437:, I would have been acting unreasonably to close as delete. No consensus and keep are both variants of "not-delete", and the article was duly not deleted. As I said in my closure and subsequent discussions, the purpose of the AFD discussion is to come to a consensus, on whether the subject of the article meets inclusion standards or not. This is a question of fact, and the consensus was that he does meet the standards. The closure that the esteemed nominator appears to want is the so-called "supervote", that is to say he appears to want me to dismiss arguments to keep because they're "wrong" and therefore close as delete. I consider myself very strongly on the deletionism side of the del/inc spectrum, but there is absolutely no way I could justify a
178:, not that it meets. The third says "I'm unsure how this impacts on policy" and further goes on to say "Read Erindipity, liked it, would like to know more about the author". The fourth keep !vote said "per Snappy. Meets Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people)" despite Snappy (the first keep !vote) not being able to identify which notability guidelines the subject meets. I cannot see how an administrator could interpret that as consensus. Consensus is supposed to be supported by policies and guidelines that were developed using broader community consensus which this clearly has not.--v/r -
419:
What sources? That's my point, the keep !votes couldn't possibly have looked at them. Wordpress and a non existent website? That's the best that can be found on this individual? They were very poor !keep votes and that should've been taken into strong consideration when closing the AfD.--v/r -
387:
Stifle's close. The article might be a bit on the light side, but there's no good reason to delete it--he's clearly a real, and at least marginally notable person. Note that the last three !votes were keeps--hard to justify closing an AfD trending keep like that as anything other than keep, even
458:
It's not that I feel consensus was to delete, but I do not agree at all that consensus was to keep. Both resulting in non-delete is beside the issue. The issue is that judging it as "keep" attaches a certain stigma against future AfDs as BabbaQ has pointed out. There was no consensus based in
296:
There are 4 items in the EL section and in none of them is David Kenny the subject. There are two book reviews of his works one by his own newspaper, one by its sister title. WP:BIO asks that he be the subject of multiple secondary sourecs indpendent of each other and of the subject. He has none
173:
despite the general guideline being "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources." Review of the article shows 1 blog reference and a link that no longer exists despite being added only two months ago. The context of the second ref seems to suggest it was only a trivial mention
369:
The closing admin is right that our guidelines, which are only guidelines, are subject to their application by the community in individual cases. The GNG isn't the only path to notability. It never has been. The keep !votes weren't so objectively weak as to warrant an alternative outcome. But I
250:
Even a no-consensus would be acceptable so as any further attempts to send to AFD are not met with "Hmm this article has "survived" two Afds with a Keep result. Perhaps that should count for something". I disagree that the consensus was to keep based in policy--v/r -
459:
policy. At this point though, I've taken it as far as I'm willing to go over the matter. I feel there has been enough attention here that if you all really feel to endorse it, than far be it for me to keep arguing over it.--v/r -
168:
The closing administrator said as his rationale that "it is not for me to differ" when the !votes leaned 2:4 in favor of keep. However, when reading the keep rationale there nearly isn't any. The first keep vote claims it meets
349:
and leave well enough alone. This is a difficult one with respect to the merits--technically he does meet WP:AUTHOR, but it's really borderline & my personal opinion is we should draw the bar above this.
151:
506:. I agree with Stifle except for his last sentence, which I think might be a typo. If as I suspect Stifle meant "delete" where he said "keep" then I am wholly in agreement with him.—
388:
though, per DGG, editors can disagree that this was the right result. Erring on the side of keeping allows improvement, and it's possible to renominate later should the need arise.
48:
34:
43:
311:
Jclemens, if there are RS reviews in the EL section, why are they not used as references? The answer is because they are not about the subject.--v/r -
39:
139:
519:
21:
282:
Did you not notice the RS reviews in the EL section, or are you discounting them for some reason that's not obvious to me?
239:
pretty weak, but even allowing for that, we've got a no consensus at best. A delete result here would be unsupportable.--
160:
566:
89:
17:
205:
551:
537:
523:
492:
480:
466:
453:
427:
414:
397:
379:
361:
341:
318:
306:
291:
277:
258:
243:
225:
209:
192:
78:
375:
302:
273:
216:
Hmm this article has "survived" two Afds with a Keep result. Perhaps that should count for something.--
515:
489:
463:
424:
315:
255:
189:
182:
542:
Thanks for fixing the typo. You really had me confused. Now I fully support your position. Cheers -
268:
No consensus. Something odd going on here. Subject has zero secondary independent reliable sources.
201:
547:
410:
393:
337:
287:
405:
The consensus reached at AfD was rather clear that the sources provided established notability.
533:
476:
449:
371:
298:
269:
221:
109:
175:
170:
507:
486:
460:
421:
312:
252:
186:
179:
543:
406:
389:
357:
333:
283:
240:
75:
529:
472:
445:
217:
105:
70:
471:
I'm happy to change "keep" to "no consensus, defaults to keep" if you wish.
352:
332:
The article shows a solid consensus for "keep" in both previous AfD. -
200:
Reviewers can read for themselves what I actually said 'in full'.
174:
anyway. The second keep vote says the article "basically" meets
485:
I'd be agreeable to that, thanks for the offer.--v/r -
146:
132:
124:
116:
370:wouldn't die in a ditch if this got relisted.--
8:
88:The following is an archived debate of the
63:
7:
185:21:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC) v/r -
569:of the page listed in the heading.
28:
565:The above is an archive of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
1:
552:14:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
538:13:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
524:11:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
493:17:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
481:16:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
467:13:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
454:09:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
428:14:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
415:04:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
398:02:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
380:01:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
362:01:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
342:03:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
319:14:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
307:12:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
292:02:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
278:22:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
259:22:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
244:22:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
235:-Admittedly, the keep !votes
226:21:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
210:21:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
193:21:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
79:18:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
297:because he is not notable.
592:
528:Typo fixed, thank you :)
572:Please do not modify it.
95:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
435:Endorse own closure
92:of the page above.
579:
578:
522:
583:
574:
514:
512:
163:
158:
149:
135:
127:
119:
97:
64:
59:17 February 2011
53:
49:2011 February 18
35:2011 February 16
33:
591:
590:
586:
585:
584:
582:
581:
580:
570:
567:deletion review
508:
159:
157:
154:
145:
144:
138:
131:
130:
123:
122:
115:
114:
93:
90:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
589:
587:
577:
576:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
432:
431:
430:
400:
382:
364:
344:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
262:
261:
247:
246:
229:
228:
214:
213:
212:
202:RashersTierney
166:
165:
155:
142:
136:
128:
120:
112:
100:
99:
84:
83:
82:
81:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
588:
575:
573:
568:
563:
562:
553:
549:
545:
541:
540:
539:
535:
531:
527:
526:
525:
521:
517:
513:
511:
505:
502:
494:
491:
488:
484:
483:
482:
478:
474:
470:
469:
468:
465:
462:
457:
456:
455:
451:
447:
443:
440:
436:
433:
429:
426:
423:
418:
417:
416:
412:
408:
404:
401:
399:
395:
391:
386:
383:
381:
377:
373:
368:
365:
363:
359:
355:
354:
348:
345:
343:
339:
335:
331:
328:
320:
317:
314:
310:
309:
308:
304:
300:
295:
294:
293:
289:
285:
281:
280:
279:
275:
271:
267:
264:
263:
260:
257:
254:
249:
248:
245:
242:
238:
234:
231:
230:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
198:
197:
196:
195:
194:
191:
188:
184:
181:
177:
172:
162:
153:
148:
141:
134:
126:
118:
111:
107:
104:
103:
102:
101:
98:
96:
91:
86:
85:
80:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
44:2011 February
41:
36:
23:
19:
571:
564:
509:
503:
441:
438:
434:
402:
384:
366:
351:
346:
329:
265:
236:
232:
167:
94:
87:
74:– endorse –
69:
58:
372:Mkativerata
299:MoyrossLADY
270:MoyrossLADY
106:David_Kenny
71:David_Kenny
510:S Marshall
444:closure.
544:Ret.Prof
407:Alansohn
390:Jclemens
334:Ret.Prof
330:Endorse:
284:Jclemens
241:Fyre2387
20: |
504:Endorse
403:Endorse
385:Endorse
367:Endorse
347:Endorse
233:Endorse
161:restore
125:history
530:Stifle
473:Stifle
446:Stifle
442:delete
266:Relist
218:BabbaQ
176:WP:GNG
171:WP:GNG
358:talk
147:watch
140:links
52:: -->
16:<
548:talk
534:talk
477:talk
450:talk
439:keep
411:talk
394:talk
376:talk
338:talk
303:talk
288:talk
274:talk
237:were
222:talk
206:talk
133:logs
117:edit
110:talk
32:<
353:DGG
152:XfD
150:) (
22:Log
550:)
536:)
479:)
452:)
413:)
396:)
378:)
360:)
340:)
305:)
290:)
276:)
224:)
208:)
76:Ed
42::
546:(
532:(
520:C
518:/
516:T
490:P
487:T
475:(
464:P
461:T
448:(
425:P
422:T
409:(
392:(
374:(
356:(
336:(
316:P
313:T
301:(
286:(
272:(
256:P
253:T
220:(
204:(
190:P
187:T
183:P
180:T
164:)
156:|
143:|
137:|
129:|
121:|
113:|
108:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.