- Brenda Gerow (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Closer gave no justification, other than !votecount. When asked, told me to come here. Geogene (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's questions I raised with two successive non-admin closers [1], [2]. My understanding of policy is sometimes wrong, but I'm pretty sure that policy is supposed to matter, and that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Otherwise AfD is really just a tossup of whose browsing AfD's that day and whether they care about sourcing, and there's no way to predict who will get more "votes". Might as well flip coins. Geogene (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - (edit conflict) It is 'not required' to justify when closing, given that the result is intuitive. When you asked me on my talk page, I not only asked you to come here, but also stated,
I closed the AfD based on the strong consensus to keep the article and based on the value of every single argument by other editors , for which you gave me an uncivil reply. Regards—☮JAaron95 Talk 19:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what "intuitive" means here. I asked you which of the keep !votes you found most persuasive. That's a fair request, because the close goes against my sense of policy, and also because, as the closer, you have read and weighed at least some of them. There's also conversation on that article's talk page that is worth a look. Geogene (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See discussion for talk page of the article. As the author of the article, I supported changing the page back to its original title (as "Pima County Jane Doe"), as the article was created months before the rumored identification took place. The page was not renamed by me, but by a different subject that did not add any discussion before moving it. I feel the case is still notable and that it is perfectly fine to remove information about the identification that has no reliable sources, yet all other information on the case that is given in the article is from reliable primary and secondary sources. Not having sources to back up the identification does not justify deletion, as the case was notable prior to the identification.--GouramiWatcher(?) 19:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (mostly). When no editors endorse a deletion nomination, and multiple users oppose deletion, an explanation is not ordinarily required. That said, NAC closers need to keep in mind that WP:NAC allows them to carry out speedy keeps, but not SNOW keeps; as WP:SK says explicitly, "The 'snowball clause' , , , is not a speedy keep criterion itself". As a recent DRV concluded, the "full" discussion period should run, and that is seven full days. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be that it's not ordinarily required, but if asked, it should be possible to provide one. If one can't be provided, it's fair question whether consensus actually existed. Although it might be a better exercise for somebody to try to find a single reliable source that talks about "Brenda Gerow" per se. Geogene (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - Consensus was keep and not every close needs to be policy based, As an aside Geogene I wish you would stop linking to that particular edit summary! - As I explained at the AFD [3] if you're going to speak to me like shit you're going to get told to fo it's as simple as that!, Treat others as you wish to be treated. –Davey2010Talk 19:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are the questions I raised relevant to this closure, making it relevant to this review. Your edit summary is incidental. Probably neither of us should give civility advice. Geogene (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. The fault isn't in the close, it's in the discussion. Given the discussion that exists, it's hard to see how this could have been closed any other way. But, I can't ignore the fact that there is indeed not a single reliable source which ties the name Brenda Gerow to this Jane Doe. It seems likely that there should be, but I looked at every source in the article, and none of them qualify. I also searched a bit myself, and couldn't find any. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue of whether the name goes with the person described seems irrelevant to whether the article should be deleted. The article existed for months before it was associated with the name "Brenda Gerow". If you think there aren't reliable sources that link that name to the person described, then edit the article back to how it was before and move it back to the old title. Calathan (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be opposed to that. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]- That's a start, but then you're back to "the police are requesting information about a photo" which seems to be the only verifiable fact in the article, aside from a Jane Doe that was found around 1980, which may or may not be linked to the photo. Do you want an article about the body, or an article about the photo? Geogene (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good point. I've stuck my willingness to go along with just the title change. Again, I'm not blaming the closer. The people who contributed to the discussion did a spectacularly poor job of evaluating the references, and the fact that there was near-unanimous agreement to keep, doesn't change that. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - There was a clear consensus to keep. Several participants stated that they voted to keep because of they felt the coverage or sourcing was sufficient. That is about the most straightforward argument someone can make in favor of keeping an article at AFD, so I don't understand why Geogene thinks more explanation is needed. Calathan (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I checked to see if sources exist, and found there are virtually no reliable sources that cover either Brenda Gerow or Pima County Jane Doe. That's a good enough reason to delete the article. That it didn't get deleted based on a !vote count is unusual.
That the closers were utterly unable rationalize the close is absurd. Here are some Google searches to prove the point: Pima County Jane Doe: [4]. Google Brenda Gerow: [5]. If not for the Web discussion boards, I'd have templated the page as a hoax. Which begs the question: how many of those "Keep" voters actually checked to see if sources exist, when they didn't notice the problem with the name? Does "Consensus" exist in spite of that? This should have been a straightforward delete. Geogene (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. I can see how this looked like an easy NAC keep, but the comments themselves lack sufficient depth or engagement with the nomination rationale to justify drawing any conclusions from them. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
