Rachel Uchitel – deletion endorsed. A strictly by-the-numbers breakdown results in a majority opining to endorse the deletion of this article; ordinarily this would be more than enough to call the discussion and walk away. The entire process was a bit convoluted due to the somewhat novel rationale behind its original closure, and this has led to a number of arguments to overturn the result on procedural grounds alone, as well as a number of calls to repudiate the close while upholding the end result. There is no longer any need to repudiate the close as the original closer has modified the statement some, but in a way this muddies the waters further still, as I now have a handful of editors whose contributions to this discussion do not entirely make sense. Ultimately it is obvious from this discussion that there is a consensus to uphold the deletion of this article and therefore it will be upheld. I will note that there were also interesting (and well-stated) arguments that the original deletion nomination may have been misguided due to additional sources that may have alleviated any BLP issues, and these editors present a strong argument that an article on this subject that does satisfy BLP may be written. As such there is no prejudice against the re-creation of this article with the understanding that special care be taken not to run afoul of the issues that brought it to this point now; I would highly suggest any such interested editors formulate a draft in userspace for review prior to recreation in the mainspace to avoid just such problems. – Shereth 21:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Closure rationale is "no fully unanimous consensus, default to delete". The "no consensus BLP default to delete" has recently been discussed to death here, and clearly the majority of the community thinks, from that discussion, that no consensus BLP should default to keep like any other article, unless an explicit request of the article subject comes out. The current policy wording has been discussed and ultimately changed to reflect the outcome of the previous discussion, and now says: "The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so. Therefore, if there is no rough consensus the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate.". The deletion should therefore be overturned per policy, as no consensus-default to keep. Cyclopiatalk 15:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion This is slippery wording here. I DO NOT believe that the deletion closure here is inconsistant with the fact that the community has not (yet) supported a "default to delete". Firstly, the closer said "no unanimous consensus" - well we don't need unanimity to see a debate endorsing deletion. IN this case the delete supporting arithmetic was over 60%. If you read the rest of the closer's statement he has not just "defaulted to delete" he's actually weighed the !votes and concluded that the delete case is not only numerically but also in policy the stronger - which is perfectly within the closing admin's normal discretion. His wording here may not please everyone, but the result is quite within normal practice. Further when BLP concerns are expressed, whilst we don't default to delete, we do need to err on the die of caution - a 60+% vote and the closer's view that the majority had the better arguments is certainly enough.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus finding, overturn to keep: In addition to Cylopia's comments re the BLP-default-to-delete idea already being sunk recently, two attempts at a "no consensus, default to delete" outcome have been overturned at DRV in the last month., i.e., DRV for Human disguise and DRV for Wendy Babcock.
Furthermore, if you look at the exact close language, "no fully unanimous consensus" -- such a creature is rare indeed in any active AfD discussion, and that standard (anything less than unanimous keep) would result in the delete of most any BLP brought to AfD. E.g., I could nominate Glenn Beck, and he would surely draw some delete !votes. So this is far from normal pratice, and bad wording to endorse. Lastly, I added a fair number of references to the Rachel Uchitel article while it was in AfD, most of which predated October 2009. I was blown away at the amount of coverage she has received since 2001 -- I was at first skeptical about the article, but when I actually researched it, I moved away from the knee-jerk "oh this tiger woods B.S. has gotta go" reaction. Sadly, many of the delete !votes did not investigate the subject matter.--Milowent (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's figure out first what the closer meant. "No fully unanimous consensus" to do what? Tim Song (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion — we don't have a specific numeric standard for deletion; administrators are expected to use some level of judgment in closing discussions. *** Crotalus *** 17:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if after a widely participated, month-long discussion, that kind of judgement has been explicitly rejected by the community, so far that policy has been clarified to reflect that? I agree that "some level of judgement" is to be had, but here we talk of an option which has been just explicitly rejected by the community. --Cyclopiatalk 17:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
its not about numbers, "default to delete" is almost never never a valid close.--Milowent (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Since I know someone will bring it) To be precise, is almost never a valid close. There is one specific exception, when the subject has explicitly requested deletion, where it may default to delete. It is not the case here, however. --Cyclopiatalk 17:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But whenover 60% favour deletion and (in the closer's view) the deletion arguments are far stronger, if has always been in the closer's discretion to close as a delete consensus. Hasn't it? There's nothing new here, except perhaps a badly worded close.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The closer has agreed the discussion a "no consensus". If it is "no consensus" (and it seems almost everyone agrees on that), it defaults to keep, per policy and per precedent thorough discussions on this very subject. It is simple as that. If you personally think it was a consensus to delete (which most probably isn't), fine, but that's not your closure we are debating. --Cyclopiatalk 17:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
to Scott Mac (Cyclopia must type faster): *Perhaps it could have been closed that way, but it wasn't. It was closed as a "default to delete", which I think would set a bad precedent if endorsed. Assuming good faith, it wasn't closed as a straight delete because it really was a no consensus in the mind of the closing admin.--Milowent (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question- The AFD mentioned some information on the person that was in connection to 9/11. Anyone have anhy sources they can bring to the table for that? If so, that would be an indicator that there was notability prior to this information with Tiger Woods, which would severely undercut the BLP1E arguments in the AFD. If nothing about that, or information regarding notability prior to this Tiger Woods stuff can be produced, then the BLP1E arguments are correct. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not AfD part 2, umbralcorax. Closer closed wrong, bottom line. That is being decided on, not the notability or lack thereof of this lady (and let me go on record that it is sad and horrible this article is on Wiki, it makes me puke, I do not think it should be on the project. But, if it meets policy, who cares what I think?Turqoise127 (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Turquoise that this is not AfD part II, but the question of Umbralcorax is meaningful. I hope to create no problems if I copy the relevant part from the Google Cache copy of the article: Her fiance, investment banker James Andrew O'Grady, was killed in the September 11 attacks of the World Trade Center.[8] A few days later, she appeared on the front page of the New York Post holding a picture of O'Grady.[9][7] [10][11] Uchitel and her fiance's family subsequently debated the disposition of his estate.[12][8]. --Cyclopiatalk 18:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In short, umbralcorax, Uchitel received signifigant coverage after 9/11 because her fiance died in the attack. The NY times and other papers did followup pieces, as 9/11 fiances received nothing while wives were compensated. In 2004, the NY times covered her wedding. In 2005-06, various sources covered her new job as a VIP host for celebrity nightclubs. Other articles over time, in U.S. and foreign papers, would revisit her 9/11 story on 9/11 anniversaries. There are no doubt tons of BLP articles on wikipedia for people who have done far less, not including allegedly sleeping with tiger woods.--Milowent (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Milowent, that clears some things up for me. The fact that the person in question is not notable for just one event, for me at least, means that BLP1E arguments should have been given less weight in the AFD, turning a "no consensus", into a "keep". So in this case, I vote to Overturn. In response to Turqoise127, I asked the question because I wanted to know how much weight I felt the BLP1E arguments should have been given. If her only source of notability was the affair with Tiger Woods, then a delete outcome would have been a valid one (but not as a no-consensus default to delete... I am getting really tired of seeing those). Umbralcorax (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
break 1
Overturn to No Consensus defaults to Keep, per Cyclopia. Frankly, these attempts to create precedents and change policy so that no consensus defaults to delete are becoming bothersome. As Cyclopia stated in the nom, this had been discussed at length and community showed in huge numbers that this policy was NOT to change. The blatant disregard of certain admins in still attempting to change this thru precedents and thru misuse of admin rights by closing against policy is troubling and must be addressed somehow. There is nothing much to discuss on this DRV. AfD was clearly no consensus, regardless of the weight of the argument being slightly stronger for the delete side. There were numerous votes on each side, and most were reasonable, that is enough to create no consensus; because any other decision disregards and disrespects the numerous editors on the opposing side (whether it is keep or delete). The AfD is, in fact, a classic illustration of a no consensus, and the closer sees this, states so in the rationale, yet closes default to delete against policy. Ridiculous. Turqoise127 (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I'm a bit confused here. The closing admin says there was no unanimous consensus for deletion, and he says in his close that the arguments and volume of the reasons for deletion outweigh the reasons for retention. Maybe there was some sort of rough consensus for deletion here? Perhaps the closing admin can clarify this better? MuZemike 17:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how you skin that cat, AfD was classic example of no consensus. Many on one side, many on the other. No consensus defaults to keep. Sorry I am WP:Bludgeoning every commenter, I will stop now.Turqoise127 (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there was a consensus to delete (all be it not unanimous). A closing admin is quite entitled to rule a 60/40 split where he thinks the 60 have the best arguments as delete. This happens all the time.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin "defaulted to delete" - you don't default to anything if consensus actually shows keep or delete. There's no need to re-interpret what the close really meant. An endorse on this close is endorsing "default to delete" as a valid rationale for closure.--Milowent (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TO SCOTT MAC: I respectfully disagree. Maybe so if the split is closer to 80/20, and if there were not sooo many editors opining on each side. This arbitrary decision has hung all the keep voters out to dry and has disregarded their opinions. Is that an admin job well done? Clear cut case no consensus.Turqoise127 (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - largely per Scott Mac above, who sums it up better than I could. Given the numbers and given this is a contentious BLP, I'm not seeing an issue with the closing admin's decision here - Alison? 18:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. No consensus AfDs, including BLPs, default to keep per current policy, and attempts to change this policy (something that I would be cautiously sympathetic to) have so far failed. Until policy is changed, AfD closures must follow it. I have not evaluated, however, if the "delete" closure would have been defensible had the closer simply found consensus for a "delete" closure on the basis of strength of argument. Sandstein 18:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"no fully unanimous consensus" != "no consensus". The closer's rationale sounds like he found a rough consensus to delete. But then the "default to" language is normally not used if one found such a rough consensus. Taking into account the closer's actual reasoning and the debate, endorse deletion solely on the ground that the closer was justified in finding, in effect, that there is a rough consensus to delete, but troutslap closer for the contradictory and unclear closing statement. I emphatically note that this !vote is limited to this particular debate at hand, and does not have anything to do with the "no consensus BLP default to delete" business. Tim Song (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in this case "no fully unanimous consensus" was meant as a proxy for "no consensus", as the closing admin originally closed the mater a day early as "no consensus, default to delete"[2]. After reopening, there were 4 more keeps and 4 more deletes added. --Milowent (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Making it clearer. Endorse the closer's conclusion that numerically the arguments for deletion is more numerous as clearly correct. Endorse the closer's conclusion that the arguments for deletion are stronger as reasonable. As a result of these two conclusions, it follows necessarily that there is a rough consensus to delete. Therefore endorse deletion in accordance with that rough consensus and revise the closure to delete. I note again that this !vote has nothing to do with "no consensus to keep, defaulting to delete". Tim Song (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus, keep. This string of "breaching experiments" has become disruptive and should stop. The community has conspicuously rejected the principle the closer advances. Given the requirement that the closing admin be "disinterested," I think it's inappropriate for an administrator who's been actively pressing the issues involved (on either side) to close a contentious AFD in a matter which promotes his or her position, and the disruptive consequences of such closes are becoming increasingly clear. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. If the discussion is clearly trending towards delete, but the consensus is not 100% strong as one would wish. The closure was correct, if worded poorly. I agree with Tim Song when he says "The closer's rationale sounds like he found a rough consensus to delete. But then the "default to" language is normally not used if one found such a rough consensus." The consensus was not 100% firm, but what discussion on Wikipedia ever is? A "medium" consensus of sorts instead of a strong consensus does not automatically imply no consensus at all. Scott Macdonald expresses my feelings pretty well. NW(Talk) 20:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural endorse - I'm not a big fan of this "no consensus, default to delete" business. AfD is run by consensus, and it's important to respect that. If there is truly no consensus, it should be closed accordingly. If, however, there is consensus to delete—which I believe may very well be the case here—then just say that and provide a rationale. So, I endorse this close, but on procedural grounds since it should stay deleted in my opinion. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am not understanding well what you mean. Do you endorse the deletion or not? And what do you mean by "on procedural grounds"? Because your wording seems to state that you want it to be overturned, but... --Cyclopiatalk 20:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the deletion, just not the means by which is was deleted. (Hopefully that makes sense. :) ) –Juliancolton | Talk 20:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
break 2
Closing Administrator's Comment - I closed the AFD this way for a reason, the main argument for the inclusion of it was that she was notable before the Tiger Woods incident. This argument, while it sounds good, is in no way true. She had been on the New York Times front pages, after her fiance died on 9/11. This wouldn't have made an article by itself, and adding another BLP1E on top of it, doesn't make the subject any more notable, even if they are in the news. The majority of the delete !votes were citing the BLP policy and the COATRACK policy, both which are applicable with this article. The majority of the delete !votes were strong and well based in policy, and (in case you didn't notice) made up the majority, by 20 more !votes. I find it amusing that some of you here are trying to game the system, just because I used the extremely accurate term "no fully unanimous consensus". This term, while thought provoking, makes sense and isn't as deep as it sounds. If you need me to break it down, I'll gladly change it to: no consensus to keep, default to delete, which practically means the same thing. This isn't a second AFD, you can't act like the majority of the consensus wasn't for deleting the article. So please stop trying to game the system by hanging over the words on how it was closed. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 20:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to: no consensus to keep, default to delete. Now try to argue with that reasoning... --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay: "no consensus to keep" is not a reason to delete. Deletion requires consensus to delete. I assume that the reason you didn't close it with "the consensus of the discussion was to delete" in the first place (or even now) was that there wasn't such a consensus. I'm also puzzled by the words "adding another BLP1E" -- doesn't that make it WP:BLP2E? And by the way, coatrack is an essay, not a policy (not even a guideline). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to argue with Coffee. As I noted on your talk page yesterday, "no consensus, default to delete" has been roundly rejected as a valid close rationale; I appreciate you clarifying that your rationale for deletion here was that you didn't find a consensus to keep, so you "defaulted" to delete, as you have advocated in favor of at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Default_to_delete_for_BLPs, which didn't go anywhere.--Milowent (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomo: Thank you for trying to read my mind, you sadly failed. The reason I said no consensus to keep, is to provoke thought, which it evidently did. Having 2 completely unrelated events to your name does not make you notable, so yes, it's a BLP2E, but it still means the exact same thing. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Milowent: Thank you for informing me of something I'm already well aware of, however I disagree. In BLP AFDs we should be looking for a consensus to keep, not a consensus to delete. Stop gawking over the use of the word default, if I had left that word out, does that mean you wouldn't be commenting here? --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you just wanted to delete it, you should have left out the word "default". Adding that word makes it an attempt at policy change. - Peregrine Fisher (talk)
Frankly yes, Coffee. If you had determined that consensus was to delete, I know that it would likely be a close within admin discretion. It would set no significant precedent. Shifting the burden to to look for a "consensus to keep" on BLPs will have a significant effect marshalling in favor of deletion of such articles. You closed the article the way you did to force the issue, so my gawking merely recognises your subtly significant adjudication. Its no surprise that a number of the endorse votes to date seek to endorse your outcome but not the rationale.--Milowent (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1)WP:COATRACK is a mere essay, not even a guideline and by any standard not policy. Not that I disagree with it, but for sure it is not policy
(2)That !votes cite policy does not mean that they cite it correctly, which is the only thing that counts. Most of them cited WP:BLP1E, and they were obviously very debatable, since there were several events that made her notable. WP:COATRACK is just a reasonable essay, as anyone can see, and good motivations for the coatrack were not substantially given. I understand that you disagree, but the keeping or deletion of a page cannot rest on your personal disagreements.
(3)The deletion policy is clear on the subject (and it was at the moment of your closure): The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so. Therefore, if there is no rough consensus the page is kept . This has been recently added, but it has been done following the discussion I linked in the nom, as the rational outcome of that month-long debate.
(4)Therefore, your In BLP AFDs we should be looking for a consensus to keep is only your mere opinion, but is directly and explicitly contrary to policy. We should (perhaps:I respectfully disagree), but we do not.
(5)You reiterated that there was no consensus to delete. On which we agree, at least, and makes the points of a couple of endorsers here moot.
In short: I'm sorry to sound harsh, but it is painfully clear that you deleted this non-consensus AfD only because your personal opinion was to delete it, in explicit disregard of policy and community consensus on how to treat non-consensus articles'default. --Cyclopiatalk 22:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Only one thing that you said do I find necessary to reply to, as the rest of your points, I've already gone over here. To 5.: I at no point said that there wasn't consensus to delete the article, and if you can find anything to prove otherwise, I'd like to see it. The current closed rational is, no consensus to keep. That means the same thing as, a rough consensus to delete. ---Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poppycock. If you'd closed as "consensus was to delete" you'd have saved a lot of time. The burden shifting of adopting a standard of needing to find a "consensus to keep" to keep a BLP article is a significant change in policy. There are frequent BLPs that close as "no consensus", which means no consensus to keep or delete, and they are kept. Your rationale would end in a delete. --Milowent (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Tim Song and partially what I said above, which is what I thought the closing admin meant. MuZemike 21:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. While the closer's statement could have been clearer, he did indicate that there was a rough consensus to delete, which is a reasonable reading of the debate. Kevin (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To closing admin: Do you think we are stupid? I mean, if other editors and WP policies are stupid, just say so, please, don't beat around the bush.
Your comment: "I find it amusing that some of you here are trying to game the system, just because I used the extremely accurate term "no fully unanimous consensus". This term, while thought provoking, makes sense and isn't as deep as it sounds. If you need me to break it down, I'll gladly change it to: no consensus to keep, default to delete, which practically means the same thing."
It is troubling that you are amusing yourself as an admin on the account of the community. It is YOU as a backer of "BLP no consensus default to delete" side who is gaming the system with immature silly wordings in closes. Your term is neither extremely accurate, thought provoking nor deep. It is childish, dorky and plain stupid. Let me educate tell you on about closing, Mr. Admin (I who have only a few hundred edits to my name): It is either Close, Keep, Merge or No Consensus. No consensus defaults to keep. Someone already pointed out that you previously prematurely closed this AfD with "no consensus default to delete" wording[3]. This careless disrespectful chatter you have on your talk pages on this issue with same-camp-deletionist Alison (discussing underwear and congratulating each other)is indicative of your utter disregard of other editors and/or current policyUser_talk:Coffee#BLP_defaults_to_delete. All of this WP disruptive behavior coupled with your snotty "deep thinker" loser comment above makes me sure you are incorrectthat there should be steps taken that you not close another AfD ever.Turqoise127 (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Turquoise, please edit the above so to avoid personal attacks. While I can understand the reasons of your comment, and I personally can agree with some of its content, the vicious attacks you're making at the closing admin make me sure that there should be steps taken that you not comment another DRV (to use your words). --Cyclopiatalk 22:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about you and your 458 edits go to RFA, and then we'll see if you can make blanket statements like that. Sorry if my opinions don't completely agree with you, but I honestly don't care. The encyclopedia's reputation is at stake with BLPs, and I'm more interested in that than your hurt feelings. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my inappropriate comments. I tend to be overly passionate at times. I am not as patient and do not have so much tact like editors Cyclopia or Milowent. When I find something unjust and disrespectful to the project I overreact. Will work on this. Have struck out mean parts. Turqoise127 (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as there is no "default to delete" by either policy or consensus. Jim MillerSee me | Touch me 22:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Overturn, have another closer perform the close with Delete rationale. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn No consensus defaults to a keep result, there is no such thing as no consensus to keep. there has to be a consensus to delete. Wikipedia policy about this is totally unambiguous. There are apparently a few admins who do not yet realise it--strange, because it has always been that way, and someone who insists otherwise, needs to review WP:Deletion policy before closing further afds. The arguements given by the closer for why it ought to be deleted belong at an afd--if thecloser had an opinion about that , they should have joined the discussion, rather than closed a disputed AfD based on both their own opinion and mistaken policy,. DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- when the closer closed the debate the first time, 30 hours too early, he/she used the following formulation in the edit summary: "Closing debate, result was no consensus, default to delete". This is simply an error. It was a further error to perform the close again, after the full period had elapsed, with virtually the same mistaken rationale. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
break 3
Suggestion: this drama is all the fault of an incompetently worded close. I am a BLP deletionist who supports a default to delete, but that is utterly irrelevant here, and I'm as irritated as the other side by the wording of this. However, I think we are confusing the result with the stupid and confused rational. The closer is now saying there was a "consensus to delete" - which is what is ought to have said in the first place and spared us this shitstorm. I suggest that what we need to do is: uphold deletion (as consensus to delete), repudiate rationale (as a misstatement of policy), then trout-slap closer.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since, as noted immediately above, the closer discerned "no consensus" the first time he/she closed it, it would be powerful strange to switch to perceiving "consensus for delete" at this stage (after the first close, keep and delete views were added in equal measure). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support this, consistent with my expanded views above. Though I'm more partial to exploding whales...... Tim Song (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uphold deletion, repudiate rationale, and trout-slap closer :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm, even the closing admin has repeated that it is a no consensus. Are we trying tricks to keep it deleted despite AfD outcome and despite policy violations? --Cyclopiatalk 22:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close this marginal BLP anyways. Secretaccount 22:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly we need to form a policy with these marginal BLPs. BLPs aren't like any other subject in this project. They have the potential of causing great harm to this project if we treat these articles wrongly. We should delete BLPs that have marginal notability. Coffee shouldn't have closed this debate because he has a clear point of view, but the delete closure was correct. How would Uchitel feel that she has an article on Wikipedia because of an alleged affair. We shouldn't create articles based on this kind of information. Lets stop policy wonking each other, and discuss a solution to what is becoming a major crisis in our hands. Secretaccount 00:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, overturn no consensus to delete if needed. There appears to be no consensus on the notability of this person, however none of the keep votes have addressed the BLP problems whatsoever, meaning there is consensus that the page should be deleted for BLP concerns. The overall consensus therefore should have been delete. There is no reason to quibble over the closing admin's choice of words. Triplestopx3 22:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What BLP problems? There were BLP problems that required deletion? Only BLP-based argument I am aware of was WP:BLP1E, and this has been addressed extensively. --Cyclopiatalk 23:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The closing argument has been clarified as "no consensus to keep, default to delete", which has been explicitly rejected as an acceptable rationale several times. This should be reopened and an admin who is not trying to use their position to effect a change in policy can close it instead. Fences&Windows 23:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. As one who changed his vote from weak keep to delete, it seems pretty clear to me that no consensus should default to keep. // Internet Esquire (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Even if poorly worded, the close was legitimate. This is forum-shopping. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's not forum shopping. The deletion close is being contested, and this is deletion review. Don't Wikilawyer. Fences&Windows 00:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
F&W, The close is an accurate reading of the consensus, and if some of the people commenting here would look past the bold letters, they would understand that. IMO this is just an attempt to shut down the term "default to delete", whether or not the close was done correctly. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DRV does seem rather political as of late... –Juliancolton | Talk 09:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Yes, a bit awkwardly worded, but the rationale of weighing the strength of the arguments is sound, and the arguments to keep were poor, to put it charitably. Yet another DRV nomination intended to stoke maximum eDrama. Tarc (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn due to procedural error. The AfD was closed one day early by the same closer who came to the same conclusion the next day (with a shortened version of the wording). Editors would interpret this to be a message that the outcome is going to be the same regardless of whatever they had expressed/!voted there. It really should have been handled by another admin. Whatever conclusion that comes out of it, whether concur or otherwise, is another story altogether. - Mailer Diablo 02:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete I am a firm believer that BLP cases should default to delete if no-consensus but I think this was the wrong close as BLP1E clearly applies and this was not adequately refuted by the keep side. Therefore overturn no-consensus to a clear delete. SpartazHumbug! 03:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is not AfD part 2, but BLP1E does not "clearly" apply, sorry. Read the above. There is not one single event where the article could have possibly been renamed/merged. Again: !votes that handwave policy are not more powerful just because they handwave policy, they have to do that unambiguously correctly. I wait for the day someone will delete a dead person article citing BLP... --Cyclopiatalk 10:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Been there, done that. BLP applies for dead people as well if there are living rellys to be affected by an article. Do no harm isn't just for christmas. SpartazHumbug! 15:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The closure rationale does include the phrase "no fully unanimous consensus, default to delete", which some people here seem to object to. However, it also says: "The delete !votes are far more compelling and cite stronger policy than the keep !votes, and the consensus (by percentage) mostly leans toward deleting the article. Therefore per my full reading of the discussion, it warrants deletion." and that seems like a reasonable closure to me. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Scott Mac. Enigmamsg 06:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion I count 42 delete !votes and 25 for keep, with one for merging to Tiger Woods. (I may be off a few, but the toolserver count is off due to changed votes). So, in the end result, it doesn't matter, around 62% supporting deletion. The merging idea never got any traction at all, so let us discount it. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but, if the closing admin believes the 62% have stronger arguments than the 37% on the other side, I'm okay with him/her closing the debate with the majority's argument. This tells admins to gauge "rough consensus", which I believe Coffee found in this discussion. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Re-close The close as written should not be endorsed. The reasons have been pointed out in many of the comments above and don't need rehashing by me. However if an admin not using his statement as a platform in a policy debate read that afd as a consensus to delete I'd have no arguement.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete; the closer does not appear to have found consensus to delete. Thus, keep was the appropriate result. Christopher Parham(talk) 15:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion If those making the complaints would read the statement "The delete !votes are far more compelling and cite stronger policy than the keep !votes, and the consensus (by percentage) mostly leans toward deleting the article" instead of just the bold text, I don't think that this would be an issue. Perhaps the bolded portion was poorly worded, but the justification for the delete is most certainly sensible. --Shirik (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Consensus != unanimity & the closing statement did not suggest that it was. As the closing admin stated, both the numeric weight and the weight of policy based arguments were on the side of deletion. It cannot be clearer. Nancy talk 21:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
overturn No consensus is no consensus. I would have likely argued for deletion in this case. But that's not the consensus and despite repeated claims, there's no communal decision that no consensus defaults to deletion in BLPs. If someone wants to make an argument that a policy interpretation overrides here then they might have something resembling an argument. Close as no consensus, and renominate it in a few months. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)= Per Scott's remark below. To be very clear. This is a wretched close reasoning. There's no communal decision that no consensus defaults to deletion in BLPs. Repeated attempts to push it through have failed. However, this could be closed on better policy and consensus grounds as Scott summarizes below. So I want to overturn and replace close with a close noting the consensus for deletion based on clear BLP1E and consensus in the discussion. I'm concerned that this close was chosen to make it more likely that the community would see this as an acceptable case to adopt no-consensus defaulting to deletion. That's exactly the sort of policy-football that Scott refers to below. Thus, I'm making this formally a call for overturning and replacing with a proper reason for deletion. (Also I damn well hope that the closer look up what the word unanimity means. Either the closer doesn't know what that word means or the closer is so far from anything that even the most die-hard deletionists want...) JoshuaZ (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Sorry, now back to overturn The fact is that there's a very good argument that this is not a BLP1E given the coverage from well before the current matter. Given that, and the very bad close decision this should be overturned. Defaulting to deletion is not a policy, and without that sort of claim (which has been rejected by the community) there isn't a good argument to delete this article. I'm moreover concerned by Coffee's comments here and elsewhere which seem to suggest that anything less than unanimity allows a delete close. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But there was a consensus. Leave aside the whole "default to delete" nonsense here - which is a policy argument that really has nothing to do with this particular article, and what have you got? A 62%-38% vote, with the closer finding the 62% to have the stronger policy case. Now, I find the closer's wording unfortunate, but do we really restore this article to prove a policy point that's for a different debate? I'm happy to agree that there's no consensus for a "default to delete", but restoring this article is wikilawering and almost a WP:POINT violation. If this is restored it will be immediately renominated and almost certainly deleted with a better worded close. So we really want to use the biography of a living person as a pointless policy football?--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
break 4
Overturn to delete and encourage admins to close debates as "delete" instead of "no consensus-delete" if they feel particular policies necessitate deletion. I don't like the idea of no consensus defaulting to delete and I don't think it should be used, but administrative discretion on touchy debates like this can and should be used and a delete close would be well within that discretion. No consensus-delete only gets people fired up. ThemFromSpace 23:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No Consensus, Overturn Delete- Although I argued for the deletion of this article, I disagree with the result. There was no consensus, and it should have been closed as such. --Fbifriday (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. This was the correct reading of the AfD, regardless of the way the closer put it. Chick Bowen 01:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse delete Consensus to delete, or at least definitely to not keep. Reywas92Talk 03:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to nc, default to keep Firstly, if the closer found no consensus to delete, it should be kept. Secondly, the keep arguments were stronger, as she was notable per WP:N previous to the "one event" and therefor BLP1E doesn't apply. Finally, there really was no consensus to delete that article, so it should be kept. Hobit (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, has the closer provided a reason for closing the AfD early? Hobit (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was accidentaly closed early the first time. The close that this DRV is on, was closed 2 hours after the typical closing time. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the first closer undid the early close and you closed it after that? Who was the first closer and how did they close it? Hobit (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He was the first closer, too. [4]. Tim Song (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion.Delete was the correct outcome, overturning over the issue with the closing admin's wording would be bureaucracy. Many of the delete arguers felt that the subject's 9/11 connection and the article about her as a nightclub manager did not amount to notability, therefore BLP1E did apply. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, without question (to no consensus, default to keep). I did not comment or vote in the AFD, but I am here to state that the verdict given by the closing admin verges on abuse of process. When there is no consensus on a highly-controversial AFD involving many, many participants, the default is to keep, not to delete. —Lowellian (reply) 13:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep. "No consensus = delete" has been continually rejected by the community with good reason. This blog post may also provide some insight into Coffee's actions. He accuses those opposed to his close of stupidity and playing politics. But it is he who is factionalising here, with his dismissal of "inclusionists". By making such a controversial close it is he who is being political, trying to make it a fait accompli and set a precedent.
"I'll just run off to make more closes like this. And in ways where you can't dispute it."
"I don't give a shit what any inclusionist says"
I also suggest that Coffee has a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of consensus as used on Wikipedia, first referring to it as "by percentage" and second describing it as "mostly leaning" towards deletion. Consensus does not "lean" towards an outcome - it exists or it does not. If it does not exist here (as he asserts himself in the close) then the article should be kept. the wub"?!" 14:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly endorse deletion. A completely valid close. I didn't comment in the AfD but looking through I find Coffee's close to be entirely fine. Wizardman 14:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This probably won't affect the discussion but I feel it should be mentioned. Apparently Ms. Uchitel is in talks to pose for Playboy [5]. I know this isn't AFD part 2, but this information does, I think, go further to negate some of the BLP1E arguments, given that she's not trying to remain out of the public spotlight. 04:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Other than the number of people linking to BLP1E, there wasn't any reasoning as to why 8 years of coverage falls under BLP1E. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This isn't supposed to be AfD part 2, but it is. In the original AfD, 8 years of coverage was decided to be a BLP1E (obviously incorrect). In this DRV, a no consensus was deemed to be a delete. I hope the closer gives a long explanation as to why both of those things should be ignored if they close as an endorsed delete. And, if they say "by consensus", I'd like to hear why this local consensus overrules the global consensus at the policy and guideline pages. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a no consensus to delete close, it was a no consensus to keep close. Please stop trying to manipulate the wording to fit your agenda, --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 10:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, to delete you need a consensus to delete. --Cyclopiatalk 11:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't ever remember saying that there wasn't a consensus to delete. Rather quite the opposite, did you even read past the bold letters in that AFD? --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 11:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read here that you discerned "no consensus" at all in that AfD (and again the balance did not shift after this point). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about you read what you linked to: "However the delete !votes are far more compelling and cite strong policy. Therefore I'm deleting it.". --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
upgrades earlier trout to tuna --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have a role-comprehension failure on the part of the closer, here. Admins are elected to enforce the rules we have. They aren't elected to enforce rules we don't have, and "no consensus defaults to delete" is a rule we don't have. Attempts to introduce this as a rule have repeatedly failed to attract the necessary support and, unsurprisingly, the necessary support is not evident in this DRV either. Overturn to no consensus.—S MarshallTalk/Cont 14:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uphold deletion (as consensus to delete), repudiate rationale (as a misstatement of policy), then trout-slap closer (per Scott MacDonald above). I was about to say essentially the exact same thing but Scott expressed it very well. Reading through the AfD (in which I did not participate), it's quite clear that closing as "delete" is well within administrator discretion, and Coffee should have simply closed it as such. Probably would have gone to DRV but it would have been upheld. Like Coffee and others here I'm in favor of having the option to close no consensus BLP AfDs as "default to delete," but we've recently established that this is not currently the community consensus. Closing in this fashion was thus a poor, out of policy decision which needs to be repudiated here at DRV, and furthermore it was completely unnecessary since one can make a strong argument that there was a consensus for deletion. So another way to put my view is that I think we should Overturn to delete, thus vacating the original "no consensus, default to delete" close, but in point of fact maintaining the status quo vis a vis the article itself. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse A lot of folks don't want to admit this, but closing a deletion requires two judgments, one about the consensus of the participants and the other about the weight of the arguments. When the consensus isn't obvious (what we call "no consensus") it requires the discussion to be closed on the arguments. It was certainly wrong to say the word "default" in this, but the closer made it clear the the weight of the arguments was to delete. We need more closes like this that take an depth look and think about the result instead. The closer should be congratulated for using his brain and not a numeric count. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
'Endorse deletion but allow a redirect to an article on Woods' travails. This violates WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do realize that she had significant coverage (in one case an entire article solely about her, plus a fair number of coverage elsewhere including the NYT) before the Woods thing? Hobit (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
break 5
More or less per Scott: Uphold deletion (as consensus to delete), repudiate rationale (as poorly worded), then trout-slap closer ... followed by a whale-slap for those policy wankers who are arguing that we need to overturn this, just so someone can post a different closing rationale. Good grief. ++Lar: t/c 22:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one pushing for changes in policy via AfD/DrV rather than by discussion. Are you really claiming that closing statements don't play a role there? Hobit (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that closing statements don't play a role? How do you derive that from what I said? I'm not seeing any such assertion by me. Of course they play a role. And this one is flawed, and could stand to be changed, and should be. But getting the statement changed by mutual agreement, which I favor, isn't at all the same thing as an actual overturn. It would be sheer process wankery to force an overturn just to change the close if one agreed with the outcome. We don't have time for such tomfoolery. ++Lar: t/c 02:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so assuming Coffee is unwilling to change is closing statement for the second time, what should us "wankers" do? Just let the closing statement stand? Plus, as I've argued elsewhere (and Coffee noted for the record) the discussion had no consensus. Hobit (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lar is expressing distaste for the people who see a consensus to delete but are nevertheless calling for an overturn. He's not referring to people like you, who believe there was no consensus to delete. I hope that clarifies things. Equazcion(talk) 05:20, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Thank you. ++Lar: t/c 18:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I slap back all the campaigning admins who are canvassing on Wikipedia Review and abusing their positions to force a change in practice contrary to policy and consensus, and who call other users wankers. Get a grip. Fences&Windows 23:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So many fallacies in two sentences. I suspect it is your grip that needs improving, not mine. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. ++Lar: t/c 18:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Preacher's back. sorry I couldn't resist --Cyclopiatalk 12:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Get thee behind me, Satan. sorry I couldn't resist ++Lar: t/c 18:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion but not closure per Scott and Bigtimepeace. I think there was a consensus to delete here; the whole "no consensus, default to delete" controversy should've been avoided. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just change the closing rationale - Coffee was told, on his talk page by a few people, myself included, that his closing wording was inaccurate and would be seen as a problem. He was stubborn about listening to advice though, as he often is. No one really disagrees about the delete, just about this "default" nonsense. Force a change in the closing rationale, and everyone will probably be happy. If he had changed that himself when people started commenting on his talk page (which was before this DRV even started), this could all have been avoided. Equazcion(talk) 03:13, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)
"No one really disagrees about the delete"? I certainly do, quite strongly. The delete !voters are living in a world where when someone who _is_ notable really sees serious press coverage for something silly (like this) they suddenly label them as not notable. Had the Woods thing not happened, no one would have sent an article about her to AfD--she was plainly notable before that (easily met WP:N and WP:BIO). But the Woods thing did happen, and the article got created because of that. And so we have people arguing BLP1E when it doesn't apply just because _that_ is what prompted someone to create the article. She easily met WP:N a year ago. !votes that argue to delete for BLP1E should be greatly discounted. Hobit (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't AfD II. If you have a problem with the closing because you think the voters against you were wrong, that's not what DRV is for. Equazcion(talk) 03:38, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)
You said no one disagrees with the delete. That's factually untrue as many of us do. The question here is how the closer should have closed the debate. And part of that, perhaps most of it, is looking at the strength of the arguments on both sides. In this case the subject plainly, met the letter of WP:N before the "One Event". So arguments citing WP:BLP1E as a reason to delete should be taken with a grain of salt. One can argue those sources weren't enough to establish notability (and a few people did in the AfD). But most let them pass without comment. Hobit (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main cause of this drama is Coffee's stubbornness. But he's always right, so what can we expect... Fences&Windows 03:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm truly surprised in the bitterness in that statement. I try not to think that I'm always right, but I usually don't stand behind a view unless I feel that it's the best for everyone. I'm not just some drama-mongering idiot. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this doesn't come off as the same bitterness you're referring to, but my frank response to this is "so prove it". Change your closing rationale to get away from the "no consensus" and "default" stuff so that this long waste of time and effort can end. Equazcion(talk) 05:48, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)
While I will eschew the "so prove it" wording, I agree with the sentiment. Please just change the close to clarify matters, Coffee. You say you're not a drama mongering idiot... well much drama has been mongered. ++Lar: t/c 18:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It helps to do so with a good amount of tact, which is left much to be desired especially after reading the blog post. - Mailer Diablo 06:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noting Coffee's change to the closing rationale, I now endorse the deletion, and thank Coffee for making the change. Seeing as the concerns of most of overturn voters have been addressed, this DRV can probably be closed. Equazcion(talk) 00:56, 14 Dec 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Since the deletion rationale has been changed (though I personally could see a no consensus close), I think the revised rationale was within closer's discretion. The "default to delete" rationale being repudiated for good was my primary concern.--Milowent (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd certainly object to closing this early even given this third close by the same closer. Let's let this play out by the book. There is no need to make this more of a farce than it already is by closing out of process. Hobit (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There were two important issues at hand here. One was problematic wording of the close that attempted to push an agenda in a subtle way. I applaud the wording change by Coffee, and this has resolved one issue of this DRV (coincidentaly, seeing the closing editor's blog explains much, this is a very young contributor). The other, equally important issue at hand was the allegation that the closer was not correct in his interpretation of the AfD itself and closed incorrectly as Delete (no matter how it was worded). Numerous experienced editors have argued this above and it is not fair to disregard their opinions. This is absolutely not AfD part 2, we are deciding here on the issue of whether or not the closer interpreted the arguments correctly and if policy based arguments for keep were given sufficient weight. Personally, even in completely disliking this article and considering it not worthy of inclusion nor encyclopedic, I believe keep arguers offered well reasoned policy based opinions. Turqoise127 (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth does being a young contributor have to do with the close? I'm over the age of majority in the US, and there are editors here a hell of a lot younger than that. I took the blog post down that I made earlier, for a few reasons. (One of them being that I was on Percoset(wisdom teeth were removed) at the time of writing it which impaired my judgment, granted I'm still on it now, just a lower dose) The consensus was for delete in that AFD, just looking at the rough numbers (discounting the SPAs). 67% of the !votes were to delete while 33% were for keep. In my book that's a pretty damn good consensus. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 19:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AFD Relist?. I have no opinion on the merits of the article or of the closing, and don't plan to form one. But in the circumstances, maybe a relisting, with a brief summary of the policy/fact arguments made in the initial AFD, would help. Rd232talk 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for that. This AFD had plenty of discussion, and the consensus was obviously for delete. A relist would just create more unnecessary drama. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 19:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Coffee, you should just let this run its course at this point and see what happens. Your initial AfD close was no consensus, default to delete. If the consensus was obviously for delete, it would be been, well, obvious.--Milowent (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Scott (first comment) who said it best. I completely agree with the end closure itself, and it was the only logical decision if you actually look at the votes and their reasons. Even a number-crunching admin would have seen the +60% (apparently it's more like 67%) and clearly closed it as "delete". The only problem here was the closure reason which stated "no consensus, default to delete" (might not be an exact quote, sorry) as a fact. Like it or not, that's inaccurate, and the initial statement was worded poorly. But I strongly agree with the decision to delete; Wikipedia is not a tabloid paper, and the consensus was actually pretty strong. Relisting is a generally bad idea, given the subject, and would only cause more drama. JamieS93 22:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is what worries me. If a subject met WP:N before they became "tabloid bait", shouldn't they meet it afterwards also? I think people are trying to delete notable things because we "aren't a tabloid". I'm waiting for us to remove Tiger Wood's article next. Same principle, different degree. (Yes, that's hyperbole, but where do we draw the line with this? I've no doubt if she'd had a wiki article before event it would have been kept at AfD. Plenty of sources including an article solely about her and how she did her job, plus a NYT piece about her wedding, plus plenty of other minor sources.) Bah I say. Hobit (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the sources. They stack up to "notability" that's quite marginal. Add in the BLP problems—the fact that she's mostly being highlighted for one controversial reason, and that she's currently tabloid material. All I ask is that we try being a self-respecting encyclopedia. JamieS93 23:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. It is that we have different notions of self-respecting. Self-censorship (even good-intentioned one) is not self-respecting in my opinion, but YMMV. --Cyclopiatalk 00:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the type of thing the media criticize us about: accepting biographies relating to the latest huge celeb fodder story with "pedia" in our name. We will never agree, so any further discussion is best left unsaid. JamieS93 00:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they start criticizing us for spending too much time on science articles should we delete those too? Come on, that's not a reason to delete. Not even vaguely. Hobit (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is one entire article on her and the job she does. It's quite long and detailed. One article on her wedding in the NYT (very few weddings get that kind of coverage). Those together are more than enough for WP:N. Then there are a handful of articles that discuss her in the context of 9/11 and the settlements. Now there is all the Wood's stuff. How on Earth doesn't that meet the requirements of WP:BIO? I doubt that 50% of our BLPs have the coverage that she had before the Woods stuff. I doubt 2% have the coverage she has now. Hobit (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop commenting on how much you think the article is notable. This isn't AFD round 2. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion based solely on my feeling that a finding of rough consensus was within admin discretion. I am troubled by the closer's stated rationale, and indeed, I personally would have closed this as no consensus. I also find this to be a poor case to argue for "no consensus, default to delete," as any use of that rationale (which I have supported when appropriate) is essentially an appeal to IAR. XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done 22:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as no consensus = keep The closer acknowledges that there is no clear consensus here and appears to have substituted personal biases in weighing arguments. This is a classic no consensus that should be closed as such. Alansohn (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Poor original wording of the close aside, both numerical superiority AND strength of arguments put this WELL within admin discretion. In fact, I'd say that consensus is clear enough that if it had been closed as "no consensus", it quite likely would have been brought here for review. --Calton | Talk 02:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Appropriate close, good call within admin discretion. Cirt (talk) 12:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So here we are on day 8 of the deletion review. I don't know all the closing rules, but there are a significant number of editors recommending an overturn (at least 18 by my count), though not a majority. Among those effectively endorsing the closure, they are a varying range of rationales none of which have any consensus (running from "it was fine", "it was badly worded", "endorse but change rationale and trout yadda yadda", etc.) The closing review guidance says: "If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed." However, here the original closing decision has been amended a few times, and questioned by a number of endorsers. Dare I say: "However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate."--Milowent (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Milowent. I abstained to comment until now, trying to make my mind on, but what Milowent says seems the most reasonable solution. This has become mess upon mess. Let us give this a fresh restart, relist it and hope in a fair outcome. --Cyclopiatalk 19:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Given the issue pointed out by Mailer Diablo (talk·contribs) above and the multiple revisions of the closing rationale, I have no strong objections to a relist to achieve an appearance of fairness, although IMO it's probably unnecessary, and I stand by my view, expressed above, that the AfD shows a rough consensus to delete. Tim Song (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As it is running almost 2:1 endorse, I really do not see the merit of the proposal. This is leaning decidedly towards an endorsement as it stands now, a deletion that certainly was fair. Relisting serves no purpose other than prolonging the eDrama over yet another marginal BLP. Tarc (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This page should have been deleted. Reason #1, This is a user page article that violates WP:WEBHOST and WP:SOAPBOX. The user fully admits this page is being hosted as a POV fork of Environmental effects of wind power in anticipation that his POV will be exonerated by scientific opinion in the future. Local consensus can override guidelines like notability, but limited discussion cannot violate core policies. Userspace cannot be turned into a POV free-for-all. Reason #2, the discussion shows a clear consensus to delete. Miami33139 (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I suggest you give it a few months and then submit it for deletion again. What you're asking is for us to re-argue the AfD, which is explicitly not what DRV is for. There is not a "clear consensus to delete" in that AfD, and you've not shown a problem with the AfD process for DRV to contest. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean MFD rather then AFD? SpartazHumbug! 14:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Maybe I should've said XfD. It was a general point, not specific to that debate. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the closer was right in saying there was no consensus to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Close was not clearly erroneous. Tim Song (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While we're at it, none of the delete votes said why 8 years of non-trivial coverage by sources like the New York Times wasn't adequate. If the close was done by a head count of actual arguments, it would be 10 to 0 in favor of keep. Also, could someone put the articles text in my userspace so I can recreate it? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't deleted and is still there.... SpartazHumbug! 06:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly sure we are not talking in the right DRV here...... Tim Song (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
