- Mariza Ikonomi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This non-admin closure for keep followed three keep !votes that were entirely based on looking at accomplishments listed in other unsourced Wikipedia articles at foreign language Wikipedias. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, especially not completely unreferenced BLPs at other language Wikipedias. The AfD was reopened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariza Ikonomi (2nd nomination), but was speedy closed by Scott Mac as "pointy". I don't think a keep vote based on using Wikipedia as a source is valid, and I ask that either the original AfD be reopened and relisted, or the second AfD be reopened and relisted with the original AfD votes copied to it. The second AfD drew one delete vote before being closed. The fact that it was a non-admin closure is not the central issue here, but rather the fact that it was an improper closure that failed to discount votes based on using Wikipedia as a source. Gigs (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I don't see any community support for deleting the article. A lack of sources can be dealt with by sourcing. If it is in violation of BLP as it stands then an uninvolved admin does not need an AfD to delete it or edit it so that it is not in violation. I agree that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but that is an issue that can be dealt with through editing. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 18:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly why I closed it as keep. It can't be deleted without community support. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 19:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. Gigs is correct here. We've got an unsourced BLP in our encyclopaedia, Gigs has rightly questioned that, and yet he's had the door slammed in his face. Two AfDs have been closed as "keep" despite the fact that no sources whatsoever have been provided. Chillum is right to say that "a lack of sources can be dealt with by sourcing", but nobody has actually sourced it. That step is not optional. This is a BLP.
The right place to discuss sources is AfD and we need to send it back there. Those who say this article can be sourced should be given the chance to prove it. Let them do so, and if they do not, then let it be deleted. Gigs: as the DRV nominator, it's your role to notify the AfD closer of this discussion. Which includes Scott Mac. I'll do so now, but if you ever have cause to come back to DRV, please do not omit this step in future.—S Marshall T/C 19:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that there is nothing in the article that could be considered negative, I think that waiting for the community to add sources is acceptable. Reslisting may be helpful, hopefully it will either draw attention to the needs for sources or result in deletion if such sources cannot be found. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 21:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But we cannot close an AFD as delete if there is little to no community support. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 20:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No indeed. A "delete" outcome would be unreasonable based on that debate. I'd have relisted it myself, or else I'd have refrained from closing at all and !voted "delete: unsourced BLP."—S Marshall T/C 20:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly the "non-admin" stuff is irrelevant - a close is either bad or good, it has nothing to do with who closes it. It is also the case that most admins would have closed a that AFD in the same manner - 1delete nomination and 3keep voters = keep. The nomination did not suggest there was a problem with sourcing, and that issue was not raised in the debate. The second ADF was a WP:POINT violation as the nominator nominated another five articles all of which had been well-closed by non-admins in a recent AFD. Having said of of that, we don't want to keep unsourced biographies on WIkipedia, and I'd encourage any admin closing an AFD to take the bold step of closing as delete without prejudice undeleting if someone is willing to source. But it has to be said, few are the admin who will do that lacking a consensus - and especially if the debate concludes that the subject is notable. I so move to delete this article, but without any criticism of the closer whatsoever.--Scott Mac 19:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree with you about that, Scott. Not about non-admin closures--I'm a non-admin and I close AfD's, and at the time of typing I'm the person who made the last three edits to WP:NAC which might interest you. But I do think that someone who closes an AfD about a BLP as "keep" without any sources in the article at all, has erred. Whether or not they're an admin. I think Gigs has the right of it and I respectfully suggest that you could have handled it differently.—S Marshall T/C 19:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, it's not the lack of sources per se, it's that the keep votes were based entirely on unsourced facts sourced from Wikipedia itself. The lack of sources, and the failure of anyone to produce them, does indicate a failure to meet the WP:GNG, regardless of BLP issues. Regarding the lack of notification of Scott Mac, that was an oversight. Gigs (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, sorta Is there anyone who can read the non-English sources that appear to be prevalent in Google? The community wants to keep it, so the obvious thing to do is simply add sourcing, and this whole thing becomes moot. There doesn't seem to be any assertion that what's listed in the BLP is either false or defamatory, and being unsourced isn't contentious per se. Jclemens (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It appears sources have been added to the article. Can't tell if www.oikotimes.com is a RS or not. Hobit (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I can't see how the article could have been closed any other way. DRV is not AFD round 2, and there was a clear consensus the subject is notable. RayTalk 01:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I get really sick of hearing that. I'm not asking for AfD round two. I'm asking for a relisting because every !vote was based on facts pulled from a completely unreliable source, Wikipedia itself, and no sources to demonstrate notability were provided. There was not yet a single valid vote when the AfD was closed. Gigs (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't appear to recognize that the place to discuss the merits of particular arguments to keep or delete is at the AfD discussion alone, not there and subsequently again at DRV. Here, we check merely whether the closer strayed too far from the accepted practices of Wikipedia - the usual one being the reading of consensus opinion as expressed in the AfD discussion. RayTalk 03:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If patently invalid arguments are put forth at an AfD, the closer has a responsibility to discount them. If you think unsourced Wikipedia articles are a reliable source upon which to base Keep arguments, then I'm not sure what to say. Gigs (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close without prejudice to relisting or summary deletion if the BLP remains unsourced. I would also have endorsed a close in which the non-admin closer had tagged the article for immediate deletion as an unsourced BLP --TS 04:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist – Considering that the article is a BLP and Gigs's explicit request for sources, I think that most of the regular AfD closers would have relisted. Flatscan (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist This unsourced BLP violates the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. None of those supporting retention at the AfD has provided sources. Cunard (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, could not have reasonably been closed any other way, with liberty to relist immediately. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse but relist. Technically, this was probably an acceptable close, but it's led to an unacceptable result. A proper discussion on the merits of the article is called for. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did the non-admin also do the close early? Gigs would have had my support in reverting the close on that basis alone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- About 14 hours early. I'm not sure it would have made a difference. Gigs (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse keep no relist. If anyone can just relist and re-nominate any article after it is kept by proper procedure, then the pedia and its policies are just silly. It would be disruptive to relist this or nominate again. We should have a rule that kept articles can not be touched several years, I see too much of this lately. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist. The close was about 15 hours early as well. I often look at AfDs on the last day of listing - after all arguments have been made - to see whether I can add anything of use. Closing 15 hours early deprives me and other editors who do the same of the opportunity to contribute to these discussions. It is quite possible that had the close waited until 168 hours had elapsed, it would have attracted some delete !votes on the basis of the unsourced BLP issues. The close was out of process for more than just NAC reasons and ought to be overturned.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
