- Richard Tylman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
In my opinion, this article should be deleted based upon its merits. I believe that the close was flawed because many of the keep votes did not comment on its merits but were rather distracted by the EEML case. I don't see the point of waiting until after the EEML case closes; it's not like the problems caused by it are magically going to disappear. Again, this is based on the merits of the page, which should be distracted by the EEML case. Furtheremore, many of the keep votes were not very credible (ie politically motivated, canvassed off-wiki, or whatever the real reason is; per Jehochman). The consensus among the valid votes seems to be that while sources exist, they are insufficient to establish notability. Note: The page was created by the subject. Triplestop x3 03:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest withdrawing this request as an inefficient use of cycles. Wikipedia will not fall apart if this article survives a bit longer. The closing admin suggested relisting the article for deletion after the EEML case closes. That seems like a good idea. Jehochman Talk 03:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse no consensus close, maybe revise closure to trainwreck. This AfD is a mess. Close was entirely within admin discretion. Tim Song (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia will not fall apart if this article is removed, either. In controversial issues, like moves or deletions, it seems some admins just state "no consensus" (another disappointing example) and keep things as they are. This way, it only needs a few to filibuster any challenge, making it very easy to protect the status quo once an article has been created. As we all know, Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Admins are expected to judge the merits of opinions, not count their number. Nor should they expect that a consensus is reached. Tylman's vanity article was created by himself (Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_23#Richard_Tylman), and protected by sockpuppeteering (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Poeticbent) and EEML friends with the same nationality and/or agenda, as I had pointed out on talk (but stroke out later after a request). While the EEML members had a chance to "vote" now, it would be questionable to relist when they are blocked. The article needs be deleted based on the lack of its merits, not due to forced absence of its fans. -- Matthead Discuß 05:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Leave as-is pending closure of the EEML ArbCom case. The sky will not fall in in the meantime. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn I thought we defaulted to delete on articles of living persons of questionable notability, or was that just for articles where prominent wikipedians dislike the subject and think the subject wants the article kept? Hipocrite (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You thought wrongly, Hipocrite. That's a view espoused by a minority. It's a very loud minority with a lot to say for itself, but a minority is what it is. BLP policy is about removing unsourced defamatory or negative material concerning living people, not about empowering wholesale deletion of articles without a supporting consensus. The default position on articles, which this was, is "keep".
On the rest of it, I would say that it is not for DRV to make decisions that might seem to undermine or usurp Arbcom's role, and we're best off leaving as it is for the moment.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Stifle and S Marshall. There is no rush here and there is no policy or consensus to delete questionably notable articles. Disclaimer: I !voted to keep (for now) in the AfD. Hobit (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the closer's view, that the time for a renomination is after the EE case closes. And I'd suggest not immediately after---there should be some interval to let people consider the situation. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete. Trainwreck or no trainwreck, it was easily possible to separate those !votes in the AfD that were transparently motivated by the political factions (on both sides), and count the independent votes only. On that basis, I read a clear consensus for delete (14 delete votes, 6 keeps, including those who recommended only a procedural "keep and relist later"). Trainwreck AfDs are best avoided by ignoring the trainwreckers, not by letting them have their way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would withdraw this on the basis that waiting till the end of the EEML case would let people focus more on the merits of this page. Triplestop x3 21:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse a perfectly reasonable close to a very messy and petulant AfD. RMHED (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse Reasonable close. No compelling reason to overturn. If there's an issue wait a bit and file another AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete - per Fut.Perf (and with a nod towards Hipocrite) - Alison ❤ 03:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If someone becomes a fan and wishes to get information on this poet there will be none available on wikipedia because someone feels he is of "questionable notability". How do you define "notability". Notability can not be defined. Does the article tell facts or does it lie? If it is all lies it is useless and should be deleted. If it has facts and is poorly written it should be rewritten eventually by someone with writing skills. You guys take this site way too seriously since it's widely considered by professionals to be a joke and is not a viable method of citation for any professional seeking to quote or use a source. For example most papers using this site as a reference get an F. This site is maybe meant as something else but what it IS is a site which provides cursory or in-depth information about all things. It is an information database not an encyclopedia despite what some may think. I apologize for the bluntness but maybe it's time you guys focused a little more on acutal matters of importance. Sitting here disussing whether this (and hundreds of other) articles should be kept is ridiculous ESPECIALLY since the arguments for deletion or preservation are 90% based on arbitrary, impossible to define criteria. Make it legible and make sure it's fact (something wikipedia fails at often) this should be your goal. Facts are misrepresented while you guys argue about the importance of this Richard Tylman...come on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.119.75 (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We have a number of really good Polish editors here in en: Wikipedia who contribute immensely to our coverage of Poland with its geography, politics, history, culture and the arts. Without editors like them this portal would have never taken of, the way it did, with articles from all nations. But, the number of Polish contributors is not infinite, and some of the most active ones got entangled in an ongoing EEML ArbCom case. They’re being told that their opinions in this regard don’t matter and should be discarded by the admins en masse. They’re being warned not to vote, and stay out of it because of conflict of interest resulting from knowing the subject (i.e. me). In practicality they’re all being silenced to a point you will not find any of them here, although their political adversaries remain as vocal as ever. Think, collateral damage, User:138.89.119.75 from VA. A few years ago Africa didn’t have an article either. --Poeticbent talk 18:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So tell me, Poeticbent, are you asserting that there is no bias, no political motivation behind these votes at all? Triplestop x3 21:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you please specify, Triplestop, what you meant by "these votes", in terms of their "political motivation"? – Did you mean votes that have already been cast per above, or the ones that don’t exist? I’m asserting that our senior editors, be it ethnically Polish, Jewish, Estonian, or American, have their own brains and shouldn’t be treated like sheep, which happens to be the case. That’s why, anybody who intends to vote delete at the next AfD should avoid interaction with me due to your likely potential for COI. And, don’t read my poetry, because it might mess with your head. --Poeticbent talk 00:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is clear that what I meant is, Are you saying that it is a coincidence that all of your fellow EEML members came to support your article? Triplestop x3 00:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all of my fellow EEML members came to support my article. Actually, only five of them voted at AfD, out of the total number of 17 (see: User:Piotrus/ArbCom for the specifics). One EEML member and a senior editor Sander Säde, voiced his concerns at ArbCom mirroring the attitude of others: "decided not to comment on it, as I have no patience to deal with the bad-faith garbage this would have generated."[1] However, not a single one of my fellow EEML members participated in this review so far. --Poeticbent talk 02:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let the arb-com people have their say, then perhaps we can have an AFD with less drama and more constructive dialogue. As it was, there was no way anyone was going to come up with any kind of consensus from that discussion, for keep or delete. And has been said before, it won't be the end of the world if this article remains until the time we can have a better discussion on it. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
