- Petra Olli (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
One !delete, two !keeps per my count is a no consensus, even a keep, not a delete. Yes, the article was a BLP on a minor, but was properly sourced to cover the information in the article, which was totally uncontroversial. This was an inappropriate use of admin discretion against consensus on a sourced uncontroversial BLP, I'm afraid. Procedurally, I'd ask for an overturn with no prejudice against a relist at AFD. StrPby (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. There were two delete recommendations (the nominator Travelbird, and myself) not just one. My concern was not the "BLP of a minor" issue, but notability in general and WP:ATHLETE. The only source cited was a page from the official web site of the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics -- no independent sources were provided at all. The closing admin correctly noted that the subject "clearly doesn't have any "prolonged or substantial coverage'" that would help establish her notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of scope. Send it to RFC. Black Kite raises a point that's well worth discussion—if our policies to protect living people are strict, then how much stricter should our policies be to protect children? It's quite arguable that every article about a living person who's under 18 should be fully protected, if it's allowed to exist at all. And I believe I would support such a rule. But DRV can't enforce a rule we don't have, and DRV can't create a new rule on its own authority.
This suggests that we should overturn the outcome to no consensus, but I think we should set that consideration aside for the moment in the best interests of the child.—S Marshall T/C 17:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- RfC We do not have consensus on the notability of junior athletes, and it makes no sense to decide each article individually with the inevitable random results. I do not personally have any strong position on the subject, and can see the sense of the arguments on both sides; I am equally willing for us to adopt either the position that high-level notability for junior athletes (possibly at a higher relative level than for senior) is notability , or that it is not, But we do need to decide this one way or the other. Unlike SMarshall , I se no BLP issues. I cannot see how an article about the facts of a junior athlete's athletic career from RSs can possibly harm their interests--that's an absurd use of BLP. Both they and their guardians have chosen to engage in activities where they know, and hope, will lead to major public awareness. DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but this is still a child. It strikes me as a very different case from a BLP on a publicity-seeking adult.—S Marshall T/C 20:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What DGG said, except for the BLP question — child protection is a worthwhile goal and BLP should be interpreted all the more strictly in these instances. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do interpret BLP more strongly for children, and I have always !voted and acted accordingly. But I do not see how reporting the favorable accomplishments of a child done --as with all child athletes--with the approval of their parents or guardians--is a BLP violation even under the necessary strong interpretation. It would affect when a child is, say, the victim of an internet meme, where we should indeed interpret the notability requirements much more restrictively. Child status affect BLP, but there is no BLP problem. The question is whether child status affects notability for athletes, and to what degree this person is in fact notable. DGG ( talk ) 15:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I think there may well be an exceptionally strong worry about vandalism (perhaps more likely and more harmful), but I'd like to discuss rather than admin-fiat our way there. Hobit (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin. I think an RfC would be useful here. Obviously I endorse my own close, but I think DGG is missing the point. Whether or not the article currently is uncontroversial or not, there is the basic point as to whether BLPs of barely-notable (if notable at all) children should be allowed to exist in the first place. I would also point out that the author of this article has created many more on Junior Olympic competitors, so the RfC would be useful to ascertain whether they should all be allowed to stay or also be removed. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn (no consensus/keep). The AfD did not contain a consensus to delete. I can see no BLP issues of concern. By entering an international event, the person, even a child, forgoes a realistic claim to be a private person. The closing statement is not derived from the debate, and was thus a supervote that should have been added as a new contribution to the discussion. AfD is not a forum for closers to make policy. Regarding the merits of the article, its content is not significantly beyond the content about the subject still found at Finland at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics, and a result of redirect to that article due to the notability concern BIO1E, seems reasonable to me. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You missed the fact that one of the Keep !votes was dependent on a consensus that YO competitors are notable, but no such consensus or decision appeared to exist. On that basis, we would have three deletes and a Keep. Regardless, my close was not a supervote - there is a lot of precedent of deleting marginal BLPs when there is no consensus in the AfD. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "that one of the Keep !votes was dependent on a consensus that YO competitors are notable, but no such consensus or decision appeared to exist" seems a complex and subtle reason to negate someone's opinion, and no one did so in the discussion, so I reject this logic. It was a supervote in that the close contained original points with respect to the discussion. The close adjudicated (albeit not unreasonably) on what really reads as a no-consensus to me, even tending to keep. There is a "lot of precedent of deleting marginal BLPs when there is no consensus in the AfD", I think not (no data at had though. It has been my impression that repeatedly, proposals for no-consensus on BLPs to default to delete have been rejected. One rationale, which I hold, is that individual wikipedians participating in a BLP deletion discussion should already appreciate the greater seriousness of us hosting an improper BLP. If there do not appreciate the seriousness, then they need educating, immediately. I do not disagree with your sentiments expressed in the close, and I might have agreed with you !vote if so cast, if I came to the discussion, but I do not agree that it is a proper way to close, that is, to make new policy. I would have been happy, however, if you closed no consensus with a critical comment, and then proceeded, as a respected editor, to convert the article to a redirect (I still contend that a redirect is a good idea, she is mentioned elsewhere in mainspace, and that there was nothing in the article required removable from the history). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Black Kite, I've supported you so far; but that's not a balanced representation of the facts. There certainly isn't "a lot of precedent", despite what certain editors active at the Wikipedia Review might wish. There are a handful of precedents that have made it as far as DRV. Those which were endorsed by DRV were generally those where there were special circumstances, such as David Shankbone. The most recent AfD wherein the closer tried to pretend that BLPs could default to delete in the absence of any special circumstances was, quite rightly, resoundingly overturned at DRV here.
This is a special situation in that the article's subject was a child. BLPs about adults are a different matter, particularly where the adult has courted publicity, and admins certainly do not have discretion to delete them on a "no consensus" outcome unless special circumstances apply.—S Marshall T/C 12:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There needs to be a pretty good consensus to keep child BLPs, and that didn't exist here, as the discussion showed. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you point to the relevant policy or guideline that supports that stance? If it's just a personal opinion I'm good with you !voting that way, but don't think the tools should be used to support such an opinion... Hobit (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn to NC, start an RfC I don't like out-of-process deletions though I fully understand where Black Kite is coming from here. But given there was no consensus for deletion, the right ordering would seem to be an RfC and then deletion if that's the result of the RfC. Let's discuss the general case then come back. I don't know enough about the event to know if it does meet WP:ATHLETE, though my suspicion is that it does not. I see no harm in letting this stay here during the RfC (it will be watched now), so I see no reason for an IAR delete here. Hobit (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as a stand against inclusionism run amok. We're seriously having people advocate for articles on child athletes now? Whether by "special circumstances" (protecting minors from unwarranted scrutiny) or by established guidelines (Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#High school and pre-high school athletes), this was a correct close within admin discretion. Tarc (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- seems a reasonable reading of this debate. Reyk YO! 02:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it a "reasonable reading" when it was effectively the closing admin's own delete !vote? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because, in my opinion, that's what the consensus was. We have the nominator and Metropolitan90 making good, policy-based arguments to delete. Bds69's keep !vote depended on consensus for the idea that participation at the Youth Olympics bestows automatic notability, and Bds69 explicitly stated that their !vote should be read as a delete in case that consensus doesn't exist (and it doesn't). I therefore read three policy-based arguments to delete against one. That, to my mind, is enough to infer a consensus to delete. And this is before considering Courcelles's and Black Kite's BLP concerns. Consensus to delete plus BLP of a minor? Yeah, deletion is pretty much the only thing that could have happened here. Reyk YO! 04:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Start an RfC per Hobit, but I don't know that the article needs to be restored in the mean time. This is uncharted territory, and I neither begrudge Black Kite the discretion to handle this in such a manner, nor do I see DRV as the appropriate venue in which to decide such a project-wide question. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My claim is that the AfD didn't support a delete closure (which is the main issue here). Opinions about WP:ATHLETE were split with neither argument stronger than the other. I'd expect such a situation to result in a NC close. I see no reason to IAR this one. Hobit (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the suggestion is that we do not include BLPs of children unless they are very notable, this a new proposal, and needs to be discussed as such, and endorsed by the entire community. It is no part of present BLP policy, and this is not the place to make it, and decisions that rely on it should be reversed until there is agreement. The closing admin says he did not take that into account in the close, so this is not a place to raise it. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My reading of "There needs to be a pretty good consensus to keep child BLPs, and that didn't exist here, as the discussion showed" indicates he did something pretty similar. Am I missing some subtle difference? Hobit (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If Black Kite is right, then I would like to see him add a line or two, covering this situation, to WP:BLP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn closing admin identifies this as a questionable call, unfortunately one that is not supported by the actual consensus reached by the participants. There is plenty of room to call for an RfC on the subject of notability but to try to force the issue by contradicting consensus, rather than following a well-defined procedure for raising such issues, seems inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansohn (talk • contribs) 22:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and then RfC, per Hobit. It's not hard to understand BK's concerns, but the article itself was not a problem and there is therefore no reason to short-circuit the normal process for dealing with this sort of policy issue. I find it distasteful in light of the fiasco that emerged from the efforts of some to ram "BLP-no-consensus-default-to-delete" via a thoroughly illegitimate (non)process, and I see nothing here that requires bypassing RfC as a means of achieving a productive outcome. Do it the right way and we'll have much less strife and an outcome with a much higher level of legitimacy. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to see a copy of the article first before I comment on the decision (it doesn't seem to be up on Google Cache any more). Could someone please send me an email with the article text please (or restore it to a noindex-ed sandbox)? Thank you. NW (Talk) 18:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Finally got a topic. Tarc and RayAYang get my view down almost exactly here, so no need to repeat what they said. Endorse. NW (Talk) 13:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse and RfC Even without mentioning the BLP issue, about which a RfC is probably a good idea, my reading of the notability argument sees one straight assertion that youth olympics athletes pass WP:ATH, one keep conditioned on the fact that they do, followed by an unrefuted knockdown of that argument. I suppose we could overturn to NC and relist for more comment, but we've already burned enough electrons on this one, and IMO this falls pretty squarely within admin discretion in closing an AfD. RayTalk 08:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn obviously. When a close acknowledges a DRV is likely then anything but no consensus is foolish. Working to find a way to make the article/content work is goal one. Stop closing XfD if your vision remains cloudy in these matters.Wroted (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Closer please note that the author of this personal attack (which clearly indicates they haven't actually read the closing rationale or the rest of this DRV) is a brand new editor with an "interesting" edit history that includes throwing around terms like COI and POV, and using templates, in their first few edits. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
