- Scott Ambrose (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
From the closing admin's talk page:
Extended content
|
|
Hi UtherSRG. I'm not sure I agree with your close of this AfD. It was brought up at AN/I for sockpuppet concerns, but that aside I feel the consensus is quite clearly for keeping the article. One of the four delete votes is the AfD starter, another is an IP who provided essentially no rationale, leave two delete votes against five keep votes. The keep voters provided some sources and mostly valid rationales for keeping the article, meaning that I would have closed this as a keep. What are your thoughts on this? Sam Walton (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The number of !votes in a particular direction don't matter, it's the substance of them that matters. Nor does the AN/I listing matter in this case as the sockpuppet's (if that is indeed the case) !vote was not substantive. I was more swayed by the lack of coverage outside of the subject area, and the minimal coverage it did get within the subject area. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I of course agree that the number of votes doesn't necessarily matter, but your closing feels like a Supervote because a number of keep voters pointed to available sources, either by linking them directly, noting their existence on the French article, or by saying they are available online. Sam Walton (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why didn't you close it for keep then? It was in the backlog for over a day. :) But seriously, the sources indicated (including on the French article) didn't create notability; to wit, a lack of coverage outside of the subject area. And now I'm repeating myself, so I know we're being unproductive. I don't know what else to say, man. Is there some compelling need to list every athelete who has won a competition? That doesn't seem like it's in keeping with our notability guidelines. This deletion seemed clear cut to me: the delete reasons were clear , the keep reasons failed to carry the article past the notability threshold. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha, I may well have done if I had been closing AfDs, I only noticed this one from the ANI thread. I understand your point though, and am happy to leave it as is. Sam Walton (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course you failed to read the comment "Passes WP:GNG - "...has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." And you're not going to admit a mistake either. Nevermind. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I read those. I read all the comments. Those comments assert a perspective. Other comments asserted other perspectives. The comments on the delete side asserted a more accurate assessment of reality. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- We allow articles on people who haven't ever done anything but got their name in the news. The guy won a stage in Le Tour de Filipinas, which is on the UCI calendar. That there be coverage "outside of the subject area", I don't know what that means. Lugnuts, you could consider just rewriting the article and doing it properly, by which I mean with the inclusion of the guy's palmares; there is no law against recreation. I took the liberty of userfying it at User:Lugnuts/Scott Ambrose. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Drmies. I already put it in my sandbox, but I'll blank that. I believed WP:GNG beats any local guidelines, but I guess not. This guy will meet whatever guides the nominator thought it didn't pass anytime now, and then I'll move it straight back. Wasting everyone's time and effort. Power to him and his sock account. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
My views align with uninvolved admins Samwalton9 (talk · contribs) and Drmies (talk · contribs). The "keep" editors provided sources that established notability:- Keep Passes WP:GNG - "...has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.." Within seconds I was able to find this, this and this. And there's this which states his victory in that race was the first ever for Team Novo Nordisk (his cycling team). Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The guideliness are stating what notable articles are and not the other way around, that all other articles are not notable. I know many cyclists who has pages that don't meet the WP:NCYCLING. With significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, we can keep this article. In addition a few sources in foreign languages here and here. Note: article also has French article: fr:Scott Ambrose. Sander.v.Ginkel (Je suis Charlie) 22:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This articleWebCite from ABS-CBN, this articleWebCite from The Philippine Star provide nontrivial coverage of the subject. This means that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Of the four "delete" editors, two appear to be sockpuppets. See the comments here and at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work. An SPI clerk wrote: This looks like either sockpuppetry or coordinated editing, but more like sockpuppetry. Both display similar style: After posting a comment, they make minor edits to their comment instead of using preview function (Buzzards: [1][2], IP: [3][4]). They editing two different articles about cycling teams on the same day, using same edit summaries [5][6]. Chances of something like that happening coincidentally are incredibly low. Still, I can't be sure, so I'll wait for other admins and clerks to comment. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
A third "delete" editor, WalkingOnTheB (talk · contribs), has fewer than 15 edits and may be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. The editor's "delete" comment—"we aren't here to predict the future; right now he just isn't notable"—failed to address the sources provided.The fourth "delete" editor, Relentlessly (talk · contribs), had a reasonable argument about the sources but that position disagreed with four established "keep" editors who believed the sources were sufficient to establish notability. After weighing the numbers and arguments, I believe the consensus is to keep. Overturn to keep. Cunard (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep or no consensus. I am not so certain I would had voted to keep the article but, with respect, this close smells of supervote, and UtherSRG's argument that the subject has "a lack of coverage outside of the subject area" does not make a great sense, at least for me (cyclists are maybe supposed to be covered in politics or economic articles??). And I have some doubts about this other close by UtherSRG, too. Cavarrone 06:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's obvious from the closer's remarks that he analysed the sources for himself and gave weight to his own analysis rather than weighing what the debate participants said. Which is a textbook supervote. There are good reasons why we always overturn these.—S Marshall T/C 08:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've never been involved in a deletion review before, so forgive me if I don't know the process. It's obvious what my position is from being the article creator. I'd like to thank everyone who takes time out to review this AfD. If there is a consensus to overturn the deletion, note that Drmies moved the article into my userspace here and I'd appreciate if it was simply moved back into the mainspace. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Keep or no consensus would have been within discretion. The closer's later remark "Those comments assert a perspective. Other comments asserted other perspectives. The comments on the delete side asserted a more accurate assessment of reality." in my view shows a misunderstanding of the role of an AFD closer. If a perspective is downright "wrong" (a claim there are no references when there are, or claim that a reference gives detailed coverage when the topic isn't mentioned) then OK, discount it. But on a non-policy-related matter such as notability people's perspectives should be what is being considered. It is not for the closer to decide that "lack of coverage outside of the subject area" means that sources do not contribute to notability. Now, I really appreciate it when a closer is willing to discuss things afterwards, and I think it can be legitimate for the closer, after explaining how they assessed consensus, to say "and by the way my personal opinion of the article is ...". However, the closer must not discount notability opinions because he/she disagrees with them. Finally, the number of !votes does matter. If a lot of rational people think one thing, and a few rational people think another, the majority holds the day. Thincat (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn As a matter of principle, administrators should not be coming to conclusions on their own on these discussions. If they are allowed to do so we might as well not have discussions at all and allow any single administrator who wanders along to decide what to do to every article listed for deletion. It's arbitrary and completely against the openness with which Wikipedia is supposed to operate. (Note also I am saying that as someone who is generally a deletionist in AfD discussions.) DreamGuy (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn as others have said the admin closing this AFD seems to have made a supervote, the consensus of the AFD does not support deleting the article. Davewild (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - I suppose I could see a "no consensus" result as reasonable but the only way to reach a "delete" conclusion would be by way of argument not made in the discussion. Either way, recreation should be allowed. St★lwart111 07:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn; closure was not one a conclusion at which any reasonable administrator could have arrived. Stifle (talk) 08:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep - the argument that it meets WP:N was made, and is plausible. The argument that it doesn't wasn't made, it was merely asserted, and I can't construe it myself. A very head-count-y close could be no consensus, but as long as we're fixing the close, might as well fix it right. WilyD 09:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to NC and restore the user draft to preserve the history. I suspect if I had participated in the AfD, I would have argued to delete, but looking at the AfD (even before considering that some of the delete !votes may be socks), I just don't see a delete consensus in the arguments presented. I don't see any really strong arguments on the keep side either. One person submitted some citations, but there's some good arguments that the citations aren't sufficient, and most of the rest of the keep arguments are just, yeah, what he said. So, I don't see a consensus for any action. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
