-
fREAKAZOiD (
talk|
|
history|
logs|
links|
watch) (
XfD|
restore)
There were four delete votes (including nom) to two keep votes and a redirect vote, as well as a reverted delete vote; I feel as if there was no consensus. Second, there are definitely many sources for this article, and not just covering a single event, enough so that when presented with these sources, one voter was eventually convinced to drop their delete vote.
Prisencolin (
talk) 00:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete count edited to include nom, thanks--
Prisencolin (
talk) 01:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse, albeit narrowly. Firstly, I must note that I commented (in favour of deletion) in the AFD debate. Secondly, I must correct
Prisencolin's opening stats here: The delete count was actually four (the nominator should be included), with two keeps votes, one redirect, and one delete that switched to neutral. This is certainly a narrow number going for the delete, and from the numbers alone it would be a borderline case for a relist. However, when one of those two keep comment begins with "I guess this is just a matter of principle, but" and that comment comes from the creator and only significant contributor to a new article, it does inherently weaken that contribution to the overall consensus. The neutral switching from a delete, and also stating "I'm having a hard time with this" and directly criticising a source (The Daily Dot) is also a factor. My view is that a relist would have been less controversial, but that there was a slender consensus - in numbers and the weight and strength of arguments - to delete. As a closing point, in valuing neutrality, I do note that eSports articles are contentious and Prisencolin and myself do lie on different sides of that debate.
KaisaL (
talk) 01:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I could agree for a relist, if possible.--
Prisencolin (
talk) 01:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I realistically don't think this has any chance of being overturned for a keep (nobody can argue this had consensus for a keep first time around, surely), so a relist is the most likely option I would have thought. I would still marginally endorse
Kelapstick's close.
KaisaL (
talk) 01:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn to keep This isn't even a NC case IMO.
- The first delete !vote claims it doesn't meet the GNG and coverage is all about one event. The GNG claim is later shown to be false. The 1E claim is more debatable.
- The second delete !vote doesn't even parse. It's not clear that the !voter was even discussing this topic.
- The third delete !vote is asking for something beyond our requirements: being "significant beyond the eSports community".
- The neutral !vote acknowledges that the subject has the coverage required by our guidelines and policies but shows a discomfort with covering the topic area. The keep !voters provided sources enough to meet the GNG and many don't cover the "one event". So even with the numbers here, I think we come to keep, though NC would also have been a reasonable close.
Hobit (
talk) 02:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- For my further comments on this, refer to my reply to
Jclemens below. However, for the purpose of the deletion review process, @
SwisterTwister: Can you confirm your delete comment (the second one criticised above by
Hobit) was added to the correct AFD?
KaisaL (
talk) 15:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC) - SwisterTwister has now endorsed the deletion and in turn their own vote as being added to the correct debate.
KaisaL (
talk) 16:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I agree with Jclemens here. The delete !votes were unaware of sources or ignored them or used an IDONTLIKEIT rational. We've easily met the GNG--there is no meaningful argument there. According to a delete !voter we have 20+ articles (I've only read about 5 of them). We've got coverage in the mainstream media. The articles are mostly not about the "one event". Yes, a closer really shouldn't be closing as "delete" on a discussion where our inclusion guidelines are met--at least not without a much stronger consensus than was had. There are times to ignore our guidelines, I don't believe this was one of them.
Hobit (
talk) 16:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- FYI, if you're referring to my comment below, that "20+" was just a number pulled out of thin air - it wasn't mean to be quoted. My point was more that there's a ton of short, garbage articles that don't cover the subject in detail.
Sergecross73
msg me 17:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn to keep because
WP:1E arguments are invalid, as are assertions that the GNG is not met. Without those two arguments, as Hobit points out, there are zero policy-based !votes arguing for deletion.
Jclemens (
talk) 02:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Comment (RE: both
Hobit and
Jclemens) I find it very hard to accept any argument that this debate should have been closed as a keep, and any administrator doing so would have been demonstrating clear bias and an inability to correctly gauge consensus. Furthermore, to close it as a no consensus would go against the established procedure of relisting for a further seven days in these cases, we don't simply close after a week when the discussion is tight anymore (unless there's mitigating factors, such as multiple previous AFDs going that way and no indication the situation has changed, but this was a first listing).
- Deletion review is not round two of the AFD process. It is for evaluating whether the process of deletion was carried out correctly by the administrator, but the fact you are arguing that this debate should be overturned to a keep makes me wonder whether you know that. Even if you personally feel
WP:GNG was met via the sources provided, concerns were raised about the sources, and (by myself) about the contents being substantial. It is impossible to identify, on the weight of the arguments presented in the debate and the number of contributors arguing to delete versus keep, any clear consensus to close it in the way you are suggesting.
KaisaL (
talk) 15:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- If adminning is just counting noses, we could have a bot do it and be done with it. Are you familiar with
WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, and its prevision for disregarding inputs that are made in bad faith and/or not conforming to applicable policy? If someone says "
WP:1E" and there are two or more events noted in the article as it stands, or "
WP:GNG is not met" and there are two or more reliable, independent, secondary sources in the article, what weight do you think SHOULD be accorded to those expressed opinions? I note that you've been around since 2005. Do you understand why the parlance "!vote" is used on Wikipedia in consensus-building discussions like this? I'd love to hear how you understand it, because it's clear we differ.
Jclemens (
talk) 16:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- At no point have I said anything about AFD being about "counting noses". However any administrator that goes in to a situation where four established users have argued to delete (initially five until one switched to neutral) and two established users have argued to keep, and then closes that debate as a keep, should not be closing discussions based around consensus. I absolutely, unequivocally fail to accept that this could have been closed as a keep. That has nothing to do with counting votes, it's to do with the fact that there was no clear consensus to close the discussion in that way. Your points about
WP:GNG being met and the sources in the article being "reliable, independent [and] secondary" don't come into this, an administrator closing a debate should not be making their own partial judgements on that. The discussion within the AFD process is where such analysis is made. The only other ways an administrator could reasonably consider closing this debate would have been as a relist or as a no consensus. (And please look at my own narrow endorsement - I have acknowledged a relist may have been less controversial.)
KaisaL (
talk) 17:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- You just did a !vote count, here, in support of saying an overturn to keep is unreasonable. My take on that is it's either entirely the wrong way to do things, or we should just close by bot. I maintain not only that it could have been closed as keep, but should have been closed as keep. Why? Because it IS the job of the closing administrator to evaluate whether !votes conform to policy, and there was no factually correct, policy-based argument for delete made at all. If I say "delete, has no sources" on an article that has sources, is it the closing admin's prerogative to disregard that !vote? I would say not only "yes", but also that it is their obligation to do so.
Jclemens (
talk) 22:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Making a comment pertaining to how many people were on either side of the debate is not a "!vote count" at all. The closing administrator doesn't just take into account the comments, cherry pick those conforming to their own views and close based on that, they've got to work on consensus and there is no way this debate had close to a keep consensus. Anyway, I think I've made my points and you've made yours so I'm going to leave it there.
KaisaL (
talk) 22:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- No, the closing admin doesn't cherry pick anything: he or she gives weight to those conforming to 1) reality and 2) policies. Since no delete !vote would have been weighed with any weight at all by any administrator discharging their duties to evaluate !votes in such a manner, then yes, the only reasonable reading of the AfD is to keep the article. Consensus cannot include erroneous information--that's not how consensus works, and your reading of the consensus in this case would accord weight to views which clearly violated policy.
Jclemens (
talk) 00:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Also, I forgot to mention: I really don't feel you could, in this debate, argue that any of those arguing to delete were doing so in bad faith. It is your opinion and that of those favouring to keep that
WP:GNG was not applicable, it is not the clear-cut case you are making it out to be. Any administrator disregarding those delete arguments en masse would be completely misusing their administrative powers.
KaisaL (
talk) 17:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- My apologies if you interpreted what I said as asserting that there were any bad faith voters in this AfD. I was merely pointing out the other reason listed in
WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS for disregarding votes, and I was not intending to assert, nor do I now assert, any evidence of bad faith in that discussion. There were carelessness and factually incorrect assertions, but I have no reason to believe that, just from that one discussion, that these constituted an intentional pattern of misbehavior.
Jclemens (
talk) 22:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Strong Endorse- By strength of numbers and strength of argument, I think it's clear that a consensus to delete was reached.
Reyk
YO! 11:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- What strength of argument are you seeing? The only guideline-based arguments I'm seeing are GNG and 1E arguments. Neither seems to hold up in the face of sources.
Hobit (
talk) 11:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I see that the delete voters and nominator considered the same sources as the keep !voters and found them unsatisfactory. Disagreement about their strengths does not invalidate one side of the argument. Changing to "strong endorse" due to badgering.
Reyk
YO! 11:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Wrong side of the bed this morning? It was, and remains, an honest question. The first and second delete !voters voted before the sources were supplied (and the second didn't say anything about well, anything, honestly let alone sources). The 3rd didn't object to the sources and neither did the neutral.
Hobit (
talk) 12:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I'm not a fan of drip-feeding sources into AfDs to invalidate previous votes- because what usually happens is that people found those sources in the course of their own digging and were unimpressed. Someone else presenting them later in the AfD is not evidence they were not previously considered. I see no reason to invalidate the nomination or first two comments on those grounds. The second is worded weirdly but I understand it just fine. Remaining delete votes definitely had the benefit of all the information and were not swayed by it. I definitely see a solid consensus for deletion in this AfD.
Reyk
YO! 13:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Hmm. Finish this sentence for me, would you? "Absence of evidence is not evidence of..." One more question: If any prior !voters had found sources, considered them, and not found them to be convincing, the ideal thing to do would be a) nothing, or b) document them in the AfD !vote so that others could consider them as well and the closing admin could see that they had delved into the topic and thus accord their !votes more weight? Cheers,
Jclemens (
talk) 16:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- As you wish. "Absence of evidence is the very two people I was talking about turning up to affirm what I just said." I don't routinely list every half-sentence passing mention I've seen, do you? A modicum of
WP:AGF if you please.
Reyk
YO! 21:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- There is certainly an appropriate amount of good faith, but I don't believe that positing that editors posting before a particular source is listed in an AfD (when it wasn't listed in the article at the time) had a reasonable chance of having found, considered, and based their input on such newly-listed info is at all reasonable. My prompt was an attempt to get you to use your own logic in a contrapositive manner; my apologies if it was perceived as an accusation of bad faith.
Jclemens (
talk) 00:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse as I still confirm my Delete, this is best restarted when there's convincingly better as what I saw was still questionable.
SwisterTwister
talk 15:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse - the problem here, and at a few other articles, is the lack of significant coverage. These eSports websites have the tendency to tag tangentially related team members into articles, or write these really brief, paragraph long articles. Does
The Daily Dot have 20+ articles on this guy? Probably. Are they saying anything more than "Subject is playing this event", "Subject is sidelined", and "Subject was fired"? No, it never moves beyound a simple statement, and then they're off to writing about other things in an already short article. (Except for the subject's bullying incident, but that's where the 1E argument comes in - that's the only event sources have ever delved into with detail.)
Sergecross73
msg me 16:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Same thing that happens to actors and athletes. Coverage is largely about what they do for a living. Would you expect something else?
Hobit (
talk) 16:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- ...er...more detail...? Longer articles that keep their focus around the subject...? Perhaps you've missed my point. My issue is that, so many of the articles used to assert notability are structured like this:
- Freakazoid is playing Event X as part of Team Y. Event X is a big event for Team Y. Team Y is having a rough year, due to reasons, and they need a win. And who could forget the big upset at last year's Event X? Participant Z really messed it up for his team. Yeah, you never know what will happen at Event X! Well, here's hoping Freakazoid doesn't mess up.
- Its stuff like that, where nothing of substance is said, and the article writer meanders into writing about other people, the team, the event, etc.
Sergecross73
msg me 17:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn As I pointed out elsewhere when it came up, this was a clear no-consensus to delete. The only two real policy-backed reasons for deletion were both subsequently proven incorrect. If someone makes a vote based on a reason that has little justification, it has little weight when balanced against an opposing vote with much firmer policy-backed arguments. So yes, the early delete votes are of little weight given the subsequent information provided.
Only in death does duty end (
talk) 17:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn to no-consensus. The first delete vote's use of 1E is clearly wrong, the second delete vote has no policy-based argument and seems to smack of
IDONTLIKEIT. There was a debate over the reliability of the sources, but not a clear consensus on that. ----
Patar knight -
chat/
contributions 17:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse but relist
no consensus would also have been acceptable. I say this with considerable regret because I agree with the people above who think that the delete arguments were mostly factually incorrect – but I don't think we can be certain they were wrong. I'll agree the 1E arguments were mistaken. But "notability" is so subjective (even if you regard the
WP:N guidelines as rules, which they tell us they are not) that I think it is unusual that we can be sure a notability delete or keep !vote is unacceptable. "Multiple", "reliable", "significant" and "independent" all have such a wide range of legitimate interpretation that a !voter really has to put their foot in it to be shown to be wrong. Anyway,
WP:N as a whole has occasional exceptions and may be applied with common sense. I have recently emerged from an AFD where someone was arguing that a book about two people (both names in the title) wasn't significant coverage of one person because it was only written because of the fame of the other person. That argument didn't succeed but
WP:N doesn't categorically rule that out – and even if it did we would not be required to follow that advice. Notability discussions at AFD are largely about whether or not we like the article sufficiently for it to stay in place – with the intriguing etiquette that we never say so.
Thincat (
talk) 10:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC) I have changed no consensus to relist after reading KaisaL's helpful remark below.
Thincat (
talk) 20:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Comment Just a comment on the "no consensus" option here. This AFD was never relisted for a second cycle. It's quite uncommon nowadays for an AFD that's contentious to simply be closed as a no consensus after seven days. The logical closure, if consensus had not been established in this debate, would have been to relist it for another week. No consensus would have, on the surface, been a strange close as inviting further participation may have yielded a clear consensus after the fortnight.
KaisaL (
talk) 19:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
reply
|