Miami New Drama ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

When asked on their Talk page for their reasoning, they stated that "it was clear by a 2-1 margin that the consensus is that is it adjudged to have enough sigcov from reliable secondary sources, such as NBC News". This isn't an accurate summary. Most of the Keep !voters didn't provide any reasons beyond an assertion that the topic company is notable or that there were notable directors/playwrights or that it had a famous founder. One !voter listed 9 references and I provided reasoning why none of those references met the criteria. There was vague and wholly dismissive disagreement but not precise reasons provided, based on guidelines or policy, why the reasoning was incorrect or even counter-reasoning to suggest why the topic company was notable. The comment by the closing admin that "it was clear by a 2-1 margin" strongly suggests that a proper review, applying appropriate guidelines/policies was not correctly carried out. I've since reviewed the references again and I believe there are sufficient reasons to overturn the result of this AfD. At the very least it should be a "No Consensus" call but the most appropriate would be to delete the article as it fails WP:NCORP. HighKing ⁺⁺ 18:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC) reply

I think that this request goes against consensus. HighKing posted his views ten times during the AfD, and did not convince the other people involved in the discussion. This is continuing that WP:BLUDGEONing behavior even after the AfD closed. During this discussion, I wrote about this article from NBC News : " Theater that reflects a changing America? Venezuelan Michel Hausmann is doing it in Miami" which is entirely about Miami New Drama. HighKing did not respond to my analysis during the discussion, although HighKing did mention it in last week's attempt to re-litigate on the closing admin's talk page. It is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. — Toughpigs ( talk) 20:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC) reply

You should know the processes well enough by now. I didn't try to "re-litigate" on the admins Talk page, I asked for the closing admin's reasoning and asked the closing admin to reconsider a close of "No Consensus". JGJowes hasn't responded to that request so, as per our guidelines and recommendations, I opened this DRV. Most of the time, at that AfD, I requested references and then commented on those references. Perhaps you missed the rich irony where on the one hand you're accusing me of bludgeoning the process and on the other, criticising me for not responding to your disagreement with my analysis ... there's enough drama on WP without you trying to mislead others on what has occurred.

As to the meat of the matter ... in fairness you wrote about the NBC news reference after I had already pointed out why it failed both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. You disagreed with my analysis, fine, but you failed to provide any rebuttal as to why the reference failed WP:ORGIND. While DRV isn't the place for looking at individual references, I hope other editors look at the NBC News reference and check that it fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND as I already stated. I believed a closing admin would have picked up on your incomplete rebuttal as well as the fact that multiple references are required and even if the NBC News one was accepted, at least one more is needed. HighKing ⁺⁺ 21:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Re ORGIND, are you saying that NBC News has a financial stake in Miami New Drama? -- Toughpigs ( talk) 21:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC) reply

At the AfD, I said that references must contain "Independent Content" a number of times. "Independent Content" is defined at AfD as follows: Independence of the content (or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties. Too often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Therefore references that rely on information produced by the company without providing an independent opinion/analysis/etc fail ORGIND. HighKing ⁺⁺ 12:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Clearly the correct result. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC) reply

It would be great if someone could provide an explanation though. HighKing ⁺⁺ 12:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Strong endorse and speedy close. The OP here argues that "Notability is not inherited and coverage of the productions does not bestow notability on the production company any more than it would bestow notability on the director or the theatre". Let me phrase this carefully: This is a stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid argument. (It also shows that the OP is unfamiliar with what WP:NOTINHERITED actually says, because, among other things, it says that notability can be inherited by creative professionals from their work.) People and corporations are generally notable for what they do (those few who are lamentably famous for being famous aside), and to say that coverage of what a person or corporation does is not coverage of the person/corporation itself is so mind-bogglingly boneheaded an idea that language fails me. Yet I have seen editors here argue that scientists do not "inherit notability" from their scientific work.The OP also appears utterly innocent of any understanding of journalism: they argue that any coverage incorporating any information provided by a source in any way involved with the subject must be treated as unreliable and lacking independence. Now there are many corners of the internet which privilege "journalism" that is utterly uninfected by informed sourcing, but I had believed that Wikipedia was not one of them. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! ( talk) 03:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC) reply

NOTINHERITED doesn't say that and appears to say the opposite. One example it uses as notability not being inherited is "the artist is famous, so the album is notable". It states very clearly (and excludes) "Inherited notability", being the idea that something qualifies for an article because it was associated with some other legitimately notable subject. It *does* say that four of the notability guidelines, creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances, but as you should have seen, the applicable guidelines for organizations doesn't allow for inherited notability. You expound the idea that notability of a person or corporation must flow from what they do, but that does not appear in our guidelines and in fact, not only does NOTINHERITED throw cold water on that idea, it doesn't appear in WP:NCORP or WP:GNG and says rather the opposite. There has been some discussion that perhaps it should be added (which I would favour) - for example at one recent AfD on an architecture firm named after two notable architects - but to date this has not progressed. You insinuate an innocence on my part on any understanding of journalism, yet what is more clear is that this opinion flies in the face of the requirement for "Independent Content" as contained in WP:ORGIND. HighKing ⁺⁺ 12:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC) reply

You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! ( talk) 19:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I cannot see how the closer could have made a different close. Community members can disagree whether a source meets (or multiple sources meet) the expectations of a SNG - the closer must only evaluate the comments about the source. In this case, there was valid disagreement about whether the sources provided met the expectations of WP:NCORP, and the vast majority of comments were to keep the article. No other close would have been proper. -- Enos733 ( talk) 15:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Thanks Enos733, two points. Of course community members can disagree but at this AfD, I provided an analysis on why the references failed NCORP and only editor pointed out one reference they believed was still good. I understand the role of the closing admin is to weigh the arguments with a view on policy and guidelines but the vast majority of Keep !votes were irrelevant because "Lots of coverage", "Founded by notable founders", etc, are not arguments based on NCORP guidelines. So by you saying "the vast majority of comments were to keep the article", you're essentially counting !votes. There was not a consensus to Keep, there was a disagreement. Very frustrating to editors that understand NCORP, understand what is required from sources, etc, only for it all to be reduced to a majority !vote. I don't mind. If that's the reality, I'd prefer to know. HighKing ⁺⁺ 16:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - This appeal is only a discussion of whether the close was a reasonable close based on the discussion, not whether it was the appellant's or another editor's conclusion. It was a reasonable close. It is also what I would have said if I had been in the AFD, but that isn't important. The appellant, by continuing to bludgeon the discussion, is making other editors wonder whether they are personalizing this for some reason. We can assume good faith but still ask them to drop it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment from Nom OK, maybe I'm being stupid ... more than likely, wouldn't be the first time. I'm also probably close to bluedgeoning this process at this stage by asking questions but I'm really trying very hard to understand the logic behind the close. If someone could provide a quick step-by-step decision process to get the conclusion, it would help. Or I could try to embarrass myself more by posting what I believe my logic would be. Or take it to my Talk page? Whatever works. Clearly this decision is not as unreasonable as I thought when I opened the DRV judging by the experienced admins who have responded (thank you), happy to accept that, but I'd also like to understand what I'm missing. HighKing ⁺⁺ 21:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • @ HighKing: The explanation is that it's a vote. No matter how much we say otherwise, in practice, disputes over whether source X meets GNG criteria are resolved by counting noses, because there is nothing in policy that gives a closer grounds to discount votes. So, if a dozen voters say one sentence is "significant coverage", then there's consensus that one sentence meets WP:SIGCOV. If a closer were to discount those dozen votes because "one sentence is obvi not sigcov", that would be a supervote, because SIGCOV doesn't say anything about a minimum length. There's nothing in WP:N that allows closers to filter AFD votes by common sense. The solution is to put clearer and more objective criteria into our notability guidelines, particularly expanding GNG on the topics of SIGCOV minimum lengths, interviews, local coverage, press releases, etc. But until then, when the overwhelming majority of voters say that sources X, Y, and Z meet SIGCOV, closers are compelled to call that consensus, even if sources X, Y, and Z are listings in a phone book. Le v!v ich 19:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks Levivich, I was struggling but your explanation and example helps a lot. I know you've put forward SIGCOV as an example and not necessarily how a closing admin would interpret each !vote. I didn't realise that a closer couldn't/shouldn't, for example, discount "one sentence is obvi sig cov", even if it is only one sentence because there's no minimum length. So even though SIGCOV says that the reference must "address the topic directly and in detail", we're still left open to an interpretation of what "in detail" means - the "common sense" argument you refer can still leave an admin with little choice. Am I right in thinking that an admin relies solely on what each !vote says and doesn't necessarily check to see if the references are just one sentence or whether what each !voter says about the reference makes sense? Would doing that essentially be a !supervote? HighKing ⁺⁺ 21:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC) reply
      • @ HighKing: I doubt most AFD closers will check references to verify that what the participants are saying about them is accurate. And if they did, yes, I think that would be viewed as a supervote, even if the closer was correct and the participants were incorrect. But that's just my opinion/perspective though, I certainly could be wrong. Le v!v ich 22:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC) reply
        • I think there is a difference in how much discretion a closer has based on the quantity of comments supporting one result over another AND to the degree to which comments are grounded in policy. If the comments are lopsided, then the closer will either relist with instructions or more likely close as with the majority of comments. If the comments are closer and only one position is based in policy, then there is more room for a policy-based close. In this case, there was a numerical majority for keep and several of the keep comments included references to new sources and others argued that the existing sources met WP:NCORP. On balance, a neutral closer would see this policy argument as debatable and look at number of opinions to see that those advocating for keep reflected the discussion consensus. -- Enos733 ( talk) 02:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The correct result. Lightburst ( talk) 14:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse This is a clear endorse. Keep !votes were grounded in policy and quite numerous - the only way this could be overturned if voters had no basis for !voting keep, which isn't the case here. That being said, the article is currently written in an overly detailed and promotional manner for what it is. We don't need a list of all of the shows the theatre company has put on, for instance. However, there's clear consensus it's notable. SportingFlyer T· C 10:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC) reply