Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 February 15

Bernie Singles – No consensus, default to endorse. Consensus here is that the "delete" decision as such was correct based on the discussion. Opinions are however divided about the question of whether the discussion should be relisted to discuss new sources. In such circumstances, I as the closer can decide whether a relist is appropriate. I am of the view that it is not because the AfD had already been relisted twice and that it therefore unlikely that a third relist would attract enough attention to achieve a clearer consensus. As usual, the article can be recreated with the new sources if it is different enough to escape WP:G4, and then challenged again via AfD. – Sandstein 12:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I do not believe that a 3-2 !vote is adequate consensus. At best, the AfD should be closed as "no consensus". Davey2116 (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from closer: If we want to get numerical it was 4-2 (the nominator is a delete !vote), but since we don't close on numbers alone, that has much less influence in my close. The nom wasn't great and was from a new account. FloridaArmy's !vote didn't address why he thought the coverage met our lasting coverage point, which those supporting deletion addressed. The OP gave a "per X" !vote, which is a weak comment anyway, but the person they were "pering" also had a pretty weak keep rationale that didn't explain what they saw in the sourcing. It was an obvious delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. (edit conflict) Had been open for 2 weeks and only had one substantial keep !vote. Yours is simply a "per x", which carry very little weight in consensus finding. Users who expressed deletion opinions quoted relevant guidelines. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse consensus is clear on strength of arguments, which cited policy and provided reasoning. There was one substantive keep vote,.and following delete votes provided reasonable counterpoint to any reasons it gave for keeping. --Jayron 32 04:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per below; the close was reasonable given the arguments at the time, but the new evidence below indicates this maybe should have gone the other way. --Jayron 32 04:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AfD is not only for votes. More importantly, it is also a debeat. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as well within discretion. Another relist would have been too many and, for me, no consensus would not have reflected the strength of arguments. As always in this type of situation, new evidence could support the article's recreation with improvements. Thincat (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- seems a decent reading of consensus. Reyk _YO! 08:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, but relist. The close was correct given the material the closer had to work with. It's certainly true that the two keep !votes were not well argued. Given just what's in the AfD, I almost certainly would have closed it the same way. So, that's the endorse part. But, we still ended up in the wrong place.

Looking at the article (which I've tempundeleted), I see more than enough high-quality sources. It's not just the reference count, but looking over the list, the vast majority of them seem like WP:RS, and some stand out as major mainsteam media (Huff Post, Business Insider, CNN, San Francisco Chronicle, Wall Street Journal, Philadelphia Enquirer). I didn't see any discussion in the AfD of these sources.

Some of the delete arguments were just plain incorrect (i.e. a lack of sources adequately covering this website). Other arguments contradict WP:NOTTEMPORARY. And the people arguing to keep simply didn't make their case very well. It may well be that after a better debate, we still decide that this isn't notable, but it deserves a better discussion than it got. Full disclosure: I voted for Bernie, but I don't use dating websites. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per Thincat's request, some more good WP:RS, not listed in the article:

Washington Post
Forbes
Toronto Star
Market Watch (really just a passing mention here)
Sputnik News, in Spanish (mention)
The Village, in Russian (mention)
The Economist (mention)

-- RoySmith (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relist The decision was probably correct given the consensus achieved in the discussion. That being said, I'm seeing clear coverage in reliable sources, both cited in the article and not cited yet, thanks to the excellent work of RoySmith. With that in mind, restoring and relisting it to account for the new information seems appropriate. Smartyllama (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relist as the sources were not properly evaluated or even detailed Atlantic306 (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relist as I agree the admin read a small amount of consensus accurately, but more WP:RS have shown to exist since the deletion, a relist may be the best course of action. If not, I endorse. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the relist, but I can't endorse the close. At some point the sources in the article need to give the closer pause. And this was such a case IMO. Hobit (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- To respond to this (only thing I intend to respond to): no, they don't. The job of the closer is not to evaluate all the sourcing, but to evaluate the consensus of the discussion. It was pointed out in the discussion that the coverage was brief in the views of at least one of the participants, that made the notability claims even weaker as it was an appeal to a policy (WP:NOTNEWS) over a guideline (the GNG). Souring is not the only factor in a deletion, and when people make it the only factor, they are making weak arguments because they fail to consider the whole of our policies and guidelines. I'd oppose a relist because the material raised by RoySmith does not address this point, which was part of the consensus, to the point where if he would have included them, I would have still closed as delete, but with a longer explanation. We have to assume that the people who took part in the discussion and gave policy and guidelines based reasons assessed this after doing a BEFORE search. DRV is not AfD 2.0, and I think a relist over what was a valid consensus based on policies and guidelines after multiple relistings is harmful to Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's look at the delete !votes. The nom and JPL both claimed WP:N is not met. Given that there are entire articles solely on the topic (GQ and USA Today for example) those !votes are just factually wrong. K.e.coffman's !vote of NOTNEWS is more debatable, but certainly not on-point. NOTNEWS is about events and to a lesser extent people. But even it it stretched to a website, it's really hard to argue that the coverage was "routine news reporting"--of a certainty most websites don't get the kind of coverage this did. And the argument that it's defunct and so not notable is just not policy-based at all. The !votes to keep are that it meets WP:N (which it clearly does given the number of high-quality sources with significant articles on the topic). It's really hard to reach a delete outcome by doing anything other than nose counting. Tony, I knew you were a deletionist-oriented admin when I !voted for you at your RfA. I think you're a really good admin for the most part. But just as I would have to be really careful closing discussions as keep if I were an admin (as I'm pretty inclusionist), I think you need to be a bit more considered in closing as delete. Call it some variation of confirmation bias. Sorry this is a bit negative, but I just feel you really did mess this one up and I'm worried that you can't see that. Hobit (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Per TonyBallioni; the admin seeing a discussion is faced with two choices: to close the discussion and assess the merits of the discussion as written, or to add their own opinion and allow discussion to continue. Basically, an admin has the choice to act as an admin or act as just another editor in any situation; if they are going to relinquish their admin role that's fine, but they cannot then also close the discussion; if the admin in question wants to assess the sources and then make an opinion on the strength of those sources, their role is to leave a vote and let someone else close it. If they intend to close the discussion, they should base it on the strength of the arguments. They are not required to do either; if they are uncomfortable with the discussion going one way and their belief that the actual article indicates the discussion is wrong, they can just do nothing. --Jayron32 04:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you (Jayron) and I are largely on the same page. Passing on closing, !voting to keep or even !voting to delete (which would be an IAR !vote IMO, but there is nothing wrong with that) are all fair. But there wasn't the needed consensus for an IAR delete close as the !voting stood. Hobit (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.