- Robert I. Sherman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The discussion was closed prematurely. Although, admittedly, I was the only one who voted for keep, we didn't even get to discuss the question of notability. Since I have, from a cursory glance on the source, reason to assume that this person is notable, I would at least like to have the option of checking that. There were already about a dozen or so news sources present in that article. However, this is unnecessarily obstructed by that fact that the copy of the article I made on my user space (User:Zara1709/Robert I. Sherman) was also deleted. I received a laconic comment that I should take the issue to deletion review [1]. Well, I suppose I have to. How I am supposed to asses the notability of a person, when the article, which has several sources already present, is deleted completely. If anyone of the other editors has taken a closer look at the sources and can tell me why these are insufficient to establish notability, then of course this wouldn't be necessary. But this was not established in the previous discussion before that one was closed, and I would like to make up for that now. Zara1709 (talk) 04:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, as there was a clear consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably I wasn't specific enough. I am not asking for the article to be restored, I am asking for the copy on my user space to be restored, so that I may evaluate the notability of this person. If I come to the conclusion that he is notable, I can then still decide whether I want to inquire on this page that the article should be restored. Zara1709 (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The purpose of DRV is solely procedural evaluation of the close of an AFD. In this case, as Julian pointed out, there was a clear consensus to delete. Your user space was speedily deleted as an attack page. As was pointed out in the AFD, the information is more appropriate in the articles of those being quoted. لennavecia 05:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting material out of an editor's personal userspace is a bit different from deleting it out of the mainspace. An attack page could justify that measure, but I think it would need to be a very clear-cut case.
Endorse closure of the AfD and deletion out of the mainspace, but, I think a real question remains about deletion from the editor's personal userspace. At the very minimum, it would be courteous to email a copy of the page to Zara1709 so she can use it as a basis for a non-attack-page article.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: I take strong exception to Jennavecia's remark that "the purpose of DRV is solely procedural evaluation of the close of an AfD". This is simply wrong, because this editor was specifically directed to bring her case to DRV by an admin. For Jennavecia to then tell Zara she's in the wrong place is bureaucratic and Kafkaesque.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not an admin misdirected her here, WP:DRV is clear. The purpose of this venue does not change simply because of one admin's recommendation. لennavecia 21:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The purpose of DRV is surely more than procedural evaluation of the close of an AfD, Jennavecia. For one thing, any XfD is considered. For another thing, speedy deletions are often considered here and it's custom and practice that this is the place for such a matter.
My position is that the purpose of DRV is to make Wikipedia better. And certainly once the deleting admin has directed a protesting editor here, we should at least consider it.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. لennavecia 03:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm less than convinced that this is worth userfying, in accordance with WP:BLP. Clear endorse of the AFD in any case. If it were me making the decision, I would only permit userfication of the first paragraph, but luckily it's not (-: Stifle (talk) 09:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn/relist I'm sorry. But this should go through a full AfD. Moreover, most of the material in question (especially that dealing with Sherman's interaction with Bush and his interaction with Davis) are easy to relate in a neutral fashion. Whether the incident with the use of the term "negro" has enough reliable sources to be included in an editorial decision (from what I can tell, there's not enough. Olbermann for example is not a reliable source and the other linked to website is a blog). It is however clear that given the coverage regarding both Bush and Davis that Sherman is not BLP1E given that there's you know, more than one event. An article by itself dealing primarily with those two issues would clearly be fine. Regardless, this should have a full AfD so the case can be made in detail. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion of the user subpage as a GFDL violation: it was a copy-pasted copy of the article that failed to preserve the page history.
Weak endorse the AFD closure: the consensus was clear, but still I would have preferred prefer for the discussion to remain open for the full seven days. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 21:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I still endorse deletion of the user subpage per WP:GFDL, but I was convinced by DGG's argument about the AFD itself, so relist for a full 7-day discussion. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 23:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse: Clear consensus. With the backlog at AFD, I'm not concerned about an IAR SNOW close. Like a copyvio, a BLP shouldn't be userfied. Law type! snype? 01:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you claiming that any biography of a living person should not be userfied even if there is a userfiable version that is BLP compliant? Moreover, in what universe is a backlog at AfD a good enough reason to use IAR? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) No. 2) Mine. 3) I don't think I want you talking to me again. Law type! snype? 06:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding 1) so since we have such a version here why is there an issue 2) Wikipedia has no deadline- WP:DEADLINE so it is really hard to see how to one can justify using IAR in that context for a simply a few days backlog. As to 3, if you are going to make a comment in a public DRV discussion you should expect replies and questions. Disagreeing with you or raising questions is not an attack on you as an individual. I'm sorry you apparently see it that way. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not BLP compliant. That's why it was deleted. لennavecia 03:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't claim an attack. I don't care if it's here on in real-life - I'm not likely to address anyone who prefaces a question with 'in what universe.' It's snide. Now, with respect to BLPs, what is the point of deleting it out of article space only to move the same article back into userspace? It still exists, but because it technically has a different URL, it's OK? No. If BLP applies to all WP space, then once userfied, it could be speedied as recreation of a deleted AfD result - obviously being somewhat elliptical. As far as IAR - I didn't remember there being a scale as to what reasons were better than others. In fact, it's ignore 'all' rules, not IAR as long as you can justify it to someone else. That would be more like what consensus is for. Applying consensus to IAR is the opposite of all that is written. The perfect time to apply IAR to administrative procedures, in my universe, is when there is a backlog at AfD. An intelligent and seasoned editor may very well be able to make a mature and informed decision without letting the AfD run its full course. This keeps the wheels turning and cuts down on the red tape which is already overwhelming. Not every article needs 7 days; some more and some less. Now that I've explained my decision, I welcome any polite commentary. Law type! snype? 04:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist it is almost always a mistake to close an AfD like this early, because it just leads to more problems. Better to run the full time, and probably there would have been sufficient consensus to discourage deletion review though I do understand the admins impatience with this article. As for the suitability of DRV, 1/ it is the appropriate place to challenge any decision on deletion at AfD, because procedure is to close in accordance with consensus and policy and to make an appropriate use of discretion; therefore, a mistake in evaluating any of this is a procedural error. 2/ if viewed as a snow close, doing one is always a use of discretion and therefore a straight procedural matter in the narrow sense. 3/ if viewed as a speedy for BLP, then arb com specifically ruled that the appropriate place to challenge them was DRV. Thus Jennavica's argument is incorrect in every particular.DGG (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure. The article as it stood was a biography of a living person which focused only on two incidents from his life and thus did not present an accurate picture of him. That said, I would allow re-creation of the article as there appear to be sufficient news sources about him and his activities. I would recommend that the new article be titled Rob Sherman as he is commonly known by his nickname rather than his full name. When I saw that this DRV was about "Robert I. Sherman", at first I thought it was about the guy who wrote songs for Mary Poppins. I would have recognized "Rob Sherman", though. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore and relist Closing an article that can potentially be fixed after just 1 day instead of 7 is a blatant violation of the speedy close policy. Any BLP problems can be altered through editing or commented out to give the creator a chance to fix it during the normal discussion period. (this means the closer's claim SNOWBALL applies is faulty because there is a snowball's chance of improvement that can change further voting. - Mgm|(talk) 09:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse: Deletion review is not meant to be a second AfD. The first AfD had clear consensus to delete. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse: There was only one request for the article to be kept, by the DRV nom, and in 24 hours there was plenty of consensus to delete that article. Recreating the article in userspace should be out of the question.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse: I'm not convinced by any evidence presented that a second AFD will produce a different outcome or provide any benefit to the community. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from a few intelligent comments, the majority of what has been written here only confirms that I should seriously reconsider the way I have been editing on Wikipedia- or whether I want to continue editing at all. Roughly 24 h certainly were not sufficient to discuss the issue: Neither have Jennavecia and others explained where they saw a BLP violation (that couldn't be fixed) nor do we actually know that Robert I. Sherman isn't notable, since we didn't even take a look at the sources. Of course, it only takes 5 minutes to look at an article and say 'delete', but then, on the other hand, I've been working with the material for hours, if not for days. If the editors at Wikipedia were actually concerned with writing an encyclopaedia, they would at least give me the time I needed to bring my arguments forward. However, as I perceive it, the deletion discussion was not about writing an encyclopaedia; editors and administrators were probably playing some kind of deletion game there, the rules of which I don't understand. A discussion is supposed to be on the basis of arguments, not on the basis of votes. Seriously, if all it that is necessary to delete an article are a number of 'deletion' votes, then we don't need to have discussions (using words) to decide whether we should delete an article or not. This job could almost be done by monkeys with typewriters - they'd only need typewrites with a big 'vote delete' key. Anyway, since there are some editors here who I think are actually interested in arguments, let me bring one: I conducted a search at yahoo for the exact phrase: "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens". I know that search statics alone are not a sufficient argument for notability, or here, for the coverage of a particular event somewhere in Wikipedia, but then again, you can at least try to guess how many pages yahoo found with this phrase. Surprisingly google only found roughly 1/6 that many, but that number still is rather high, if we compare it with the number of hits you would get for the content of articles like Religious discrimination against Neopagans. And I have some more arguments I could bring forward for the relevance of this issue; We could discuss those in detail if we relist the afd, but for the moment just think of this: There is a whole country out there that needs the answer to the question whether George H.W.Bush actually said that he doesn't know that "atheists should be considered as citizens". I took me only a few hours to find the answer (it is unverifiable that he said that), and it would be nice if Wikipedia could help provide this answer to the U.S.-American public. Of course, bot sides are not going to like the answer. Atheists would rather have it that we write that Bush actually said it, whereas many Republicans would rather have the issue not mentioned at all. (There are a few conservative Americans who also think that Bush actually said it.) Fortunately, though, "I don't like it." is not a valid argument in deletion discussions. If you were an editor with a pro-Republican bias, and I am not saying that any editor here actually is, you would have to seek another reason to delete it and keep you editorial bias to yourself, if possible. Considering that the discussion surrounding this alleged quote warrants inclusion in Wikipedia (imho), then we would need to see how we could do this the best way. And, although there are articles like Discrimination against atheists that could accomodate, I think the most elegant solution would be to have an article Robert I. Sherman and include it there. So, in conclusion: If the version on my userspace is restored, I can take a look at the sources, count and evaluate then and, if necessary, I'll write Sherman an Email to get to know what he actually though of his article, and whether he rather have the article fixed or no article at all about him. (Jennavecia apparently isn't telling me, what he actually wrote.) And if I then come to the conclusion the Sherman is notable, that the article can be fixed, and that I am actually willing to do that, then we relist the afd. Or we simply relist it and figure this out together. But, if neither one of this options is possible here, I not only wasted a lot of time figuring out the issue of the alleged Bush quote in the first place; I'll also consider a lot of other work I did for Wikipedia a waste of time. I consider myself an editor who can not only research this and many other topics and write from a neutral perspective about them, but who also bases his editorial views on sound reasoning. Some editors here may actually find this hard to understand: I a not making the effort with this discussion to annoy you, but because I think there are reasons why we should at least discuss keeping this article. And when I have to read 'Delete', with that what I've previously written being ignored, then I honestly don't feel as if am am talking with human beings who want to write an encyclopaedia together. In this case, this will be the last thing you will hear from me for a rather long time. I assume there are other projects I could work on. Zara1709 (talk) 09:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Per Julian. MBisanz talk 12:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Consensus was clear. Claiming the article was not pointy is rather disingenuous given the time and skill that it is claimed went into it. Moreover, the suggestion to recreate is about as far from "elegant" - given the policy concerns (BLP not least) - as I am wobbling home after a skinful. Plutonium27 (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, at least there is someone who has read what I've written - partly. You might want to read the (now archived) comments I posted on the noticeboards during the afd. Most of my efforts concerning our article space went into researching that alleged Bush quote; however, more effort went into discussing this quote in the discussion space. I didn't actually spent so much effort researching and writing about the person of Robert I. Sherman himself, I don't even know for sure yet that he is notable. I was about to research that properly, but then the article was deleted prematurely. And the version I made on my user space for precisely the reason of checking the sources to establish notability or not was deleted, too, which is the reason we now need to discuss this here in the first place. If some admin hadn't deleted that material on my user page I would have by now conducted the research and could tell you if he is notable according to our guidelines or not. And anyway, what policy concerns? If someone was the subject of several verifiable controversies, you can't claim that corresponding article is a blp violation if it is written from a neutral perspective. Even if it is not written from a neutral perspective, that can be fixed. If you want to have an encyclopaedia for the sum of human knowledge, then this would include the current controversies surrounding atheism in the United States. Do you want to write an encyclopaedia or not? Zara1709 (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
