- White Girl Bleed a Lot (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Non-admin closure on an AFD marred by several accusations of bad faith, posts by single purpose accounts, and posts by accounts that had been dormant for months until the AFD which is somewhat suspicious. I believe a relisting might be appropriate, considering how small a blip this book has made. —Ryulong (琉竜) 17:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The close was clearly correct, based on the evidence of coverage that was provided, notably the Salon.com article and at least some of the Thomas Sowell articles. The topic has sordid overtones, and I can understand the nominator's concern, given that some coverage that shows up for this book is found in suspect places. But there's enough legit coverage to qualify this as a notable book. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Thomas Sowell articles" were just the same text slightly changed for one website, though.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse keep Yeah, some of the keeps certainly had poor reasoning, but the lone Delete changed his vote. If there's evidence some of the votes were bad-faith ones, that can be looked into, and a relist after some time might be warranted, but there's no way any admin would close a 8-0 Keep debate as "Delete". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying that that would be the case, but I believe a new AFD is warranted due to the questionable nature of the sources, the questionable nature of several AFD !voters, and the fact that in the year that this book has come out, it is only now getting press due to WP:Recentism and the knockout game panic. If the new AFD needs to come in March instead of next week I can live with that, but I simply think this needs to be reinvestigated.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (I'd endorse, but I'm involved.) I'm the lone !voter who had started at delete but changed to keep. I don't feel there was any activity by sockpuppets unduly influence the discussion. I do feel that those users who participated in the discussion did a good job of focusing on policy. That's why I changed to keep: I felt they'd demonstrated that sources exist. It may be appropriate to relist the article in a few months time if the article does not mature, but that doesn't mean there's a problem with this AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - a relisting ain't appropriate, since the subject unambiguously passes WP:N, and the last discussion was entirely one-sided as a result. A new discussion ain't gonna reach a different conclusion. WilyD 10:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I still have my doubts on notability, as WP:ONEEVENT seems appropriate here and the AFD had questionable participation.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhm ONEEVENT is about people, and this article is about a book. ONEEVENT also says not to delete biographies that fail ONEEVENT, but turn them into articles about the event (or merge them with articles about the event, as appropriate). It's wholly inapplicable. Beyond that, even if some of the AfD participants were somehow dodgey, the outcome was unanimous, because there's no room for reasonable doubt on WP:N. WilyD 13:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I stated my opinion on the book's notability at the original AFD so I really do not feel like rehashing the arguments here, as it is not the place. And I have stated here that the "unanimous" outcome may have been marred by unscrupulous editors.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Unanimous outcome - unscrupulous editors = unanimous outcome. The argument that there was a notability problem was rejected by everyone who heard it. Even if some fraction of everybody wasn't on the up and up, the outcome doesn't change. WilyD 16:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would just like fresh eyes on this at some point in the future as it may be useful to reevaluate the notability of the subject per WP:NTEMP. Right now, it appears that the book has only received any notice because of the knockout game hysteria, as all sources concerning it come from November 2013 when the book was first published in September 2012, and this fleeting relevance does not equate to notability in my opinion, but I will save this for a future AFD rather than talk about it here.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Admin comment I'm on the verge of closing this early. @Ryulong: you are making some serious but very vague accusations about the conduct of other editors in the AFD. This isn't how we work here and DRVs are not vehicles to make unevidenced generalised claims of misbehaviour in lieu of actually demonstrating what the problem is. Evidence specific accusations or withdraw the aspertions. Otherwise I'll draw this to a close. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 20:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- spartaz, I'm not so sure; this discussion should run the full time. The presumption is that a self-published book is not notable. Examining the sources, there is no dedicated significant coverage of the book in a reliable non-partisan source. The LATimes and Salon discuss the book as an example of a more general phenomenon. It's true that we do not need dedicated coverage, just significant coverage, and I think those two sources do give that. So I would probably endorse the decision. But I consider the article somewhat unbalanced: the ethnicity of the authors of the references on it is given only for the author in the NR, as an implied endorsement, and I can see how this imbalance might lead to a good-faith nomination for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is never a prohibition from raising a new DRV that isn't stuffed with unspecified innunedo and aspertions. But allowing a review to proceed on that basis is really a waste of everyone's time as the key argument in the review will be ignored anyway. Spartaz Humbug! 22:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how saying that some of the AFD commentors were clearly SPAs or brand new accounts is "unspecified innuendo and aspertions" simply because I hadn't spelled that out explicitly before.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I can understand where Ryulong is coming from here, but this closure looks reasonable to me. While some of the commentators on the AFD were new accounts or SPAs, others weren't, and there were enough contributions from a broad enough group of users to determine a consensus here. If Ryulong really thinks the book shouldn't have an article, he can always take it back to AFD at some point in future; but I would ask him to bear in mind that (i) the notability bar for books is set pretty low, and (ii) having a Wikipedia article on a book in no way implies that Wikipedia approves of the book or its contents. Once a book has received attention from independent reliable sources - even just a few, even highly negative reviews - it's hard to argue we shouldn't have an article on it. Robofish (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Appears to be a disruptive editor not liking something and gaming the system to suite his needs. Editor wants to remove the article then writes about a negative review about it another article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knockout_(violent_game)&diff=585277510&oldid=585274716 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estermackayy (talk • contribs) 13:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse No argument for deletion was given in the first place. The discussion was unanimous (minus the nom/DRV filer) when closed, which makes it entirely appropriate for a non-admin closure. No argument that provides any basis for DRV to overturn the close is advanced, either. I'm thinking WP:STICK applies. Jclemens (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not looking to overturn the close. I just want to relist it anew because I feel that the events were circumspect. Is this not the proper venue to seek this? And look right above your comment. There's already an SPA disrupting here who is failing to assume good faith as many SPAs did in the original AFD.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
