Tom Westman – In this DRV, the community considers two alternatives: "endorse" and "overturn to no consensus". Nobody except the nominator argues for any other outcome and the "endorse" side enjoys considerable numerical superiority. In the circumstances, I as DRV closer could try to choose between "endorse" and "no consensus to overturn"; but as both have the same effect in practice, it doesn't seem needful to make that choice. I can just say that the close stands.—S MarshallT/C 09:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The "kept" closure was based on majority votes, assumption that !Keep votes weigh more than others, and assumption that BLP1E arguments were debunked by (supposed) evidence of sustained coverage. However, I still have issues with the closure, and even one of !keep voters cited WP:BADNAC for concerns about it. The !keep votes before the first relisting were very poor quality, according to Sandstein.
I discussed this with the closer (diff). The closer found Sportsfan 1234's "keep" argument, which occurred before the second relisting, convincing. I still have a few issues with Sportsfan's argument, which I analyzed in AFD, yet another editor who voted !keep praised it.
Of course, more !keep votes came in after the second relisting, but the "kept" closure still irks me. The closer doubted that any other admin would come to a different conclusion in their close, but... Well, if there's no consensus to delete or redirect, then at least "no consensus" would have been for me a more viable conclusion. --George Ho (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please see the discussion at User talk:4meter4#Tom Westman and the AFD close language itself for an accurate picture of my opinions in the relation to the close. I did not base the close on a majority vote (although keep was the majority opinion by numbers), but on what I perceived was the strongest argument under policy. I further believe that the close was an accurate reflection of community consensus, and that there was a clear shift away from support of the BLP1E argument after the evidence by sportsfan was presented. While I believe the close to be accurate and fair, I have no objection to a re-opening of this AFD by an admin under a WP:BADNAC rationale. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus or endorse (which are the same result for practical purposes). While I disagree with non-admins closing AFD's which were previously relisted as there is some doubt to the outcome, I feel the closer pretty much got this one right. I feel that either keep or no consensus were within the discretion of the closer, though I would have opted for the latter as there were solid, policy-based arguments for both keep and delete/ATD votes. FrankAnchor 19:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As I said on 4meter4's talk page, I think this DRV could have been avoided, since a reading of the discussion suggested clear controversy and a likely DRV if closed by a non-admin. However, I think the reading of the consensus was correct. Suriname0 (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. The delete !votes are quite convincing, and I do not think there is consensus either way. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 21:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There were two basic arguments for deletion: WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. The GNG arguments need to make clear why the sources in the article don't meet the GNG. I didn't see anyone do that. BLP1E requires that the person be a low-profile individual. I didn't see a case made for that (though there a keep voter that had a fine argument that WP:LPIdoesn't apply). The numbers (10 to 4?) and strength of argument send us into keep IMO. I honestly think I'd have !voted to overturn a NC outcome, something I rarely do. I just don't see any policy/guideline arguments that can justify deletion. Hobit (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The majority of participants made arguments to keep, and a minority of participants made arguments to delete. Of course, the quality of the arguments is more important than the volume of them. Some keep participants pointed to WP:GNG, although they did not tend to cite specific examples. I'll call that acceptable, but not great. Others argued that winning one and taking part in one winning two very notable television-based competitions prove notability. That sounds a bit like WP:ANYBIO but people didn't tend to link to that, so I'll call that an ANYBIO-implied or an WP:IAR type argument, the later being perfectly permissible, we're not a bureaucracy, IAR is a pillar of the project. In summary, the keep !votes were reasonable, but not the best. The delete participants mostly pointed to WP:BLP1E to justify deleting, but that was convincingly refuted by User:Randy_Kryn who argued that criterion 2 of BLP1E was not met (all three need to be met, for BLP1E to apply). Nobody refuted that, although an explanatory essay was rejected, that points made in the essay that were cited by RK were appropriate. I therefore consider the delete !votes to be refuted and weaker than the keep !votes. In the context of the person winning two one and taking part in another television show, arguments that they are notable for "one event", are not convincing. Being notable for one theme of events is not synonymous with being notable for one event. CT55555(talk) 01:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
winning two very notable television-based competitions: Westman won just Palau; he didn't win HvV. To what second win were you referring? I've not yet seen him win another season unless I missed something. Maybe you were referring to his HvV appearance? George Ho (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. You are correct and I am mistaken. I misread a !keep vote that said he won one and took part in another. I will now strike out the inaccurate parts of my analysis and once I've done that, I'll make an update if it changes my conclusions. CT55555(talk) 01:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think what was meant was that by playing the second season six years after winning his first season, a second season in which he survived well into the game after making some interesting moves, was a second notable event which the subject purposely took part in knowing that publicity would follow. CT55555, thank you for your kind words above. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know the AFD discussion was closed, but I have to say something. as I saw forth, all Tom did in Survivor: HvV were using a Hidden Immunity Idol (to have Cirie ousted), confront James over his aggression toward Stephenie (who was also in Palau), making alliance with a few others... until his elimination from the Heroes tribe before James. Being in the Heroes tribe, which earlier often lost to the Villains tribe, didn't help matters either. In summary, I doubt his HvV gameplay, including his "interesting moves", surpassed his Palau gameplay and win. IMO I thought Tom was all over the place in HvV and made (almost) no impact to how the season went overall. George Ho (talk) 07:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and his HvV gameplay can be mostly already illustrated in the HvV article. George Ho (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Main thing is he agreed to play six years after his previous appearance, knowing that it would bring him more promotion. So BLP1E didn't apply and the close was correct. Let's not reargue the nomination again. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment without opining on this close itself... should a relisted close--indicating no clear consensus was achieved within the first week--perhaps be a red flag that a NAC should generally be avoided? Jclemens (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, unless the relist was due to low activity. Suriname0 (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Could not possibly have been closed as delete, and changing keep to no consensus is process wonkery. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Nominator is just wasting people's time now and its getting ridiculous. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The closing statement seems a reasonable interpretation of consensus and policy. DRV is not a place to argue the case on its merits, and there's nothing out of process with the way the discussion was closed. Also, per Stifle, it doesn't really matter whether it was closed "no consensus" or "consensus to keep". Since the end result is the same, such a change is beyond pointless. Perhaps that's the most cogent point here. --Jayron32 16:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse – There are three problems with this AFD and its close, none of which call for overturning it.
As noted by other editors, this was not a good AFD for a non-admin close, but that is only a reminder to the closer, because that is in itself not a reason to do anything different.
No Consensus would have been an even better close, but there is no material difference.
So this is a Weak Endorse rather than an Endorse.
The nominator was bludgeoning the AFD. It is all too common for an editor who bludgeons an AFD unsuccessfully then to take it to DRV, although it is even more often an author whose article is deleted rather than the nominator of an article that is kept. I think that at this point the appellant may be trying to use an electric cattle prod on a dead horse.
Weak endorse (although on the fence to Overturn to no consensus) largely per Frank Anchor above. Irrespective of the numerical keep advantage, some of which as Sandstein pointed out, were not overly compelling, it seemed to me that it wasn't necessarily a clear outright keep outcome. It doesn't matter if NC or keep amount to the same outcome, given NC better affords the opportunity for a further discussion down the line. I can't see a viable scenario to delete though, so it may be that an NC overturn would be more WP:POINTy than practical. Bungle(talk • contribs) 21:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, what delete arguments did you feel guideline/policy based? Hobit (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion seemed mostly around whether WP:1E is applicable and the initial keeps at least seemed to poorly advocate retaining on the basis of this event alone, or at least coverage that depended on that event. It isn't so much about what "delete" arguments were offered, but any that didn't advocate outright keeping. That said, the nature of the show itself seems to suggest, based on precedent, that show winners typically become sufficiently notable and so while I thought the non-keeps were not unreasonable, I think on balance keeping the article is probably the right call from judging consensus (I maybe in my last response should have said I didn't think it's a clear convincing keep, but that's irrelevant). I don't see any issue around WP:BADNAC either as there never seemed to be a viable scenario where deletion would be considered. If the best alternate outcome, even conceded by the nominator themself, was for NC, then I wouldn't usually think that warrants a DRV. Bungle(talk • contribs) 09:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I guess I generally am of the opinion that at an AfD the delete side makes the case for deletion and the keep side tries to address those issues. Since the arguments for deletion were WP:BLP1E (which doesn't seem to apply per WP:LNI), WP:ENT (with no argument as to how that guideline isn't met) and a few other things (e.g. WP:NOTPLOT) that don't clearly apply and where there was no explanation of how they did apply, I don't feel the delete side ever made a valid argument for deletion. As such, I just don't feel like we have any option but keep. Sounds like we more-or-less got to the same point. Thanks again for the response. Hobit (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Reason: Disagreeing with both the outcome of closing process and timing for closing. Wishing the discussion properly relisted or the outcome changed.
Outcome. The closing admin. states that there is consensus on the quality of sources. There is none. Two users (one being the nominator) find the sources lack in-depth analysis (notwithstanding their quality, good or bad). Even if sourcing had been the issue, I participated myself, arguing the page should be kept as important film in the career of an important filmmaker (which the sources, in-depth coverage or not) prove. 3 users seem to agree on that.
Also, how can 4 Keep (by 4 different users) versus one redirect (and even assuming the nom. would think (1?) delete is the best, which is not explicit) give a redirect decision? 'No case made not to redirect', says the closing admin. I don't understand by whom. I suppose 4 keep mean 4 no redirect or do we have to state smth like 'Keep (and no redirect)' from now on? That would sound absurd to me.
Timing: On March 21 one user insisted : "AFD discussions last at least one week so this discussion won't be closed for a few more days (if it's not relisted for another week). Have patience and please do not bludgeon this discussion. I think you have made enough comments" (!) And the page was indeed relisted on March 25. How can it be closed only a day later without any comments at all having been added to the page in the meanwhile?
— MY, OH, MY! 12:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Closer comment: you could have discussed this with me before bringing it here. A numerical count of keeps (or sources) is not helpful as they were frequently repeats, and were not policy based a they were simply listing of links without addressing the quality, which several users rebutted. To clarify, by no reason not redirect I meant that was a valid option in lieu of deletion. So I stand by my close. Note, I'll be offline much of today so may not be able to come back to this until this evening or tomorrow. StarMississippi 12:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thank you for your clarification. Numerical count of (sources and/or) Keeps is really not the core of my comments, though. Neither is the quality of sources. I'm sorry if there was any other venue better than this one to address the problem. But as you do seem to stand by your close, we certainly would have had to come here anyway. Thank you all the same, and have a good day. — MY, OH, MY! 13:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
if someone feels this needs a relist, I'd advocate some limits as some of the bludgeoning that was advised against in the AfD is happening here too and that is not conducive to consensus. StarMississippi 01:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: The keep side was unable to show that the sources they brought up consist of in-depth coverage. When countered in this way, the keeps were unable to rebut the counterargument, and just kept listing more and more sources, which were obviously not getting better and better, as the total pool of subpar sources was gradually being exhausted. Citing WP:NFIC toward the end was an interesting argument, but no evidence was offered as to how mentioning the film would clutter up the biography page of the director if it was mentioned. Lack of in-depth coverage usually means that not that much can be written about a topic. Consequently, when the closer downweighed the numerically stronger keep side's votes and found a rough consensus to redirect, as emanating from a rough consensus to delete, they applied an okay interpretation of consensus. —Alalch E. 14:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Do you really think moving the whole content of the page will not clutter up the biography of the director and not lead to other users removing content, with tags such as UNDUEWEIGHT etc.? I really don't. Also, what about closing one day after a relist? Was that OK? — MY, OH, MY! 15:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse:
There are two questions that are within the scope of this Deletion Review, and one that is outside its scope.
The first procedural question is whether the closer was correct in closing this discussion eight days after the nomination, and one day after a relist. What the closer did was to ignore the relist and close the discussion after eight days. The closer did not state why they ignored the list. For that reason, I think that we should Weakly Endorse the ignoring of the relist. The probable reason to ignore the relist was that it could be inferred that further discussion was both not necssary and unproductive, due to multiple voting and bludgeoning. It would have been better if the closer had explained this, but this can be inferred.
The second substantive question is whether the close was a reasonable assessment of consensus. It was. The substantive close can be Endorsed.
The question that we do not need to consider is to relitigate any issues about the significance of sources. This is not another round of AFD.
A) Your assessment ot the consensus seems to bypass the issue mentioned above. Will the redirect (and moving of material) not clutter up the page about the director?
B) You say you assume the probable reason for completely ignoring the relisting is that "it could be inferred that further discussion was both not necessary and unproductive, due to multiple voting". That is inferring a whole lot. 1) One and only one user (who seemed to have been unaware he did not have to repeat that he had commented the page as Keep) did what you call multiple voting. But as I recall above, he was 'kindly' reminded that he could not and at the same time, that more time would be given. So he more or less stopped commenting but time for other users to express their view was not given. That is plainly not right. 2) I don't understand how you can know for sure from that that further discussion would have been unnecessary, as no consensus at all had been reached. It was and is still necessary. Your imagination can make you think otherwise but that does not prove anything. Anyway, even if the reason that you infer is the one the closing admin had in mind, that does not make it right to close discussion when various options are still on the table. — MY, OH, MY! 18:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - clearly the consensus was based on policy, rather than the bludgeoning tactics of an editor, who voted multiple times, despite being told not to. And btw, is now creating the article again, despite the AfD.Onel5969TT me 14:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Policy-based arguments naturally carry more weight. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 15:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The closer's rationale was clearly correct. CatfishJim and the soapdish 15:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is possibly worth noting that several editors were WP:CANVASSED to place keep !votes, here, here, here and here. CatfishJim and the soapdish 16:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closer's rational seems reasonable. It should be noted that redirection is not deletion, it does not remove the article history from public view, and can technically be done via normal editing, so long as the concerns noted in the AFD are fixed. I would strongly advise that Fostera12 is not the person to undo the redirect, largely because it is clear they have no idea what constitutes a reliable source. That's irrelevant, however. Redirecting was a reasonable result of the discussion, and DRV is not supposed to be a rehash of the AFD. As a final bit of advise, if someone were to want to restore this from a redirect, creating it as a userspace draft and getting it through an independent review by experienced Wikipedia editors seems reasonable. That's got the heavy caveat that the film does not appear to be independently notable at this time, but who knows? --Jayron32 16:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Alalch and WP:TROUT My Oh My for failing to discuss with Star Mississippi first and for ignoring the obviously-inappropriate canvassing identified by Catfish Jim above. signed, Rosguilltalk 20:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per above, and I would like to note that I have major concerns regarding the ongoing disruption (canvassing, ignoring the deletion outcome) by My Oh My. Would suggest that this be examined at the appropriate venue.⛵ WaltClipper-(talk) 18:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
