-
Donny Long (
talk|
|
history|
logs|
links|
watch) (
XfD|
restore)
Relist Improper early close, with numerous procedural errors. Cited reason was
WP:SNOW, however there were numerous keep votes at that point. Nom improperly removed cited material that was pertinent to notability under
WP:PORNBIO prior to nomination. Sockpuppetry, and general vandalism, in favor of deletion of such severity that the page had to be semi-protected.This should not have been closed early, requesting that it be given a new listing to run a discussion properly.
Horrorshowj (
talk) 15:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Deleted the result was obvious from the status of the AFD at the time. Time to drop the stick.
Hipocrite (
talk) 15:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Closing admin suggested DRV, this isn't about the blanking. Not everything's about you.
Horrorshowj (
talk) 16:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn - by closing early we were rewarding the subject of the article, who had been conducting a campaign of vile abuse, harassment, legal threats, sockpuppeting, shameless abuse of IP hopping, a dung-storm of lies and insults (on and off Wikipedia), and general nastiness unprecedented in my time here. I gather that he's not been above phone calls to Wikipedia offices, and I'm not sure what all else. --
Orange Mike |
Talk 16:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn this should not have been closed early. It may still end in deletion but should run its course.
Polargeo (
talk) 16:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse this excellent and thoughtful close. Orangemike's remarks about campaigns of vile abuse are well-taken, but when it comes to someone of marginal notability who's prepared to get nasty, the material simply isn't worth keeping. I'm thinking of a specific case here: Daniel Brandt, whose BLP, for the benefit of newcomers, was AfD'ed
14 times and DRV'ed twice. Not remotely worth the drama. This isn't quite in the same league, but I think the same principle applies.—
S Marshall
T/
C 16:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse - There was strong consensus to delete and it was snowing there.
Off2riorob (
talk) 17:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse Not ideal to go with speedy but given the circumstances it was acceptable and I think the delete side were clearly winning the discussion.
Spartaz
Humbug! 17:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse per above. I strongly disagree with the view that the article should simply be deleted because the subject is willing to attack us until we give in, and I even more strongly disagree with those who seem to be of the opinion that that was our fault. However, the AfD was getting pretty snowy and I don't think leaving it longer would have influenced the results; all the arguments to be made, had been made.
GiftigerWunsch
[TALK] 17:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse - well within admin discretion, and there is ample precedent that the subject's wishes allow us to deviate from standard practice.
Steve Smith (
talk) 18:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Comment This Deletion Review shows the ineffectiveness of using a Snow Close for AfDs of this sort. It does not end the controversy & unpleasantness, it inevitably leads to an appeal, and then things continue for another week. They tend to be a little calmer here than at AfD, but that's not enough to provide a reason for appeal when it might not be necessary. Anyway, if people in good faith oppose a close, it isn;t SNOW, for they might convince others. But I'm not willing to say overturn, because it will not make things better.
DGG (
talk ) 18:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse - as one of the Keep !voters who was strongly leaning towards changing his !vote but hadn't done so. As far as Mr. Long goes, I'm reminded of the legal term "werewolf", someone who's on the right side of the laws but is so utterly unsympathetic it's difficult to support them. Most of the keep !votes say we shouldn't allow his behavior to influence the outcome, but I believe a lot of them, including my own, were partly based on not letting an abusively-behaving individual get his way. Also per Giftiger, all the arguments to be made had been made and the delete ones were more cogent.
Seth Kellerman (
talk) 19:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse - We can relist it for 7 more days and the subject will still be non-notable. The consensus was very clear in this case.
WP:PORNBIO is descriptive, not prescriptive, and Jimbo clearly outlined why that particular guideline isn't enough for this to be kept. Subject failed GNG.
Burpelson AFB (
talk) 21:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse closure, per Steve.
Daniel (
talk) 00:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- I was actually considering closing this myself, at the end of the full AFD discussion period. I'd followed the discussion, and from what I could see (so far, of course) there were three main arguments (by everyone else outside of the contributions made by the article's subject, which could in large part be skipped with no loss). The first argument to delete "because the subject is a nuisance" I would have given little weight to. The arguments to keep were all pretty much variants on "WP:PORNBIO is satisfied". The other arguments to delete were quite compelling arguments that this is a demonstration that WP:PORNBIO is broken and in conflict with more general and fundamental policies and guidelines, combined with arguments that there simply weren't the good sources to write a biography. The third outweighs the second. Hence the conclusion is that policies, guidelines, and weight of argument lead to a delete action.
On the gripping hand, DGG above is quite right. Early closure is very often more haste leading to less speed, and there really was not a good reason for it in this case. People (apart from Donny Long xyrself) were calmly and properly discussing the biography and the sources, not making insensitive remarks about the subject or others.
Uncle G (
talk) 05:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse - This was a good close by the admin. Closing admin cited the subject's distress -- a perfect case for an early close because of the sensitivity required in handling BLP's and the preference in avoiding protracted discussions about negative aspects of an ambiguously notable BLP. Most of the sources were not reliable, containing only negative information about the subject by persons who were in open conflict with the subject. The only indicia of notability was the award (and it was not an individual award) thus placing the subject in the category of
WP:BLP1E at best.
Undue weight is necessarily given to this one aspect in the life of a person we know very little about. Err on the side of privacy and sensitivity -- he's not that notable, and his life shouldnt be indelibly and publicly summed up by reference to one award when the subject prefers to keep a low profile.
Minor4th
• talk 04:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse as a legitimate snow closure, but Orange Mike and DGG's points are well taken.--
Mkativerata (
talk) 04:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and Relist The AfD closed with: "The result was delete. Closing this early, both per WP:SNOW and the fact that it is obviously causing distress to the subject. NW (Talk) 13:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)", in it's entirety. While I can see that NW acted in good faith and made a well intentioned closing decision, it was a bad and very subjective close, with at least one major serious process violation (the other issues I'll deal with later). In
WP:SNOW it says: "In cases of genuine contention in the Wikipedia community, it is best to settle the dispute through discussion and debate. This should not be done merely to assuage complaints that process wasn't followed, but to produce a correct outcome, which often requires that the full process be followed. Allowing a process to continue to its conclusion may allow for a more reasoned discourse, ensures that all arguments are fully examined, and maintains a sense of fairness." (excerpt). It also says: "If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause." (also excerpted). With thirteen policy based initial KEEP votes, SNOW can not be invoked as there is clearly a debate going on between both sides. In fact, that there were three editors that asked the closer to reconsider, and that this DRV exists is reasonable proof, per WP:SNOW, that there was no policy based rationale for SNOW. As DGG pointed out, short circuiting these kinds of AfDs just leads to (more) drama. It engenders hurt feelings, a sense that the proces is unfair and lacks transparency, and that it disenfranchises community editors. In short, it violates due process. That is the damage done to Wikipedia's integrity, just by cutting off debate, IMO. Just let the AfD continue for the full seven days, unless everyone votes either delete or keep. In this case, maybe the outcome would have been deletion, maybe not, and I agree notability was borderline. But we won't know unless the AfD is allowed to run for the entire seven day period. —
Becksguy (
talk) 05:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse Technically, I agree the
WP:SNOW was the wrong reason to end it. I would have been happy with
WP:IAR - while there were keep votes, I agree with Uncle G that the arguments for deletion were stronger, noting that I'm biased here having voted to delete - but that would probably have ended up at DRV as well. Nevertheless, while I don't disagree with the early close anyway, restarting the debate would potentially cause a lot of problems. The subject was upset, whatever we may think of his behaviour, and restarting will risk making that a lot worse than it is now. If we accept that he was upset over the contents of the article, to then say, when he finally decides that it is done with, that we want to restore the article and restart the debate because we don't think it went long enough, isn't going to be the most compassionate path and it certainly won't reduce drama. I might think differently if I thought that a keep was still a viable outcome of the debate, but to stand on process now in order to get the same outcome would seem to be the worst of two bad choices. -
Bilby (
talk) 07:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse - I initially was a bit "meh" over the invocation of snow, and commented as such over at
NW's talk page, where he said the rationale I laid out there was essentially what he was going by as well, but it doesn't much matter. If someone really wants to re-close with a more detailed reason, go ahead, but at the end of the day we're still gonna arrive at the same end;
Donny Long is a redlink.
WP:IAR and acall it a day.
Tarc (
talk) 12:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- overturn closing statement, keep deleted the deletion is a good idea given the issues the subject has with it. The SNOW was not, it just dragged things out longer, which was quite predictable. I'd suggest the closer let Uncle G reclose.
Hobit (
talk) 13:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse, per Mkativerata. Strong consensus to delete, although perhaps SNOW was not the best reason to cite. —
fetch
·
comms 13:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse. Not a standard SNOW close, but the blizzard came in response to a particularly cogent comment from Jimmy Wales, which changed the tenor of the discussion, and the closer accurately perceived that the outcome was effectively settled. The subject's caterwauling about not being able to control he contents of his entry was really irrelevant (and not, I think, a good faith complaint); but sometimes you have to let the wookie "win" because that's the way the cards fall.
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (
talk) 15:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse; even if not properly
WP:SNOW (which is arguable), it's a proper invocation of
WP:IAR (which isn't). —
Coren
(talk) 16:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- COMMENT: - I disagree, IAR is arguable. Also, one can apply the IAR concept to the IAR policy per se and discount it. IAR suffers from the same fatal flaws that SNOW does, as applied to this case. They both violate due process, disenfranchises editors, cut off debate, and result in an outcome that is tainted (regardless of which outcome would have been obtained), as in the
fruit of the poisonous tree. As an example of disenfranchisement, deletion discussions were extended to seven days to facilitate more editors in participating, especially during weekends. Arbitrarily cutting off debate early goes against a wide community consensus that increased editor participation in XfDs is desirable. Further, can anyone absolutely, serious-as-a-heart-attack, guarantee that the final consensus would have been delete? I've seen AfDs that changed direction dramatically, often due to newly found sources that blow away the rationale for deleting, but also sometimes due to especially compelling arguments later in the process. —
Becksguy (
talk) 17:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- IAR actually might be a reasonable justification for this given that A) it seemed to be causing active harm and B) there is not a real chance that this will be anything other than delete or a NC with default to delete. I'm a huge fan of proper process and fully admit it wasn't followed in this case, but consensus was strong and there was a reasonable reason to move quickly. Chiding the closer (while IAR does make some degree of sense, it predictably increased, not decreased, the drama and duration thereof) and keeping this deleted is the only thing that makes sense IMO. Dragging it out further is of no help.
Hobit (
talk) 19:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- IAR is not at subject here; SNOW is, since SNOW was referenced in the close and IAR wasn't. Also, No Consensus closes default to Keep, not to Delete. As to the so-called harm, I refer to Orange Mike and his arguments. Apparently some editors seem to think there is a process wonkery aspect to this DRV, process for the sake of process only. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I have participated in deletion discussions in which I suggested SNOW closes with my Deletes, so I'm well aware that in certain limited kinds of XfD discussions, it's legitimate and commendable to save time and resources. But in this particular case it so clearly and so obviously is not. Otherwise, why would we be here? Why were there requests for NW to reconsider? Again, NW was well intentioned, but wrong in his application of SNOW. If the AfD had gone the full length and was closed as Uncle G suggested, by NW or by anyone else, I would have been fine with that, and I think many of the others arguing against the premature and arbitrary shutting down of debate would have been as well. Had the AfD run seven days, I would have even Endorsed here, had the DRV had been initiated, assuming no last minute rescue of the article took place. The issues raised here, in the Afd, and in other places, transcend one sorry ass borderline article, for which I might have even voted to delete. But thirteen keep votes do not make a SNOW close, regardless. So dragging this out does help, in as much as debating issues relating to a clear misapplication of SNOW, disenfranchised editors, and other procedural violations are concerned. However, maybe it should be continued in another more general venue. —
Becksguy (
talk) 21:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- I'm largely in agreement with you, but I will point out there is a provision allowing an admin to close a NC discussion about a BLP where the subject has requested deletion as "NC defaulting to delete". But I agree about how things _should_ have gone.
Hobit (
talk) 23:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse per longstanding belief that non-notable or borderline BLPs should be deleted upon reasonable request from the subject. Man, the stuff some people will argue/ whine about on Wikipedia!
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: though I have endorsed this closure also, let me be the one to point out that the subject did not make a "reasonable" request in any sense of the word.
GiftigerWunsch
[TALK] 14:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- As per DGG. It was not SNOW. If the page has been a problem for three years, we can afford to spend a week making the decision properly. Please don't SNOW close things due to controversy, it is counter-productive. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 08:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse. --
JN
466 18:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
|
