- Madison McKinley (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
In my opinion, the closer of this deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly.
I've attempted to discuss the matter with the closing admin via his or her talk page, but no response from the closing admin.
I don't see how there is a 'consensus' in the deletion discussion. The deletion discussion did not result in consensus for deletion.
Mycat99 (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure it did. Endorse.—S Marshall T/C 00:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please elaborate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycat99 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedians use language strangely sometimes. In the non-Wikipedia world, a "consensus" is a state where everyone roughly agrees. On Wikipedia it means this. You see, it would be easy for someone to cheat at most Wikipedia discussions by creating throwaway accounts to agree with what they say. We stop that by saying that accounts need a certain amount of history before their views "count". Most of the people saying "keep" in that discussion are below the threshold to have a voice in our discussions, so the closing administrator just pretends they never spoke. It's an anti-cheating measure basically.—S Marshall T/C 00:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't the article be re-displayed during "Deletion Review"? Mycat99 (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally it would, but that's not really necessary in this case.—S Marshall T/C 00:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy or incubate on request [1] shows that the closer has had sufficient time to reply since July 18. One way to interpret this absence of a response is that the analysis of "trace of notability" is valid. If we accept the closer's view that none of the SPAs made valid arguments, and we also agree that one of the deletes can be dismissed as an ad hominem, there were only three participants in this AfD, and the closer should have relisted. Given the confounding peripheral issues in this AfD, including the omission by the AfD nominator to mention an alternate name for the topic (Garton), the practical thing here is to clear the decks and start over. Unscintillating (talk) 01:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If we really must relist this, then I suggest we do it with a semi-protected AfD.—S Marshall T/C 02:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse [
Caveat: I haven't seen the article but have looked around for sources; I assume that this is not the same Madison McKinley that is plastered all over the interweb for dating a tennis player, right? Not that it would necessarily matter.] The close was a perfectly good read of the 'discussion'. The consensus was clear enough not to require a relisting and in this case a re-list would be unnecessary DRV micromanagement. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no AfD in that edit history. That is not a userfied article. Unscintillating (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You're correct. It's a userfied copy. —Cryptic 01:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, nom claims "the closer of this deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly", but gives no evidence to support the accusation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - Consensus was clear that a bit-part actor (#30-40 or so in the cast list of The Wolf of Wall Street, for example) does not meet the project's notability threshold. No amount of incubation or re-write opportunity will make a non-notable actor notable. Wait til she gets more roles and subsequently more coverage in reliable sources, then try again. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per Tarc (and I am pleased to have an opportunity to say that). The consensus and closing were correct--this does not meet our notability standard at the present point in her career. The attempted disruption in the afd did not hinder the correct conclusion). DGG ( talk ) 14:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Any claim that there is a deletion consensus requires that the two delete !votes refuted the one keep !vote, and there is little to work with here. The nominator's and delete !vote's argument that the article was a WP:PROMOTION problem was not sustained by the closer, which leaves wp:notability. And since wp:notability is not defined by the article, it is correct that it is not necessary to see the article here to judge the weight of arguments for notability of the topic. The nom refutes the NY Times link, but in general gives no verifiable evidence to support the opinion that the topic is not WP:NOTABLE. The lack of verifiable evidence weakens the !vote, for example, the nominator does not report an article in the Huffington Post (1/23/2011)...why? The delete !vote says that the topic had traces of notability. Both mention WP:TOOSOON, which I reviewed. An example given of a WP:TOOSOON actor is one who is the lead in a film that will not be released for a year. In contrast, this actress has been in the business for seven years and as shown in the imdb.com link above has a resume of credits. The keep !vote cites a "lack of quality secondary sources", where the lack does not rise to the level of WP:Deletion policy, but only provides one link to the denverpost.com. The closer states that the consensus is that of WP:GNG, but none of the !votes mentions GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
