Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 18: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→[[Leonard H. Tower Jr.]]: closing (overturn; relist) |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. |
||
--> |
--> |
||
==== [[Leonard H. Tower Jr.]] ==== |
|||
:[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard H. Tower Jr.]] |
|||
:Article currently userfied at [[User:Lentower]] |
|||
AFD was closed about 1 day early, with no consensus yet formed among established editors. (Established editors include at least those from the nominator through [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] at the top, plus those at the end from [[User:Samsara]] on. Depending on how the opinions are counted, the nose count is either balanced or slightly in favor of keeping. AFD closure comment was "The result was '''Speedy Delete'''. Vanity, and [[WP:SNOW]]; this is not going to pass, but just invite more meatpuppetry." The deletion log edit summary note says only "AFD". |
|||
Three separate contributors, including one of those opining for deletion, asked the closing admin to reverse themselves. This has elicited the further explanation that "I did take a look at the votes in the AfD. However, I speedied the article not as a result of how the AFD was going, but because I would have speedied it if I had happened upon it and there had been no tags. In its current form, the article was a vanity page created by the subject that did very little to establish the notability of the subject." However, as the article contained an assertion of notability, the article did not meet speedy deletion criteria A7. There was enough content and context to drive the AFD discussion, so criteria A1 and A3 are not met either. |
|||
One argument for deletion was violation of [[Wikipedia:Autobiography]], however as was pointed out in the AFD, that guideline says that "Deletion is not certain". A second was violation of [[Wikipedia:Vanity]], which guideline says "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of assertion of notability is." The third, and in my eyes strongest is that [[User:Mangojuice|Mangojuice]] was unable to find any reliable sources on him, beyond being a FSF director, and that not being enough to meet [[WP:BIO]]. (Note that Mangojuice was one of those requesting the closer to reopen the AFD.) The keep opiners were of the alternative opinion that Len met [[WP:BIO]]. So I don't see consensus in the discussion to date. |
|||
I therefore request that we '''overturn, undelete, and relist''' because there was no consensus in the AFD and no valid basis for a speedy deletion. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 18:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn and relist'''. Even after excluding the multiple socks, I don't see a consensus. SProtecting the discussion might not be a bad idea. [[User:Fan-1967|Fan-1967]] 19:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**I don't have time to look it up, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a guideline or policy against semi-protecting AfD discussions. - [[User:Samsara|{{{2|Samsara}}}]] ([[User talk:Samsara|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Samsara|contribs]]) 16:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn and relist''' per nom. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 19:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn and relist'''. No valid reason was given for the speedy deletion; vanity is not a [[WP:CSD|CSD]], and what Ryan was probably thinking of - A7 - is irrelevant because it was clearly "disputed or controversial" after several regular editors had called for keep. No valid reason was given why the discussion had to be closed early. Perhaps had the discussion run its course, then a properly reasoned 'delete' closing, citing the lack of reliable sources noted by the last few contributors to the discussion, may have been coming. However, this isn't one. I can't endorse deletion on a basis of "right outcome, wrong reason" because the question about the sources requires that the full discussion period (which is five days) is completed in order that sources may be looked for and discussed by those that wish to defend the article. Why on earth make an obviously contentious 'speedy' deletion one day before the AfD would have been up for proper closing anyway? At the time of closing the backlog on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old]] was five days, closing this discussion early instead of closing one of those that had been waiting since September 5th was pointless. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 22:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''' This DRV is odd, since I told all the concerned parties that they were perfectly welcome to recreate the article if it conformed to the relevant style guidelines and policies. This seems like process fetishism, but if you guys want to go through the motions of process before recreating the article, knock yourselves out. --[[User:Ryan Delaney|Ryan Delaney]] [[User talk:Ryan Delaney|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] 00:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*:You didn't mention it in the AfD closing summary or the deletion log; which means that until you wrote the above, the only people who knew that were the people you chose to post that to. Messages on the talk pages of 'concerned parties', whoever they are, aren't much help to anyone who finds an empty space where an article used to be and tries to find out why it was deleted. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 01:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:* '''Comment''' - ...And editors may run the risk of [[WP:CSD|invokation of CSD G4]] as well. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer ]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo|iablo]] 04:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn and relist''', I would assume in good faith that closing sysop may have accidentally lumped up keep votes by both anonymous users/sockpuppets and legitimate editors. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer ]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo|iablo]] 04:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Endorse deletion''' as [[WP:AUTO]]; allow creation of a ''much better'' article [[iff]] reliable, neutral secondary sources can be found. "Keep and expand" is a null vote; if someone thinks the article can be expanded from reliable sources they should do so, and then maybe it will be kept. This was a poor article; two paragrap[hs of which one was "Len is known to feel that personal fame and personal publicity is a distraction from actually getting things done", and three links to Tower's websites. If this was a person who'd been a director of Sainsbury's instead of FSF then I don't think we'd even be having this conversation. Do we need stub articles written by their subjects? I think not. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 14:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
** '''Comment''' Note that a FSF "director" is nothing like the "Fortune 500" type of directors that you might think of, some CEO-type who goes to meetings once every two months and does nothing - notworthy or otherwise - in between. The hacking and free software community in general, and the older subset which started FSF in particular, are volunteers who made possible great things such as there even being any free/open source software today in the first place (such as that which powers this very site). These are people who, 20 years ago, started and maintained a massive effort for producing every tool and utility necessary to have a fully working system that could be available for free, and from which people could take and learn or modify. A small group of people, getting by on donated hardware from MIT and the community, every single one of which made a direct and very substantial contribution to what exists today in terms of actual free software and the whole [[FOSS]] software philosophy. Do not mistake their notability here for simply being "director" in the sense of a Sainsbury's director or whatnot. [[User:Capi|Capi]] 21:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::* Membership of the board of a large company is not small potatoes. In the UK, that's what directors do. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 22:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse deletion''' Electronic ink spilled on various deletion discussions exceeds e-ink spilled on the article itself by 5000%. If you want this person to be listed on Wikipedia, write an '''''article''''' on him. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 16:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse deletion''' as per Guy and trialsanderrors. While the closing admin used the term "Speedy Delete" in the closing, I don't see that this was really much of a speedy delete (there seems to have been 4 and half hours or so left on the 5 day clock). I suppose non-satisfaction of CSD technically applies, and we could reopen this for about 4 and a half hours... but I don't see any compelling need for relisting based on Closing Admin's judgement. [[User:Bwithh|Bwithh]] 18:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse deletion''' Multiple "he's a great guy, keep" votes are not valid reasons to keep this article. Fundamentally, it fails WP:BIO. If process is the issue here, reopen it for 4.5 hours, but the outcome of deletion was correct. If you ignore the meatpuppets, the consensus was an obvious delete. [[User:pschemp|pschemp]] | [[User talk:pschemp|talk]] 03:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**I see four non-single-purpose-account editors arguing for keep and five for delete. AfD is not a vote, admin discretion yadayadayada, but what admin discretion means is that an admin can close in a way that could not obviously be described as 'rough consensus' if there is a good policy-based reason to do so, which they should lay out, which wasn't done here. (As I'm not psychic, I can't really take into account a post-event justification on "involved parties'" talk pages.) The 4.5 hours aren't particularly important, though they add to the impression of a rushed, opinion-led close. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 12:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**How is it that the consensus was an obvious delete when there were 6 regular editors arguing for keep and 5 for delete? <sup>[[User_talk:Ryan_Delaney#Leonard_H._Tower_Jr._on_deletion_review|[1]]]</sup> (plus, arguably, [[User:Ambar|Ambar]] for keep, who has few edits but was here long before the AfD started so is clearly not a SPA) The 4.5 hours aren't even the issue, although they do make the process seem strange as per Sam Blanning. [[User:Capi|Capi]] 15:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*Ryan took the right decision. It was 4.5 hours from closing time, and there was a flood of delete votes. Ryan made the correct [[WP:SNOW]] projection. Check the time stamps and the case will be clear. - [[User:Samsara|{{{2|Samsara}}}]] ([[User talk:Samsara|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Samsara|contribs]]) 16:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**That doesn't make much sense. 1) AfD is not a "count of votes" (if it were then Keep would have won by like 500%). 2) Even if it were, three people happening to vote ''delete'' in a period of 3 hours constitutes a flood that overrides 7 votes from regular editors to the contrary? Should we all just wait until the last day then, and hurry to vote 2 hours before closing so that our position will win? 3) [[WP:SNOW]] itself counters the very argument that the speedy-delete could ever be justified by SNOW: ''"If a clear consensus for non-deletion is quickly reached, discussion may be closed before the end of the typical period".'' If any consensus at all had been "quickly reached" on that AfD, it would have been to speedy-keep. 7 votes from regular members throughout the vote period with no delete vote whatsoever until the final day hardly plays in favor of your argument for a speedy-delete... Furthermore, SNOW also says: ''Conversely, the policy also states that "any substantial debate" is a good reason not to close early.'' Speedy delete made no sense in that AfD. Even closing as normal, it would have been a very close call. There was clearly no consensus for deletion, in fact if anything there were more votes to keep than to delete (even if we only consider votes by regular editors). [[User:Capi|Capi]] 19:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**I think the amount of opposition to this close, both in terms of process and lack of consensus, this is an excellent example of when WP:SNOW ''should not'' apply. If there is a correct projection, this wasn't it. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 16:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*** I think that if it had been an ''article'' instead of a two-sentence stub, of whichone sentence was blatant editorialising, plus a link farm, we might have had a different outcome. Feel free to write an actual article if you can find the sources, Jeff. None of us here are goign to objct to that, as far as I can see. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 16:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
****None of us here might not, no. We're not the be-all end-all, however, and that's not what the DRV is about. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 16:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*****(Discussion length)/(article length) now at 7000%. This is no longer process wonkery, this is process wankery. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 17:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn and relist'''. DRV is about process, and speedy delete was out-of-process. If you are endorsing deletion based on the fact that you think it ''should'' be deleted (and I'm leaning that way too), then you should make those arguments in the AfD. [[User:Themindset|Themindset]] 18:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Overturn speedy-deletion and relist''', possibly as a semi-protected nomination in order to keep the sockpuppetry under control. While I am confident that the page will be deleted from the articlespace, closing the page as a "speedy" when there is substantive discussion already underway is clearly inappropriate. The criteria for speedy-deletion are deliberately written very narrowly and must be interpreted strictly. They are to be used only in situations where ''any'' reasonable editor looking at the page will reach the same conclusion. In any situation requiring judgment, the decision is to be made through the community XfD process. Attempting to usurp that process can not be tolerated. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 23:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:* Yes it can. When the debate is more puppet theatre than AfD, for example. Trialsanderrors is right - it can't be very often when so much energy has been expended to support re-running of an AfD on an article with one valid sentence and thrtee links! I was going to go and write a better article myself, but I can't find much in the way of reliable sources. Which was, of course, the problem all along... <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 12:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn''' as per nomination. After 4+ days of the AfD, there was nothing resembling a consensus for deletion. Given the number of '''keep''' posts by experienced editors (6-5 for retention, if I counted correctly), there is no reason to believe that a consensus for deletion could be possibly reached in the next day. If anything, it should have been closed early as '''keep'''. Clearly, as adduced above, none of the CSD were met. I posted to [[User:Ryan Delaney|Ryan Delaney]]'s talk page asking him to undelete it, but instead he suggested re-creating it, which seems odd to me; as we all know here, re-created articles are often speedily deleted again under CSD:G4, and there is an (entirely reasonable) bias against re-created articles (hence my request for undeletion, and support of this DRV). Sometimes process matters, sometimes it doesn't; this seems to be one of the times it does. --[[User:MCB|MCB]] 01:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn'''. This is not a good situation. --[[User:TruthbringerToronto|TruthbringerToronto]] ([[User_talk:TruthbringerToronto|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/TruthbringerToronto|contribs)]] 16:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn and relist''' as a semi-protected AFD. Looks clearly out-of-process, let's not make a habit out of closures like this. [[User:Recury|Recury]] 17:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**Now at 10000%. And still not a single reliable source offered. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 19:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
***This isn't about the article. It's about how the AFD for it was closed. <small>[Uncivil remark removed ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 20:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)]</small> Give it a rest. [[User:Recury|Recury]] 19:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn''' and undelete. why was it closed early? |
|||
Revision as of 14:54, 23 September 2006
- Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)