Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 27 Deletion review archives: 2008 July July 29 >

28 July 2008

  • Jonty Haywood – "No Consensus/Keep" Closure was Endorsed. This discussion was very close to a no consensus, itself, which mimics the AfD. The deletion policy provides clear guidance to err toward keep in such situations. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jonty Haywood (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

The closer stated "The result was no consensus , leaning towards keep. For the most part, the delete arguments do not discuss the subject of this article ". Firstly, the basic vote vount is 4 deletes, to 2 keeps, with no invalid arguments made for my mind. Two of the delete votes refer to notability in general, with two others citing WP:BLP1E, so I don't see how the delete opinions do not refer to the article subject. I think with so few votes this was a candidate for relisting. MickMacNee ( talk) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Comment from closer: I opted to close as no consensus instead of relisting as I did not and do not feel that more discussion will lead to a consensus, though I don't really oppose an overturn and relist. I believe the same could be accomplished by re-nominating the article in a few weeks with no other action, however. And Stifle, before you chime in, it doesn't bother me that no discussion happened before this DRV was filed. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka ( talk - contribs) 19:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I think being at Afd for a week is long enough for the necessary improvements to appear, especially as the creator and chief supporter of the article was highly motivated. I don't agree with short time periods between Afd nominations, and in my experience, a second nomination in such a short period would be speedied anyway. MickMacNee ( talk) 19:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • In fact, something I wasn't aware of, the article was created in precisely one edit, (the first edit by Rabidfoxes ( talk · contribs), a suspected sock of Jonty303 ( talk · contribs)), and was not subsequently touched bar Afd process edits. Odd to say the least. MickMacNee ( talk) 19:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply
      • That's unfortunate. While this is ongoing I think I'll ask Wiw8 to try to improve it, since he seemed interested and the state of the page shouldn't have any bearing on this process. lifebaka ( talk - contribs) 20:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Wouldn't have bothered me much since you dropped by here so soon, Lifebaka :) Stifle ( talk) 08:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and relist delete would seem appropriate to me, with a 4-to-2 vote for "delete" being closed as "keep". Also, given the reports of alleged past sockpuppetry, can we check whether Wiw8 and Rabidfoxes are actually distinct users? -- The Anome ( talk) 11:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    If this would have influenced the close then it is a valid grounds for checkuser: Code D. GRBerry 14:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    Go ahead with your checkuser - I am nothing to do with User:Rabidfoxes. I do find it upsetting to be accused of duplicitous activities simply because I responded differently in an AFD, and I stand by the arguments I made in that AFD and by the neutrality of my editing history. Incidentally, I count 3 delete votes (Users OhnoitsJamie, The Anome, MickMacNee) and 2 keep votes (Users DGG, Wiw8) in the AFD. Apparently Rabidfoxes didn't actually cast a vote himself. Anyway, the vote count isn't particularly relevant because AFD isn't a ballot - it's the argument behind each vote that counts. Wiw8 ( talk) 15:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse as reasonable keep though no consensus might have been better. Hobit ( talk) 20:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Ehm, it was closed as no consensus. Cheers. lifebaka ( talk - contribs) 20:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Um, opps. No clue how I did that. I read the AfD, but... Hobit ( talk) 23:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and delete - the threshold for deletion for BLPs is lower tan needed than for other subjects. Sceptre ( talk) 20:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • At the risk of looking like an idiot twice in one AfD, BLPs look like the only "additional hurdle" is due to being "non-public persons" I don't think Jonty qualifies there. Of course, that policy means we need to be sure everything is sourced. But at first blush, it all looks like it is. Further, I'd assume those discussing it would take policy into account so any issues with BLP would be part of that discussion and folks would be assumed to have considered it. Could you explain exactly what you are getting at? Thanks, Hobit ( talk) 23:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and delete Strong WP:BLP1E, created by likely sockpuppet of subject. See this incident report for further details. OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Closure as no consensus within reasonable admin discretion. Disagree with closer that it was leaning towards keep but there was a disagreement over whether it was a WP:BLP1E or not making no consensus a reasonable decision. There has never been agreement that BLPs should have a lower threshold for deletion and is not supported by policy. Having said this however personally I think that the article should be moved to Porthemmet Beach and rewritten about that with Jonty Haywood covered as part of that article. The beach is notable enough to merit a seperate article rather than as a section on Emmet (Cornish) which it seems only loosely connected with. Jonty Haywood himself is marginal for notability and could be covered sufficiently on an article on the beach. Davewild ( talk) 08:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • It won't get merged if it is endorsed, so this is a moot vote. To vote for a merge it needs relisting. A 4-2 vote is a nothing result for a marginal BLP, especially one suspected of manipulation. MickMacNee ( talk) 09:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
A merge or move does not require an AFD, I would be quite prepared to join a talk page discussion to help bring a move about and would definitely help with creating such an article. Endorsing a no consensus does not prevent this from taking place. I strongly support AFD not being a vote and there was reasonable arguments for and against deletion. I think the best thing to happen would be a proposal on the talk page for a move/merge to the beach which I think we could get consensus for. Davewild ( talk) 09:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I would only sanction that if it is possible to protect the resultant redirect from Jonty Haywood and leave a link to the history of this person and his attemts to promote himself in all sorts of ways on this site for any future admins who may be asked to unprotect it in the future. It would be simpler to overturn and delete to be honest. MickMacNee ( talk) 10:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I can understand that but don't think we should bow to poor behaviour by deleting what would certainly be a legitimate redirect. I see no problem with protecting the redirect until/unless he gets more coverage to establish independent notability. Davewild ( talk) 10:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: per the request of the AFD's closing admin, I have rewritten the article. Wiw8 ( talk) 12:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I don't see what the rewrite fixes. Creating a simple website about a topic with very little to write about hardly makes someone an expert or notable. It's still a clear WP:BLP1E created by a repeat self-promoter. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • 'Comment It's changed nothing except adding a 17 year old 'journalist' at wikinews as some sort of reliable source. This guy has still not responded to an FYI on his wikipedia talk page about the Afd, and the comments page on the interview are not exactly encouraging that this was a scoop of the century. And the beach/signs have been separated into two notable events. If anything, the article just reads now as a little more ... desperate? to be noticed than before. The presence of the Canadian press source alone still fails 1E. MickMacNee ( talk) 14:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Comment: I attempted to make the article read more like an encyclopedia article, removing some of the unnecessary superlatives, as well as focusing more on the relevant facts in the sources. There may be room for expansion, but it's a start. The article doesn't say that creating the website is what made him an expert, it says that the media turned to him for his expertise on the subject and summarises what aspects in particular he is reported (in the cited sources) to have researched via his site. Jamie, it may be your opinion that The Game is a trivial topic, but that is your personal view, not consensus. I understand why you would want to oppose an article on Haywood, given that you and he have clashed in the past, but as I and others have already pointed out, his Wikipedia history is irrelevant to whether or not this article should exist, as per this section of WP:BIO. MickMacNee, I did deliberate before referencing the Wikinews article, and decided to go ahead and do so because a) of Wikinews's commitment to fact checking and accuracy and b) the reporter that you personally attack in your post is one of relatively few Accredited Wikinews Reporters, a status which as far as I can tell makes them recognised members of the press. Wiw8 ( talk) 15:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
        • Check the interview pages, there was no fact checking, he basically covered himself by starting every sentence "Haywood said...". MickMacNee ( talk) 15:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
          • I'm sorry, but you are missing the point entirely. This is not a DRV about The Game, so whether or not Haywood's statements about The Game in that article are factually correct is completely irrelevant. The point is that both the Canadian Press and Wikinews, both of which have strong journalistic reputations to uphold, turned to Haywood for their information on The Game, which serves as a good indicator of his status as a notable figure in this field. Wiw8 ( talk) 17:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
              • This is an argument that should have been going on in more detail on the AfD. However, I will note that the claim that he is notable because news sources have turned to him is not by itself compelling. The requirements of WP:BIO/ WP:N are a bit stricter than news sources using someone as a sources. JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
                • Oh absolutely - I wasn't suggesting that this fact should be taken by itself to satisfy WP:BIO. It should be considered in combination with the fact that both articles discuss his site's popularity and beginnings, and talk about his research into The Game's origins and strategies - not enough to have a separate Wikipedia article all about his website, but enough that combined with the widespread media coverage over several months for the Porthemmet Beach hoax last year and the recent coverage for the roadsign hoax, WP:BLP1E arguments seem a little far fetched. Wiw8 ( talk) 08:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • endorse close No compelling reason to override the closing admins decision. Claims of BLP1E are hard to understand when none of the material is negative and he is listed as being notable for multiple things (the hoax and the material related to The Game). Moreover, the claim that it was likely created by the Haywood is irrelevant if our current version of the article is in fact well-written and NPOV which it is. Finally, it strikes me as a bit absurd that people can claim deletion due to BLP which is designed to protect the subject at the same time they argue it should be deleted since it was written by the subject. Just a small contradition there. JoshuaZ ( talk) 15:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Protection isn't the sole pupose of BLP, be it 1E or whatever. It's a general standard for inclusion aswell. A person's persistence at being included, when they don't meet the minimum requirements for inclusion, should not be included, whether they really want to be or not. And we don't know for certain people's identities here, the sexing up of the article is being done by someone we currently have to assume is not him. The game website is completely non-notable, there's no other way to see that as far as I can see. MickMacNee ( talk) 15:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Firstly, I'm not "sexing up" the article; I was asked by the closing admin to try to improve the article, and I have attempted to do so by writing it in a more encyclopedic manner, including more relevant information from the available media sources and making it read more NPOV. Secondly, regarding your persistent implications that I am Haywood or Rabidfoxes or some other affiliate - of course I cannot prove that I'm not some agent of the subject's, just as you cannot prove that you aren't someone who has a sworn mortal grudge against the subject. This is an unfortunate reality behind most internet based media, and it is the reason why we need fundamental principles such as Assume Good Faith and No Personal Attacks in order for Wikipedia to function. If you disagree with someone's reasoning, the correct response is to present valid evidence and argument to the contrary, not to resort to unfounded presumptions of bad faith in an attempt to get their reasoning discounted. Thirdly, once again, we aren't discussing whether the "lose the game" website satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for article inclusion - this is not an article about that website. We are discussing whether the subject of this article satisfies WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BIO. Wiw8 ( talk) 20:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
        • This is an odd twisting of logic. Eactly how do you become a notable creator of a website by creating a non-notable website? If he is a non-notable creator of a website,(which the sources provided dealing with just that act), then he fails BLP1E. MickMacNee ( talk) 20:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
          • I didn't say that it is a "non-notable website", I said that we aren't discussing whether the website on its own satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for having its own article - an event or achievment doesn't have to have its own Wikipedia article in order to contribute to a subject's notability. Incidentally, the sources discuss his research into the origins of The Game and strategies as well as just the website. In any case, this DRV is meant for discussing whether the closing admin drew the correct consensus from the AFD, not for repeating the same argument that grew stale in the AFD, unless new information has arisen which would have supported a different closure, which apparently it has not. Wiw8 ( talk) 08:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
            • It's clearly a non-notable website through WP:WEB. If you can't even see that, then I don't know what else to tell you. And frankly, talking about research on 'strategies' for The Game is just pure nonsense, bordering on WP:MADEUP. Show me a single quote about this 'research' that didn't come from Haywood himself. You don't understand notability and you don't understand third party sourceing. The only person trying to repeat the Afd arguments that I can see, is you. I am perplexed by your repeated attempts to split the notability of events from the person, to try and dismiss the whole point of BLP1E. MickMacNee ( talk) 12:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
      • I agree that protection is not the only point of that (but it is certainly the point behind arguments made by for example Sceptre above), but when we have a reasonably closed AfD you need a really compelling reason to overturn it. Not liking the result might make sense if there is a serious BLP issue, but if one is simply saying that one doesn't think he is notable it is hard to see why a DRV makes that much sense. JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Read the nomination, I'm not argueing Afd II here, I simply don't understand the closing rationale given the arguments made. MickMacNee ( talk) 20:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • endorse closure - In my opinion the AFD was correctly closed; no consensus was reached in the AFD and subsequent arguments for deletion made thus far in this DRV have just echoed the WP:JNN arguments made in the AFD. Wiw8 ( talk) 09:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse closure as no consensus. On personal review of the evidence presented in the AfD I probably would have voted delete in it myself, but given that DRV is not here to act as "AfD 2.0" I certainly find myself agreeing with the closer that there was no consensus to delete it and further discussion was unlikely to change that. Relist if necessary, but this looks like a good no-consensus close in my view. ~ mazca t | c 12:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • "Further discussion was unlikely to change" seems a bold conclusion given the low number of contributors originally. MickMacNee ( talk) 20:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
      • The AfD almost entirely relied on peoples' subjective opinions of WP:BLP1E. Nobody seemed inclined to change their viewpoint and there's no compelling reason to suggest an additional length of time would have turned up any further information that would massively change the situation. I don't think a relist would have caused any kind of problem, but I don't see any reason it would have helped. ~ mazca t | c 21:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and delete. With two-thirds of the "votes" being for deletion, there were no real standout arguments by the keep side that warranted the closure made, especially keeping WP:BLP in mind. Stifle ( talk) 08:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: While AFD is not a ballot, since vote tally is being referenced in this DRV, in the interests of accuracy it should be noted that the "4-2" vote count quoted by the DRV nominator is false. The actual tally was 3 delete votes (Users OhnoitsJamie, The Anome, MickMacNee) and 2 keep votes (Users DGG, Wiw8). Or, arguably, 3 deletes and 3 keeps if you count Rabidfoxes' arguments in favour of keeping the article as a keep vote, or 4 deletes to 3 keeps if you also count the nomination by Sceptre as a delete vote (I'm unsure as to the policy on this). In any case, it was a lot closer to 50:50 than the 4-2 quoted by nom. Wiw8 ( talk) 09:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    Generally people do count the nominator as a delete vote unless they've specifically said something to the contrary or provided no rationale. I've also been treating Rabidfoxes' arguments as a "keep", The fact that he doesn't prefix them with Keep doesn't change the fact that they're clearly in favour of the article's retention. So yeah, i'd call a raw tally 4-3 in this case. ~ mazca t | c 10:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    Cheers for the clarification there. Looks like for the purpose of tally-based arguments, 4-3 it is. Wiw8 ( talk) 11:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    Rabid foxes is clearly a sock of a banned user, banned for preciesly trying to get non-notable information hosted on wikipedia. MickMacNee ( talk) 12:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    In fact, to slam home this point, every single one of his entire 24 edit history on wikipedia, since his first edit to actually create Jonty Haywood (in one go), right up to yesterday, has been to promote haywood/the game all over the wiki, justifying those edits by the 'existence' of his notability through having an article on wikipedia! He is even passing himself off now as a notable resident of Truro [1], as the founding father of a hoax website. Seriously, if anyone takes his view in this Afd as a serious and impartial vote, then they clearly are in desperate need of a trout slapping. MickMacNee ( talk) 12:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    Point taken, I probably should pay more attention to that. Remove his vote and it certainly does look like a 4-2 from a pure tally point of view. ~ mazca t | c 13:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    I can't believe how far some of you are going to try to defame me purely because you dislike the subject of my posts, but that's a topic for my talk page, not this DRV. What I'd like to know is how any of the above is relevant to whether or not this article should exist? If the subject satisfies WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS and WPIO then the article should exist, regardless of who the article's original creator is, or what the subject of the article has done on Wikipedia in the past. I'd understand if the article was filled with non WP:NPOV stuff, but it wasn't and isn't. Almost all of the delete voters are basing their argument on accusations like this rather than addressing the Wikipedia policies that are actually relevant here. (P.S. I'm not a sockpuppet but as I have stated, and as far as this article is concerned, that's irrelevant to this discussion.) Rabidfoxes ( talk) 13:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    I and others have commented on all the above policies. My pointing out of your activities here are relevant when the expression of those views is being undermined by attempting to include you in a vote count. You can exclude ONIJ if you want, but then we get back to the original issue, the number of views expressed in the Afd to achieve consensus becomes so small as to be meaningless, and definitely worthy of relisting. You may be entirely innocent, but examining your actions is a perfectly legitimate part of the wiki process. As for past actions of the subject, repeat attempts to overturn past decisions without cause can and does lead to censure, so sock puppet concerns are more than valid. Wikipedia is not a webhost, NPOV has nothing to do with that central policy. Wikipedia is not myspace, reliable sources on one event do not justify a biography. Your attempts at leverageing the profile of Haywood all across the pedia using the bio as justification given his clear BLP1E status are clearly odd actions for someone who is not connected to Haywood in any way. I've created bio's for people, I certainly wouldn't start entering them in 'notable persons from' lists as the 'founding father of...'. It's odd behaviour to say the least if you claim no connections at all. MickMacNee ( talk) 15:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    I didn't come here for a fight or to promote somebody... When I made the Haywood article I added what I thought were the relevant links to the Emmet and Truro articles. I also attempted to add one to The Game article for obvious reasons, but after discovering it was protected I commented on the discussion page instead. All of this I assumed was normal procedure for when a new article has been added. I created an article and made what I felt were appropriate minor edits to related articles. What you are expressing is an extremely biased and misleading account of my contributions, describing my edits to two articles and one talk page as "leverageing the profile of Haywood all across the pedia". Also you keep trying to make a big deal of the fact that I created the article in one edit - what's so odd about that? I used the preview function until I got it how I wanted it.
    It's one thing to quietly "examine my actions" but it's another to outright call me "clearly a sock" and a "banned user". If anything, you appear to be working equally hard (if not harder) to have all trace of Haywood removed and permanently wiped clean from Wikipedia by your extremely persistent and fairly lengthy AFD and DRV comments, your immediate nomination for DRV (without discussion) just because you disagreed with the AFD outcome (which clearly was no consensus to delete), accusing everyone who disagrees with you of sockpuppetry, and making suggestions like applying protection to the page after deletion when there is clearly no reason to do so right now. By your logic are these not also "clearly odd actions for someone who is not connected to Haywood in any way" (i.e. having something personal against him)? Rabidfoxes ( talk) 16:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    "Clearly was no consensus to delete". Well, we'll await the outcome of this shall we?. Question my motivations all you want, you won't find anything odd in what I've done. I first voted in an Afd, then listed it at Drv to legitimately dispute its closing interpretation, and then comment on what look like very weak points made to defend the original article and the Afd closure. As for your contributions, they are there for everyone to see, and quite clearly show an intent here, as do all your talk page contributions across your account history. MickMacNee ( talk) 17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    You've missed the point of my comment entirely. I just used your own logic against you. I've been arguing for this article to be kept, and you accuse me of having a history with Haywood. You've been arguing for the article to be deleted, maybe you have a history with Haywood too... My point is that you are making unsupported accusations, not assuming good faith and generally attacking anyone with opposing views to your own. Rabidfoxes ( talk) 18:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    I would love for you to find any evidence that shows that I am as linked to Haywood as you are on wiki. I came here from an Afd, simple as that. Even now as I deal with other things on wiki as well as this Drv, for some reason protecting Haywood's bio is still your exclusive interest on wiki. Not even a spelling correction edit to an unrelated article anywhere. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    I don't expect to find any evidence linking you to Haywood, and I don't expect you to find any linking me to him. That's the whole point of what I'm saying, you are making accusations without evidence. Maybe I would have moved on to making more contributions to Wikipedia but my first contribution has been met with such hostility that I've been wasting all my time trying to argue why it is a valuable contribution. Rabidfoxes ( talk) 14:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    Just to clarify, you brought this to DRV less than one hour after Lifebaka closed the AFD. Nothing had changed and you made no new points that hadn't been discussed in the AFD. You also did it "in precisely one edit" which according to you is "Odd to say the least." Rabidfoxes ( talk) 16:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    If you are now resorting to criticising the listing of the Drv in an attempt to deflect from the reasons for it, which nobody else has, then go ahead. It's fine. I am not supposed to make any 'new points' in nominating for Drv, apart from commenting on the closure, which I did. Read the instructions. 17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
    Your "new points" regarding the closure refer solely to (miscounted) votes. Which, as I've stated below, are irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a democracy. I have read the instructions for opening a DRV but I'm beginning to think that you haven't. The very first instruction says "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look." Further instructions say that "Deletion Review also is to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article.", "In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead." and most importantly "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate." Rabidfoxes ( talk) 18:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    You want this review closed becuase I didn't contact the closer first, who had no problem with me raising a Drv. Well go right ahead and have this closed then, if that is your argument. The key line is "you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly" - which is what I have done. As for the votes issue, you don't understand the policy at all, I explicitly stated that all the arguments in the "vote count" were valid, hence the description of closure was innacurate, subsequently confirmed by others in this review. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    "You want this review closed becuase I didn't contact the closer first, who had no problem with me raising a Drv." This is incredibly flawed logic. How could you have known that he wouldn't have a problem if you didn't contact him first? He only said this once you raised the DRV. Again, you're twisting my words, I'm not saying this is the reason the DRV should be closed. Just that you ignored the Wikipedia guidelines for starting a DRV, the guidelines you seem so keen to tell everyone else to read. Just because a vote is "valid", by which I assume you mean supported by policy, doesn't mean that all "valid" votes are equally weighted and that an AFD can be determined by a count of "valid" votes. You really seem to be missing the point. The vote count is irrelevant. AFD is a discussion in which users refer to relevant policies to reach a consensus on whether the article satisfies those policies. It doesn't matter how many users vote either way, just whether the article satisfies policy. I'm not sure how I can explain this point any further... Rabidfoxes ( talk) 14:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    I forgot to mention your scathing comments about a respected Wikinews journalist where you infer that he is not a proper journalist and that he is unreliable as well as mocking his age, his fact-checking, the article he wrote and accusing him of "blatant free self-promotion". Interestingly enough though, you also reveal that you "know little of their activities to be honest so can't judge if that is an acceptable piece". All this because he chose to report on a subject which you apparently hate so much. Rabidfoxes ( talk) 16:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    Feel free to dispute any comment I made about that, without any actual answers to the points, that's all it is (bar the misquote). What fact checking was done? Where is this journalist that was requested to comment at the Afd?. What are the policies regarding using wikinews as a reliable source? (I peersonally have never seen wikinews used as an RS). I am certain anyone but you can easily see it looks more like a press release than a journalistic interview. Explain the comments made over there in reaction to it. MickMacNee ( talk) 17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    The fact-checking was done by interviewing somebody who the journalist felt was a reliable source of information about The Game. The fact he didn't get involved in the AFD is hardly a reason to insult him like you did. Maybe he's busy. This is a perfect example of your gross exaggerations, you say "Where is this journalist that was requested to comment at the Afd?" when all that was said on his talk page was "w:Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 28 has a deletion review of the Wikipedia article on Jonty Haywood." What comments are you referring to "over there" exactly? One unregistered IP who doesn't like the website? By the way, what are you claiming that I misquoted? Would you like me to add links to your two comments I have quoted exactly? Rabidfoxes ( talk) 18:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    "The fact-checking was done by interviewing somebody who the journalist felt was a reliable source of information about The Game." There is nothing else I can say about this that isn't already shown by this comment. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    Well why don't you say something about my examples of your massive exaggerations of both the contact with the journalist and the comments made about his article. Or the fact you accused me of misquoting you when I did no such thing. Rabidfoxes ( talk) 14:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    If you are going to discount my vote based on entirely circumstantial evidence, maybe you should discount OhNoitsJamie's too. He's admitted to having conflicts with Haywood since 2006, so surely his opinion is a clear WP:COI. AfD is not a ballot anyway, so I don't even know why we're even arguing about the vote count... Rabidfoxes ( talk) 14:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    Read the Drv nomination rationale, the vote count is perfectly valid a topic unless it is deemed somebody made a vote wholly outside policy, which nobody did (barring sockpuppets). MickMacNee ( talk) 15:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    From WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting." The vote count is irrelevant, only the arguments supporting each vote are what matter. If one vote refers to many applicable policies it holds much more weight that many votes all referring to the same applicable policy. In fact, any additional votes that refer to arguments that have already been discussed are worthless as they bring nothing new to the discussion. Rabidfoxes ( talk) 16:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    I'm fine with the reviewer only considering the new contributors here, that is partly the reason for my nomination. Read it again. MickMacNee ( talk) 17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    OK, you keep telling me to re-read your opening comment...
    "Firstly, the basic vote vount is 4 deletes, to 2 keeps, with no invalid arguments made for my mind." Wikipedia is not a democracy. The vote count is irrelevant.
    "Two of the delete votes refer to notability in general, with two others citing WP:BLP1E, so I don't see how the delete opinions do not refer to the article subject." They refer to it but they clearly didn't make good enough points for the closing Admin to reach a consensus.
    "I think with so few votes this was a candidate for relisting." Wikipedia is not a democracy. The vote count is irrelevant.
    Quite frankly I'm getting tired of responding to your gross exaggerations and you ignoring the points I am making. As far as this article is concerned, the vote count is irrelevant, who I am is irrelevant, Haywood's history with Wikipedia is irrelevant. You have brought no new information to this discussion, and you have ignore the Wikipedia guidelines for opening a DRV (most importantly you did not contact the closing Admin first). Yet you keep arguing, repeating yourself, misquoting the policies and accusing others of not knowing them (and of much worse things like sockpuppetry too). I just hope a sensible Admin is reading these discussions so that this DRV will be closed soon. Rabidfoxes ( talk) 18:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    Thankfully the things you seem to think are irrelevant are often considered quite rightly in these issues. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    Let me try to summarise everything I have been trying to get across to you throughout this DRV: The only thing that is relevant here is whether the article satisfies Wikipedia's policies for inclusion. How you can think differently baffles me. Rabidfoxes ( talk) 14:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: If we are going to base this debate on vote count, then I would suggest that either the AFD vote count was too close to establish consensus either way (4-3), or if you discount ONIJ and Rabidfoxes votes as suggested above, then the vote count was not only too close to establish consensus but possibly too low for a meaningful consensus to be reached, suggesting a relist may be appropriate. However, the closing admin gave reasons for not relisting, putting forward that further discussion was unlikely to lead to consensus either way (which would appear to be the case looking up at this DRV) and requesting improvements to the article itself (I have since attempted to improve it somewhat by making it read more WP:NPOV and improving the level of referencing and detail). Although - as per my DRV response above - I still believe that the closer's analysis of no consensus leaning towards keep was the correct analysis of the debate, given that there was very little that the closing admin could have misinterpreted about the debate, I can understand how some may feel that a re-list may be appropriate even if I disagree that it is now necessary. I would, however, strongly contest the suggestion that overturning and deleting would be at all appropriate in this case; as mazca commented above, DRV is not here to act as "AFD 2.0", and as the DRV instructions state, we are supposed to be discussing whether the closing administrator misinterpreted some aspect of the debate, not whether we disagree with their decision. Wiw8 ( talk) 22:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn, delete. Passing and trivial mentions, likely vanity page. Relist also acceptable, but the article is vanispamcruftisement and with only 156 unique Googles, many of them not even in English, I fail to see how this passes the sourcing guidelines which are essential for WP:BLP articles. Guy ( Help!) 13:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    Comment: Hiya Guy; I would argue that this article passes the sourcing guidelines by having multiple, reliable, published sources (see article and AFD for links to some) - I don't think "number of unique Google hits" is part of the sourcing guidelines, but correct me if I'm wrong there. In any case, please note that votes in this DRV should be based solely on whether or not you think the closing administrator misinterpreted some aspect of the AFD debate, not on the number of Google hits for the subject. Cheers.
    Actually, since you mentioned Google hits, I thought I'd do an experiment to see how "low" 156 unique hits actually is. Some examples of notable people from Truro alongside their unique Google hit quantity:
Looking through the first few pages of the hits for Jonty Haywood is interesting though; these are some that stand out: Daily Mail, Independent, BBC, Wikinews, Channel 4, Telegraph, NZ Herald, Best Western, Metro, Vox, Times, UPI, CTV, Yahoo News, DNA India, Sky News, Guardian, This Is Cornwall Network, etc. I think that with this level of coverage it is unfair to refer to this as mere vanispamcruftisement. Wiw8 ( talk) 15:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse closure. A couple of points worth remembering: DRV is not AFD 2 (so arguing over the notability of the subject here is pretty silly), and AFD is not a vote count. There may have been slightly more users arguing for keeping the article, but their arguments weren't much stronger, and the margin was small enough that this falls within the grounds of 'admin discretion'. A different admin might have closed this AFD as 'delete', but I think a 'no consensus' close is entirely legitimate, and in fact probably more appropriate. Terraxos ( talk) 00:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mario Barth (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Clearly notable; see his German entry. Contesting prod. Chubbles ( talk) 18:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I think they are about different people. The German entry is about a German comedian (according to the google translation) while the deleted version describes him as a "Celebrity tattoo artist Mario Barth" who was born in Austria and as the "owner and chief tattoo artist at Starlight Tattoo". Davewild ( talk) 18:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Oh, okay, then you can close this. I'll put in a translation request. Chubbles ( talk) 18:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_28&oldid=1144626006"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 27 Deletion review archives: 2008 July July 29 >

28 July 2008

  • Jonty Haywood – "No Consensus/Keep" Closure was Endorsed. This discussion was very close to a no consensus, itself, which mimics the AfD. The deletion policy provides clear guidance to err toward keep in such situations. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jonty Haywood (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

The closer stated "The result was no consensus , leaning towards keep. For the most part, the delete arguments do not discuss the subject of this article ". Firstly, the basic vote vount is 4 deletes, to 2 keeps, with no invalid arguments made for my mind. Two of the delete votes refer to notability in general, with two others citing WP:BLP1E, so I don't see how the delete opinions do not refer to the article subject. I think with so few votes this was a candidate for relisting. MickMacNee ( talk) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Comment from closer: I opted to close as no consensus instead of relisting as I did not and do not feel that more discussion will lead to a consensus, though I don't really oppose an overturn and relist. I believe the same could be accomplished by re-nominating the article in a few weeks with no other action, however. And Stifle, before you chime in, it doesn't bother me that no discussion happened before this DRV was filed. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka ( talk - contribs) 19:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I think being at Afd for a week is long enough for the necessary improvements to appear, especially as the creator and chief supporter of the article was highly motivated. I don't agree with short time periods between Afd nominations, and in my experience, a second nomination in such a short period would be speedied anyway. MickMacNee ( talk) 19:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • In fact, something I wasn't aware of, the article was created in precisely one edit, (the first edit by Rabidfoxes ( talk · contribs), a suspected sock of Jonty303 ( talk · contribs)), and was not subsequently touched bar Afd process edits. Odd to say the least. MickMacNee ( talk) 19:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply
      • That's unfortunate. While this is ongoing I think I'll ask Wiw8 to try to improve it, since he seemed interested and the state of the page shouldn't have any bearing on this process. lifebaka ( talk - contribs) 20:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Wouldn't have bothered me much since you dropped by here so soon, Lifebaka :) Stifle ( talk) 08:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and relist delete would seem appropriate to me, with a 4-to-2 vote for "delete" being closed as "keep". Also, given the reports of alleged past sockpuppetry, can we check whether Wiw8 and Rabidfoxes are actually distinct users? -- The Anome ( talk) 11:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    If this would have influenced the close then it is a valid grounds for checkuser: Code D. GRBerry 14:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    Go ahead with your checkuser - I am nothing to do with User:Rabidfoxes. I do find it upsetting to be accused of duplicitous activities simply because I responded differently in an AFD, and I stand by the arguments I made in that AFD and by the neutrality of my editing history. Incidentally, I count 3 delete votes (Users OhnoitsJamie, The Anome, MickMacNee) and 2 keep votes (Users DGG, Wiw8) in the AFD. Apparently Rabidfoxes didn't actually cast a vote himself. Anyway, the vote count isn't particularly relevant because AFD isn't a ballot - it's the argument behind each vote that counts. Wiw8 ( talk) 15:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse as reasonable keep though no consensus might have been better. Hobit ( talk) 20:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Ehm, it was closed as no consensus. Cheers. lifebaka ( talk - contribs) 20:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Um, opps. No clue how I did that. I read the AfD, but... Hobit ( talk) 23:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and delete - the threshold for deletion for BLPs is lower tan needed than for other subjects. Sceptre ( talk) 20:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • At the risk of looking like an idiot twice in one AfD, BLPs look like the only "additional hurdle" is due to being "non-public persons" I don't think Jonty qualifies there. Of course, that policy means we need to be sure everything is sourced. But at first blush, it all looks like it is. Further, I'd assume those discussing it would take policy into account so any issues with BLP would be part of that discussion and folks would be assumed to have considered it. Could you explain exactly what you are getting at? Thanks, Hobit ( talk) 23:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and delete Strong WP:BLP1E, created by likely sockpuppet of subject. See this incident report for further details. OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Closure as no consensus within reasonable admin discretion. Disagree with closer that it was leaning towards keep but there was a disagreement over whether it was a WP:BLP1E or not making no consensus a reasonable decision. There has never been agreement that BLPs should have a lower threshold for deletion and is not supported by policy. Having said this however personally I think that the article should be moved to Porthemmet Beach and rewritten about that with Jonty Haywood covered as part of that article. The beach is notable enough to merit a seperate article rather than as a section on Emmet (Cornish) which it seems only loosely connected with. Jonty Haywood himself is marginal for notability and could be covered sufficiently on an article on the beach. Davewild ( talk) 08:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • It won't get merged if it is endorsed, so this is a moot vote. To vote for a merge it needs relisting. A 4-2 vote is a nothing result for a marginal BLP, especially one suspected of manipulation. MickMacNee ( talk) 09:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
A merge or move does not require an AFD, I would be quite prepared to join a talk page discussion to help bring a move about and would definitely help with creating such an article. Endorsing a no consensus does not prevent this from taking place. I strongly support AFD not being a vote and there was reasonable arguments for and against deletion. I think the best thing to happen would be a proposal on the talk page for a move/merge to the beach which I think we could get consensus for. Davewild ( talk) 09:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I would only sanction that if it is possible to protect the resultant redirect from Jonty Haywood and leave a link to the history of this person and his attemts to promote himself in all sorts of ways on this site for any future admins who may be asked to unprotect it in the future. It would be simpler to overturn and delete to be honest. MickMacNee ( talk) 10:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I can understand that but don't think we should bow to poor behaviour by deleting what would certainly be a legitimate redirect. I see no problem with protecting the redirect until/unless he gets more coverage to establish independent notability. Davewild ( talk) 10:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: per the request of the AFD's closing admin, I have rewritten the article. Wiw8 ( talk) 12:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I don't see what the rewrite fixes. Creating a simple website about a topic with very little to write about hardly makes someone an expert or notable. It's still a clear WP:BLP1E created by a repeat self-promoter. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • 'Comment It's changed nothing except adding a 17 year old 'journalist' at wikinews as some sort of reliable source. This guy has still not responded to an FYI on his wikipedia talk page about the Afd, and the comments page on the interview are not exactly encouraging that this was a scoop of the century. And the beach/signs have been separated into two notable events. If anything, the article just reads now as a little more ... desperate? to be noticed than before. The presence of the Canadian press source alone still fails 1E. MickMacNee ( talk) 14:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Comment: I attempted to make the article read more like an encyclopedia article, removing some of the unnecessary superlatives, as well as focusing more on the relevant facts in the sources. There may be room for expansion, but it's a start. The article doesn't say that creating the website is what made him an expert, it says that the media turned to him for his expertise on the subject and summarises what aspects in particular he is reported (in the cited sources) to have researched via his site. Jamie, it may be your opinion that The Game is a trivial topic, but that is your personal view, not consensus. I understand why you would want to oppose an article on Haywood, given that you and he have clashed in the past, but as I and others have already pointed out, his Wikipedia history is irrelevant to whether or not this article should exist, as per this section of WP:BIO. MickMacNee, I did deliberate before referencing the Wikinews article, and decided to go ahead and do so because a) of Wikinews's commitment to fact checking and accuracy and b) the reporter that you personally attack in your post is one of relatively few Accredited Wikinews Reporters, a status which as far as I can tell makes them recognised members of the press. Wiw8 ( talk) 15:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
        • Check the interview pages, there was no fact checking, he basically covered himself by starting every sentence "Haywood said...". MickMacNee ( talk) 15:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
          • I'm sorry, but you are missing the point entirely. This is not a DRV about The Game, so whether or not Haywood's statements about The Game in that article are factually correct is completely irrelevant. The point is that both the Canadian Press and Wikinews, both of which have strong journalistic reputations to uphold, turned to Haywood for their information on The Game, which serves as a good indicator of his status as a notable figure in this field. Wiw8 ( talk) 17:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
              • This is an argument that should have been going on in more detail on the AfD. However, I will note that the claim that he is notable because news sources have turned to him is not by itself compelling. The requirements of WP:BIO/ WP:N are a bit stricter than news sources using someone as a sources. JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
                • Oh absolutely - I wasn't suggesting that this fact should be taken by itself to satisfy WP:BIO. It should be considered in combination with the fact that both articles discuss his site's popularity and beginnings, and talk about his research into The Game's origins and strategies - not enough to have a separate Wikipedia article all about his website, but enough that combined with the widespread media coverage over several months for the Porthemmet Beach hoax last year and the recent coverage for the roadsign hoax, WP:BLP1E arguments seem a little far fetched. Wiw8 ( talk) 08:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • endorse close No compelling reason to override the closing admins decision. Claims of BLP1E are hard to understand when none of the material is negative and he is listed as being notable for multiple things (the hoax and the material related to The Game). Moreover, the claim that it was likely created by the Haywood is irrelevant if our current version of the article is in fact well-written and NPOV which it is. Finally, it strikes me as a bit absurd that people can claim deletion due to BLP which is designed to protect the subject at the same time they argue it should be deleted since it was written by the subject. Just a small contradition there. JoshuaZ ( talk) 15:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Protection isn't the sole pupose of BLP, be it 1E or whatever. It's a general standard for inclusion aswell. A person's persistence at being included, when they don't meet the minimum requirements for inclusion, should not be included, whether they really want to be or not. And we don't know for certain people's identities here, the sexing up of the article is being done by someone we currently have to assume is not him. The game website is completely non-notable, there's no other way to see that as far as I can see. MickMacNee ( talk) 15:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Firstly, I'm not "sexing up" the article; I was asked by the closing admin to try to improve the article, and I have attempted to do so by writing it in a more encyclopedic manner, including more relevant information from the available media sources and making it read more NPOV. Secondly, regarding your persistent implications that I am Haywood or Rabidfoxes or some other affiliate - of course I cannot prove that I'm not some agent of the subject's, just as you cannot prove that you aren't someone who has a sworn mortal grudge against the subject. This is an unfortunate reality behind most internet based media, and it is the reason why we need fundamental principles such as Assume Good Faith and No Personal Attacks in order for Wikipedia to function. If you disagree with someone's reasoning, the correct response is to present valid evidence and argument to the contrary, not to resort to unfounded presumptions of bad faith in an attempt to get their reasoning discounted. Thirdly, once again, we aren't discussing whether the "lose the game" website satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for article inclusion - this is not an article about that website. We are discussing whether the subject of this article satisfies WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BIO. Wiw8 ( talk) 20:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
        • This is an odd twisting of logic. Eactly how do you become a notable creator of a website by creating a non-notable website? If he is a non-notable creator of a website,(which the sources provided dealing with just that act), then he fails BLP1E. MickMacNee ( talk) 20:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
          • I didn't say that it is a "non-notable website", I said that we aren't discussing whether the website on its own satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for having its own article - an event or achievment doesn't have to have its own Wikipedia article in order to contribute to a subject's notability. Incidentally, the sources discuss his research into the origins of The Game and strategies as well as just the website. In any case, this DRV is meant for discussing whether the closing admin drew the correct consensus from the AFD, not for repeating the same argument that grew stale in the AFD, unless new information has arisen which would have supported a different closure, which apparently it has not. Wiw8 ( talk) 08:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
            • It's clearly a non-notable website through WP:WEB. If you can't even see that, then I don't know what else to tell you. And frankly, talking about research on 'strategies' for The Game is just pure nonsense, bordering on WP:MADEUP. Show me a single quote about this 'research' that didn't come from Haywood himself. You don't understand notability and you don't understand third party sourceing. The only person trying to repeat the Afd arguments that I can see, is you. I am perplexed by your repeated attempts to split the notability of events from the person, to try and dismiss the whole point of BLP1E. MickMacNee ( talk) 12:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
      • I agree that protection is not the only point of that (but it is certainly the point behind arguments made by for example Sceptre above), but when we have a reasonably closed AfD you need a really compelling reason to overturn it. Not liking the result might make sense if there is a serious BLP issue, but if one is simply saying that one doesn't think he is notable it is hard to see why a DRV makes that much sense. JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Read the nomination, I'm not argueing Afd II here, I simply don't understand the closing rationale given the arguments made. MickMacNee ( talk) 20:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • endorse closure - In my opinion the AFD was correctly closed; no consensus was reached in the AFD and subsequent arguments for deletion made thus far in this DRV have just echoed the WP:JNN arguments made in the AFD. Wiw8 ( talk) 09:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse closure as no consensus. On personal review of the evidence presented in the AfD I probably would have voted delete in it myself, but given that DRV is not here to act as "AfD 2.0" I certainly find myself agreeing with the closer that there was no consensus to delete it and further discussion was unlikely to change that. Relist if necessary, but this looks like a good no-consensus close in my view. ~ mazca t | c 12:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • "Further discussion was unlikely to change" seems a bold conclusion given the low number of contributors originally. MickMacNee ( talk) 20:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
      • The AfD almost entirely relied on peoples' subjective opinions of WP:BLP1E. Nobody seemed inclined to change their viewpoint and there's no compelling reason to suggest an additional length of time would have turned up any further information that would massively change the situation. I don't think a relist would have caused any kind of problem, but I don't see any reason it would have helped. ~ mazca t | c 21:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and delete. With two-thirds of the "votes" being for deletion, there were no real standout arguments by the keep side that warranted the closure made, especially keeping WP:BLP in mind. Stifle ( talk) 08:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: While AFD is not a ballot, since vote tally is being referenced in this DRV, in the interests of accuracy it should be noted that the "4-2" vote count quoted by the DRV nominator is false. The actual tally was 3 delete votes (Users OhnoitsJamie, The Anome, MickMacNee) and 2 keep votes (Users DGG, Wiw8). Or, arguably, 3 deletes and 3 keeps if you count Rabidfoxes' arguments in favour of keeping the article as a keep vote, or 4 deletes to 3 keeps if you also count the nomination by Sceptre as a delete vote (I'm unsure as to the policy on this). In any case, it was a lot closer to 50:50 than the 4-2 quoted by nom. Wiw8 ( talk) 09:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    Generally people do count the nominator as a delete vote unless they've specifically said something to the contrary or provided no rationale. I've also been treating Rabidfoxes' arguments as a "keep", The fact that he doesn't prefix them with Keep doesn't change the fact that they're clearly in favour of the article's retention. So yeah, i'd call a raw tally 4-3 in this case. ~ mazca t | c 10:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    Cheers for the clarification there. Looks like for the purpose of tally-based arguments, 4-3 it is. Wiw8 ( talk) 11:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    Rabid foxes is clearly a sock of a banned user, banned for preciesly trying to get non-notable information hosted on wikipedia. MickMacNee ( talk) 12:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    In fact, to slam home this point, every single one of his entire 24 edit history on wikipedia, since his first edit to actually create Jonty Haywood (in one go), right up to yesterday, has been to promote haywood/the game all over the wiki, justifying those edits by the 'existence' of his notability through having an article on wikipedia! He is even passing himself off now as a notable resident of Truro [1], as the founding father of a hoax website. Seriously, if anyone takes his view in this Afd as a serious and impartial vote, then they clearly are in desperate need of a trout slapping. MickMacNee ( talk) 12:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    Point taken, I probably should pay more attention to that. Remove his vote and it certainly does look like a 4-2 from a pure tally point of view. ~ mazca t | c 13:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    I can't believe how far some of you are going to try to defame me purely because you dislike the subject of my posts, but that's a topic for my talk page, not this DRV. What I'd like to know is how any of the above is relevant to whether or not this article should exist? If the subject satisfies WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS and WPIO then the article should exist, regardless of who the article's original creator is, or what the subject of the article has done on Wikipedia in the past. I'd understand if the article was filled with non WP:NPOV stuff, but it wasn't and isn't. Almost all of the delete voters are basing their argument on accusations like this rather than addressing the Wikipedia policies that are actually relevant here. (P.S. I'm not a sockpuppet but as I have stated, and as far as this article is concerned, that's irrelevant to this discussion.) Rabidfoxes ( talk) 13:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    I and others have commented on all the above policies. My pointing out of your activities here are relevant when the expression of those views is being undermined by attempting to include you in a vote count. You can exclude ONIJ if you want, but then we get back to the original issue, the number of views expressed in the Afd to achieve consensus becomes so small as to be meaningless, and definitely worthy of relisting. You may be entirely innocent, but examining your actions is a perfectly legitimate part of the wiki process. As for past actions of the subject, repeat attempts to overturn past decisions without cause can and does lead to censure, so sock puppet concerns are more than valid. Wikipedia is not a webhost, NPOV has nothing to do with that central policy. Wikipedia is not myspace, reliable sources on one event do not justify a biography. Your attempts at leverageing the profile of Haywood all across the pedia using the bio as justification given his clear BLP1E status are clearly odd actions for someone who is not connected to Haywood in any way. I've created bio's for people, I certainly wouldn't start entering them in 'notable persons from' lists as the 'founding father of...'. It's odd behaviour to say the least if you claim no connections at all. MickMacNee ( talk) 15:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    I didn't come here for a fight or to promote somebody... When I made the Haywood article I added what I thought were the relevant links to the Emmet and Truro articles. I also attempted to add one to The Game article for obvious reasons, but after discovering it was protected I commented on the discussion page instead. All of this I assumed was normal procedure for when a new article has been added. I created an article and made what I felt were appropriate minor edits to related articles. What you are expressing is an extremely biased and misleading account of my contributions, describing my edits to two articles and one talk page as "leverageing the profile of Haywood all across the pedia". Also you keep trying to make a big deal of the fact that I created the article in one edit - what's so odd about that? I used the preview function until I got it how I wanted it.
    It's one thing to quietly "examine my actions" but it's another to outright call me "clearly a sock" and a "banned user". If anything, you appear to be working equally hard (if not harder) to have all trace of Haywood removed and permanently wiped clean from Wikipedia by your extremely persistent and fairly lengthy AFD and DRV comments, your immediate nomination for DRV (without discussion) just because you disagreed with the AFD outcome (which clearly was no consensus to delete), accusing everyone who disagrees with you of sockpuppetry, and making suggestions like applying protection to the page after deletion when there is clearly no reason to do so right now. By your logic are these not also "clearly odd actions for someone who is not connected to Haywood in any way" (i.e. having something personal against him)? Rabidfoxes ( talk) 16:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    "Clearly was no consensus to delete". Well, we'll await the outcome of this shall we?. Question my motivations all you want, you won't find anything odd in what I've done. I first voted in an Afd, then listed it at Drv to legitimately dispute its closing interpretation, and then comment on what look like very weak points made to defend the original article and the Afd closure. As for your contributions, they are there for everyone to see, and quite clearly show an intent here, as do all your talk page contributions across your account history. MickMacNee ( talk) 17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    You've missed the point of my comment entirely. I just used your own logic against you. I've been arguing for this article to be kept, and you accuse me of having a history with Haywood. You've been arguing for the article to be deleted, maybe you have a history with Haywood too... My point is that you are making unsupported accusations, not assuming good faith and generally attacking anyone with opposing views to your own. Rabidfoxes ( talk) 18:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    I would love for you to find any evidence that shows that I am as linked to Haywood as you are on wiki. I came here from an Afd, simple as that. Even now as I deal with other things on wiki as well as this Drv, for some reason protecting Haywood's bio is still your exclusive interest on wiki. Not even a spelling correction edit to an unrelated article anywhere. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    I don't expect to find any evidence linking you to Haywood, and I don't expect you to find any linking me to him. That's the whole point of what I'm saying, you are making accusations without evidence. Maybe I would have moved on to making more contributions to Wikipedia but my first contribution has been met with such hostility that I've been wasting all my time trying to argue why it is a valuable contribution. Rabidfoxes ( talk) 14:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    Just to clarify, you brought this to DRV less than one hour after Lifebaka closed the AFD. Nothing had changed and you made no new points that hadn't been discussed in the AFD. You also did it "in precisely one edit" which according to you is "Odd to say the least." Rabidfoxes ( talk) 16:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    If you are now resorting to criticising the listing of the Drv in an attempt to deflect from the reasons for it, which nobody else has, then go ahead. It's fine. I am not supposed to make any 'new points' in nominating for Drv, apart from commenting on the closure, which I did. Read the instructions. 17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
    Your "new points" regarding the closure refer solely to (miscounted) votes. Which, as I've stated below, are irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a democracy. I have read the instructions for opening a DRV but I'm beginning to think that you haven't. The very first instruction says "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look." Further instructions say that "Deletion Review also is to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article.", "In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead." and most importantly "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate." Rabidfoxes ( talk) 18:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    You want this review closed becuase I didn't contact the closer first, who had no problem with me raising a Drv. Well go right ahead and have this closed then, if that is your argument. The key line is "you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly" - which is what I have done. As for the votes issue, you don't understand the policy at all, I explicitly stated that all the arguments in the "vote count" were valid, hence the description of closure was innacurate, subsequently confirmed by others in this review. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    "You want this review closed becuase I didn't contact the closer first, who had no problem with me raising a Drv." This is incredibly flawed logic. How could you have known that he wouldn't have a problem if you didn't contact him first? He only said this once you raised the DRV. Again, you're twisting my words, I'm not saying this is the reason the DRV should be closed. Just that you ignored the Wikipedia guidelines for starting a DRV, the guidelines you seem so keen to tell everyone else to read. Just because a vote is "valid", by which I assume you mean supported by policy, doesn't mean that all "valid" votes are equally weighted and that an AFD can be determined by a count of "valid" votes. You really seem to be missing the point. The vote count is irrelevant. AFD is a discussion in which users refer to relevant policies to reach a consensus on whether the article satisfies those policies. It doesn't matter how many users vote either way, just whether the article satisfies policy. I'm not sure how I can explain this point any further... Rabidfoxes ( talk) 14:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    I forgot to mention your scathing comments about a respected Wikinews journalist where you infer that he is not a proper journalist and that he is unreliable as well as mocking his age, his fact-checking, the article he wrote and accusing him of "blatant free self-promotion". Interestingly enough though, you also reveal that you "know little of their activities to be honest so can't judge if that is an acceptable piece". All this because he chose to report on a subject which you apparently hate so much. Rabidfoxes ( talk) 16:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    Feel free to dispute any comment I made about that, without any actual answers to the points, that's all it is (bar the misquote). What fact checking was done? Where is this journalist that was requested to comment at the Afd?. What are the policies regarding using wikinews as a reliable source? (I peersonally have never seen wikinews used as an RS). I am certain anyone but you can easily see it looks more like a press release than a journalistic interview. Explain the comments made over there in reaction to it. MickMacNee ( talk) 17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    The fact-checking was done by interviewing somebody who the journalist felt was a reliable source of information about The Game. The fact he didn't get involved in the AFD is hardly a reason to insult him like you did. Maybe he's busy. This is a perfect example of your gross exaggerations, you say "Where is this journalist that was requested to comment at the Afd?" when all that was said on his talk page was "w:Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 28 has a deletion review of the Wikipedia article on Jonty Haywood." What comments are you referring to "over there" exactly? One unregistered IP who doesn't like the website? By the way, what are you claiming that I misquoted? Would you like me to add links to your two comments I have quoted exactly? Rabidfoxes ( talk) 18:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    "The fact-checking was done by interviewing somebody who the journalist felt was a reliable source of information about The Game." There is nothing else I can say about this that isn't already shown by this comment. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    Well why don't you say something about my examples of your massive exaggerations of both the contact with the journalist and the comments made about his article. Or the fact you accused me of misquoting you when I did no such thing. Rabidfoxes ( talk) 14:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    If you are going to discount my vote based on entirely circumstantial evidence, maybe you should discount OhNoitsJamie's too. He's admitted to having conflicts with Haywood since 2006, so surely his opinion is a clear WP:COI. AfD is not a ballot anyway, so I don't even know why we're even arguing about the vote count... Rabidfoxes ( talk) 14:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    Read the Drv nomination rationale, the vote count is perfectly valid a topic unless it is deemed somebody made a vote wholly outside policy, which nobody did (barring sockpuppets). MickMacNee ( talk) 15:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    From WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting." The vote count is irrelevant, only the arguments supporting each vote are what matter. If one vote refers to many applicable policies it holds much more weight that many votes all referring to the same applicable policy. In fact, any additional votes that refer to arguments that have already been discussed are worthless as they bring nothing new to the discussion. Rabidfoxes ( talk) 16:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    I'm fine with the reviewer only considering the new contributors here, that is partly the reason for my nomination. Read it again. MickMacNee ( talk) 17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    OK, you keep telling me to re-read your opening comment...
    "Firstly, the basic vote vount is 4 deletes, to 2 keeps, with no invalid arguments made for my mind." Wikipedia is not a democracy. The vote count is irrelevant.
    "Two of the delete votes refer to notability in general, with two others citing WP:BLP1E, so I don't see how the delete opinions do not refer to the article subject." They refer to it but they clearly didn't make good enough points for the closing Admin to reach a consensus.
    "I think with so few votes this was a candidate for relisting." Wikipedia is not a democracy. The vote count is irrelevant.
    Quite frankly I'm getting tired of responding to your gross exaggerations and you ignoring the points I am making. As far as this article is concerned, the vote count is irrelevant, who I am is irrelevant, Haywood's history with Wikipedia is irrelevant. You have brought no new information to this discussion, and you have ignore the Wikipedia guidelines for opening a DRV (most importantly you did not contact the closing Admin first). Yet you keep arguing, repeating yourself, misquoting the policies and accusing others of not knowing them (and of much worse things like sockpuppetry too). I just hope a sensible Admin is reading these discussions so that this DRV will be closed soon. Rabidfoxes ( talk) 18:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    Thankfully the things you seem to think are irrelevant are often considered quite rightly in these issues. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    Let me try to summarise everything I have been trying to get across to you throughout this DRV: The only thing that is relevant here is whether the article satisfies Wikipedia's policies for inclusion. How you can think differently baffles me. Rabidfoxes ( talk) 14:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: If we are going to base this debate on vote count, then I would suggest that either the AFD vote count was too close to establish consensus either way (4-3), or if you discount ONIJ and Rabidfoxes votes as suggested above, then the vote count was not only too close to establish consensus but possibly too low for a meaningful consensus to be reached, suggesting a relist may be appropriate. However, the closing admin gave reasons for not relisting, putting forward that further discussion was unlikely to lead to consensus either way (which would appear to be the case looking up at this DRV) and requesting improvements to the article itself (I have since attempted to improve it somewhat by making it read more WP:NPOV and improving the level of referencing and detail). Although - as per my DRV response above - I still believe that the closer's analysis of no consensus leaning towards keep was the correct analysis of the debate, given that there was very little that the closing admin could have misinterpreted about the debate, I can understand how some may feel that a re-list may be appropriate even if I disagree that it is now necessary. I would, however, strongly contest the suggestion that overturning and deleting would be at all appropriate in this case; as mazca commented above, DRV is not here to act as "AFD 2.0", and as the DRV instructions state, we are supposed to be discussing whether the closing administrator misinterpreted some aspect of the debate, not whether we disagree with their decision. Wiw8 ( talk) 22:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn, delete. Passing and trivial mentions, likely vanity page. Relist also acceptable, but the article is vanispamcruftisement and with only 156 unique Googles, many of them not even in English, I fail to see how this passes the sourcing guidelines which are essential for WP:BLP articles. Guy ( Help!) 13:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    Comment: Hiya Guy; I would argue that this article passes the sourcing guidelines by having multiple, reliable, published sources (see article and AFD for links to some) - I don't think "number of unique Google hits" is part of the sourcing guidelines, but correct me if I'm wrong there. In any case, please note that votes in this DRV should be based solely on whether or not you think the closing administrator misinterpreted some aspect of the AFD debate, not on the number of Google hits for the subject. Cheers.
    Actually, since you mentioned Google hits, I thought I'd do an experiment to see how "low" 156 unique hits actually is. Some examples of notable people from Truro alongside their unique Google hit quantity:
Looking through the first few pages of the hits for Jonty Haywood is interesting though; these are some that stand out: Daily Mail, Independent, BBC, Wikinews, Channel 4, Telegraph, NZ Herald, Best Western, Metro, Vox, Times, UPI, CTV, Yahoo News, DNA India, Sky News, Guardian, This Is Cornwall Network, etc. I think that with this level of coverage it is unfair to refer to this as mere vanispamcruftisement. Wiw8 ( talk) 15:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse closure. A couple of points worth remembering: DRV is not AFD 2 (so arguing over the notability of the subject here is pretty silly), and AFD is not a vote count. There may have been slightly more users arguing for keeping the article, but their arguments weren't much stronger, and the margin was small enough that this falls within the grounds of 'admin discretion'. A different admin might have closed this AFD as 'delete', but I think a 'no consensus' close is entirely legitimate, and in fact probably more appropriate. Terraxos ( talk) 00:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mario Barth (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Clearly notable; see his German entry. Contesting prod. Chubbles ( talk) 18:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I think they are about different people. The German entry is about a German comedian (according to the google translation) while the deleted version describes him as a "Celebrity tattoo artist Mario Barth" who was born in Austria and as the "owner and chief tattoo artist at Starlight Tattoo". Davewild ( talk) 18:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Oh, okay, then you can close this. I'll put in a translation request. Chubbles ( talk) 18:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_28&oldid=1144626006"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE