Wilma Pang ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Overturn, the deleting admin did not evaluate the arguments and treated the discussion as if it where a vote. Most no comments were made before "rescue" and significant improvement of sources was made. The closing admin failed to abide by policy particularly the notability of politicians and the general notability guidelines. The subject has had significant press coverage in the San Francisco Chronicle and KGO News, in those articles she was the main topic of the articles and both publications are major sources covering a population area of over 10 million. The subject had also been noted in a book where she received significant coverage for her expertise on Chinese culture, dance, and the arts. Three has been established as equating significant and the closing admin did not state why these sources did not make it notable or where not reliable. The closing admin also did not state why the article was not notable. The closing admin did not follow policy and make a rationale for which arguments where the winning ones and why. 184.164.148.90 ( talk) 00:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC) — 184.164.148.90 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Endorse. Clearly within the closer's discretion, as well as reflecting policy and practice. Local coverage of fringe/minor party candidates is typically insufficient to establish notability, and nothing here supports a departure from general practice. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 03:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Question How can the ip evaluate what my intentions and motivations were given that they have not addressed the deletion with me before raising the DRV. I don't mind them coming here without discussion because I'm on holiday and can't be relied upon to respond quickly but making unfounded allegations about what I did or did not do does not entirely support the credibility of their argument. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse As I understand it, the closing administrator is supposed to determine what the consensus result is - not to engage in the arguments and become part of the discussion. As for the contention that "most no comments were made before rescue and significant improvement of sources was made," I for one specifically responded to the improvements and found that the sources were still insufficient. BTW it should be noted that the ISP 184.164.148.90 is a Special Purpose Account which has made few or no comments outside of this subject and which has been lobbying other editors to "help save Wilma Pang." [1] -- MelanieN ( talk) 14:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC) reply

This isn't a special purpose account, I just don't like creating profiles and having my information out there, you know? I did not know I had to talk to the deleting admin, this is the first time I do a deletion review. It just seems to me that there are a lot of articles on wikipedia with a lot less coverage from poorer sources on even less notable people and that this article was well written and on a person of interest that a voter might want to know about. I can say that John Gerald Driscoll III, J. Stalin, Harry M. Wegeforth, Belle Benchley, Walter R. Nickel, Entry clearance, Administrative removal, Immigration Rules, UK Immigration Service, Puyallup Fair, 1954 Convention Travel Document, Non-National Travel Documents, State Border Guard Service (Lithuania), Opinion polls on the British national identity card, The Gruffalo's Child, UKvisas, Terminal (American band), 90 Day Men, Exploding White Mice, Hydrographer of the Navy, NetherRealm Studios, Habib Essid, Science-Fiction Adventures in Dimension, Double in Space, Angels and Spaceships, Line to Tomorrow, Small Changes, Starburst (Alfred Bester) are all supported by just one reference in a local publication or none at all or a hodge podge of passing mentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.164.148.90 ( talk) 07:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC) reply

OK, this is getting creepy now Why is the IP going through my contributions and articles I created and listing articles where it doubts the notability? Not only uis this irrelevant to this discusson (see WP:WAX) but am I the only one who feels a bit squeeked out about that? Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Meh, take it as flattery. "Good for you for writing articles, Spartaz" is how I choose to respond to that list. Would but that we did more of that and less of this. - Aaron Brenneman ( talk) 10:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC) reply

It gets worse. The Special Purpose Account is not just "listing" those articles - they just nominated three of mine and two of Spartaz's for deletion. Part way through the process they took the name User:FireTool87, but they are clearly the same person. -- MelanieN ( talk) 13:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Can I at least have the info from the original Wilma Pang article has the deleting admin failed the note that most of the opinions where that it should redirect and be added to the redirected page, I would like to add the content to that article and some of the content to the current mayoral run's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.164.148.90 ( talk) 07:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse decision to delete the BLP as procedures have been followed. I hope I don't get harassed by anons for saying this. Xxanthippe ( talk) 02:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC). reply
• Endorse deletion Borderline article, acceptable conclusion. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment. There ought to be a requirement for initiators of a deletion review to inform all contributors to the AfD of it. Xxanthippe ( talk) 06:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC). reply
  • Typically editors with a lasting interest will have the AfD watchlisted, so when the "Deletion Review" tag gets put on they'll notice. Barring that, all proposals that require notification of participants have failed regardless of the venue. It's just too much paperwork. - Aaron Brenneman ( talk) 07:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply

It would be easy to impose such a requirement by deeming that a DRV will not take effect until the requirement has been fulfilled. If the initiator of a DRV wants editors to put in the effort he should be prepared to put in some effort himself. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC). reply

• Neither agreeing nor disagreeing, just saying that all proposals of that nature in all venues have failed to gain community support. - Aaron Brenneman ( talk) 00:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Overturn There was no consensus to delete as the majority opinion was for Keep and only one editor favoured outright deletion. The discussion did not provide any basis for overturning this keep/redirect consensus as the matter was about fuzzy guidelines like WP:POLITICIAN when the subject has some notability as a professor and musician too. The close provided no rationale for its extraordinary outcome and so did not confirm to WP:DGFA which requires that closes should "respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants" and not delete in cases of doubt. Warden ( talk) 10:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Huh? "the majority opinion was for Keep"? "keep/redirect consensus"? Actually the "!vote" was: four for "keep," four for "delete or redirect" (including the nominator in that group), and one for "delete" (that person has now indicated below that a redirect would be OK). AfD is not an election, but there was certainly not a "majority opinion for keep", unless you are somehow counting "delete or redirect" as "keep". -- MelanieN ( talk) 14:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply

There were four eds in favor of delete, and I would be happy with a redirect also. Xxanthippe ( talk) 10:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC). reply

• The nominator said "I tried to redirect the article to San Francisco mayoral election, 2011". Given that such redirection was the proposal here, the correct process for this would have been a Speedy Keep, per WP:SK. All the delete !voters, with one exception, indicated support for such redirection and, given larger number of Keep !voters too, there was no good basis for closing as delete. Even now, the closer does not seem to have provided any satisfactory explanation for this bizarre close - we just seem to have petulance that his perfunctory close should be challenged here. Warden ( talk) 11:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Again - "larger number of Keep !voters" - larger than what? I really don't understand your method of tallying opinions. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC) reply

BTW the article was not eligible for speedy keep, which requires "The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted." -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• • Oppose redirect. There's no reliable sourcing that Pang is actually an active candidate, fringe or otherwise, in the election. She is one of roughly three dozen people who filed a preliminary candidacy form in late winter. Since then, she apparently has not participated in the candidate debates, has not not staged any campaign events, and has not established a campaign website. The closest thing I can find to coverage is a report of a poll saying she has no support without her own ethnic community. [2] I can see no reasonable basis for creating a redirect to an election where the only connection seems to be that sh said she was going to run, then didn't. The 2007 election would be a better choice, since she actually ran in that one, but it's still not good practice and nobody's argued for it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 15:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks, HW, that's very helpful information. If the AfD were still open I would change my opinion from "delete or redirect" to plain "delete". -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I don't think anyone here (but Warden) took my statements here at all seriously. I was just trying to make a point that the sources are far better and relevant to this article than on some of the completely unreferenced articles some of you have written. I took a look at them and showed gave them the same merit you gave the one I wrote. An AfD is not a personal attack, if the articles are notable they will remain if they are unencyclopedic as I see them they will be deleted. I wrote compelling reasons in the AfDs for this based in policy. Can someone explain to me what is wrong with nominating an article on something that is not unique or notable or has any references and that I cannot find any references on it for deletion? It is not a personal attack, and its entirely unfair to not hold your own work to your own standards, its insensitive hypocrisy and a double standard. This candidate is not made up, just because only the top 4 or 5 candidates get invited to the debates and not the rest does not mean she is not running. She does have a web page not a website, its hosted on the website for the very community arts and culture organization that she operates, she runs a facebook and twitter page as well. The deleting nominator was lazy and did not follow policy. The "votes" were split even, and the arguments are what need to be taken into account. She did in fact have multiple non trivial coverage on KGO, the San Francisco Chronicle and in a published book. The deleting nominator still has yet to acknowledge this fact and explain his actions, instead this was turned into a forum to attack me.

Please learn to sign your comments, 184.164.148.90. You do that by typing four tildes at the end of your comment; that will automatically add your signature and a date-time stamp. The tilde is found at the top left of the keyboard, right under the "escape" key; it looks like this ~ .
I do hope you pay heed to the warning you were given on your talk page, to not use AfD nominations to retaliate against people you are disagreeing with; Wikipedia takes that kind of thing seriously. You are new here and you may not have realized that would be interpreted as an aggressive action. So let's put that behind us, and see what the result of this deletion review discussion will be. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Within admin discretion per DGG's reasoning (only local coverage etc.) FuFoFuEd ( talk) 01:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse: Sometimes the specialized notability guidelines are more permissive than the GNG, sometimes they are more restrictive. WP:MUSIC allows any song that a notable, signed artist releases as a single to get an article, for instance, so it is an example of a broader guideline. WP:POLITICIAN, on the other hand, is a case in which notability is narrower than the GNG suggests. You do say that Ms. Pang is notable for her work in the arts, but are you sure that it's the same person? I'm not sure. Guideline & Policy Wonk ( talk) 01:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Kyle Reed ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Self nomination. One participant brought an inquiry on this close to my talk page, and it's a reasonable enough position that I'm bringing it here for further discussion. Firstly, I failed to provide any reasons for my deletion, which was not only sub-optimal it was out of character. My thoughts at the time of the close was that the final contributors all appeared to support Bagumba's claim that there were not significant mentions of the subject, and that this position was not rebutted. However, given the "lateness of the hour" that these came in, and that it had been 3:1 at that time no rebuttal was felt required. (Noting that I'm trying to summarise the conversation on my talk.) Now, over to you, folks. Aaron Brenneman ( talk) 05:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• This hinges on the same question as the 19th July DRV for Ellen Kennedy, which is: For an article on a living person, where either the GNG or a SNG is met but not both, which ought to prevail? The question seems like a significant one to me, and nobody has been able to cite a discussion where it was settled. Start a RFC so the community can decide.— S Marshall T/ C 09:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Ahh, no. I know that SNG vs. GNG is the flavour of the month, but that's not this: The claim was that they met neither one nor the other of the guidelines. - Aaron Brenneman ( talk) 10:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Well, that's not quite how I read that discussion. To my mind, the "keep" !votes argue that Reed meets the GNG, while the "delete" !votes argue that he fails NSPORT.— S Marshall T/ C 11:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• OT: I agree with the idea of an RfC. Some college athletes from big schools could be a household name across an entire state. The question is, does this sort of coverage count as enduring notability, or is it more temporary? A hundred years from now, will this sort of player be relevant, even to historians? I personally lean towards the GNG over the SNG here, but I understand that the issue is contentious. Them From Space 12:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no consensus The discussion split 3:3 and so there obviously was no consensus to delete. The discussion about the competing guidelines could not be decisive because guidelines, by definition, are not hard policy. WP:DGFA states emphatically When in doubt, don't delete and the close did not provide any reasoning to indicate that this is not a case of reasonable doubt. Warden ( talk) 14:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus with an option to relist (again). The participants in the discussion were clearly divided over whether the article subject met the GNG, on the particular point of whether the available coverage met the guideline or failed under routine/NOTNEWS. There were no important policy issues involved, simply a good faith dispute over the significance of coverage where both sides based their arguments in policy. My personal opinion would be that the cited coverage was routine, but no consensus was reached in the AFD discussion and the article plausibly if imperfectly cites national media coverage. The closer's statements provides no basis for setting the keep arguments aside. The closer's role is not to force a determination of consensus on the community when policy arguments are plausible and balanced, as they are here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 17:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Kudos to Aaron Brenneman as the closing admin for bringing the discussion here. I was the one who raised the issue. Timing of the vote pattern was part of my concern. Through the first 14 days, the vote was 3-to-1 to keep the article. Then on Day 15, two "deletes" came along and the thing was quickly closed. The "keep" voters (like me) didn't have a chance to reply once the voting got close. Although the article was not well-written, independent research showed that the subject had dozens of articles written about him (i.e., he was the subject of the coverage rather than it being passing references in game coverage) in major newspapers like the San Jose Mercury News (the 5th largest U.S. newspaper), San Francisco Chronicle (23rd largest U.S. newspaper), Oakland Tribune, as well as newspapers in New Mexico and Nebraska. This seems like more than plenty to meet WP:GNG. I don't know if I'm allowed to vote in this process, but if I am, my thought would be to overturn to no consensus. Cbl62 ( talk) 22:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• I'm not entirely sure why Aaron has brought this to DRV since his discretion as closing admin allows him to relist an article for further discussion if that seems appropriate and AFD would be a better forum for this... Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment as a participant in the process. I see no reason the close couldn't be reopened and relisted for further discussion by closing admin. As several users above have usefully described, discussion consensus is still not clear; reasonable good faith arguments have been made on both sides. BusterD ( talk) 12:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• That's enough for me. Re-open and relist it is. - Aaron Brenneman ( talk) 12:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC) reply