Here we have a big bundle nomination of articles created by promotional sock puppets, with mostly boilerplate information, for non-notable beauty pageant contestants. After ten days of discussion, 12 of the 18 participants in the discussion argued to delete and/or redirect all of them. 3 others specified which should be kept and which should be deleted. Only 3 of the 18 participants in the AfD argued to keep all of the articles, yet it was closed as Keep all for the time being; renominate separately--they are likely to be of unequal notability. It may we worth mentioning that while raw !vote numbers don't necessarily matter at AfD, this was not a case where the majority arguments were poor and/or submitted by SPAs. This was standard AfD argumentation related to notability as well as the context of the articles' creation.
Based on the thread at closing admin DGG's talk page, it sounds to me that the close was based on a sense that with so many nominated, some must be unequal, basing the close on personal principles of best practices for AfD (or the arguments presented which most closely match them) rather than consensus of the discussion. That's not to say it was a bad faith close, of course, but that it should be called what it is: something I'd probably describe as an WP:IAR or WP:COMMONSENSE close based on the view that too many articles were nominated. But if that were the case, it should have happened early on rather than after ten days of discussion.
I don't like bundle AfDs as a general rule. I think they usually do more harm than good. But we do allow them. Although the number here is high, the grouping is of a kind specifically allowed and in fact suggested for bundling: articles which contain standardized/boilerplate content, articles created by sock puppets for promotional reasons, all of the same subject type, etc. DGG did not disagree with this premise, as far as I can tell, but found the number nominated objectionable, instructing participants to nominate 5-10 instead. I cannot find a numeric requirement echoed in policy (except, again, if this were a close per IAR/WP:COMMONSENSE). While, 5-10 is more manageable and speaks to why bundled AfDs can be problematic, 5-10 is also arbitrary. If this close is upheld, and maybe even if it's not, I'd like to get some feedback on how best to modify WP:BUNDLE to reflect that such an outcome is possible. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up - I just noticed the original nominator, Legacypac undid the close, was promptly reverted, and is now mass nominating/CSDing. I don't know what that does to this thread. DRV seems like a more prudent approach to me. --— Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I followed procedure and requested that the closing admin User:DGG review his close because I think he breached policy and failed to consider consensus. I further found that he had not removed the AfD templates from any of the nominated articles except the lead one. That prevented renomination as he suggested - therefore the close was malformed. So I reverted the close and posted for another Admin to close properly. User:GBfan reverted my revert, putting much of it back to an improper close, but did strip some of the AfD templates on some of the subsidiary articles.
Along the way I was also advised that this process never results in delete after a keep. I then started to AfD the articles one at a time but found that the group AfD resulted in a redirect of each new AfD to the closed group AfD. Eventually I figured out that the redirect had to be manually deleted of each page like this one [1] in order to get the nomination to list properly. To get to these pages I have to manually construct the URL because I can't find any way to click a link there without setting up the AfD with a repost of the long closed AfD onto today's list of new AfDs.
After 10 of those I went to sleep. A few hours later I find that my deletions of the redirect text on the AfD pages are being reverted - to what effect that has I have no idea yet. To top that off I've got another Admin who was used discredited arguments on the group AfD copy pasting inappropriately vague arguments against everything I do and saying he no longer assumes good faith about my work and other unpleasant things in violation of the guidelines around AfDs.
Cleaning up vandalism by a banned sockpuppet should not take the rest of my life, but I like to finish the job so I press forward. I'll hold off on nominating any more (about 40 to go) to see if this Review gets any traction.
This all involves a MASSIVE amount of work on my part to eventually delete what appears to be a bot created list of articles. Legacypac (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some will be notable, based on subsequent work. The only way to find out is to investigate each of them separately. The boilerplate content can ignore important other material, as is common with such low quality article creations. In a nomination such as this, the few notable individuals will get lost. I advised the nom. to renominate them individually, a few at a time, to allow for proper searching. But they've decided to renominate all of them individually at once, which I consider improper, though not prohibited. And, as Rhododendrites remarks, it doesn't really make sense for them to do it simultaneously with deletion review--we should choose one route or the other. I should note that I have no interest in this particular subject, (and I just declined a request on my talk p. to speedy-close all the individual afds, because I do not want to be that extensively involved) but I do care about deletion being done in such a way that the notability of each article can be considered. DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do care about deletion being done in such a way that the notability of each article can be considered But it was only in your own judgment that this was not the case with the previous one. Either nip bulk nomination in the bud when they start or assume good faith that when an editor offers a !vote that applies to all, that he or she looked into all of them. Closing as keep and discarding consensus in order to impose an arbitrary numeric limit based on your own opinion of what is reasonable, while undoubtedly based on reason and experience, is nonetheless not good practice at the end of a ten-day discussion, given the current state of AfD policy pages. --— Rhododendritestalk \\ 18:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way that was a discussion resulting in deletions. A more nuanced close that redirected those articles that nobody called out as needing individual attention would have been nice, but a no consensus close was the best that could be reasonably hoped for, and that's essentially what we got, what with the exhortation to renominate.
User:Legacypac's subsequent actions here, of course, aren't helping his professed cause one bit. If there's a better way to carve an exception out of the usual inclusion criteria than mass nominations in a subject area with sneaky sockpuppets, I can't think of what it would be. Hey, it worked for high schools. —Cryptic 17:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't agree that that was not a discussion that could have resulted in deletions, but I wouldn't have opened this if it had been closed as no consensus rather than keep (which, although you interpret it as no consensus, is what the record shows). DGG defended the keep (rather than change to no consensus or IAR) by saying he went not by number of votes but by the strength of policy-based arguments. That suggests he was saying his close reflected consensus. I opened this case because I disagree with that reading of consensus (and because it raises procedural concerns for the future as I mentioned above). --— Rhododendritestalk \\ 18:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only practical difference between closing an afd as keep and as no consensus is that folks get more upset if you quickly renominate a kept article. Anyone wikilawyering that the new nominations should be shut down solely because the previous afd was closed "keep but nominate separately" instead of "no consensus, nominate separately" can be expect his !vote to get the weight it deserves, i.e. none. (Actually relabelling them as no consensus might head off such disruption, which is why I asked DGG to do so earlier.) —Cryptic 18:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that while I wouldn't have likely filed a DRV if it were closed as no consensus, I still think a no consensus close in this case would be inappropriate. The close had nothing to do with consensus. What it should've been is an IAR close or a WP:COMMONSENSE speedy keep perhaps. Policy allows for this nomination, it drew participation, spanned ten days, and an overwhelming majority of participants supported deletion or redirecting. What the close should reflect is that the AfD was not in keeping with the closing admin's sense of best practices at AfD and/or best interpretation of Wikipedia policy. That would still lead me to start a thread on at the talk page for WP:BUNDLE asking for clarity, but I wouldn't have challenged the close. The current close, whether we interpret it as keep or no consensus, is an implementation of a personal interpretation of policy and an arbitrarily quantified prescription that don't have anything to do with consensus, so it should better reflect that. --— Rhododendritestalk \\ 19:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The delete !votes were pretty weak. I didn't see a lot of policy-based arguments here (unless WP:COI is now a reason for deletion). I'd have preferred if it had been closed as no consensus, but I think "keep for now" gets the notion across. Hobit (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
? WP:COI came up one single time in the AfD. I think what you mean by COI is the fact that, as was repeatedly brought up, these were created by a banned promotional/COI sock master (and even one of the examples given in WP:BUNDLE), which is certainly a reason for deletion. Other reasons given included WP:BIO, WP:GNG, WP:BLP1EVENT, WP:NMODEL, WP:ROUTINE, etc. And before someone says "yeah but CSD" with regard to the sock puppeting, not only is it still a valid reason for deletion at AfD but that they should be CSDed rather than AfDed means anything but a close as "keep all" (even if interpreted as "no consensus"). --— Rhododendritestalk \\ 19:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except that that's not true: a simple review of the actual creators of the articles the nominator now has at AfD will show that few or none of them were created by this "sock farm" and the the creation varies from fairly recently to more than 4 years ago. The "sock master" accusation is pasted into every one of these new nominations. My strong assumption of good faith was strained significantly by the repeated untruth. - Dravecky (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your making an argument about this bundle by pointing to articles that weren't part of this bundle? The majority of these were created by a blocked sock. While the most prolific is blocked, it's true that not all of the article creators are blocked. That said, most produced similar style and content articles and only one article of the bunch was created by a non-SPA. Given how prolific the sock master is and how similar many of the articles are, it doesn't seem like a stretch, but yes, assuming good faith there is reason to believe a few were not created by socks. But why assume good faith there but not regarding the contributors to the AfD, suggesting that a blanket delete or blanket redirect could not possibly have been based on an evaluation per the policy the !vote cites? As I've said, I searched for sources for all of the articles that did not take the exact same barebones cookie-cutter style (including some created by the sock that had text added since their creation), and found not one of them to pass BIO. The others (the "barebones cookie-cutter" ones) were easily TNT material given the socks and also due to lack of usable content. WP:BUNDLE says to use caution because they're tricky and often messy, but the problem typically arises because participants in the discussion come to a consensus that the nomination was flawed, that they should be kept, etc. Here that was not the case. 3 out of 18 !voters made that argument. The consensus was clearly not for keeping all of them, and that's why this DRV is open. The question isn't whether you agree with the outcome of the close but whether he properly determined consensus. [side note: I'm feeling like I've said my peace and am starting to repeat myself now. Since so far nobody who supported deletion other than Legacypac has chimed in, I'm going to take a bludge-be-gone pill and go to sleep :) To be clear, though, I'm much less interested in these articles being deleted through this process than I am for the close to better reflect consensus (and/or to account for such a close via a clarification of WP:BUNDLE).] --— Rhododendritestalk \\ 08:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
<ec> I am referring to the deletion !votes that argued for a deletion based on COI. If these articles were all created by a user after he was banned, this could go through CSD. Otherwise, COI isn't a reason for deletion. Further, BUNDLE makes it clear one should be very careful about a bundled nomination. Given that some of these folks appear notable, it's hard to imagine any outcome other than doing them one at a time. I'm unclear why we aren't just doing that at this point. If it's the "keep" vs "NC" then A) I think the closing statement makes it clear that renoms are fine and B) I'm in favor of moving the close to NC. I just don't see how we can get a policy-based mass deletion here. Folks suggesting things like deleting them all and letting DRV sort it out, aren't making policy-based arguments.... Hobit (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - discussion was fundamentally broken; realistically, all of the articles should be either redirected or kept - policy cannot be invoked to argue for deletion over redirection. Although it's clear that some may merit redirection while others merit being kept, a lot of people made vast, sweeping statements without any indication they'd considered the merits of all the individual articles, which are different. Combined, we have a lot of opinions asserted that go against policy by participants who give a strong indication they did little or no evaluation of the articles before !voting; such votes must be strongly discounted, they're all noise, no signal. Now, I'd have used a called it no consensus, which is closer to the truth and historically gives one more leeway to re-nominate right away, but since the closing statement explicitly says you might consider a separate discussion for articles that might need it, one where a consensus can be achieved, there's no need to take action. WilyD 07:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse while "no consensus" might be a better description of that close I don't think there's any way that discussion should have ended in deletion. Several people made comments relating to only a handful of the articles, which makes determining consensus for any given article a lot harder. There were also a number of comments arguing for deletion or redirection or all the articles which made some dubious arguments. That winning a state contest doesn't confer notability doesn't mean the subject reaches notability in some other way. That the articles are badly sourced doesn't mean better sources aren't available. That the articles were created by sockpuppets isn't grounds for deletion unless they were evading a block or ban. Comments arguing that they should all be deleted unless someone can point to sources for individual articles ignore the fact that notability simply doesn't work that way. While bulk nominations are allowed they also frequently aren't a good idea, and this looks like one of those situations. Hut 8.5 11:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closer reasonably (and to my mind quite accurately) concluded that the large-scale bundling of articles made it impossible to properly establish consensus on the many individual articles. Whether the outcome was styled a procedural keep or a substantive no consensus is not terribly important. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree it might have been clearer if I had called it non-consensus, but as pointed out, it comes to the same thing. Several of these articles have now been individually nominated, and that's the way forward. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I don't like large bundled AFDs like this, if for no other reason than it is a pain to close them by script; this one suffered from the additional issue of differential notability. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I shall say endorse while agreeing the close wasn't utterly ideal to a very high level of perfection. However the AfD nomination was also deficient, in this case very highly deficient. Had the nominator explained matters as Rhododendrites has above then maybe there might have been a more discriminating discussion. However, a nomination along Rhododendrites' lines would have only been appropriate with a much smaller bundle or with no bundle at all. People do not like being expected to take a lot of time carefully considering each member of a bundle only to find that the nomination itself seemed to have been given far less care. Thincat (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Given all of the above, I'm content to Withdraw this DRV. I'm satisfied enough with the notion that the close could be recognized, given the caveat in the closing language, as something that would've been more accurately been called no consensus, IAR, or even speedy keep based on the bad nomination. I don't know why the language wouldn't just be modified to reflect that, but I'm not feeling like that's worth keeping this open. Also, WP:SNOW (I'm getting enough of that outside at the moment). --— Rhododendritestalk \\ 00:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Yung Stet – Non-admin speedy closure reverted, nothing else to do here. —Cryptic 17:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Improperly speedily closed by newly (as in 2 hours previously) created account. Too soon (under 7 days), not a speedy (only one keep !vote from another account that started editing only two hours before !voting), a supervote, improperly closed (notice still on page). JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I undid the close per WP:IAR, as it was extremely obviously inappropriate. ansh666 11:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
