes were "does not pass GNG" which describes a WP policy or guideline. (Two Keep !votes referred to the GNG and suggested a multitude of sources existed, but didn't demonstrate such; the existence of sources must be demonstrated, not merely declared. Meanwhile, extant sources were rebutted by Delete !votes by pointing to WP:SIGCOV without challenge or surrebuttal by the Keep !voters.) Because "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" (WP:CON), the close delete was an accurate application of our consensus-determining policy by weighting several quality arguments against several non-quality arguments. Chetsford (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC) Overturn to No Consensus or to Relist - The error by the closer was in stating that the Keep entries had not addressed sourcing, but one of the Keeps had referred to sourcing, and had been made before the Relisting admin requested more input on sourcing. The closer should either have said that there was no consensus, or relisted again. Relisting again would have been the best option, but we do not ask whether the closer chose the best option, only a reasonable one. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC) The close states "do not address the sourcing problems" not just sourcing. None of the comments address the issue of depth raised by the nominator, none of them address that other than assertion about quantity - no mention of suitable depth. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 06:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC) Overturn to NC or relist per Robert McClenon. It's one thing to evaluate which !votes are policy based and which are not--that's a closer's job. It's something else entirely to judge the strength of opposite policy-based arguments. This would have been a perfectly fine relist or a textbook no consensus, but I agree--there should not have been enough difference accorded the !votes to swing this one to either a keep or a delete. Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC) Endorse as within discretion but I would have preferred no consensus. Worthwhile discussion now at User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2021/June#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Saunders. Nomination: inadequate sources; keep adequate sources; delete inadequate sources with reason given for one source (the rest?); keep adequate sources; delete inadequate sources; keep topic important. I am unhappy when people !voting keep are expected to point to or demonstrate the sufficiency of sources when those !voting delete are not expected to itemise why none of the sources are adequate. I would let both sides take their individual subjective opinions and so would have closed no consensus. However I think closers should be entitled to take a sterner line. I have not seen the article (and I don't think I need to). Thincat (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC) My view of this discussion changes depending on the height from which I look at it. Seeing it from ground level, I note that the keep side of the debate made assertions about sources, whereas the delete side of the debate gave an analysis of the sources. With all due respect for Necrothesp's nomination statement, if there was a Masloe's Pyramid of AfD Arguments, the delete side would be higher up the pyramid. If more closers took the kind of view that Sandstein did there, then the quality of AfD would be improved. Looking down on it from 5,000 feet up, it looks a bit different to me. By a strict application of our rules, we're not allowed to delete articles about people who once played professional-level cricket for 15 minutes in 1973. We're not allowed to delete articles about townships in Where the Hick, Idaho (pop. 80), or articles about individual episodes of Star Trek, or that article about the precognitive octopus. But the strict and careful application of our rules does require us to delete an article about this accomplished and successful man who rose to the top of his profession and whose decisions profoundly affected the lives of many. Looking at it from 30,000 feet, I find that I would be unable to explain to a non-Wikipedian why we had to delete this article without making our rules sound pretty badly thought out.—S Marshall T/C 09:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC) I don't really agree with your conclusion. It's really not that hard to be eligible for a Wikipedia article, but the guidelines don't include being accomplished and successful. SportingFlyer T·C 09:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC) But our guidelines advise us to allow for exceptions and use common sense. And our WP:NOTBUREAU policy (what a terrible shortcut) tells us no policies or guidelines should prevent us from improving the encyclopedia. Thincat (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC) Common sense dictates that if you can't use reliable secondary sources to source an article, especially a BLP, then they shouldn't be eligible for an article. As soon as we start chipping away at that, we get into WP:ILIKEITisms and value judgements. SportingFlyer T·C 09:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC) And that's my exact position. This outcome is in accordance with the rules, and I don't like it.—S Marshall T/C 10:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC) Then I can't say much more apart from cricketers who spend 15 minutes on a pitch are actually allowed to be deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 14:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC) Try it.—S Marshall T/C 14:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC) I have occasionally mentioned the concept of Wikipedia notability to non-Wikipedians, and they do usually appreciate the principle of "you're notable if people have written about you". In an ideal world there would be as many people writing about a senior UN aid worker as a Star Trek episode or an octopus predicting football matches, but that's a defect with the world in general, not just Wikipedia. Hut 8.5 16:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC) Temp undeleted for DRV WilyD 10:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC) Maybe I should have asked to see the article (but I was assessing the AFD not the article). At the AfD no one mentioned reliable sources. It was entirely about significant coverage, even the close. Thincat (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC) For deletion, a strong argument would have been that our verifiability and BLP policies require reliable sources and without these no substantial material remains. Why were we wasting our time on notability? Thincat (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC) (involved) Comment The closer here presumed assertions of a lack of notability to be correct, while assertions of notability were denied ... at the very least the closer in justifying delete needed to provide analysis of *why* they presumed assertions of a lack of notability to be correct; as such, I concur with the nomination, the closure is a supervote and not an assessment of the discussion. I also respond to SportingFlyer's characterisation of my !vote as "another "must be notable" argument" ... I think a good faith assumption here would be that we're all capable of making qualitative judgments on a case by case basis regarding inherent notability (which is what I was calling for) and this case is a particularly useful demonstration of the peril in applying black letter law to the GNG. It's not as if we're discussing Bjarni Prior, the Mayor of Vágar and former B36 Tórshavn player. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC) Endorse but allow recreation as draft with better sourcing. Arguments for keeping seem primarily based on the presumption of sources existing, which can only go so far when sources aren't really provided. This can (and should) be recreated if someone turns up these presumed sources. Hog Farm Talk 16:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC) As a delete !voter in the discussion, I completely support this. SportingFlyer T·C 20:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC) Redirect to 2019_in_the_United_Nations#November per WP:ATD-R. Not meeting the GNG does not mean deletion if there is a redirect target. Undelete the history. Consensus in the AfD was that the existing sourcing did not support a standalone article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC) The 1973 15 minute pitcher should be redirected too, to the team, or the list of players in the season. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC) I wouldn't call bowlers pitchers, you'll trigger the cricket nuts. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC) Endorse. Keep votes amounted to "there are definitely sources go find them and use common sense". That's not how things work round here. No objection to redirection, or to recreation as draft, or to restoring if someone actually provides the sources rather than hand-waving. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC) No they didn't. They said "there are enough sources in the article already". Completely different thing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC) I'd have voted for an IAR Keep in the AfD. I'd prefer relist here. If nothing else, we might be able to agree on a good redirect target here. I'm also okay with overturn to NC as there wasn't one. But relist is better. Hobit (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.