-
Ace Pijper (
talk|
|
history|
logs|
links|
watch) (
XfD|
restore)
I closed this as keep but
User:GhostOfDanGurney asked me at my talk page to consider reopening and relisting it due to canvassing for the keep !votes. I don't have a strong view but my rationale for closing as keep is, despite the canvassing, the keepers make sound policy-based arguments and, other than the nomination itself, there are no !delete votes at all. I don't see a need to relist - the discussion was open for the full 7 days - but would value some other opinions hence bringing it here.
Waggers
TALK 09:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn close and relist - The canvassing is apparent and there are no !votes at all once you remove canvassed opinions and the page creator. There were unaddressed concerns about
WP:NOTINHERITED, sources that were only
WP:PRIMARY and
WP:CRYSTAL. Although a second editor did not express a delete !vote, there were clear questions raised and unaddressed. There is a prima facie argument that the article is here too soon based on current content alone, and no source analysis that establishes
WP:GNG is met. To be clear, however, it could be met. This needs more eyes, and the end result could be the same or it could be delete, but we don't have that clarity yet. Thus relisting for another week would seem to be sensible.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk) 10:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Comment – As the nominator of the AfD in question, I have obviously expressed my desire to see the page deleted. I largely agree with Sirfurboy's assessment, and as I noted in the AfD discussion I am not at all convinced by the sources and arguments put forward by the keep !voters. I don't think there was really a good way to close the AfD: there wasn't enough support for deletion to close it as no consensus, but at the same time the fact all !voters were canvassed makes it difficult to see the result as a convincing keep. I would be happy to see it relisted for further discussion.
5225C (
talk •
contributions) 10:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - The word canvassing is still being used and the point is being missed because they were not asked to vote to keep it. Editors who are some of the most knowledgeable in terms of the subject matter will not be able to comment on an article nominated for deletion unless they know about it in the first place. Furthermore, surely they are best placed to comment on a subject that they know the most about and this can include voting for it to be deleted. I have noticed in recent years the increase in users acting as though they own Wikipedia and discouraging the 'average' editor to interact. This goes against the core values of Wikipedia.
Pyeongchang (
talk) 10:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
reply
- With respect Pyeongchang you do not seem to understand how the word "canvassing" is used on Wikipedia. As GhostOfDanGurney clearly explained in the AfD discussion, your actions have been perceived as canvassing because you had good reason to believe that the users you notified would !vote in favour of keeping the article. While actually asking an editor to !vote in a certain way would definitely be an obvious example of canvassing, it is not at all a requirement.
5225C (
talk •
contributions) 11:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Hi 5225C, you replied to every 'keep' comment on the nomination deletion page and even replied to my comment here. You have missed the point of my comment above and if this is not a case of trying to dominate proceedings to back up your nomination then I do not know what is. I quote the well known phrase - He who shouts loudest.
Pyeongchang (
talk) 13:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
reply
- If you refer to the tagging of !voters as having been canvassed, then that was not me. If you are referring to responding to other comments and !votes, then that is standard practice for nominators at AfD. I do note that this was only your second AfD, perhaps you are unfamiliar with them? The entire goal is to "back up my nomination", if I wasn't willing to back it up then I would not have opened the AfD. Do you expect me not to respond to glaring errors?
5225C (
talk •
contributions) 14:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Relist. After removing the possibly canvassed votes, it is apparent that there is one "keep" (the creator) vote against one "delete" vote (the nom). There is nothing wrong with an article's creator defending his or her work, especially when constructive arguments can be made, and the creator asserts passage of
WP:GNG. A no consensus close would be okay but it is possible another week would allow consensus to develop.
Frank
Anchor 18:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
reply
Weak Overturn and Relist, based on the closer's comment that there was canvassing. This is a weak overturn because neither the closer nor the original nominator has said so that I could understand it exactly what the nature of the canvassing was? For instance, did the author comment on the user talk pages of certain editors? That would be canvassing of a subtle sort. Yes.Did the author comment neutrally on project talk pages? That is not canvassing. I am relying on the closer's judgment that there may have been canvassing.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 18:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
reply
- These difs were listed in the AFD to support evidence of canvassing. Messages on the users' talk pages that the subject AFD was taking place.
Michig
Johnny2hats2
Rcclh.
Frank
Anchor 20:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks to
User:Frank Anchor for the explanation.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 05:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks to the closer for administrative integrity and for being ready to reopen their close when it was challenged. (I
don'tdidn't know what the nature of the canvassing was.)
Robert McClenon (
talk) 18:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and relist. There is canvassing because the notification messages, while not blatantly non-neutral (i.e., they were not saying "please vote keep"), clearly chooses a biased audience who has never edited the articles in question (so are not appropriate notifcations) and are chosen solely for their perceived views. These cause the AfD to be tainted by it, and no clear consensus can be ascertained.
VickKiang
(talk) 23:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Comment -
User:Pyeongchang - You should consider this DRV as a warning against future
canvassing on deletion discussions. Notifying users whom you have selected is defined as a form of canvassing.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 05:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. I don't object to a relist, and have no idea whether this person is notable or not; but as in the past, I feel compelled to observe that a broad definition of "canvassing" is problematic if it precludes bringing a discussion to the attention of the people who are (1) most likely to be interested in the discussion, and (2) most likely to be able to make well-informed comments in the discussion.
Newyorkbrad (
talk) 23:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I don't think there'd be a problem if the user had simply left a message at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport or the sub-project that deals specifically with motorcycle racing. I feel that part of the reason for these WikiProjects is to bring awareness of XfDs, RMs, RfCs, etc. and I would very much have considered it an
WP:APPNOTE. The issue here is the specific targeting of select users based on known opinions to message via Userspace, rather than letting those users find their own way via a WikiProject message. ―
"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Posting a neutral comment on a Wikiproject is fine in my opinion also, as persons in a Wikiproject have a knowledge or interest in a topic that the average editor does not. An interested user may be better able to assess the notability of a page or find resources to "save" a page that would otherwise be deleted, redirected, etc. However the canvassing that occurred here is reaching out to three specific users about a page. It is unclear if the Pyeongchang had a bias (i.e. this user didnt say "there is an AFD on Ace Pijper, I need you to vote keep") but it is suspicious that all of those canvassed users voted keep despite having never edited the page in question.
Frank
Anchor 13:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
reply
- For some context. I would consider myself an 'average editor' and would not have any knowledge/interest in any Wikiproject pages. Had I not been notified, I would not have known the page would have been up for deletion until I accessed the page directly. There was no reason for me to edit the page as it's already in good shape from when it was created, I don't see a point in editing something for the sake of it. I was neither asked to vote for delete or keep, but as somebody who has an advanced knowledge of speedway, I voted keep as I know this page is relevant within its sport. Looking at Pyeongchang's previous edits, he clearly also knows about speedway and therefore feels others who know about speedway are knowledgeable enough to make informed decisions on the subject.
Johnny2hats2 (
talk) 14:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Relist in the hopes of a better source analysis occurring there. I'm not as concerned about whether to call the notifications to others "canvassing" or not in this instance. I do feel the discussion was ultimately defective, in that much of what was written didn't engage with our actual notability guidelines. Fundamentally, we have the nominator's claim, "non-notable athlete, a WP:BEFORE check reveals almost entirely primary sources or routine coverage, and very little or no significant coverage" versus one policy based response stating "while there's not a great deal of third-party coverage around, there's enough in the Speedway Star and Polish and Netherlands media to scrape through". Hopefully, given more eyeballs, this difference of opinion can be resolved and a policy-based consensus reached.
Martinp (
talk) 19:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
reply
|