Consensus lacking, closed by non-admin, more meaningful discussion warranted.
0pen$0urce (
talk) 22:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Relist Article was removed for AfD without consensus. Could merit at least 1 more re-list. Arguments to keep, 1 from author, who seemed to just focus more on nominator less on content, cited wiki policy either inaccuaretly or of out context, and generally didn't seem to be assuming good faith. The other claimed refs were improved, all those references are sourcing from the primary source. And generally seems to be arguing that position automatically warrants notability, whcih is incorrect. Just want a further review. No previous person in exact same position has article, not seeing what puts this person over the top and makes them notable. Seems position is being subtituited for notability.--
0pen$0urce (
talk) 22:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)reply
As the closer I felt consensus was reached and what with the sources presented passed GNG, I will say tho had Wikipedia not been down I would of actually relisted and left a note, Regards, –
Davey2010 •
(talk) 23:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment - not a particularly accurate reflection of my comments there. I didn't say they had been improved, I said both sets of references were sufficient. Major publications considered her notable enough to track her career and comment on both her appointment and subsequent resignation. "No previous person in exact same position has article" is a ridiculous
straw-man - no previous person has held that position because prior to her holding it, it didn't exist. One of the largest public sector organisations on the planet created the position for her. Prior to that she held a position we consider notable in its own right - not the person, the position itself. Prior to that she held a Cabinet-level position as CIO of a state where computers and electronic products account for 42% of all the state's exports; a state larger in terms of GDP than all but 10 countries. But sure, let's re-list it and see what others have to pile on say. St★lwart111 07:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Endorse - demonstatably and unambiguously meets
WP:N, as was presented in the discussion, rendering the delete arguments wholly and totally invalid. There doesn't appear to be anything to discuss, so pointless relisting is just unwelcome clutter.
WilyD 09:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Endorse. I believe I take issue with every single part of the nominator's position. With all due respect, there was more than sufficient consensus to close the debate. Quite a few non-administrators are capable of judging a consensus (and a few administrators aren't, although that was a much larger problem five years ago than it is now; most admins in 2014 are relatively experienced and level-headed). It's true that more meaningful discussion is usually warranted in AfD debates, but we have to be realistic. Participation in the project is so low nowadays that many AfDs are relisted several times without any comment at all. Where there's some policy-based argument and analysis of the sources, that's got to be enough.—
S MarshallT/
C 11:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Endorse. A clear keep. And a justifiable case for a non-admin close, too. --
Mkativerata (
talk) 11:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Endorse, I'd have closed it the same way,
User:Nikkimaria's comment pretty clearly refuted the original rationale for deletion and no further reasons were put forward despite the discussion being open for a week subsequent to that. A relist would have been pointless process wonkery at that point.
Lankiveil(
speak to me) 12:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC).reply
Endorse More sources were found to meet
WP:GNG guidelines. Whether it was closed by administrator or relisted another time, the final outcome probably would have been keep.
JayJayWhat did I do? 20:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Endorse Were it a sheer matter of numbers, I tend to prefer a bit more discussion (and perhaps I err on the side of "needless wonkery", *shrug*), but Nikkimaria's sources seemed strong and were not rebutted despite the clear evidence that the nominator (and only delete opinion) had an opportunity to do so. --
j⚛e deckertalk 20:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Paul Drye – Not an issue for DRV. Article has not been deleted and an AfD is currently ongoing. –
IronGargoyle (
talk) 23:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The author has continuously re-posted this page about himself and he is not notable.
Krisje9 (
talk) 17:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: This article does not belong at deletion review, as there has not been an AFD previously. And I have no idea what you mean that he "has continuously re-posted this page about himself", as I see no evidence that he has ever edited this article. Unless you mean
User:Paul Drye, which was moved out of article space... 10 years ago, from what I can tell.
BOZ (
talk) 17:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)reply
No AfD discussion, from what I can see, the author/user has not repeatedly "re-posted" this article. The only potential problem with that, would be COI, which this article doesn't suffer from.
XiuBouLin (
talk) 23:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Speedy close. There's been no deletion to review. AfD is thataway --->—
S MarshallT/
C 11:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The article was sent to AFD in 2008 and
was in pretty bad shape at the time, and deleted with four unanimous responses. The article was deleted after AFD by
Kurykh. After my request for restoration went unanswered, I moved the article to my user space last year and added a good
reliable source and moved to the new
Draft space at
Draft:Chris Seeman. I feel it is worth discussing whether the article is ready to go back into article space. If any other users can find additional sources to add, that would help with any outstanding notability issues.
I started a requested move discussion a couple of weeks ago, with the only respondent being
BD2412; the request was procedurally closed, with a recommendation to try DRV instead, so here I am.
BOZ (
talk) 00:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Without actually judging notability, this is good enough to be accepted from AfC. Anyone who dislikes it can then send it to AfD. The previous version was not salted, so actually anyone can move this to mainspace. DGG (
talk ) 01:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Endorse the original closing... but Move to mainspace as the new version of the article corrects the prior issues. As a structural criticism, the published works should be moved to its own section.
XiuBouLin (
talk) 02:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)reply
What XiuBouLih said' --
Dweller (
talk) 17:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Consensus lacking, closed by non-admin, more meaningful discussion warranted.
0pen$0urce (
talk) 22:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Relist Article was removed for AfD without consensus. Could merit at least 1 more re-list. Arguments to keep, 1 from author, who seemed to just focus more on nominator less on content, cited wiki policy either inaccuaretly or of out context, and generally didn't seem to be assuming good faith. The other claimed refs were improved, all those references are sourcing from the primary source. And generally seems to be arguing that position automatically warrants notability, whcih is incorrect. Just want a further review. No previous person in exact same position has article, not seeing what puts this person over the top and makes them notable. Seems position is being subtituited for notability.--
0pen$0urce (
talk) 22:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)reply
As the closer I felt consensus was reached and what with the sources presented passed GNG, I will say tho had Wikipedia not been down I would of actually relisted and left a note, Regards, –
Davey2010 •
(talk) 23:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment - not a particularly accurate reflection of my comments there. I didn't say they had been improved, I said both sets of references were sufficient. Major publications considered her notable enough to track her career and comment on both her appointment and subsequent resignation. "No previous person in exact same position has article" is a ridiculous
straw-man - no previous person has held that position because prior to her holding it, it didn't exist. One of the largest public sector organisations on the planet created the position for her. Prior to that she held a position we consider notable in its own right - not the person, the position itself. Prior to that she held a Cabinet-level position as CIO of a state where computers and electronic products account for 42% of all the state's exports; a state larger in terms of GDP than all but 10 countries. But sure, let's re-list it and see what others have to pile on say. St★lwart111 07:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Endorse - demonstatably and unambiguously meets
WP:N, as was presented in the discussion, rendering the delete arguments wholly and totally invalid. There doesn't appear to be anything to discuss, so pointless relisting is just unwelcome clutter.
WilyD 09:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Endorse. I believe I take issue with every single part of the nominator's position. With all due respect, there was more than sufficient consensus to close the debate. Quite a few non-administrators are capable of judging a consensus (and a few administrators aren't, although that was a much larger problem five years ago than it is now; most admins in 2014 are relatively experienced and level-headed). It's true that more meaningful discussion is usually warranted in AfD debates, but we have to be realistic. Participation in the project is so low nowadays that many AfDs are relisted several times without any comment at all. Where there's some policy-based argument and analysis of the sources, that's got to be enough.—
S MarshallT/
C 11:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Endorse. A clear keep. And a justifiable case for a non-admin close, too. --
Mkativerata (
talk) 11:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Endorse, I'd have closed it the same way,
User:Nikkimaria's comment pretty clearly refuted the original rationale for deletion and no further reasons were put forward despite the discussion being open for a week subsequent to that. A relist would have been pointless process wonkery at that point.
Lankiveil(
speak to me) 12:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC).reply
Endorse More sources were found to meet
WP:GNG guidelines. Whether it was closed by administrator or relisted another time, the final outcome probably would have been keep.
JayJayWhat did I do? 20:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Endorse Were it a sheer matter of numbers, I tend to prefer a bit more discussion (and perhaps I err on the side of "needless wonkery", *shrug*), but Nikkimaria's sources seemed strong and were not rebutted despite the clear evidence that the nominator (and only delete opinion) had an opportunity to do so. --
j⚛e deckertalk 20:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Paul Drye – Not an issue for DRV. Article has not been deleted and an AfD is currently ongoing. –
IronGargoyle (
talk) 23:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The author has continuously re-posted this page about himself and he is not notable.
Krisje9 (
talk) 17:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: This article does not belong at deletion review, as there has not been an AFD previously. And I have no idea what you mean that he "has continuously re-posted this page about himself", as I see no evidence that he has ever edited this article. Unless you mean
User:Paul Drye, which was moved out of article space... 10 years ago, from what I can tell.
BOZ (
talk) 17:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)reply
No AfD discussion, from what I can see, the author/user has not repeatedly "re-posted" this article. The only potential problem with that, would be COI, which this article doesn't suffer from.
XiuBouLin (
talk) 23:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Speedy close. There's been no deletion to review. AfD is thataway --->—
S MarshallT/
C 11:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The article was sent to AFD in 2008 and
was in pretty bad shape at the time, and deleted with four unanimous responses. The article was deleted after AFD by
Kurykh. After my request for restoration went unanswered, I moved the article to my user space last year and added a good
reliable source and moved to the new
Draft space at
Draft:Chris Seeman. I feel it is worth discussing whether the article is ready to go back into article space. If any other users can find additional sources to add, that would help with any outstanding notability issues.
I started a requested move discussion a couple of weeks ago, with the only respondent being
BD2412; the request was procedurally closed, with a recommendation to try DRV instead, so here I am.
BOZ (
talk) 00:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Without actually judging notability, this is good enough to be accepted from AfC. Anyone who dislikes it can then send it to AfD. The previous version was not salted, so actually anyone can move this to mainspace. DGG (
talk ) 01:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Endorse the original closing... but Move to mainspace as the new version of the article corrects the prior issues. As a structural criticism, the published works should be moved to its own section.
XiuBouLin (
talk) 02:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)reply
What XiuBouLih said' --
Dweller (
talk) 17:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)reply