Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 25

25 October 2009

David Shankbone – I've reopened this, please see my comment herein. – Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
David Shankbone (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) According to WP:AFD, discussions should be open for at least seven days. The closer's response to me was "Seven hours over the course of a week isn't a terribly large amount of time." I think in discussions such as these (the particularly high profile cases), it is important to let discussions run their full course. It's also questionable to me that just the right number of votes were considered invalid to arrive at the magic percentage of 60% (consensus) in support of keep. Furthermore, regarding the final closing statement of "I feel as though there is a strong consensus here that, based on policy-related arguments including notability, neutrality, and verifiability," I fail to see how a strong consensus could be pulled form this discussion, much less in support of keeping, and it seems to me that WP:BLP was not given sufficient consideration when attributing weight to arguments. "[W]e should take [a] very high moral and ethical approach to BLPs."[1] Lara 17:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Overturn — the closer did not give appropriate weight to the cromulent pro-delete reasons, which are significant since this is a biography of a living person. @harej 18:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Overturn BLP articles should be given special consideration, and discussion should not be stifled, whether for a few hours or minutes. Early closure was inappropriate. Additionally, it was clearly a no-consensus deal, which with BLPs defaults to delete. Majorly talk 18:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC) People keep on claiming that "no consensus" with BLPs defaults to delete but where exactly is this written down? Regards SoWhy 18:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC) In the deletion policy, of course. Majorly talk 18:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC) It says that an XFD without consensus may be closed as "delete" but not that every "no consensus" closure defaults to "delete", does it? Regards SoWhy 18:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC) It says may, but it does not say may be closed as delete either. Therefore I take it to mean delete unless there is a good reason not to. Majorly talk 18:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Overturn: Strongly. In high-profile AFDs, there is a much stronger requirement to follow the letter of the policies. Try holding your breath for seven hours or going into work seven hours early. This wasn't a matter of minutes. It should be re-opened, and I'm frankly appalled that Hersfold didn't simply reverse himself after admitting he was in error. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Overturn and delete - It was interesting that Hersfold closed it far earlier than he did. I was in the process of writing up a closure rationale to close it on time later in the evening, though I would have looked over the comments made this afternoon and incorporated them into my closing statement. I feel that instead of going into reasons why I disagreed with Hersfold, I'll post what would have been my closing rationale. As for one part of Hersfold's decision, I disagree with the decision to discount per X votes that were repetitive of other solid rationales. In an AfD of this magnitude, there is obviously little one can do at certain points if everything to say had already been said. NW (Talk) 18:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Many Wikipedians contributed to this discussion and generally split themselves into one of a few camps: (1) those who participated only to ascribe either the AfD or the article itself to Wikipolitics, (2) those who gave weak arguments to keep or delete the article, (3) those who felt that the sources provided met the notability criteria for biographies, (4) those who felt that the sources provided did not meet the notability criteria for biographies, (5) and those who felt that the subject had marginal notability but ought to be deleted anyway. As the first two group were obviously discounted, we must look at the latter three to see if a consensus can be gathered from them. Those who made valid arguments to keep the article often cited the fact that Mr. Miller had a detailed interview with the Columbia Journalism Review in Jan/Feb 2009 which focused primarily on him.[2] Several other newspapers and magazines were cited as potential sources, though these seem to be less focused on Mr. Miller and also deal with other issues. Thus it is not a clear case of the "significant coverage in reliable sources" of WP:GNG being met. Other points brought up were the fact that he was the first citizen-journalist to interview a sitting head of state. However, this is not the case. He was merely the first Wikinews accredited editor to do so. Others argued that his photography had been used in reputable publications such as The Guardian and The New York Times, but the fact that his work has been used in major newspapers is not necessarily indicative of notability, and in Mr. Miller's case does not appear to satisfy WP:CREATIVE. Weighing the arguments of groups 3 and 4 and reviewing the sources against our inclusion criteria, it does appear that Mr. Miller is in a gray area of notability. Finally, taking into consideration the arguments of group 5 whose primary concerns are WP:BLP and do no harm (already evident in the article's history), I am closing this discussion as delete. This would have been my closing rationale, if my comment above was unclear. NW (Talk) 18:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Overturn - for a number of reasons. The closer was overly dismissive of the delete arguments and applied too much weight to WP:PERNOM. Also, Jimmy made a very strong appeal to delete, which didn't appear to factor into the overall close rationale. Furthermore, the AfD should have been allowed to go to closure and not be an early close, especially given how busy and how contentious it's been - Alison ❤ 18:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Endorse 7 hours amounts to very little over the course of a week, the closing admin did not intentionally close it early and I think it makes no difference to the results. I feel that BLP issues were given a good response and that most of the concerns were about potential future issues. I think the closure accurately reflected the communities expectations regarding deletion. Chillum 18:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Endorse: whatever you make of the timing issue, there is no way to get to a different outcome here, as there was nothing close to a consensus to delete. And why do people keep saying that no consensus defaults to delete? It's not true, no matter how much some people wish it were true. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Please read this very carefully. Majorly talk 18:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Policies change as tradition changes. The tradition has changed. Lara 18:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Overturn There is no way this was a valid "keep". More than a few valid votes were discounted that should not have been, and the fact that it was so early does not help - I'd support overturning just based on that. — Jake Wartenberg 18:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Overturn and relist for being closed too early. We need to strictly enforce the minimum duration of AfDs. Otherwise, we provide an incentive for administrators to abuse the wide discretion they have in closing AfDs. If we tolerate early closures, I as an administrator can make sure that I myself close all AfD I personally care about, by closing them a little early, and by doing so I can make sure that the outcome is the one I favor. We should not encourage this. What we should do is do all we can to make sure that uninvolved, random administrators close AfDs, and we best do that by enforcing the minimum duration. (I'm not saying any intentional abuse happened in this case, and I have no opinion about the merits of this specific closure.)  Sandstein  18:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Endorse: Responding directly to the "it had a few hours remaining" arguments, protecting biographies of living people is about common sense, not about blind bureaucracy; it is highly improbable (per the reasoned and transparent closing rationale given) that the same administrator would have closed the discussion with any other result a few hours later, even if there had been a flood of sound last minute deletion arguments. That being said, I would have determined the outcome of the discussion to have been different from the determination User:Hersfold reached, but I can objectively see why he reached the conclusion he did. There is no violation of process here that harms the project (any future predictions of falling sky notwithstanding), and an overturn would not result in a different outcome. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC) "it is highly improbable (per the reasoned and transparent closing rationale given) that the same administrator would have closed the discussion with any other result a few hours later, even if there had been a flood of sound last minute deletion arguments." Reallly? You think "a flood of sound last minute deletion arguments" would have been ignored by the closing admin? And this is supposed to serve as a supportive comment on the closer? Lara 18:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Overturn per harej. --John (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Endorse - A very rational and cogent closing decision and well articulated. Where's the beef (BLP)? Shankbone isn't asking for deletion and there are no BLP issues that require deletion, and certainly none that can't be handled within the normal article editing process. And it was six hours early, not seven. No process issues here that amount to anything significant. There is no "default to delete". I guess this AfD would have gone to DRV either way. — Becksguy (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC) To be clear, the closing statement was made almost six hours to the minute from the closing time; however, the close took almost 40 minutes. So the article was closed to discussion for six hours and 40 minutes prior to the scheduled closing time. Lara 18:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Overturn - I was in the process of writing up a comment on this matter, knowing that there was still several hours before this would be closed, and was astonished to find that, when I went back to the page to check a fact, the matter had been closed. I think there is a very good chance other people were also planning on commenting today. It's also clear that the closing admin is of the impression that any other opinions would not have swayed his decision.[3] This needs to be reopened, if not restarted right from Square One. Risker (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Endorse- Seven hours? Really? We're going to quibble over seven hours? There was nothing wrong with that close that I can see. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Is 14 hours ok? --Tom (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC) And 28 hours? 56? Where do we draw the line? At zero hours zero minutes zero seconds early, that's where.  Sandstein  18:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Overturn I argued for a delete at the AFD, but I can agree with Hersfold's conclusion that the COG of the discussion was closer to a keep, or at best "no consensus". However I don't see any justification for an early close against AFD guidelines, and while I agree that the result is unlikely to change, I think this is a bad practice in general since it leaves open the door for admins gaming the system by ensuring that they are the ones that close. To be very clear: I believe am confident that that was not an issue in this case, but I would like to see the practice of early closure discouraged especially for contentious AFDs. Abecedare (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Relist I have no real opinion on whether the article should be kept or deleted. But I'm disappointed that in what seems to have been a rush to close this AFD, possibly to prevent drama, it actually just created more drama. In discussions like this where there is much drama potential, it's key to stick to the written processes to avoid the appearance of impropriety or poor judgement. Nothing would have been harmed by keeping the AFD open for the remaining seven hours, or if the closing admin had reverted himself once he realized his mistake. But now the drama will be dragged out further. A disappointing result, to say the least, but necessary after these actions. :/ kmccoy (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Endorse. First, while the close was several hours early ({{closing}} was added on 15:58 (UTC), and seven days after the listing would be 22:39 (UTC)), at the time of the close the debate has already attracted 109 !votes (the closer's count; I haven't counted it myself), and was already ~96kb in length. There is absolutely no reasonable probability that, had the debate been extended for yet another 6 hours and 41 minutes, the result would have been different. As to the question whether the close itself was correct, I cannot discern a policy violation in the closer's rationale. The deletion policy cited above says that "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete." (emphasis added). As far as I know, the subject did not request deletion; even if he did, deletion is still discretionary and not a hard-and-fast rule. The only question left, then, is whether the closer appropriately assessed the consensus. I frankly am not sure what the "best" close is. Reading the discussion, I find the subject clearly notable, but the BLP argument very substantial as well. As demonstrated by the overturn !votes above, many disagree with the precise weight the closer attached to various arguments. I do not believe that DRV should go over the closer's rationale with a fine-toothed comb, picking it apart for every potential defect there may be - especially when, as here, the "appropriate" weight to attach to an argument is clearly different from editor to editor. Reluctant to join in any effort to micromanage AfD closures, especially of contentious debates, and unable to discern anything clearly erroneous in the close, I endorse it. Tim Song (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Reopened. It's clear that the majority here believe I was incorrect in closing the discussion this early. Personally, I maintain that I made no error in this; it was not my intention to close this early, and in fact I hadn't noticed I had done so before Lara commented on my userpage. Wikipedia does not have strict rules or laws, and closing a discussion a few hours before the general traditional guideline after over 100 users have provided well-reasoned arguments is not going against the spirit of the community's expectations. I feel that maintaining a strict adherence to "zero hours zero minutes zero seconds" early is harmful to the project and entirely ridiculous. However, I'm clearly not in the majority here, and several administrators and users whom I respect have commented here to state my actions were inappropriate; some (not here, to be clear) have gone so far as to question my integrity in not opening this discussion sooner. Such personal attacks are wildly inappropriate for a situation such as this, where seven hours are all that's being argued, but again, I'm apparently in the minority. Enjoy your next four hours, again, I really don't see what the fuss is. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Wikipedians who say CfD is broken – Overturn to relist. The clear consensus throughout this DRV discussion was that the closure of the categories for discussion nomination was inappropriately biased and that there was no underlying consensus in the discussion itself. What remains to be determined, then, is whether re-listing is warranted. Opinion in the DRV is split on this point. This decision rests primarily on concerns of content raised in the DRV, rather than those of process. Given that the scope of categories for discussion is not primarily limited to deletion (i.e. it also encompasses outcomes such as merging and renaming), and the "content" of a user category lies primarily in its name, relisting focused on renaming seems warranted. – IronGargoyle (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Wikipedians who say CfD is broken (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The closing administrator seems to have cast his own vote, without any relevance to the discussion at hand. The closing administrator seems to improperly conflate votes to delete with votes to rename, arguing at his user talk page that a rename indicates that the category should not exist under its current name and is equivalent to delete. There was no consensus here for deletion. There was consensus to rename, and the closing administrator could have simply selected the most appropriate alternative name as long as he was casting a supervote. In reality, the disparate range of votes here makes this a no consensus. The choice to delete, the most disruptive possible option under the circumstances, is not only rather WP:POINTy, but unsupported by the votes actually cast in the discussion. Responding to a "general sink of petty snarking" by casting a snarky close for deletion only amplifies the problems with the close and the problems at CfD, with all discussion of alternative means of improving the CfD process has been deliberately tossed into the bit bucket. The decision was out of process and should be closed properly as a rname or no consensus. Alansohn (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Overturn and relist I agree with Alansohn that the closing rationale sounds very much like the closing administrator has closed the discussion according to a personal analysis instead of the consensus. I cannot see any consensus for deletion in the discussion itself nor is there any other consensus, as such, it should be relisted to achieve a clear consensus to act on. Regards SoWhy 15:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Overturn and relist The Xdamr's rationale is clearly a case of closing the discussion according to a personal analysis instead of according to the consensus. Carlaude:Talk 16:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Overturn and relist- Consensus was not for delete in that debate, as far as I can tell. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Overturn and relist. It is clear from the closer's rationale that xe's personal view was inappropriately given great weight in the closure. Given the discussion, which I have difficulty discerning a consensus from, there is a reasonable probability that, but for the error, the result would have been different. Relisting is appropriate in such circumstances. Tim Song (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Comment - I'm not sure how effective a relist would be. Most active people who care about user categories have already participated, and a large chunk of the community doesn't care enough about them to participate if it were relisted. I really can only see 1, maybe 2 more participants adding their opinion to the discussion, which probably wouldn't be enough to generate a more decisive consensus. I'd support a relist if everyone participating in this DRV who hasn't already given their opinion at the debate commited to doing so after relisting. As the closure didn't preclude creation of a similarly named category, and most participants agreed to a rename (in some form or another), I would suggest simply creating the category under a better name (preferably one suggested in the Cfd, or one similar to a suggested one). VegaDark (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Just an addition, I would strongly prefer a relist than an overturn to no consensus. My first preference, however, would be to overturn to rename, which I think is supported by the discussion. An overturn to no consensus doesn't accomplish anything, while a rename (in some shape or form) seemed to be acceptable to every participant. VegaDark (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Rename to what? No two people seemed to be in agreement on this question. --Xdamrtalk 16:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Had I closed the discussion, I probably would have chosen Category:Wikipedians working to improve CfD per Alansohn's suggestion. This is because those of us who were open to deletion weren't dead-set on any particular rename, and SmokeyJoe seemed to be open to several suggestions as well. Chick Bowen was the only one flat out supporting deletion, and their reasoning was that it was a wikipolitical category. The proposed renames seemed to (at least partly) satisfy this concern, and as a user who regularly supports deletion of many user categories, I can say with confidence that a rename is almost always better than doing nothing, so I could infer that Chick Bowen would prefer this rename in lieu of a no consensus closure (defaulting to keep, of course). Debresser's opinion would have been the only one in the debate not addressed by this closure, but you can't always please everyone. I would have noted that if people are dissatisfied with the new name and/or still support deletion, they would have been free to renominate. VegaDark (talk) 04:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC) I'll choose to support Category:Wikipedians working to improve CfD, ignoring concerns about the abbreviation, noting WP:CFD is a well known, standard shortcut, certainly to people aware of CfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Nothing to stop any of these being created, as was clearly stated in the closure... --Xdamrtalk 13:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Good point, the close does in fact state that. Of course, simply creating a less-divisive category name doesn't allow for the drama some people seem to relish. --Kbdank71 14:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC) It was a bad close, and if not overturned, will be used a precedent for justifying future bad closes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Overturn and relisting is optional. The closer doesn't mention anything about the consensus of the debate they were closing, just gives their own opinion on deletion. If you feel so strongly, make a comment, don't close the discussion. Closers shouldn't be supervoters... it trivializes discussions. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Overturn and don't even bother relisting User categories, like user pages, have neither a function or disfunction of the goal of the project. In 99% of cases, they simply don't need to be discussed at all. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Overturn (rename or no consensus) as per comments at User_talk:Xdamr. No need to continue discussing the category, just let anyone rename if they must. The ironic humour here brought a brief chuckle, but is not really enjoyable, or productive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Support rename to Category:Wikipedians working to improve CfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus. Closer substituted his own view, which should have been expressed as a !vote, for an assessment of the discussion. Stifle (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Just create the wanted category under a new name and put this to bed. Such a move was not precluded by the close or by the discussion, and doing so would be the equivalent of relisting and closing again as a rename. This doesn't require a DRV. There's a mountain. Here's a molehill. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus per Stifle. Hobit (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Overturn : consensus hasn't been clearly established Rirunmot 02:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs) Endorse - idiotic category which served no collaborative purpose, just a pointy one. Should have been speedied and be done with it. Tarc (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC) If you think it is pointy, can you say in what way it disrupts? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Perhaps that could be answered after the nominator answers the same question w.r.t. his invocation of WP:POINT in the nominating statement above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus per my highly detailed rationale posted to the closer's talkpage on 23rd October. In view of the snowy nature of this DRV, his response is the most ironic part of this richly ironic CfD/DRV. I would, however, add that neither CfD nor DRV are good places for this discussion--CfD because the category was inherently critical of it (leading to a conflict of interest) and DRV because the members of the category were, without exception, DRV regulars, which inherently leads to a conflict of interest in the opposite direction. In this case DRV will win, being the metaphorical "senior court", but I think the deletion camp could legitimately raise the matter in some alternative place in the hope of a more neutral view.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Alternatively, one could say that the topsy turvy land of CfD, self-consistent as it is, is disconnected from the wider community? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC) If the so-called "wider community" (read: you) disagree(s) with the results coming out of CfD, then the "wider community" should feel impelled to contribute to improve things. To put up, you need to participate at CfD. I hardly ever see you comment there, which I think is telling. Everyone likes complaining; few are willing to do substantive work to improve it. Of course, it's much easier to create divisive user categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC) If I were you, Good Olfactory, I would let SmokeyJoe be the judge of what SmokeyJoe needs to do.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC) I don't think you are, but I suppose you could be (snap)—SP investigation, please.... I didn't mean to suggest that anyone needs to do anything—but I am suggesting that if someone disagrees with the ways things are going in a certain area of WP, then it's logical (to me at least) that they would do work to improve that system rather than just complaining about it. To clarify my comment, SmokeyJoe as a user doesn't need to do anything. I just think users in general will find that if they want to learn and also assist the project, more good comes of participating in the actual processes rather than complaining about them or discussing them in the abstract. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC) I do hereby solemnly swear that I'm not a sock of you.  ;) As a general principle, if you don't mean to suggest that anyone needs to do anything, it's probably better not to use the words "you need to". That particular phrase is a conflict trigger. Nuff said. I understand that you'd prefer for us to participate in CfD rather than discussing it in the abstract, but you're dealing with a group of editors who feel differently. We wanted to talk about problems in the abstract before seeking resolution. But, someone deleted our discussion space, and the beautiful irony is that they did it against consensus, thereby very neatly proving our point. As for the rest of it, I've decided that I won't prop up a broken process by colluding in it and trying to fix it with sticking plaster. I think CfD needs structural reform based on intervention from outside.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC) "if you don't mean to suggest that anyone needs to do anything, it's probably better not to use the words 'you need to'. Of course, this also must be read in context: "To put up, you need to participate at CfD." "Put up" being a reference, of course, to the felicitous phrase "put up or shut up". It was an aggressive rhetorical flourish of sorts, not to be taken as literally applying to JoeSmokey, but of being reflective of my opinion about how to best approach intra-WP problems perceived by an observer. It's like not voting or being otherwise politically active in a democracy: you can boycott, but it gives you little credibility in criticising the current state of the government. You can always hope for a revolution, but they are few and far between. Most real change happens through dedicated cooperative work from within. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC) No, I don't like complaining. But yes, I see a problem, and I feel impelled to do something. There is frustation with being confronted by probelm-deniers. There is frustration at seeing that many have complained, to be told that they are the only one, or one of few. (Should I compile a list?) I have made some effort to contribute to CfD, but am still struggling to come to terms with its culture of adherrance to a complex "established consensus". Its normal practice is far from intuitive, and the documentation of normal practice is poor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC) You learn by "doing", not so much by complaining or even by constructively discussing in the abstract; I just don't see much "doing", that's all. But in this respect you are not much different than other complainers I have seen, which leads me to believe that some, at least, do "like" doing it, or at least prefer it. Instead, you could just start participating in discussions at CfD by saying what you think. There is no complex system you are required to adhere to. It's no different than any other discussion area of WP—you say what you think based on your opinion and past WP experience. But hey—to each his own. I'm just trying to be helpful. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Overturn - probably close as "no consensus", possibly relist. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Relist per Vegadark. --Kbdank71 17:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Endorse - Idiotic category, should indeed have been speedied. Garion96 (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Userpages are allowed to be idiotic. They aren't part of the project. So why should this be speedied? SchmuckyTheCat (talk) This is not a userpage. This is a user category. I don't think there's a dispensation that allows user categories to be idiotic to the same degree as user pages. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus, or relist. Perfectly valid cat for supporting collaboration. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Endorse - reasonable close. This was a pretty POINTy category, with no obvious collaborative purpose; categorising Wikipedians by opinion has long been discouraged. There may not have been a clear consensus to delete it, but I think the closing admin did the right thing in doing so anyway. Robofish (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Keep deleted as proof that CFD is, in fact, broken. --NE2 10:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Paul LaViolette – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Paul LaViolette (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This one ought to have been no consensus. There were at least eight editors arguing for keep, and even the closer agreed (here, post at 15:54) that our arguments are valid. As Juliancolton says, the decision to delete depended on the fact of the subject's request -- but if even he accepts that in this case one should not give weight to the subject's request, then again it is hard to see that there was a consensus to delete, given the number of editors arguing keep on that ground, or that one could delete despite no consensus. There is also the substantive point to consider: if a subject requests deletion only after attempts to control the page have failed (as in this case), it ought to be clear that they are not really seeking privacy but only control, and honoring the request is then a manipulation that subverts NPOV. But beyond the general question, for this particular AfD ignoring all those keep views can't possibly be described as consensus, especially when one accepts that their arguments are valid. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC) BLP allows an AFD closer to delete a marginal BLP if the subject requests deletion. I can't see any incorrect application of deletion policy here so I Endorse. The argument is not about consensus but whether or not this is a marginaly notable individual. Spartaz Humbug! 12:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Endorse BLP articles ought to default to delete in no consensus cases. Therefore endorse delete to help establish precedent that it does come out that way at least some of the time (and should come out that way all the time). Further, the subject requested deletion. Marginal notability cases, subject request is sufficient reason to delete. Therefore endorse on those grounds as well. ++Lar: t/c 16:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Endorse. Subject requested deletion, notability was marginal at best (multiple keep voters acknowledged it as well). Also, no consensus should default to delete on BLPs anyway, as Lar noted. Policies are changed by tradition, and this isn't a new thing. It's not in policy yet, but the tradition is already well on the side of this. Not only that, but Jimbo agrees that those of marginal notability should be able to opt-out. Lara 16:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Endorse - Notability was marginal, subject requested deletion, which is a valid thing to take into account per this guideline. NW (Talk) 16:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Endorse - I'm not seeing anything clearly erroneous here. The closer appropriately took into account the subject's wishes, and it seems to me that consensus here is that notability is marginal. Tim Song (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Endorse. There was a clear consensus that notability was marginal, and the closer was within the bounds of discretion in deleting the article. Kevin (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Endorse per WP:DEL. While I'm not fond of the idea that the subject's request plays a role here, it's policy that it does. Hobit (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Endorse. It's probably correct that we give some deference to the subject's request.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Overturn It's not policy it does, it's policy that it can at the option of the closer. It's bad policy , it should never be done unless the matter is such that it would come under OFFICE, it's a wrong direction assuming we do not want to degenerate into Who's Who, , and it leads to absurdities like trying to have it apply to all BLP, as seen in some of the following day's discussions here, and as Lara argues above, though she seems to agree there is not now consensu sfor itThere was a increase it the feeling that it should about a year ago, but it's changed back again and we should encourage it to change further. I don;t like hypothetical slippery slope arguments, but this one has proved to be slippery and treacherous. DGG ( talk ) Make your anti-BLP/IDONTLIKEIT arguments in the appropriate venues. Your dislike of a policy is irrelevant in DRV. Based on existing policy, the admin has discretion to consider the wishes of the subject who, in this case, requested deletion. Thus, for your vote to overturn, you need to explain how the close was procedurally incorrect, not what you think a policy should or shouldn't be. That said, I never claimed a consensus. I said it was common practice. Lara 04:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC) weakly endorse deletion To be very clear, I'm not endorsing on any ground at all related to what Lara and Lar seem to be saying that in general no consensus BLP debates should default to deletion. That's an idea which has been repeatedly rejected by the community for very good reasons. The argument that no consensus should go to deletion is not a great idea either but is not as unreasonable and it seems that a majority of the community finds that not to be intrinsically unreasonable. However, it doesn't seem intrinsically unreasonable to describe this individual as of marginal notability (although he isn't by the standard I normally use of a willing public figure). Moreover, some of the keep votes (such as my own) were based on the existence of sourcing for him to meet WP:BIO, a claim which became less clear as the debate went on. I'm therefore endorsing this deletion but see recreation if further sources present themselves as a completely reasonable course of action. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.