- Theresa Obermeyer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Incorrect close, no consensus for "redirect"; close amounts to admin supervote Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverting the close before bringing it here does not paint you in a particularly good light. Would leaving it a redirect for the couple of days it'll take until the closure's properly reviewed really do that much harm? 74.74.150.139 (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles under discussion at DRV are routinely restored during the course of the discussion. Normally, this requires an admin to restore a deleted article, but since this was simply converted to a redirect, any editor (myself included) can "restore" it. The article should not be re-converted to a redirect until this discussion is concluded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm almost past caring about this, but I don't think this was an incorrect close. To be sure, there is no consensus for redirect (nor for anything else, for that matter), but per deletion policy: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." Given that the bar for a non-public person, per BLP is "not well known" and deliberately separate from (and stricter than) their notability, I would think it's within reasonable discretion to say that this person is not well known, and thus the AfD could be closed as "Delete" (or in this case, the less severe "redirect") without an actual consensus for that. Whether that's as who should say right or not, I dunno, but I think it's within policy; policy more-or-less-explicitly gives admins the discretion to supervote on the side of delete here. So, if it matters, I guess I endorse the close or whatever. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- policy more-or-less-explicitly gives admins the discretion to supervote on the side of delete here - Can you cite the policy that allows admins to supervote? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as closer. This was perfectly normal per WP:POLOUTCOMES. It's unfortunate that Beyond My Ken chose not to follow WP:DELREVD and discuss this with me first. I must say, I'm surprised to see a keep voter bringing this up, however; an all-out delete would certainly be the next most reasonable action from that discussion. --BDD (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The redirect is the equivalent of a delete, as the article redirected to has no information about the subject except her name. I'm surprised that BDD is surprised. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Very sadly endorse. BLPDELETE should not stretch this far. Someone with a dozen articles (many predating the senate run) and was a Democratic nominee for senate is a "relatively unknown, non-public figure"? Oyi. But that was the consensus (though NC was also a reasonable read). And redirecting rather than deleting was exactly the right thing to do given there is a clear redirection target. Hobit (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to note that while I think the close was within admin discretion, I think the better call was to close this as NC. User:Lukeno94 makes a strong case for that. Further, many of the endorse !votes are really problematic. She clearly meets the GNG so citing WP:POLITICIAN (which clearly defers to the GNG via WP:BASIC) as a reason to delete is just wrong. And WP:POLOUTCOMES is even worse as a reason to delete an article which meets the GNG by such a wide margin. At the same time, I don't think a close of keep could be supported by that discussion. Hobit (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I didn't actually !vote in the discussion, though I did participate. In my opinion, the close is clearly within the range of closer discretion, and it need not be disturbed. Monty845 04:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn as outrageous misuse of policy, that needs a new discussion. (in truth,. the very idea of letting borderline people delete their own article is antithetical to the spirit of NPOV except as a rare exception to prevent true injustice, and is bad policy in almost all cases. It has wormed its way increasingly into WP, and this extreme overextension should be excised, but i see no way of thoroughly excising it except a re-evaluation of that part of BLP policy. Its absurd application here to a major party candidate for senate shows the danger of having it around at all.) But while it is around it should be used with very careful judgement, and the use of it here is utterly ridiculous and opposed to common sense. To ignore rationality is outside the discretion of a closer. The purpose of being an admin to to protect the fundamental principles of WP against this sort of illegitimate decision. Process failed here, but not only process. Those people who do support the retention of the option for deletion of borderline notable people should be among the first to want to overturn this decision. I suggest that those who say the equivalent of "regretfully endorse" think again. We have the power to do things right here, and if the explicit justifications fail, IAR remains. I urge the closer to reconsider what his following of local consensus is leading to. (Reading the AfD yet again, there is a particular problem here: judging by the discussion, she's changed what she wants to do politically, and wishes to write herself out of history. This is truly the grossest violation of NPOV imaginable, and I remain amazed that anyone here would abet this for anyone in any way.) DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two issues. A) Is WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE broken? and B) did the close follow current policy? I agree with you that A is quite troubling. I understand where it comes from but I don't think it is wise. I worry less about NPOV (though I agree is a potential problem) than I do self-censorship and a worry that the bar is set so vaguely that nearly anyone can get under it. But changing policy is an issue for an RfC, not an AfD. For B) I think the question of being a "relatively unknown, non-public figure" is one of opinion, not of simple fact. A significant majority agreed she was. Hobit (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying that a major party candidate for the U.S. Senate qualifies as a "non-public figure" stretches the commonsense meaning of that phrase well past the point of reasonableness. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- On the general question, a case can be made that the rule is occasionally needed--there are valid circumstances, which if we handled by IAR would cause even more problems. I once did delete at AfD based on it when I realized doing anything else was making me feel sleazy. The pt about NPOV is exactly self-censorship -- a subject saying, unless you change it to read the way I want it, you can't have it--and thus our articles about mildly notable people will all be positive, like Whos Who in America. On the second, Calling someone who runs for political office private might be debatable for dogcatcher--I don't think it is in good faith debatable here unless one does not understand what the words mean. The basic rule for BLP--Do No Harm-- is a good one, and we should hold to it, not to futile attempts to cover all that can happen in exact wording. The extent of publicity she has already received is so great that having this article does not appreciably add to it. She's part of political history beyond anything we can do at WP. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Closer gave far too much credence to !votes which asserted marginal notability, which was clearly refuted by RS'es present in the discussion. Thus, the subject's wishes are irrelevant. In other words, what DGG said. Jclemens (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I broadly agree with Jclemens, and to a lesser extent with DGG although DGG puts it more stridently than I would. I think it's important that the DRV leads to a clear explanation of why this close needs overturning, given that on the basis of the numbers, it wasn't obviously wrong. My thought process is as follows:-
First point. Premise #1: Not all !votes are equal. Premise #2: Sources matter. Conclusion: If someone provides a list of reliable sources about the subject, then all claims that the subject isn't notable are refuted. They aren't given less weight in the close. They are utterly discounted. Gone. The "non-notable" camp's only remaining avenue is to examine the sources in depth and demonstrate that they're somehow unreliable or unsatisfactory. This was not done. Second point. There is a hierarchy of rules on Wikipedia. Some rules are old and strong and enjoy massive consensus support. Other rules are younger and weaker and have been less tested. Where there's conflict between the rules, the older, stronger rules trump the newcomers. Thus, for example, it doesn't matter whether the article passes or fails WP:YETANOTHERSPECIFICNOTABILITYGUIDELINE if the whole blooming thing is a copyright violation. It doesn't matter whether the article title passes or fails some aspect of the manual of style if it's an attack page. And it doesn't matter if it fails WP:POLITICIAN if it passes the general notability guideline by a country mile. Conclusion: WP:POLITICIAN is a red herring, irrelevant to this case. When analysing the debate bearing these two points in mind, one sees that Fram's contributions are absolutely decisive. The correct conclusion for this DRV is a resounding and emphatic overturn to keep.—S Marshall T/C 08:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fram presented Google numbers and not much else. Do you still think the Books results indicate any sort of notability? The first page suggests 75 hits, which proves to be 42 if you actually look at all the results, and three of those are books consisting of Wikipedia articles. Of the remaining 39, not all are even talking about this Theresa Obermeyer, and almost all of those that are are almanacs and other political guides that mention her name, party affiliation, and vote share. I see one source that might be up to GNG standards, and that's a small piece in the NYT Magazine. As for the general Google results, Fram didn't include the crucial -wikipedia operator. Do that and you'll see little relevant coverage beyond the first page of results (and as often, there are still a lot of Wikipedia derivatives in there). --BDD (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What I think indicates notability is all the coverage in the Anchorage Daily News that Fram linked so clearly. Is it seriously your position that these 1992-4 and on sources are all Wikipedia mirrors? Or a different Theresa Obermeyer? Really?—S Marshall T/C 19:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I mentioned this below, but I should have put it to you as well. There's a reason POLITICIAN essentially creates a stricter standard than GNG. Is it really so remarkable that the Anchorage Daily News reports on elected officials in Anchorage? If a slew of articles in the local paper constitutes meeting GNG, there's no practical limit to the number of mayors, city council members, and yes, school board members that would be adjudged sufficiently notable for standalone articles. To deem Obermeyer thus notable would go against a very deep and abiding consensus, and I haven't see a compelling reason to do so. --BDD (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, hang on. If being mentioned in a local newspaper was the standard, then I would agree with you. I've personally been mentioned in local newspapers enough times for that, and there's no way that I'm notable. But here we're not talking about articles that mention Theresa Obermeyer in connection with a decision, or in connection with her office as a school governor or whatever she is. What we're talking about is articles about Theresa Obermeyer the person, doing things and behaving in ways that are quite remarkable and exceptional for an office-holder, to the obvious amazement of the journalists covering her, and to the exasperation of local judges. She is, in short, notorious.
Your redirection entirely misses the point. She isn't notable for not being elected in 2006; you've redirected her to something only tangentially relevant to the reason why someone would search for her. What she's actually notable for is getting into arguments, insulting people, assaulting security guards, being fined, being arrested, and other generally thuggish and disreputable behaviour while holding public office. Wouldn't you agree?—S Marshall T/C 22:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Addendum): Sorry: I should have added another point but inadvertently forgot it. I should use preview more.
You make much, in your discussion, of the fact that she fails WP:POLITICIAN. That's absolutely true. She also fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF, WP:ATHLETE and WP:PORNBIO, among quite a lot of other SNGs. It doesn't matter. Wikipedia's test of notability is the general notability guideline. I have said above that I'm reluctant to accept mentions in local newspapers, and that's true: it's accepted that routine coverage in a local newspaper is not evidence of notability. I put it to you that headlines such as the ones Fram linked are not run-of-the-mill routine coverage.—S Marshall T/C 22:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I must be misreading your first point. It seems you admit that the relevant coverage was all local, but she still passes GNG because she was notorious? So local coverage is sufficient if a person is notorious? As for your second point, if subject notability guidelines are trumped by GNG, why do we have them to begin with? Generally, more specific guidelines trump general ones, hence WP:USPLACE, MOS:MED, WP:FLORA, etc. frequently override WP:COMMONNAME. --BDD (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said two things with regard to local coverage. The first thing I said is that I don't think being mentioned in local sources counts as evidence of notability, but being the actual subject of an article might well do. The second thing I said is that I don't think run-of-the-mill routine coverage of the normal functions of, say, local government or school boards is evidence of notability, but the coverage in the Anchorage newspaper is clearly not that at all.The standard position at Deletion Review is that if there's conflict between a SNG and the GNG, the GNG prevails. This is quite normal, and it occurs because someone's notability may be unconnected with their profession. No rational person would delete Kate Middleton even though she's a fashion designer who fails WP:CREATIVE. When you closed the debate did you actually examine Fram's sources at all? I ask because several things you've said suggest to me that you may not have done.—S Marshall T/C 16:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course we wouldn't delete Kate Middleton per WP:CREATIVE. She isn't primarily known as a fashion designer. One thing we can surely agree on is that Obermeyer is best known as a politician. So why shouldn't she be judged on those term? Also, as I mentioned to Fram below, my references to the Google and Google Books results were mistaken; those were presented by another user. --BDD (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, about that. In the light of Fram's sources, are you really sure that Ms Obermeyer is best known for her political work?—S Marshall T/C 17:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What, like "Gag Her with an Injunction"? Sure, you don't think that's part of her political career? --BDD (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Arguably it is, but let me take a step back for a moment, because it looks as if I'm giving you a really hard time here and I don't think you deserve that. I think this was quite a difficult close, and I've done a complete about-face from what I often say at DRV. I'm being inconsistent.
What I normally say is that the closer's job is to assess the consensus, not the sources. Admins aren't elected to judge sources. They're elected to gauge consensus and implement it, and with most debates it's not necessary for the closer to look at the sources in any depth at all. The closer looks to see who was persuaded by the sources. You could have said: "No, I didn't read Fram's sources because that's not my job; I gauged the consensus and found there was none. Then I redirected it, not in my capacity as an admin but just as any ordinary editor could do, because of WP:POLITICIAN" And that would have been a very fair position to take, I think, even though it's not quite what you've said. One of the striking things about this debate is that Fram's sources that should have been decisive, weren't. They were virtually ignored by all the debate participants before and since. I suspect that was because nobody except Fram bothered to read them at all until we got as far as this DRV. At DRV we're obviously accustomed to more complicated and nuanced debates, and I think that without wanting to be unkind to anyone, DRV regulars do tend to read sources more attentively before commenting just because of the nature of this page. I also want to say that I really do feel the force of what Fram says below. I sympathise with his frustration, having done quite a lot of work at the AfD and getting this far before anyone pays much attention to it. But I also don't think BDD's entirely to blame because as I've argued above, it's not him who should have read the sources. For the avoidance of doubt my position is that WP:POLITICIAN is not the correct criterion. Ms Obermeyer isn't notable as a politician (by Wikipedia's definition of notability). She's notable for a combination of repeated and sustained involvement in controversy and brushes with the law while holding a relatively minor office.—S Marshall T/C 17:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: BDD (talk · contribs), I haven't closely read the AfD and will not take a position at this DRV, but I noticed that you did not leave a closing rationale at the contentious AfD. To help the participants at this DRV understand your reasoning, would you add a rationale to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theresa Obermeyer
- expanding on your comment above about WP:POLOUTCOMES (and addressing S Marshall's analysis above about WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG),
- explaining why you chose a redirect rather than "keep", "no consensus", or "delete", and
- explaining whether/how WP:BLP (particularly WP:BLPDELETE) factored into your close?
- Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I think I hit most of those points. Overlooked in the discussion is the fact that the Google numbers thrown around to support the GNG argument had little to no significant coverage in reliable sources. It may seem unfair that some specific notability guidelines set stricter criteria than GNG, but there's almost always a good reason for their doing so. In this case, almost any local political figure would pass GNG as the subject of multiple independent press sources. I alluded to this in that rationale, addressing the argument that a list of her school board activities covered in the Anchorage press indicates of GNG.- One thing I didn't really address is BLPREQUESTDELETE, which really only factored into my close inasmuch as many delete voters were making it. If I had followed that to the letter, I certainly could have closed as delete in light of the request and the absence of a clear consensus to keep. Like I said before, I'm really surprised that it was a keep voter who brought this all up. A lot of editors and the subject advocated outright deletion. I didn't expect a DRV at all, but if I had, I would've expected it from that side. --BDD (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per BDD. Because of the BLP concerns raised at the deletion discussion, this should not be recreated. Jonathunder (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just what BLP concern? That she now realizes she has been irretrievably foolish? that holds for indiscretions, not maintaining a political campaign for months before a national audience for something that will inevitably remain part of the historical record. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The BLP concern is that she has a degree of notability for the campaign, but that any article about her is going to end up with some rather petty negative elements (properly sourced) that would never justify an article on their own. Essentially, that the run for senate serves as justification for the existence of an attack page, albeit a properly sourced one. Monty845 17:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Very well said. An article about a school board member who had been embroiled in some local controversies would never stand. The contention of keep voters seems to hinge on her being a major-party candidate for Senate—which you'll notice still doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. Furthermore, some knowledge of US politics is instructive. Until scandals made him vulnerable, Democrats fielded paper candidates against Ted Stevens. I'm only half joking when I say that in the 90s, there was only one major party in Alaska. Look at {{Democratic Alaska Senatorial nominees}}. Besides governors and elected Senators, there are three blue links: a speaker of the state legislature, Scott McAdams (who received extensive coverage in a high-profile race), and Obermeyer. She simply isn't the sort of national figure or prominent state figure required to conclusively meet POLITICIAN.
- I understand DGG's concerns. I don't share them, but I understand them. I'd be concerned if I thought we were setting a precedent allowing notable politicians to erase their negative biographies, but that's simply not what has happened, not just because the negative material is still accessible via page history. When there are serious disagreements over a politician's notability, following WP:POLOUTCOMES is almost always the right answer. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No! This should be restored. BLP policy is being misunderstood and misused here. Our BLP policy is a mandate to remove unsourced information about living people. It does not say "remove well-sourced information about living people". It does not say "delete articles about living people if they say negative things". And it certainly does not say "delete articles about living people at their own request". Put it back.—S Marshall T/C 23:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Disclosure: I participated in the AFD, opining first for deletion, then for a redirect after some discussion. In my view, Monty845 has this one pretty right. Without her Senate runs, there is not much to make her notable. Her selection as a sacrificial lamb (to run in a Senate race she would never win; she actually came third behind the Green party candidate) shouldn't be used as justification for creating an article that chronicles local controversy that would never otherwise be covered here in its own right. Stalwart111 01:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per BDD above, whose arguments I agree with. It's also a bit disappointing that the person opening this DRV elected not to try and discuss it with the closing admin. Disclosure: I participated in the original AFD discussion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Overturn to keep I was going to be neutral, then I've read the rationale: " It's natural that the Anchorage press would give coverage to an Anchorage school board member, but keeping on this basis would, frankly, set a terrible precedent." - What the closer calls a "terrible precedent" is translated, in English, "standard application of our notability guidelines". It doesn't matter if you're notable in Anchorage or in New York: if there is secondary sources coverage, you are notable. This has been demonstrated by Fram by listing a dozen or so sources along a decade covering the subject. If that is the rationale for the redirect, I cannot endorse it. The terrible precedent would actually be such a rationale being endorsed. --cyclopiaspeak! 21:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment of Tobermeyer6, posted at the closed AfD [5] and reading in part "... it looks like my name both "Theresa Obermeyer" and "Theresa Nangle Obermeyer" ..." |
I am not an expert on Wikipedia but it looks like my name both "Theresa Obermeyer" and "Theresa Nangle Obermeyer" both are only about the U.S. Senate Race 1996. That is ridiculous. The campaign was 17 years ago. Ted Stevens left the U.S. Senate in 2008 and died in 2010. Why have you posted information about the U.S. Senate Race 1996 when anyone types my name? A short vita is below.THERESA NANGLE OBERMEYER, Ph.D., has held Alaska Type A Teaching Certificate since 1979 and Alaska Real Estate Broker’s License since 1979. She received her Ph.D. from St. Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri 1975 and her Master of Education 1970 from the same institution. She majored in Political Science and minored in History, English, and Education at Maryville University from which she graduated 1967, St. Louis, Missouri. She graduated from Villa Duchesne High School, 1963. Dr. Obermeyer held public office on Anchorage School Board 1990-94 and prior to that taught at McLaughlin High School 1984-90. She was her Party's Nominee to U.S. Senate 1996. She has been a college administrator at four colleges in three states including Lindenwood University, Loyola University Maryland, St. Louis Community College at Florissant Valley, and University of Alaska. She taught Introduction to Sociology at Chapman University Fort Richardson/Elemndorf part-time 1981-1993. She was a Fulbright Fellow twice to India 1974 and to Jordan 1977. She is married with four adult children.
[text removed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobermeyer6 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Endorse - as a redirect with no history. The subject is not super notable, and even if GNG can be argued, it's BLP1E. Her name is a plausible search term, thus a redirect is appropriate. ~Charmlet -talk- 03:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, the article subject has apparently changed her mind. Or at least is as unhappy with a redirect as at having a (non-hagiographic) article at all. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 03:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just want to point out that if the AfD closer bases his close on what he presents here, then he should reopen the AfD and let someone else close it:
- "Fram presented Google numbers and not much else." I did not present any "Google number", I presented 17 individual newspaper articles and one article, "Gag Her with an Injunction" from the American Journalism Review where the "her" of the title is Obermeyer. "Do you still think the Books results indicate any sort of notability?" is the next line from BDDs reply here, but I didn't even link to Google Books.
- "As for the general Google results, Fram didn't include the crucial -wikipedia operator." I did not present general Google results, so I have no idea what BDD is talking about here. I presented 17 individual articles from between 1992 and 2001, so the "crucial -Wikipedia operator" is completely irrelevant here.
- "a list of her school board activities covered in the Anchorage press" is not what the sources are about at all. Most school board members don't get jailed or don't become a major party candidate for the US senate. These are not "school board member Obermeyer sold cookies" type of articles.
- I don't really care how this eventually is closed (AfD and DRV), but I would prefer to have a closer who accurately represents the AfD and the effort people have put into it. A closer who has either not read the AFD with any close attention, or prefers to misrepresent the AfD to support his close, should be disregarded and someone else should close it instead. Fram (talk) 07:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I just add that the deletion of the article at 15:25, 21 September 2013 by User:Jonathunder is completely and utterly wrong, since a) the article was never deleted, so it can not be a G4 candidate; and b) the article had no BLP concerns justifying such a deletion, it was a neutral, factual, and reliably sourced article. Can someone uninvolved please undo the deletion and trout Jonathunder? Fram (talk) 07:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon me; it looks like I was referring to comments by Murry1975. I must have looked at the keep vote below "per sources indicated above by Fram and Murry1975" and gotten confused. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse or if one wishes to be exceedingly technical, overturn to delete and then create the redirect, which is what it is right now. Consensus clearly favored deletion, and it is quite curious (and by "curious" I mean "hysterically hypocritical") for anyone to call for an 'overturn and keep', as this is something that certain parties wouldn't dream of if the article was 3-to-1 in favor of retention. Why is consensus only respected when it aligns with one's wiki-worldview, I wonder. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - per DGG, Jclemens, S Marshall, etc. My own thoughts: Fram's 07:06, 11 September 2013 posting of 17 references where "these are only the ones where she is actually in the title of the article" clearly rebutted the prior AfD arguments asserting that the topic does not meet GNG. Almost none of the prior delete-as-not-meeting GNG posters addressed Fram's references. GNG is only a guideline and the AfD participants after Fram's post (and some before) focused on BLP policy reason to delete. Consensus after Fram's post seem to be that GNG guideline is met (or there was little opposition to that position), but delete per BLP policy reasons. That consensus is only a partial does not represent the entire discussion consensus, so more discussion probably is needed directly on BLP policy (particularly since the close was not based on BLP policy). The arguments for meeting GNG were very strong - 17 references where "these are only the ones where she is actually in the title of the article" means that there is much more content out there where her name is not in the title. The assertion that her biography has to qualify as a politician fails to take into account all of what the source material wrote about. The strong keep per GNG arguments were not rebutted, so I would overturn the close in that regard since it appeared to be based on delete per notability guideline and a misunderstanding of Fram's post. I think it reasonable to flesh out the BLP policy more. I suggest relisting anew at AfD, indicating that Wikipedia:Notability has been met and that discussion should center on whether the article should be kept based on BLP or other policy. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You realize that the sources required must be significant and non-routine coverage. Thus, local coverage of someone, without more non-local coverage, definitely does not meet GNG. Secondly, BLP1E may apply here, in that she would only be notable for one run, although I've not looked that far into her life to make that determination. ~Charmlet -talk- 20:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You do need to read Fram's sources, Charmlet, which Jreferee has done and you (I respectfully suggest) have not. If you had you would not be suggesting that the coverage is "routine", nor that there's only one event. This lady's been plastered all over the Alaska papers at intervals since about 1992 having been involved in public arguments, assault, affray and other disorderly conduct leading to assorted civil and criminal actions that have repeatedly made the news.—S Marshall T/C 20:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The significant and non-routine views you state are not listed in WP:GNG. In the AfD, Cyclopia identified Fram's list of references as meeting significant. Tarc mentioned 'routine' in the AfD in the context of deleting based on BLP policy, not GNG guideline. BLP1E or other policy reason to delete does not apply since that is not the basis for the close. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - DRV is not for re-evaluating sources and coming up with new keep/delete rationales, it is for analyzing the consensus in the original discussion and determining if the original closer came to the correct conclusion. In this case, 75% of the editors who contributed to the discussion expressed their opinion that it should be deleted or redirected. While AfD is certainly not just about counting votes, this large majority must be taken into consideration at some level. The only way this could have closed as anything other than "Delete" is if the keep voters' rationales were mind-blowingly more coherent and policy-based than the other voters. That wasn't the case here. The 8 keep voters brought some sources, the 24 delete/redirect voters said "meh", discussion over.
- This AfD technically should have closed as Delete, but the closer made a very pragmatic and obvious decision to make it a redirect (which would have happened anyway). Since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, this is not problematic in the least, and I am flabbergasted by some editors' opinions that this closure represents an "outrageous misuse of policy". ‑Scottywong| gab _ 21:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only way this could have closed as anything other than "Delete" is if the keep voters' rationales were mind-blowingly more coherent and policy-based than the other voters. - Well, that was exactly the case. The sources brought by Fram basically killed all the delete !votes arguments, and the ones arguing for deletion after Fram comment simply ignored them. --cyclopiaspeak! 14:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Message from the subject (again).
|
|
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I am not an expert on Wikipedia but it looks like my name both "Theresa Obermeyer" and "Theresa Nangle Obermeyer" both are only about the U.S. Senate Race 1996. That is ridiculous. The campaign was 17 years ago. Ted Stevens left the U.S. Senate in 2008 and died in 2010. Why have you posted information about the U.S. Senate Race 1996 when anyone types my name? If that is the way you want to put my name on Wikipedia, I would like it taken off completely or deleted. A short vita follows.
161 Words
THERESA NANGLE OBERMEYER, Ph.D., has held Alaska Type A Teaching Certificate since 1979 and Alaska Real Estate Broker’s License since 1979. She received her Ph.D. from St. Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri 1975 and her Master of Education 1970 from the same institution. She majored in Political Science and minored in History, English, and Education at Maryville University from which she graduated 1967, St. Louis, Missouri. She graduated from Villa Duchesne High School, 1963. Dr. Obermeyer held public office on Anchorage School Board 1990-94 and prior to that taught at McLaughlin High School 1984-90. She was her Party's Nominee to U.S. Senate 1996. She has been a college administrator at four colleges in three states including Lindenwood University, Loyola University Maryland, St. Louis Community College at Florissant Valley, and University of Alaska. She taught Introduction to Sociology at Chapman University Fort Richardson/Elemndorf part-time 1981-1993. She was a Fulbright Fellow twice to India 1974 and to Jordan 1977. She is married with four adult children.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[text removed]
If Wikipedia is unwilling to investigate the above, please take “Theresa Obermeyer” and “Theresa Nangle Obermeyer” off Wikipedia.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.170.134 (talk • contribs)
|
- This not was already copied into this discussion in the collapsed section above. Rather than delete it as a duplicate, I've collapsed this one too but there probably isn't much value in having multiple copies of the same message in the same discussion. Stalwart111 03:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]
- Overturn as I'm concerned with the closers quickness in discounting local sources. I'm not sure what the best outcome is, but there are some flaws in how it was closed, which is the issue before us. Relist, restart, reclose or re-something. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse – There were 8 total "keeps" made. One, by RadioKAOS, was based on personally knowing the subject and being of the expressed opinion that she's, well, see for yourself. I don't think there's any dispute about anything being wrong with disregarding that one. One, by Murry1975, was based on books and searches that Maunus determined consisted of lists of candidates and mentions of an entirely different person altogether. Two, by cyclopia and 24.151.116.25, said to keep per Murry1975 (inaccurate citing) and Fram (below) without any further expounding providing their own reasoning. Of the remaining four, three, Beyond My Ken (the opener of this review), Dawn Bard, and DGG, argue based on the automatic inherent notability of Senate candidates from one of the two main parties. (Dawn Bard mostly bases their keep on disagreeing with the subject's request to delete the page, but uses the Senate argument as the reason to not delete anyway.) The final one, Fram, also mentions the election as notable, but cites coverage in local Anchorage newspapers.
- So, I see two questions here. First, are all major party Senate candidates notable simply by virtue that they've been one, even if they were just placeholder candidates no one expected to actually have a chance of winning? Consensus seemed to be that no, they are not, and BDD's above (18:18, 21 September 2013) argument that they should not be per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:POLOUTCOMES is something that I agree with. The second is, is a local politician getting local coverage in Anchorage significantly notable? Consensus appeared to be that it is not, even after Fram posted the Anchorage news links.
- Since most of the case for keeping was based on inherent Senate candidate notability, and consensus rejected that, I don't have a problem with the closing admin's decision. Egsan Bacon (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep. Uncritical application of POLOUTCOMES to major-part US Senate nominees is inappropriate; it is the exception, not the rule, for such nominees, not to receive national press coverage, and there is, for example, NY Times coverage [6][7][8]. Amd Jonathunder's unilateral reversal of the AFD close, spuriously deleting under G4 and article that had never been previously deleted, is plainly an abuse of administrative authority. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The only other possible option is delete; she clearly doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN and even disregarding that many of the Keep votes are incredibly weak. Much as, having read the article, I understand that the subject wants it deleted for reasons that aren't compatible with Wikipedia ideals, I simply can't see how that discussion could default to keep. Not to mention that Wikipedia shouldn't be hosting an article which has, in its lede, the sentence "Obermeyer is known in Alaska for her public advocacy on behalf of her husband, Tom Obermeyer, who has failed the Alaska Bar examination thirty-four times." You couldn't get much more of an admission of non-notability than that. Black Kite (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The keep !votes largely argued that she meets the GNG (which she does by a country mile). Given that WP:POLITICIAN defers to the GNG (see WP:BASIC) I'd say any delete !vote based on POLITICIAN is incredibly weak while the keep !votes were well grounded in policy. Hobit (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So you don't think it's a coatrack for negative comments against her husband, nor that it's basically an article about someone who is only notable for losing a political race yet feels it necessary to point out her jail sentence in the lede as well? It serves no other encycopedic purpose. Get rid of those two sentences and, well, it's a rather pointless stub, but at least it wouldn't be an obnoxious stub. Black Kite (talk) 12:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, you argued the keep !votes were weak and argued for WP:POLITICIAN indicating we should delete. I disagreed with both of those statements as they seem factually incorrect. Which is all I said. Your claim that we'd be left with a pointless stub implies you've not read the sources. There does seem to be plenty of in depth coverage.
- To address your other points, yes it was a COATRACK but that is fixable by editing. And there are plenty of in-depth sources covering her. She meets our notability requirements by a wide margin. The only even vaguely policy-based reason for deletion is BLPDELELTE and I think that's a stretch. It's a stretch that sadly got wide consensus, but a stretch non-the-less. Hobit (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, DRV request is invalid as non-compliant with item 2 of when DRV should not be used (above). Stifle's non-admin account (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that the closing editor is certainly involved at this point, what is the point of this objection? We could close the DRV and re-open it, but that seems extremely bureaucratic. Hobit (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote above, I am not an expert on Wikipedia. I am one person. I cannot believe that so many comments have been written about my name, "Theresa Obermeyer" and "Theresa Nangle Obermeyer." I truly do not want nor do I deserve so much attention. My name/s are still redirected to:”United States Senate Election in Alaska 1996” which has been posted like this for about two weeks. Why? I am not a politician nor am I a public figure. I have not run for public office for almost a decade. It is ridiculous that my name is only ”United States Senate Election in Alaska 1996.” As I wrote above, the campaign was 17 years ago. Ted Stevens left the U.S. Senate in 2008 and died in 2010. If that is the way Wikipedia wants to discuss "my good name," please delete my name completely. I sincerely do not understand why my name was posted on Wikipedia at all. The current redirection to "United States Senate Election in Alaska 1996" harms me professionally. It is as though that is the only thing I have ever done in my life. Ridiculous! Please delete my name from Wikipedia completely.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobermeyer (talk • contribs) 21:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tobermeyer: Can you explain how the redirect to "United States Senate Election in Alaska 1996" harms you professionally? A simply google search for your name reveals many sites that discuss your previous political career. It's not exactly a secret. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 00:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tobermeyer, while we appreciate and listen to your comments, please notice that Wikipedia takes editorial decisions indepedently from the subjects of their articles. Also, you have been a public figure, and you intentionally worked to be one, at least in the past. --cyclopiaspeak! 09:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tobermeyer - Notability doesn't dissipate over time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and Keep - Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC comfortably. Whether she meets a specific project guideline is irrelevant when GNG is met. WP:COATRACK concerns could easily be fixed by editing; WP:TNT is far from appropriate here. The subject of the article cannot seem to make their mind up whether they want the article or not; so I'm afraid we'll have to discount whatever wish they have at present, simply due to inconsistency. BDD's failure to provide a rationale for closing on such a contentious AfD is a failing on their part that I hope they'll learn from. If we're into discounting keep !votes, let's look at the deletes: Kumioko's isn't policy based (only looks at the article and nowhere else), Shii's doesn't make sense (there is a claim of notability), TenOfAllTrades doesn't even attempt to use anything policy based, and the simple fact is that a lot of the votes are flat-out wrong; asserting she failed WP:POLITICIAN whilst meeting WP:GNG. At best, this is a no consensus AfD. Certainly not a !keep or !delete (or, by extension, redirect) result. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments – From the closing comments of the AfD:
It's natural that the Anchorage press would give coverage to an Anchorage school board member, but keeping on this basis would, frankly, set a terrible precedent.
Automatically assmuing that the Anchorage School Board is a politically insignificant body, just because a lot of school boards elsewhere are politically insignificant, sets a terrible precedent. It's almost to suggest that we're not building an encyclopedia so much as we're building a real-life version of Idiocracy.
- I keep seeing mentions of "major party candidate". Actually, in 1996, she was a major party NOMINEE. That meant that she had to have won an election first, even if it was a primary election rather than a general election. In fact, she won that primary election over six challengers. Judging from the list of names, however, one could assume that she possessed a sturdier tin foil hat than the others did.
- Re: the sources Fram presented: ignored here is the fact that Fram stated upfront that he picked only one particular source out of many possible sources, even if it was one likely to produce that many hits. It's long troubled me that "consensus" seems to be that insignificant coverage in national media carries far more weight than significant coverage in local media. It might go far in explaining why garbage pop-culture content exists on Wikipedia to absolute excess, while topics far more relevant to an encyclopedia go completely uncovered. It's also troubling how WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is constantly held out as a means to excuse this.
- In response to BDD's comments:
I'm only half joking when I say that in the 90s, there was only one major party in Alaska.
Sheila Toomey of the Anchorage Daily News, in a long-running humor/gossip column called "Alaska Ear", contends that Alaska does have a two-party system: BP and ConocoPhillips. She's only half-joking, too. Back to serious stuff, while there is some truth to what BDD says, it doesn't adequately explain how Tony Knowles, a pillar of the Democratic Party in Alaska for decades, was governor of the state for the majority of the 1990s. Many political insiders will explain that Jack Coghill was nothing more than a spoiler, ignoring that the events of the previous gubernatorial election (in particular, Coghill's split with Arliss Sturgulewski and his subsequently becoming Wally Hickel's running mate instead) meant that a great many of Coghill's supporters weren't about to vote for Jim Campbell even if the only choice they had was between Campbell and Knowles.Look at {{Democratic Alaska Senatorial nominees}}. Besides governors and elected Senators, there are three blue links: a speaker of the state legislature, Scott McAdams (who received extensive coverage in a high-profile race), and Obermeyer.
Since I have some expertise in this area, let's break this down, excluding "governors and elected Senators":
- Wendell Kay – Kay is mentioned as a speaker of the Alaska House. It should be pointed out that Kay was actually speaker of the territorial House. Alaska celebrated what it called the centennial of the legislature this year (see here). Additionally, the legislature has a roster of members (see here), first published in 1966 and last updated in 2012, which contains both the territorial and state legislature. In other words, they are viewed within Alaska as being equals. This fact, however, doesn't appear to faze many Wikipedia editors, who insist that territorial and state legislatures MUST be treated as strictly separate entities. Regardless, like Edgar Paul Boyko, Kay was chiefly notable as a lawyer rather than for any political office he held or ran for.
- Gene Guess – Guess was speaker of the state House, and therefore rather notable. Additionally, the law firm he co-founded still bears his name, even though he died in 1975. I realize this is somewhat common with law firms, and may not translate very well to notability as understood on Wikipedia.
- Don Hobbs – Hobbs truly was a ringer. However, "but wait, there's more!" Nicholas Lemann wrote a rather lengthy article entitled "The Great Alaska Feud", which was published in the Washington Post on September 30, 1979. It was centered on the feud between Ted Stevens and Mike Gravel, mostly around their differences on what became the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act and acrimony from Stevens related to the plane crash on December 4, 1978 which killed his wife. The actual piece may be hard to find online, but I believe Dermot Cole's book North To The Future can be found on Google Books, which devotes a chapter to rehashing it. Basically, Lemann contends that Hobbs was a front for Gravel's campaign to rid Stevens from office, or at the very least send him a message. I followed the 1978 campaign intensely, despite being rather young at the time. From what I recall, Hobbs wasn't really much of a factor. Add to that the fact that the political establishment in Alaska was pretty firmly behind Stevens, Jay Hammond and Don Young and equally as firmly opposed to Gravel by that point, mostly because of Gravel's reputation as a grand-stander.
- John Havelock – Was attorney general during the second governorship of William A. Egan. I would say he's notable. He was also a co-founder of the aforementioned law firm (originally known as Ely, Guess, Rudd & Havelock, now known as Guess & Rudd – BTW, "Rudd" was Joseph Rudd, who also died in the aforementioned plane crash). He was active in politics as recently as the 2012 election.
- Michael Beasley, Frank Vondersaar and Joe Sonneman can truly be discounted, as they are effectively Mini-Mes to Obermeyer: people who run for office incessantly to pursue conspiracy theories or personal grudges.
- Clark Gruening – Notable, but mainly because he served two terms in the state House during the 1970s, not because he was a U.S. Senate nominee. Gravel's rapid decline in popularity by that point meant a high likelihood of him losing anyway, regardless of who his opponent was. In fact, at the 1980 Republican state convention, discussion of who would challenge Gravel was eclipsed only by discussion of the attempted takeover of the party by a Moral Majority faction led by Jerry Prevo. Ray Metcalfe would much later contend that Prevo was nothing more than a front for Jerry Falwell and his alleged personal interest in the Alaskan political scene, but I have doubts about the reliability of such a statement, especially given the source.
- Glenn Olds – Quite notable. A decade prior to his running for Senate, Olds was the chief architect behind saving Alaska Methodist University from extinction, creating the present-day Alaska Pacific University. He also served as commissioner of the Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that cabinet officers were inherently notable, even on a state level. While information is scarce, indications are that Olds was also a figure of note in the Kent State shootings. Even if he wasn't, I figure that his stint as that university's president is yet another indication of notability aside from his being a Senate nominee.
- Tony Smith – Also served as commissioner of Commerce and Economic Development, under Hickel's predecessor Steve Cowper. Also held various other positions of equal significance in state government, was involved in Anchorage's 1992 Winter Olympics bid, and was a co-founder of Alaska Business Monthly, a major publication in Alaska.
- Finally, we come to Scott McAdams. If the description of McAdams as having "received extensive coverage in a high-profile race" isn't systemic bias, then I don't know what is, especially when placed into the context of claims that the previously-mentioned names must be non-notable due to redlinked entries. I publicly supported and voted for McAdams. Regardless, the simple fact of the matter is that he became a non-factor in the race the instant Lisa Murkowski announced her write-in campaign. Also consider:
- There were obvious WP:COI issues with that article. User:Heather Handyside was his campaign manager, and continued to work on the page even after the election, which is important because it's obvious that the Democratic Party is continuing to groom him for future runs for higher office.
- Category:Mayors of Sitka, Alaska was created the day after McAdams won the nomination against mostly non-existent opposition. Having such a category would imply inherent notability on the part of those holding the office, correct? There are a great many notable individuals who have served as mayor of Sitka (dating back to the 1867–1873 "provisional city government", which included John Henry Kinkead amongst its mayors), even though the majority of them lack articles. Does that make the office itself notable? One would have developed that impression by the reaction of the Wikipedia community to the nomination of McAdams. I might wish to call bullshit, however. In fact, I would go so far as to say that being a member of the Anchorage School Board is far more politically significant than being mayor of Sitka. Evidently, we're hung up on job titles here inasfar as determining notability, in that mayors are assumed notable but school board members aren't. If you look at the first three decades of Anchorage's existence, you will find that as a company town for the Alaska Railroad, it was the general manager of the railroad who really ran the town. The mayor was merely a figurehead. Bill Stolt was arguably the first mayor of Anchorage to take any sort of active role in the community's affairs.
- I do have a lot more to say, but time to take a break for now. Needless to say, if you find this to be excessive, keep in mind that I have lost count of the number of times that I have read a declaration of non-notability on Wikipedia, when the real issue was one of WP:WTAF. When "even Ray Charles can see" the notability of the subject, it's as if people are out to prove me right when I get to harping on how the three monkeys syndrome is in effect in spades (in particular, see the reference in that article to "feigning ignorance"). RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 01:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
