Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2016 April 20
2016 April 22 >

21 April 2016

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Florence Devouard ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Nobody in this discussion offered any sources that would show that the subject passes the general notability guideline, and nobody explained how the reason given for keeping in the previous discussion, that the subject is a chevalier, the lowest level of membership, in the Ordre national du Mérite, an order with about 187,000 members, meets WP:ANYBIO. Most of the discussion consisted of name-calling and failure to assume good faith, so this should be relisted rather than closed as "keep". I discussed this with the closing administrator but he claimed that "in a AfD discussion, you have the burden to prove that the article does not meet the notability standard", which is obviously impossible to do for any article, because nobody can prove that sources don't exist, and then tried to fob me off with an accusation that I am an SPA, which, if you look at my contributions, is obviously untrue. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 17:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse. The exceptions raised here are mere disagreement with the consensus and a rehashing of the arguments below; under DRVPURPOSE ("Not" points 1 and 5), neither is a valid reason for overturning the close. (Disclosure: I voted "keep.")  Rebb ing  18:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • No, what I am raising here is point 1 of the "may be used" side of WP:DRVPURPOSE, that the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly. There was hardly any discussion of the article or its subject, and that there was certainly didn't come to a consensus to keep, so this should be relisted. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 18:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Transparency: I speedily closed this, and I've been convinced that I was wrong to do so based on a conversation at the IP editor's talk page, so I've reopened it with apologies.— S Marshall T/ C 21:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The more I think about this, the more I come to the view that Yamamoto Ichiro's closure of this debate was correct. He was right to discount the SPA !votes. We're Wikipedians, and we're always taught to look not just at what the source says, but whether the source is reliable, has a good reputation for fact-checking, etc. Debate !votes have sources. When the debate !vote comes from an account with a long history of well-considered contributions it's given lots of weight. When it comes from someone without a history, or who is hiding their history as Luridaxiom plainly is, then that's rightly given less weight. We don't need to overturn this close. Instead, we need to rewrite WP:SPA so it tells the truth about how Wikipedians deal with people who have no checkable contribution history. Otherwise we'll end up having to give full point-by-point rebuttals to trolls, Wikipediocracy members and page-move vandals who like to use HAGGER???! as an edit summary and then reset their modem so as to join in a proper discussion. We have no reason to take people without a contribution history seriously.— S Marshall T/ C 16:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • reply If you concede that WP:SPA needs to be re-written, then you surely also concede that "Luridaxiom" was operating within present policy and was entitled to full weightage by the closer. FYI the closer admin also has undeclared alternate account User:Ichiro101 and long gaps in his contribution history which may be contributing to poor judgment in recent AFD closures after his return. I look forward to reading your Wikipedian opinion of the inline refs, for eg. the 2 cited as evidence for Devouard's professional qualifications. Luridaxiom ( talk) 06:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • What I concede is that the "Luridaxiom" identity was operating within FT2's essay WP:SPA, and that I think the closer gave that essay the appropriate amount of weight. If this was an AfD then I would be expressing a view of the quality of the references, and indeed looking to see if there are other references that are better, but it isn't so I'm not.— S Marshall T/ C 15:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • So the closer could ignore objections in this instance that the references were non-existent, bogus and weak ? Obviously not a "Wikipedian" by your standards, ie. We're Wikipedians, and we're always taught to look not just at what the source says, but whether the source is reliable, has a good reputation for fact-checking, etc.. As a Wikipedian myself, I can recall a past Chairman of your own Wikimedia UK whose BLP references satisfy WP:N infinitely better than Devouard's but whose article was scrubbed with the edit summary .. bio based on one event and very low quality sources for a bio. 22:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luridaxiom ( talk • contribs)
  • I'm not associated with Wikimedia UK in any way at all. I'm a British bloke who volunteers as a Wikipedian, but I'm uninvolved with Wikimedia UK and I have no control whatsoever over anything it or its staff or volunteers might do. I don't necessarily approve of their actions or choices. I do choose to publish my real name with every edit, and my location, date of birth and photograph on my userpage, because I edit biographies of living people and I think it's appropriate that these people should know who I am. Who are you, and why are you not using your real account?— S Marshall T/ C 22:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Re:"Who are you ?". As a Wikipedian, you would be well advised to read the WMF official privacy policy. Because we believe that you shouldn’t have to provide personal information to participate in the free knowledge movement, you may: *Read, edit, or use any Wikimedia Site without registering an account. *Register for an account without providing an email address or real name.. By this policy, the weightage given to edits by an IP or account without a real name is exactly equal to those by an editor with an account allegedly with their IRL name attached. Did you ask similarly ask the "mathematician/physicist/engineer" closer admin to verify that he is not impersonating an IRL "Ichiro Yamamoto" (google faculty: Nippon Veterinary and Life Science University, Tokyo) associated with the University of Alberta, or to explain the account's sparse contributions in the past 8 years which either suggests they need a policy refresher or that yet another defunct admin account has been compromised for paid editing, (eg. to promote Devouard's internet consulting business) in violation of law !!! 06:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luridaxiom ( talk • contribs)
  • He's got a contribution history I can check. You haven't, so I asked you a simple question. I see that you don't want to say who you are. My next question is "Why not?" Are we to take it that your main account is blocked, community banned, or so notorious that posting using a fresh account increases your credibility?— S Marshall T/ C 09:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Your repeated queries and insinuations are in not in keeping with previously cited WMF policy, are disruptive and may be reasonably interpreted as constituting harassment designed to undermine my (anonymous) solid policy contributions to the AfD under discussion which were ignored by the closer. Relevant for the EU caselaw for Wikipedia I have cited, anonymous Wikipedia accounts are clearly being used in Devouard's article to conceal and disguise content of an advertising character to promote her business. The persons doing this include an administrator appointed during Devouard's term in office as Chair WMF (specifically Yamamoto the closer admin whose actions are challenged in this review). Unsupported facts about Devouard's educational qualifications are being repeatedly reinserted without genuine sources (despite being challenged) to puff up / misrepresent and promote Devouard's internet consulting business and business websites. Such actions designed so that market participants do not recognize clearly and unequivocally the business nature of this article constitutes "unfair commercial practices" within EU (where Devouard resides) and is camouflaged advertising for a Wikimedia insider which would cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise because supposedly neutral statements are regularly treated with more confidence when if identified as advertising. FYI, Anthere is in receipt of my email addressed to her on this issue in response to a Wikimedia-l thread initiated by her. Luridaxiom ( talk) 10:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I'm afraid the WMF policy doesn't say what you want it to say. It does say that you can read, edit, or use any Wikimedia Site without registering an account. *Register for an account without providing an email address or real name... It certainly doesn't say You are entitled to a voice and a vote in Wikipedia discussions. Closers are under a duty to give your voice the same weight as they would give to an established Wikipedian. It would be stupid if it DID say this, because then it would be impossible to site ban anyone. If you aren't site-banned then you can make your accusations about Anthere using your main account.— S Marshall T/ C 12:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • No, what policy says is we believe that you shouldn’t have to provide personal information to participate in the free knowledge movement. Anthere (and WMF) knows who I am. Anthere has never used my main account, Now that would be against policy :-) Luridaxiom ( talk) 15:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • This comment exemplifies my reason for asking for relisting, as it is an ad hominem comment that doesn't address the issue at hand, just as most of the comments in the deletion discussion were. Can we please talk about whether particular comments in that discussion were valid arguments rather than about who made them? For example, can you point to one comment that was a valid argument for keeping? And can you explain why, as you said on your talk page, my argument for deletion was invalid? 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 22:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse solid close based on sources provided. Valoem talk contrib 23:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Refer 86.17.222.157 to Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse The history is 1/withdrawn , then no-consensus, then withdrawn. I consider withdrawn to be the same as keep, and I think a renomination should not take place for a considerable time, at least a year or two. Frankly, looking at the discussion at the latest afd, I would have closed it as a speedy keep on the grounds of evident malice and attempted retaliation. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Eh, about the only person I can't find fault with here is the original closer of the discussion. The nomination was pretty clearly not made in good faith, the delete votes were from drive-by accounts, but none of the "Keep" votes made any attempt to demonstrate how she met our notability guidelines either. The closing admin can only work with what they're given, but I'm not sure where the comment about WP:N came from since nobody made any argument based on that other than unsupported assertions that she met the criteria. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 02:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC). reply
  • Relist. I am not IP 86.17.222.157 which can be verified by checkuser. The declared in advance SPA status of this user name does not invalidate my objections raised at the AfD. My other WMF global account (since 2004) is in good standing and active and I am hence an original contributing member of the WMF trust. The WP:BURDEN to retain challenged information is on those who assert it. Several of the inline sources for the article are bogus, self published or inferior. Had this been a BLP article for a non-Wikipedian such sources would have been unacceptable under policy. Lankiveil is correct in observing WP:N was never raised, however, WP:BLP1E was raised by me, but the closing admin never addressed my objection. The closing admin did not address the issue raised by the nominator and also IP:157 that the award of Chevalier is an insignificant one. Clearly the only issue here is whether there are double standards for BLPs of insiders (Wikimedians) qua those for outsiders. Luridaxiom ( talk) 05:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse The closer provided sufficient, policy-based reason for the close. DRV is for errors in applying policy. It's not a general, all-purpose court of appeals for participants in an AfD who don't agree with the result. David in DC ( talk) 13:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC) reply
This DRV is for discussion on the closers judgment, point #1. The closer failed to apply the applicable policy which regulates WP:N. Devouard is not known for anything significant outside of her Wikimedia voluntary work, hence the notability is squarely regulated by WP:BLP1E. Both sources being repeatedly reinserted by the "keep" !voters to justify Ms. Devoaurd's irrelevant and insignificant educational qualifications don't support in any way the claims made in the article. The nominator had correctly pointed out that WP:BIO for such persons requires she will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. to justify her notability. The keep side failed to provide any such sources. The "minimal enough coverage" statement in the close discloses the closer utterly failed to examine the below par quality of the inline citations, which have been highlighted time and again in this and all previous AfDs. Luridaxiom ( talk) 02:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • weak endorse This does seem a bit too much inside baseball and I don't think most BLPs would survive an AfD with the relatively weak sourcing we've got on hand. That said, WP:N is a guideline and subject to interpretation at AfD. So while I, a fairly strong inclusionist, wouldn't have !voted to keep this, the sense of the discussion was that she met our inclusion guidelines. Further, it also feels like the folks arguing for deletion are _also_ playing inside baseball and have some kind of an ax to grind. That makes me a bit less sympathetic to similar issues on the other side... Hobit ( talk) 01:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak endorse I have a bigger problem with the closer's statement than the overall outcome, "Deletion argument failed to convince me how this would fail our notability guideline...". I certainly wasn't aware the standard was now not a rough consensus of editors but convincing the closing admin, and to do that requires proving a negative. That said I doubt we'll get a different outcome on this is relisted/reclosed. -- 82.14.37.32 ( talk) 12:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I can't comment on the closure itself, but if it was relisted, I know I would !vote keep. Being happy with the keep or a weaker no-consensus thefefore keep outcome, I'm partial to endorse the result. Since Wikimedia is a large and widely recognized and impactful organizations, I consider Wikimedia BoT Chairs to be notable enough, just like I would consider the presidents of large multinational companies or organizations like Coca Cola or the IMF to be notable. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • If that comment had been made in the deletion discussion, rather than it mainly consisting of name-calling and failure to assume good faith, I would have replied to it. This discussion, however, is about whether the closer correctly interpreted the very few comments that addressed the substantive issue as a consensus to keep without any further discussion. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 18:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC) reply
If she so notable then why not even 1 good enough reference could be added ? 120.56.118.82 ( talk) 14:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • !vote reject : is it so hard for find sourcs show off the notability. What means minimum standard for notability inclusion here ! Are such sourcings good enough for the not-wikipedian BPLs ? These are my small doubt. 120.56.118.82 ( talk) 14:36, 28 April 2016 (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/2016_April_21&oldid=1138441280"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2016 April 20
2016 April 22 >

21 April 2016

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Florence Devouard ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Nobody in this discussion offered any sources that would show that the subject passes the general notability guideline, and nobody explained how the reason given for keeping in the previous discussion, that the subject is a chevalier, the lowest level of membership, in the Ordre national du Mérite, an order with about 187,000 members, meets WP:ANYBIO. Most of the discussion consisted of name-calling and failure to assume good faith, so this should be relisted rather than closed as "keep". I discussed this with the closing administrator but he claimed that "in a AfD discussion, you have the burden to prove that the article does not meet the notability standard", which is obviously impossible to do for any article, because nobody can prove that sources don't exist, and then tried to fob me off with an accusation that I am an SPA, which, if you look at my contributions, is obviously untrue. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 17:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse. The exceptions raised here are mere disagreement with the consensus and a rehashing of the arguments below; under DRVPURPOSE ("Not" points 1 and 5), neither is a valid reason for overturning the close. (Disclosure: I voted "keep.")  Rebb ing  18:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • No, what I am raising here is point 1 of the "may be used" side of WP:DRVPURPOSE, that the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly. There was hardly any discussion of the article or its subject, and that there was certainly didn't come to a consensus to keep, so this should be relisted. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 18:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Transparency: I speedily closed this, and I've been convinced that I was wrong to do so based on a conversation at the IP editor's talk page, so I've reopened it with apologies.— S Marshall T/ C 21:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The more I think about this, the more I come to the view that Yamamoto Ichiro's closure of this debate was correct. He was right to discount the SPA !votes. We're Wikipedians, and we're always taught to look not just at what the source says, but whether the source is reliable, has a good reputation for fact-checking, etc. Debate !votes have sources. When the debate !vote comes from an account with a long history of well-considered contributions it's given lots of weight. When it comes from someone without a history, or who is hiding their history as Luridaxiom plainly is, then that's rightly given less weight. We don't need to overturn this close. Instead, we need to rewrite WP:SPA so it tells the truth about how Wikipedians deal with people who have no checkable contribution history. Otherwise we'll end up having to give full point-by-point rebuttals to trolls, Wikipediocracy members and page-move vandals who like to use HAGGER???! as an edit summary and then reset their modem so as to join in a proper discussion. We have no reason to take people without a contribution history seriously.— S Marshall T/ C 16:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • reply If you concede that WP:SPA needs to be re-written, then you surely also concede that "Luridaxiom" was operating within present policy and was entitled to full weightage by the closer. FYI the closer admin also has undeclared alternate account User:Ichiro101 and long gaps in his contribution history which may be contributing to poor judgment in recent AFD closures after his return. I look forward to reading your Wikipedian opinion of the inline refs, for eg. the 2 cited as evidence for Devouard's professional qualifications. Luridaxiom ( talk) 06:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • What I concede is that the "Luridaxiom" identity was operating within FT2's essay WP:SPA, and that I think the closer gave that essay the appropriate amount of weight. If this was an AfD then I would be expressing a view of the quality of the references, and indeed looking to see if there are other references that are better, but it isn't so I'm not.— S Marshall T/ C 15:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • So the closer could ignore objections in this instance that the references were non-existent, bogus and weak ? Obviously not a "Wikipedian" by your standards, ie. We're Wikipedians, and we're always taught to look not just at what the source says, but whether the source is reliable, has a good reputation for fact-checking, etc.. As a Wikipedian myself, I can recall a past Chairman of your own Wikimedia UK whose BLP references satisfy WP:N infinitely better than Devouard's but whose article was scrubbed with the edit summary .. bio based on one event and very low quality sources for a bio. 22:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luridaxiom ( talk • contribs)
  • I'm not associated with Wikimedia UK in any way at all. I'm a British bloke who volunteers as a Wikipedian, but I'm uninvolved with Wikimedia UK and I have no control whatsoever over anything it or its staff or volunteers might do. I don't necessarily approve of their actions or choices. I do choose to publish my real name with every edit, and my location, date of birth and photograph on my userpage, because I edit biographies of living people and I think it's appropriate that these people should know who I am. Who are you, and why are you not using your real account?— S Marshall T/ C 22:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Re:"Who are you ?". As a Wikipedian, you would be well advised to read the WMF official privacy policy. Because we believe that you shouldn’t have to provide personal information to participate in the free knowledge movement, you may: *Read, edit, or use any Wikimedia Site without registering an account. *Register for an account without providing an email address or real name.. By this policy, the weightage given to edits by an IP or account without a real name is exactly equal to those by an editor with an account allegedly with their IRL name attached. Did you ask similarly ask the "mathematician/physicist/engineer" closer admin to verify that he is not impersonating an IRL "Ichiro Yamamoto" (google faculty: Nippon Veterinary and Life Science University, Tokyo) associated with the University of Alberta, or to explain the account's sparse contributions in the past 8 years which either suggests they need a policy refresher or that yet another defunct admin account has been compromised for paid editing, (eg. to promote Devouard's internet consulting business) in violation of law !!! 06:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luridaxiom ( talk • contribs)
  • He's got a contribution history I can check. You haven't, so I asked you a simple question. I see that you don't want to say who you are. My next question is "Why not?" Are we to take it that your main account is blocked, community banned, or so notorious that posting using a fresh account increases your credibility?— S Marshall T/ C 09:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Your repeated queries and insinuations are in not in keeping with previously cited WMF policy, are disruptive and may be reasonably interpreted as constituting harassment designed to undermine my (anonymous) solid policy contributions to the AfD under discussion which were ignored by the closer. Relevant for the EU caselaw for Wikipedia I have cited, anonymous Wikipedia accounts are clearly being used in Devouard's article to conceal and disguise content of an advertising character to promote her business. The persons doing this include an administrator appointed during Devouard's term in office as Chair WMF (specifically Yamamoto the closer admin whose actions are challenged in this review). Unsupported facts about Devouard's educational qualifications are being repeatedly reinserted without genuine sources (despite being challenged) to puff up / misrepresent and promote Devouard's internet consulting business and business websites. Such actions designed so that market participants do not recognize clearly and unequivocally the business nature of this article constitutes "unfair commercial practices" within EU (where Devouard resides) and is camouflaged advertising for a Wikimedia insider which would cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise because supposedly neutral statements are regularly treated with more confidence when if identified as advertising. FYI, Anthere is in receipt of my email addressed to her on this issue in response to a Wikimedia-l thread initiated by her. Luridaxiom ( talk) 10:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I'm afraid the WMF policy doesn't say what you want it to say. It does say that you can read, edit, or use any Wikimedia Site without registering an account. *Register for an account without providing an email address or real name... It certainly doesn't say You are entitled to a voice and a vote in Wikipedia discussions. Closers are under a duty to give your voice the same weight as they would give to an established Wikipedian. It would be stupid if it DID say this, because then it would be impossible to site ban anyone. If you aren't site-banned then you can make your accusations about Anthere using your main account.— S Marshall T/ C 12:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • No, what policy says is we believe that you shouldn’t have to provide personal information to participate in the free knowledge movement. Anthere (and WMF) knows who I am. Anthere has never used my main account, Now that would be against policy :-) Luridaxiom ( talk) 15:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • This comment exemplifies my reason for asking for relisting, as it is an ad hominem comment that doesn't address the issue at hand, just as most of the comments in the deletion discussion were. Can we please talk about whether particular comments in that discussion were valid arguments rather than about who made them? For example, can you point to one comment that was a valid argument for keeping? And can you explain why, as you said on your talk page, my argument for deletion was invalid? 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 22:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse solid close based on sources provided. Valoem talk contrib 23:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Refer 86.17.222.157 to Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse The history is 1/withdrawn , then no-consensus, then withdrawn. I consider withdrawn to be the same as keep, and I think a renomination should not take place for a considerable time, at least a year or two. Frankly, looking at the discussion at the latest afd, I would have closed it as a speedy keep on the grounds of evident malice and attempted retaliation. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Eh, about the only person I can't find fault with here is the original closer of the discussion. The nomination was pretty clearly not made in good faith, the delete votes were from drive-by accounts, but none of the "Keep" votes made any attempt to demonstrate how she met our notability guidelines either. The closing admin can only work with what they're given, but I'm not sure where the comment about WP:N came from since nobody made any argument based on that other than unsupported assertions that she met the criteria. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 02:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC). reply
  • Relist. I am not IP 86.17.222.157 which can be verified by checkuser. The declared in advance SPA status of this user name does not invalidate my objections raised at the AfD. My other WMF global account (since 2004) is in good standing and active and I am hence an original contributing member of the WMF trust. The WP:BURDEN to retain challenged information is on those who assert it. Several of the inline sources for the article are bogus, self published or inferior. Had this been a BLP article for a non-Wikipedian such sources would have been unacceptable under policy. Lankiveil is correct in observing WP:N was never raised, however, WP:BLP1E was raised by me, but the closing admin never addressed my objection. The closing admin did not address the issue raised by the nominator and also IP:157 that the award of Chevalier is an insignificant one. Clearly the only issue here is whether there are double standards for BLPs of insiders (Wikimedians) qua those for outsiders. Luridaxiom ( talk) 05:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse The closer provided sufficient, policy-based reason for the close. DRV is for errors in applying policy. It's not a general, all-purpose court of appeals for participants in an AfD who don't agree with the result. David in DC ( talk) 13:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC) reply
This DRV is for discussion on the closers judgment, point #1. The closer failed to apply the applicable policy which regulates WP:N. Devouard is not known for anything significant outside of her Wikimedia voluntary work, hence the notability is squarely regulated by WP:BLP1E. Both sources being repeatedly reinserted by the "keep" !voters to justify Ms. Devoaurd's irrelevant and insignificant educational qualifications don't support in any way the claims made in the article. The nominator had correctly pointed out that WP:BIO for such persons requires she will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. to justify her notability. The keep side failed to provide any such sources. The "minimal enough coverage" statement in the close discloses the closer utterly failed to examine the below par quality of the inline citations, which have been highlighted time and again in this and all previous AfDs. Luridaxiom ( talk) 02:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • weak endorse This does seem a bit too much inside baseball and I don't think most BLPs would survive an AfD with the relatively weak sourcing we've got on hand. That said, WP:N is a guideline and subject to interpretation at AfD. So while I, a fairly strong inclusionist, wouldn't have !voted to keep this, the sense of the discussion was that she met our inclusion guidelines. Further, it also feels like the folks arguing for deletion are _also_ playing inside baseball and have some kind of an ax to grind. That makes me a bit less sympathetic to similar issues on the other side... Hobit ( talk) 01:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak endorse I have a bigger problem with the closer's statement than the overall outcome, "Deletion argument failed to convince me how this would fail our notability guideline...". I certainly wasn't aware the standard was now not a rough consensus of editors but convincing the closing admin, and to do that requires proving a negative. That said I doubt we'll get a different outcome on this is relisted/reclosed. -- 82.14.37.32 ( talk) 12:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I can't comment on the closure itself, but if it was relisted, I know I would !vote keep. Being happy with the keep or a weaker no-consensus thefefore keep outcome, I'm partial to endorse the result. Since Wikimedia is a large and widely recognized and impactful organizations, I consider Wikimedia BoT Chairs to be notable enough, just like I would consider the presidents of large multinational companies or organizations like Coca Cola or the IMF to be notable. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • If that comment had been made in the deletion discussion, rather than it mainly consisting of name-calling and failure to assume good faith, I would have replied to it. This discussion, however, is about whether the closer correctly interpreted the very few comments that addressed the substantive issue as a consensus to keep without any further discussion. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 18:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC) reply
If she so notable then why not even 1 good enough reference could be added ? 120.56.118.82 ( talk) 14:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • !vote reject : is it so hard for find sourcs show off the notability. What means minimum standard for notability inclusion here ! Are such sourcings good enough for the not-wikipedian BPLs ? These are my small doubt. 120.56.118.82 ( talk) 14:36, 28 April 2016 (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/2016_April_21&oldid=1138441280"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE