- Peter Park (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This page was deleted by administrator Randykitty, who said there was consensus to delete it and linked to WP:TNT as a part of his rationale (which isn't even a policy, nor does it apply in this case that the article was hopeless spam). This was a very bad misunderstanding of the comments there, there was definitely no consensus to delete the page, looking at the AfD, it definitely should have been closed as no consensus and the page should have been kept. There were both 4 delete votes and 4 keep votes. I know that AfD is not a vote, but in my opinion the keep votes had better rationales and more weight. For example, everyone on the keep side, including me, argued that the article has sufficient references to establish notability. One of the keep voters who evidently did his homework wrote "Over approximately 100 news, blog and articles about his human rights, policy making, public official activities and ect, with his Korean name rather than references in the wikipedia article Peter Park. This proves his notability. For example, some missing news show he acted remakable outstanding role for making the Youth Identification Card in Korea, and also the Wikipedia article doesn't contain many his notable works such as Chungcheong Region Metro Railroad. [1], [2], [3]. [4]." That statement should've been taken into consideration by the closing administrator, as should the rest of the keep votes.
One of the delete votes didn't even provide a rationale for why it should be deleted, just said "no-no is a no-no", so that should have been discounted. Another one was "delete this vanispam", while he didn't even provide examples of what in the article constituted spam. A third one said it was a copyright violation (again, without providing any proof), and that it wasn't notable. A fourth one said that the article wasn't notable. Combining this altogether, there were really only 2 legitimate delete votes, and a third semi-legitimate one (it would've been better if he provided evidence of why it was spam), and a fourth delete vote that wasn't valid. All the keep votes were valid. As such, this should've been closed as no consensus, not as delete. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am sorry, but the above is not a correct representation of my close. I copy it here verbatim: "The result was delete. I am closing this as delete, per WP:TNT. As argued below, this rather hopeless article is "vanispam" or, at best, a beefed up CV. If the subject is notable and good sources exist, no prejudice against recreating a neutrally written and properly sourced article." Copyvio was not mentioned anywhere by me. --Randykitty (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CV links to Copyright violation, and "CV" are the letters you used. What was I supposed to think? SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. I literally said "beefed up CV", I don't think I've ever heard of a "beefed-up copyvio" :-) Sorry for the confusion, but this is actually the first time that I see "CV" interpreted as "copyvio" and not "curriculum vitae". --Randykitty (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the clarification SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 08:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse There were some AfD-inexperienced !voters not understanding why their !votes weren't gaining traction, but the discussion was clearly headed to "delete". Re-creation is an option on the table, but authors should note WP:NOTCV, that an article, a biography, should not be written like a Curriculum vitae, but should be based on the content of independent secondary sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per my nom statement SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't vote twice, your nomination here counts as a vote already. Kraxler (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]
- Overturn to no consensus or relist to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Park (2nd nomination) to have a discussion untainted by sockpuppetry on both the "delete" and "keep" sides.
I've reviewed the Google cache of the page and think that the minor promotional issues are surmountable—certainly not in WP:TNT territory. The AfD discussion's participants were split on this issue, and there was no consensus to delete the article because of any promotion. Altostratus (talk · contribs)'s comment at the end of the discussion should be discussed further: Over approximately 100 news, blog and articles about his human rights, policy making, public official activities and ect, with his Korean name rather than references in the wikipedia article Peter Park. This proves his notability. For example, some missing news show he acted remakable outstanding role for making the Youth Identification Card in Korea, and also the Wikipedia article doesn't contain many his notable works such as Chungcheong Region Metro Railroad. [5], [6], [7]. [8]--Altostratus (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The quote that there are "approximately 100 news, blog and articles about his human rights, policy making, public official activities and ect, with his Korean name rather than references in the wikipedia article Peter Park" strongly indicates that he passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. A relist would allow these Korean sources to be provided, summarized, and discussed in further detail.I don't see a consensus in the discussion on the two main questions: (1) Is the subject notable? (2) Is the article so promotional or poorly written that it is in WP:TNT territory and should be deleted? Therefore, I think that the only possible close to this discussion is "no consensus". Cunard (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion Perhaps an acceptable article can be written, but this would need such a radical rewriting that it would be better to start over. I might have closed as nonconsensus on the basis that the previous discussion was a mess, as indeed it was--and my personal preference is to close as nonconsensus in such case to get an uncontaminated discussion,; but the close as delete is equally justifiable, for the reasons originally given. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC) .[reply]
- The closure was appropriate in all the circumstances and I endorse it. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Pretty much per DGG and Stifle. T. Canens (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
