- Shane Diesel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Page was deleted despite there being no consensus. Rationale was that BLP no consensus defaults to delete. I was not aware of this policy change and while doing a search for it, I found two other AfDs that the closing administrator closed the same way in the same week.[1][2] When questioned where, he pointed me to WP:BLPDEL which does not seem to apply. I questioned whether he meant WP:BIODEL even though it doesn't apply either since the subject is a public figure, hasn't requested the deletion of his article, and there editors that opposed the deletion to the point of no consensus. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- BLP no consensus does not default to delete. " If a deletion discussion of any biographical article (of whether a well known or less known individual) has received few or no comments from any editor besides the nominator, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment." is not the same thing--it means that a AfD without discussion can be closed as delete if it appears obvious to the closing admin., essentially as if it were a Prod. where the admin decides just the same way. But this was not an afd with few outside comments, and should therefore have been closed as non-consensus. I have no opinion on the actual article, but the closing is in contradiction to established policy. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with DGG--the close rational is simply mistaken. I think a case could be made for deletion, but that isn't it. Further, this one at least has one very solid mainstream source (Cosmo) and 2 other "eh" ones. The AfD was mostly attended by the regulars at porn AfDs (on both sides). I'd say NC was the right reading, but deletion wasn't appropriate. undo deletion Hobit (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No consensus was the right call here, but a close of no consensus so delete requires unusual circumstances that simply weren't present. Overturn, restore, and don't send it back to afd; another week or two of bickering isn't going to break the impasse. —Cryptic 08:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- To restore. This is totally mistake by administrator.
- result 4:3 for keep
- if article is reported in AfD, must to be consensus for delete, no consensus for delete is lack consensus for delete, so = no delete - this is a logical. No consensus means: not achieved consensus to remove on page of "articles for delection", simply
- there is no default = delete in biographies
- in this case, nominator/creator AfD (User:Macreep) is sock-puppet of blocked user:Redban, confirmed by checkuser. Generally, the page should be closed because it was created illegally - so, AfD should be canceled = automatically keep. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 11:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to "no consensus" and restore. Deletion was plainly in error as there's no such thing as "default to delete" just because the article's about a living person. As noted above, such a policy change has been proposed multiple times before and never accepted. postdlf (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus. I almost closed this myself; there might be consensus that the subject fails PORNBIO, but there's definitely no consensus about the GNG. I'm also unimpressed by the closer's responses on his talk page. It's unclear how or why WP:BLPDEL would apply in this case. Mackensen (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus. There is not, as far as I am aware, a policy that suggests BLP articles default to delete in the absence of consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus & restore. Same rationale as all the overturn arguments in all three DRVs in today's queue, no default to delete here. - Becksguy (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Vacate AfD close. Not sure what to do after that, maybe just relist, but given the reliance on a (as far as I can tell) non-existent policy, the close is obviously invalid. Also, I agree with Mackensen that Coffee's talk page response was a little out of line. Sure, the initial query might have been a little edgy, but admins are supposed to have thick skins. Responding to barbs with a smile (even if it's a forced one) is all part of mop ownership. Same comment applies to the two items below. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn closing statement at least. I can see a rough consensus to delete (Notable because "the guy holds down a mainstream job"!?). But it is true that past attempts to legislate that "no consensus on BLPs defaults to delete" fail to gain support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to No Consensus, restore article - in isolation, I would be somewhat sympathetic to the idea that a porn actor's bio might default to delete on the premise they might favour that if asked, I think that's exceedingly unlikely for a guy who did an interview with Cosmo. The other, even more problematic DRVs today severely tarnish the closing admin's image as an impartial determiner of consensus, which also bugs me. Closers need to be seen as capable of being impartial, and under the circumstances, that's really hard to see. WilyD 13:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, I think that's an unfair characterization of Coffee as the admin correctly gauged consensus, so this is not about impartially. The only issue here is about applying the correct BLP closing guideline, so this is a procedural discussion, nothing else. - Becksguy (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I will say that as soon as I saw the DRV, I knew who the closer was. I don't see how this could be a misunderstanding on his part--he knows the rules. Hobit (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: The AfD closing was vacated just a little while ago by the closing admin Coffee, see diff and the article has been restored - Becksguy (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevertheless, these should still all be closed "no consensus" according to the consensus reached here (and, notwithstanding the policy misinterpretation, according to Coffee's judgment that there was no consensus), and these DRVs formally closed as "overturn" to restore. I'd rather the AFDs be renominated later than reclosed now as purportedly having a consensus to delete after all of this. postdlf (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, especially about waiting until later to renominate at AfD. The ideal person to re-close the 3 AfDs as "no consensus" would be Coffee. Failing that, an uninvolved admin. And any uninvolved admin/NAC could close the 3 DRVs since no admin tools are needed at this point and consensus seems pretty clear. - Becksguy (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Retain deletion: If we discount the Redban sock Macreep, and also discount the two porn SPAs (and likely COIs), the !vote was actually 3-2 in favor of delete. None of the pro !votes were able to adequately address WP:GNG requirements for multiple independent mainstream media pieces (sans the subject failing PORNBIO). So, the closer may have provided the wrong explanation, but he did apply to correct result. Pax 20:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Do something: Last Coffee's move (vacating the close before the deletion review closed) sounds weird as their previous actions, now the three AfDs are virtually open again, in no man's land. --Cavarrone 20:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I would interpret Coffee's reversals as him recusing himself of the situation and leaving the matter to another closer, which seems reasonable. My assumption is that the AfDs will be relisted for further response. Pax 21:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The AfDs could be relisted, reclosed, or even retained, this is exactly the object of this discussion. The reversals were certainly made in good faith, but at this point there was no rush in removing the closes in the middle of the DRV discussions, DRV generally runs for a week and certainly these AfDs could not stay until Tuesday in the current state (virtually reopened and editable by everyone, but still awaiting DRV outcome). It is another procedural mess, the DRV/AfD discussions should have to be immediately closed, or at least the AfD pages have to be protected until DRV ends. Cavarrone 22:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not weird at all. Another uninvolved admin should now close them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the sense of "do something" (now). Cavarrone 22:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If the three AfDs are closed as anything other than "no consensus" at this point, and DRVs closed as other than "Overturn to restore", we will just wind up at DRV again. Close everything status quo, wait a week, and then renominate cleanly without all this baggage. These article have no BLPVIO problems so there is no hurry. - Becksguy (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point, now that the closing admin has reverted the close, I see this DRV as totally moot and suggest it be closed and let the AfD continue to take its normal course from here. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Procedurally closing as no-consensus is a kludged white-lie, and procedurally reopening again after that just leads to an even bigger waste of time as well as annoying editors who posted opinions in earlier AfD versions but missed the count in later ones (etc). As an arbitrary fix, the "ticking clock" could be reset to, say, one week, and the three AfDs just relisted. Pax 01:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, now we are deeper into this mess. An argument was made today in one of the AfDs, making AfD procedural closes without a relist even more problematic. I am rethinking postdlf's and my previous argument here, since that boat has sailed. One of us (admin or not) could do a procedural close of the DRVs. Having an AfD and DRV running on the same article at the same time is just crazy. If no one objects, I'm willing to do a "Procedural close - AfD close vacated" of the DRVs now. I think this is preferable to asking an uninvolved admin to sort this out, since we all are familiar with the terrain. - Becksguy (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Given how long this has run, I think the DRV should be closed normally and its outcome respected irrelevant of the closer undoing their close. So just a straight-up NC (which gives leave for a new listing at some reasonable time in the future as with any AfD) Hobit (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely. I'd also support reverting the AFDs to the versions at the time of the close. The closes really shouldn't have been reverted while this is pending because it just causes confusion. postdlf (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. The AfD closer made error in wording. The closing statement was the point of focus of the nominator here. The closer in reverting has essentially yielded the point, rendering this DRV moot. It may be inferred for future policy discussion that the community has here rejected "no consensus on BLPs defaults to delete", but that is something for policy debaters to cite and argue, not for a DRV closer to legislate.
- These discussions are now moot. They remain open only due to the bureaucratic difficulty of there being so few DRV closers active at DRV who have not already commented. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
