Anandita Dutta Tamuly ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Rough consensus is not evident from the deletion discussion. We have a single delete vote from the nominator, and one keep vote, both supported with policy arguments. We have one comment from the article's author who should be counted as a strong keep and who edited the article to address some of the concerns that were brought up. In addition we have two comments that could be interpreted as deletes. The closing administrator claims that the article in its final form violated BLP without providing supporting arguments or evidence.

Moving from procedural to substantive arguments: the article's subject is not notable for a single event, but for a singular skill; this skill has been documented by several reliable sources. AxelBoldt ( talk) 18:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Do not overturn to keep, There was not much consensus for any course of action in the AfD, but I'm not convinced that overturning this to a no consensus (default to keep) would be a satisfactory outcome. Equally, I'm not sure that userfication would produce much benefit as pretty much all the sources that currently exist seem to be in the article already, and there is no indication of when Guinness will come back with a definitive answer, even then it might be that they do not wish to maintain a record for this (which would not be definitive either way for notability purposes). The AfD was already resisted once, and that didn't attract a significant number of commenters. I really am not sure what outcome I think would be best here, so I would not object to any outcome other than an overturn to keep (as this was clearly not supported by the AfD). Thryduulf ( talk) 12:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• The only thing I can say about the AfD is that there's absolutely no consensus to do anything whatsoever. Tim Song ( talk) 17:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• I agree that the proper close here was a finding of no consensus which, despite what some would like, still defaults to keep. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure as delete. First of all, the debate probably should've been relisted again – mainly because the first "relisting" was actually its first listing, period. The majority of the debate occurred between January 19 and January 27, when it was not listed on any AfD log page. A bot listed it on the January 27 log page for a week, but that only generated one vote, which in my mind ought to have led to a relist. In any case, arguments to delete presented during the debate included WP:BLP1E (or, as one commenter put it, BLP-zero-E) based on the problem of the article's subject being a living person notable for zero-to-one events which weren't themselves notable. As our WP:BLP policy states, "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." The chief argument to keep was that the subject met WP:BIO and that BLP1E was not an issue because the subject was known for one skill, not one event. Two sources were offered to prove this; however, those sources were "human interest" pieces and did not demonstrate significant coverage by most standards. In the absence of proof of notability in general, the subject must be notable for no events whatsoever, therefore making BLP1E a perfectly valid argument. Moreover, taking Abductive's vote to userfy into consideration, there was a decent consensus that this article did not belong in the mainspace. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 22:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Actually the article was listed properly. [1]. The bot's edit was probably due to a failure of Cirt's relist script. So basically the AfD was not listed between Cirt's relist and the bot's listing it on the log where it should have gone.

  You may consider the sources provided to be insufficient, and I may well agree, but that is beside the point. The question is whether there is a consensus that this is a BLP1E, and from the debate I cannot say there is anything of that sort. To say that two editors arguing that it's a BLP1E, with two others arguing against it, somehow creates a "consensus" would distort the word's meaning beyond all recognition. We ask the closer to evaluate the consensus on how to apply BLP1E, not to apply their own interpretation of it.

  That said, I'm quite unsure on how to proceed here. I'm not really convinced that this subject warrants inclusion, and the BLP status of the article further complicates the issue. I'll go with a relist here, I think, so that the article may be deleted properly, in accordance with a valid community consensus. Tim Song ( talk) 04:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Ah, good catch. I looked at Special:WhatLinksHere, but I forgot that relisted discussions are removed from the original log page. My mistake. As for the substance of the debate, it is true that there was little debate on the sources presented. However, we can assume that surely JBSupreme (the nominator) and Abductive (who later voted to incubate) rejected the idea that the sources presented by WineGuy conferred notability. This is in addition to PFHLai concurring with JBSupreme's BLP1E concerns. Ultimately, only WineGuy made policy-based arguments to keep. I don't think Xeteli's argument that this passes BLP1E should be given much weight, since it isn't policy-based and does not address notability concerns. I'm okay with a relist, however. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 18:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• relist I'm not seeing any real consensus either way with that. Further discussion seems necessary. Claims that this is a BLP1E deserve more detailed discussion. JoshuaZ ( talk) 23:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Tricky one; first, I'm going to count noses. JBSupreme nominated- delete. Zeteli's comments, while not a !vote, are a keep. PFHLai recommends userfication, so I'll take the liberty to count that as a delete; Wine Guy clearly !votes keep; and Abductive suggests userfication/incubation. A strict count gives us two for maintaining the article in mainspace; and three for some form of removing it. Not quite the 1-1 !vote the counter spits out; but we don't do nose counting. In the policy field, Wine Guy's point that coverage of this woman extended for a period of four years over multiple media outlets, and that this satisfied WP:BLP1E went unanswered and unchallenged. I'm not seeing any consensus either way I look at this one, so relist for more discussion. (Might be better to just overturn this one to no consensus and immediately re-nominate to generate fresh discussion, but that's trivial) Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 08:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• overturn to no consensus as there wasn't any (as commenters above have made clear). I don't object to a relist... Hobit ( talk) 23:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

List of IWW union shops ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I have a number of concerns about this deletion, both in terms of the substance of the arguments involved in the discussion and in terms of the process involved in closing it. I had asked User:Spartaz, who closed the debate, to review it, and Spartaz stands by his original decision. My concerns are as follows:

Relating to the Debate -

• This article, as a list, is a substantively different type of article from most other articles in the project. Spartaz' stated reason for deletion is that independent notability can't be established. There are relatively few lists on wikipedia where the list itself has an independent academic notability. This is because the vast majority of our lists are in the nature of an almanac, rather than an encyclopedia. However, virtually any source which covered the IWW as a whole will mention many of their shops, and therefore would be a reliable source for the list as well as the main article. Thus, there are in fact numerous sources for the list. The core problems, then, are lack of in-line citation to these sources and short length of an incomplete article, neither of which, so far as I am aware, is cause for article deletion.
• The very real issue of the length of the parent article, and the need for further information to be added to separate articles rather than the main one, was not in any was addressed by those who supported deletion. If we assume, as we must, that a reader of the parent article might be interested in learning more about the union and its affiliates, than this list should be included in either the parent article or a separate list. If consensus holds that the parent article is already too long... well... I think the point is obvious there.

Relating to the Process -

• First, as to the original nomination, an issue was brought up about the nominator's motivation for putting this article up for AfD. Apparently the original creator of the article, User:SmashTheState, and the nominator, User:Nefariousski, had a previous argument on another page which became heated, and almost immediately afterwards this deletion nomination appeared. It is admittedly possible that this was a pure coincidence. However, the situation is suspect and SmashTheState's concern that this was retribution should have been addressed in some way, rather than being brushed off by the nominator and ignored by others. If the AfD process is allowed to appear as if it can be used as punishment for disagreement or dissent elsewhere in the project, then it undermines AfD's legitimacy in the wider community.
• Second, when the nomination was closed a number of valid arguments in favor of keeping it were completely ignored in the closure explanation. Now, if Spartaz does not find the arguments valid, that's valid, but to the six editors who argued in favor of keeping it (as opposed to the two who wanted it deleted), ignoring their arguments completely makes it seem like their opinions don't matter. Wikipedia has enough trouble keeping good editors engaged without them being made to feel like their opinions are invalid. Marylanderz ( talk) 18:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to keep' The consensus at the discussion was keep, despite the obvious problems with the article. If the closer thought otherwise, he should have joined the discussion and given his view. The closing admin does not get to decide what the community ought to think. The two reason he gave are both wrong: the lack of sourcing for something like this can be overcome through any of the printed histories of the union, so it is not unsourceable. The notability for a list of this sort for things which are not individually notable is not clearly defined, and is the before subject to interpretation by the community. Not an individual admin , or we'd have even more erratic decisions. It's not that I think decisions by the community that shows up at an AfD is always that representative, but relying on individuals would be not just worse, but wildly inconsistent. Using myself as the nearest example at hand, Spartaz and I have different views on notability, and I expect to debate them with him frequently, and the community can judge who to follow, which is very often him--a situation I accept, just as he accepts when they follow me. But if we could decide on our own and just use the discussion as information for our decision, we would be racing each other to close. But if both of us make what a decision about what the community feels, he and I will almost always come to the same conclusion. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per DGG. The best reading of consensus I can make out of the AfD is that yes there are problems but they are fixable by editing. I am not sure that I agree (or that I don't for that matter) but I don't see how a consensus to delete can be gotten out of the discussion. Eluchil404 ( talk) 00:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn if you wish I have opened an admin review at User:Spartaz/Admin Review as I can see that some of my recent closes have been poor and I'm not sure that I have this one right either. I should say that standalone lists need to have some basis for existance that is independantly verifiable - ie that someone has written about them generally otherwise its just indescriminate information but I can see that I erred in applying the GNG directly to a list. For information, I have decided to stand back from AFDs for a few days to give me time to review the recent conversation linked from the admin review and rething my general approach to adminship. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. With respect, there is simply no consensus to delete. Tim Song ( talk) 17:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to keep There was a consensus in this discussion, and it was to keep the list in question. The issues raised could have been fixed through editing rather than through deletion, and the arguments that the list's subject was noteworthy and that it was discriminate were strong ones. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 22:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to keep per comments from both DGG and Spartaz. The original consensus appears to have been to keep the list. Gobonobo ^{T C} 01:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn as Keep when consensus from actual editors is so blatantly ignored, we have a real problem. Alansohn ( talk) 01:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to Keep - With the comical amount of contradicting policies and guidelines Wikipedia has, the community uses times like AfDs to flesh out their interpretations of them and apply them to these individual cases. The participants in this AfD came to a consensus, but the closing admin decided in their own interpretations and ignored consensus. The closing nom simply gave their opinion which would've been useful as an AfD participant, but not appropriate as a closer.-- Oakshade ( talk) 17:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC) reply