371:
criminals, tyrants, or madmen) simply because none of the sources have anything nice to say about them. We just summarize the objective facts of the person, and then neutrally report on notable third-party views and opinions about them. I am by no means arguing that overturning the deletion decision here would be an endorsement of the article in its current state, and I agree it has sourcing and POV issues that need to be addressed. If restored the article would need to be pared down to a small fraction of the original in order to bring it into line with our policies. —
208:. The article does indeed depend too much on primary and non-reliable sources, and this is perhaps why the reliable ones were overlooked by the closing administrator. (Note that, if the decision is overturned, it would definitely be possible to pare down the article such that it covers only those aspects of the man's life and work which have attracted sufficient scholarly and press coverage.)
370:
isn't the appropriate procedure, then what is? Second, I don't think your interpretation of NPOV is correct. A subject which has received significant coverage in reliable sources is notable irrespective of the point of view of those sources. We don't omit articles on unpopular individuals (such as
286:
I think it's important to be clear that the AfD closer's role is to review the debate, to summarise the consensus reached by good faith participants, and implement it. I disagree with
Psychonaut in that I think it's not the closer's job to review the sources. The debate participants are supposed to
269:
for deletion on the grounds that the subject has no notability via coverage in reliable sources; that would certainly be a policy-based argument, but an examination of the references in the article itself would show that it doesn't actually apply to that case. In this case I don't think anyone was
226:
per the AFD, unfortunately. I say unfortunately because this is the kind of stuff I find really interesting, but not everything that's interesting, weird or unusual is necessarily going to be a good encyclopedia subject. The AFD was extremely clear, with a delete consensus if you're just counting
231:
vote, (2) gives no reasoning at all, (3) an IP, presumably someone logged out, repeats the no-reasoning vote and notes the previous AFD and (4) says it's "a shame" to delete the article but admits it's borderine. So yeah, not a single, solid, policy-based argument among them. There are places to
385:
On your first point, DRV can, and sometimes does, conclude that the debate closer was right to close as they did, but the debate itself needs overturning because some important point was missed. There's a clear example of this, which contains a lot of pertinent discussion about the principles at
301:
out of a confused old man who's now died. It can never be anything else because it's based on sources that also take the piss out of the confused old man who's now died. There aren't any in-depth sources that don't; sources about the stage play are not sources about Mr Dec. Therefore it's not
256:
I'm not arguing that there was no consensus to delete the article, or that the administrator misjudged the consensus; I'm pointing out that the arguments made for deleting the article, while grounded in policy, were not actually supported by the evidence. Closing an AfD involves a bit more than
423:
for
Psychonaut. I don't think that this had a strong notability challenge. The subject has clearly been noticed. WP:BLP is not an issue. The fact that sources don't treat the person with respect is not a sufficient reason for deletion. The biggest challenge is meeting verifiability. It is
184:, a recognized authority on eccentric individuals. The publisher is independent of the author, and both the publisher and author are independent of the subject. Dec is also the subject of a 1999 biographical stage play which was reviewed at least four times in the New York press, including
365:
I have two comments on your post, the first of general principles and the second specific to this article. First, if the closer's duty is only to identify the consensus, then generally speaking, what recourse do we have when that consensus is later found to rest on false premises? If
291:
a close which accurately reflected the consensus at the time. That doesn't oblige us to agree with the debate's conclusion, and we can require a relist despite endorsing the closer's actions, but DRV should always support a closer who's correctly divined the
392:
On your second point I very much see what you're saying. To me, the issue is that we don't have a source that takes Dec seriously. They're all essentially mocking and use words like "kook"; they treat him as a figure of
302:
currently possible to write something neutral. NPOV is policy, so this falls on its face before we even start to consider notability. To allow this article, we'd need a source that doesn't treat its subject like a joke.—
270:
acting in bad faith; I suspect that the reliable sources, buried as they were among a slew of unreliable ones, were simply overlooked. Indeed, there was no specific mention of them by either side in the debate. —
232:
find info on Dec, but it's often a fine line between reporting on fringe weirdness and posthumously making fun of a mentally ill person. There are places to do that, but
Knowledge really isn't one of them.
159:
459:
may be notable enough for her own article, but that does not make anyone she mentions in her zines automatically notable. A graphic designer who says he used Dec as an influence hardly counts as a
294:
We're currently in breach of the terms of use. Please would a sysop restore the contribution history of the copy in
Seduisant's userspace, so the contributors get proper credit.
424:
unusual that a subject more easily meets WP:N than WP:V, but here it is possible that much underlying material is apocryphal. I have not attempted to review all sources. --
227:
votes and an even stronger delete consensus if you're weighing arguments. There were 4 bolded keep votes: (1) acknowledges the lack of reliable sources and admits it's a
180:
is a correct copy of the article, then I see numerous secondary sources which serve to establish notability. Dec is the primary subject of a chapter in a 1994 book by
387:
74:– Deletion endorsed. The article may be (properly) userfied on request. I'm speedy deleting the copypasted userspace version as a copyright violation. –
48:
34:
443:
per the AFD. The closing admin's decision accurately reflected both consensus and relevant policies. No important points or sources were "overlooked".
265:, and other policies in their arguments; it's also necessary to examine the premises upon which those arguments are advanced. I could nominate, say,
43:
147:
176:
I'm confused by the closing decision here, which was to delete the article on the grounds of lack of notability and reliable sources. If
329:, but it has been in violation for a few months since the AfD was closed. I think that it is fine to leave until this DRV is resolved.
390:. I want to emphasize how important it is that sysops can have confidence that DRV will support them if they implement the consensus.
326:
287:
have done that by the time the debate ends. If it turns out that this hasn't been done, then the closer is not at fault. We should
39:
406:
315:
168:
21:
503:
97:
17:
444:
177:
483:
dedicated to, as
Starblind put it, "posthumously making fun of a mentally ill person", doesn't help at all. -
297:
Reviewing the subject debate, it's hard to argue with its conclusion. Starblind is correct: this content is
451:
essay that went to great lengths to exaggerate Dec's importance. Likewise, the arguments that Dec meets WP
492:
433:
410:
380:
358:
338:
319:
279:
251:
217:
86:
488:
402:
376:
311:
275:
213:
476:
429:
117:
354:
334:
468:
228:
186:
196:
484:
394:
372:
303:
298:
271:
209:
425:
233:
113:
77:
70:
452:
367:
350:
330:
205:
472:
460:
448:
266:
262:
191:
463:
that demonstrates Dec's notability just because he said it in the journal of the
456:
258:
181:
467:. That Dec was the subject of an obscure stage play that got a mention in
480:
204:. I think that any two of these alone would be sufficient to pass
325:
S Marshall is correct that the user space copy is a violation of
464:
201:
345:
154:
140:
132:
124:
479:
Also the fact that 99% of the article is sourced to a
327:
WP:Copying within
Knowledge#Reusing deleted material
455:for his own article are being greatly exaggerated.
343:It looks like Seduisant created it during the AfD.
8:
388:Knowledge:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 24
96:The following is an archived debate of the
63:
257:simply identifying which !voters invoke
7:
190:. Dec's work has been published by
506:of the page listed in the heading.
28:
471:or that Dec's words were used by
349:and notified him in the process.
200:and the official journal of the
502:The above is an archive of the
386:stake, on the second debate at
194:, and reviewed or examined in
1:
477:notability is not inherited.
529:
475:is not sufficient either:
346:I asked him not to do this
493:13:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
434:11:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
411:11:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
381:07:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
359:04:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
339:04:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
320:21:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
280:18:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
252:17:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
218:10:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
178:User:Seduisant/SandboxDec
87:20:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
509:Please do not modify it.
103:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
421:Encourage userfication
100:of the page above.
516:
515:
469:The Village Voice
449:original research
409:
318:
187:The Village Voice
85:
520:
511:
401:
399:
348:
310:
308:
249:
246:
243:
240:
197:The Big Takeover
171:
166:
157:
143:
135:
127:
105:
84:
82:
75:
64:
53:
33:
528:
527:
523:
522:
521:
519:
518:
517:
507:
504:deletion review
461:reliable source
395:
344:
304:
299:taking the piss
247:
244:
241:
238:
167:
165:
162:
153:
152:
146:
139:
138:
131:
130:
123:
122:
101:
98:deletion review
78:
76:
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
526:
524:
514:
513:
498:
497:
496:
495:
447:was someone's
437:
436:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
363:
362:
361:
284:
283:
282:
234:Andrew Lenahan
174:
173:
163:
150:
144:
136:
128:
120:
114:Francis E. Dec
108:
107:
92:
91:
90:
89:
71:Francis E. Dec
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
525:
512:
510:
505:
500:
499:
494:
490:
486:
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
439:
438:
435:
431:
427:
422:
419:
413:
412:
408:
404:
400:
398:
389:
384:
383:
382:
378:
374:
369:
364:
360:
356:
352:
347:
342:
341:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
323:
322:
321:
317:
313:
309:
307:
300:
295:
290:
285:
281:
277:
273:
268:
264:
260:
255:
254:
253:
250:
235:
230:
225:
222:
221:
220:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
198:
193:
189:
188:
183:
179:
170:
161:
156:
149:
142:
134:
126:
119:
115:
112:
111:
110:
109:
106:
104:
99:
94:
93:
88:
83:
81:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
508:
501:
481:Dec fan club
473:Robert Crumb
440:
420:
396:
391:
305:
296:
293:
288:
267:Barack Obama
237:
223:
195:
192:Robert Crumb
185:
175:
102:
95:
79:
69:
59:21 July 2013
58:
49:2013 July 22
35:2013 July 20
457:Donna Kossy
445:The article
182:Donna Kossy
485:LuckyLouie
453:notability
397:S Marshall
373:Psychonaut
306:S Marshall
292:consensus.
272:Psychonaut
229:WP:ILIKEIT
210:Psychonaut
80:Sandstein
426:SmokeyJoe
44:2013 July
351:Flatscan
331:Flatscan
20: |
441:Endorse
289:endorse
224:Endorse
169:restore
133:history
368:WP:DRV
206:WP:GNG
393:fun.—
263:WP:RS
155:watch
148:links
52:: -->
16:<
489:talk
465:AIGA
430:talk
377:talk
355:talk
335:talk
276:talk
259:WP:N
214:talk
202:AIGA
141:logs
125:edit
118:talk
32:<
245:bli
160:XfD
158:) (
22:Log
491:)
432:)
379:)
357:)
337:)
278:)
261:,
248:nd
242:ar
239:St
236:-
216:)
42::
487:(
428:(
407:C
405:/
403:T
375:(
353:(
333:(
316:C
314:/
312:T
274:(
212:(
172:)
164:|
151:|
145:|
137:|
129:|
121:|
116:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.