- David Talbott (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This discussion was incorrectly closed as keep instead of being relisted. There were four comments in this discussion. 1 delete, 3 keep. The delete cited standard policies about notability and said that the individual didn't meet them. Noone addressed these concerns specifically. The first keep voter, Dricherby pointed at a location where there could be significant coverage, but he didn't have access to the reviews and nor did anyone else. The other sources highlighted were unreliable. The second keep voter, Phaedrus7, gave a reason so poor that Dricherby helped show it to be invalid. The third keep was also invalid as it stated that they would have voted delete but there was previous AfDs and survival shows notability. Somehow this was closed as keep, rather than as a relist or similar. The closing admin gave this reason: [1].
Here was the reasoning:
- "The arguments made by User:Dricherby were reasonable insofar as that there has been critical commentary on his work combined with non-trivial mentions in sources. User:Phaedrus7 builds upon that. The sole Delete !vote by User:Qworty provided no strong arguments to the contrary."
Dricherby agrees that the sources that he was mentioned in where not reliable, and I countered the use of The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe which does not give significant coverage to Talbott. None of us had access to the sources which LFaraone claims has critical commentary. Phaedrus7 did not build upon Dricherby's arguments since Dricherby rejected them. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You are mischaracterising what I said, as you did at the AfD, so I repeat the reply I made there: "I wasn't claiming that the Velikovsky Encyclopaedia is reliable (indeed, I explicitly said it isn't [emphasis in original]). I mentioned it because it points to three sources that are reliable but which I was unable to access, since they're 33 years old and not freely available online." I did not agree with you about the other sources I mentioned; further, I rejected only two parts of Phaedrus7's comment supporting his keep !vote. Dricherby (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no suggestion that the 3 sources give significant coverage of Talbott. On the Phaedrus point; what argument is left when you take away those two parts you said rejected? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse though a relist would be unobjectionable because the discussion was not so good. First, the AFD nomination on the face of it did not raise an issue of policy. WP:Notability is not a policy but a guideline and the nomination states that the usual criteria are not met in this article. If so, the guidelines suggest we should not make a presumption of notability. Whether a source is reliable is a matter of opinion, not of fact, but of course consensus may decide in a particular case that a source is not reliable. The "delete" !vote cited guidelines but did not indicate how they might apply in this case. The last two "keeps" do not seem much based on the notability guidelines but possibly carry some weight. What troubles me is that this is a BLP and so policy issues are involved but were not explicitly raised or discussed. If contentious matters are not referenced suitably they should be removed and if nothing substantial is left the article would be deleted. I simply can't judge if the article is, as a whole, contentious. Even for WP:BLP "Page deletion is normally a last resort". Thincat (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If the discussion "was not so good", then why close it as keep? Surely it should be relisted to get a good discussion or at the least closed as no consensus. Are you suggesting, as you appear to say, that because I based my Nom on the notability guidelines that this somehow weakens my arguments? If "The last two "keeps" do not seem much based on the notability guidelines", how do they carry any weight? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Often AFDs are none too good but someone has to close them somehow. I think keep, no consensus and relist would all have been within discretion. I thought your arguments were strong but with any notability argument one can only express your opinion, supported by guidelines, etc. You are never in the position of legitimately being able to say "to keep this article would be a breach of policy". The two "keeps" were also expressing their opinions but were probably less likely to persuade others. The first "keep" was fine but hamstrung by lack of access to the putative sources. AFD is for people to express their views (within limits), not to salute the guidelines. Thincat (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with "You are never in the position of legitimately being able to say "to keep this article would be a breach of policy", easiest example is of a copyvio. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but "with any notability argument" was intended to cover this sentence as well as the previous one. Thincat (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I don't see any error in process here and the recent discussion at ANI about LFaraone's closes in general (including this one) largely agreed that they are fine. It must also be taken into account that the previous AfD for the same article, although four years ago, was a strong keep on grounds of notability, and also listed several sources. Dricherby (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the consensus was that he hadn't "done much wrong" in general. Further the closer states of that consensus: "Individual cases which could be reversed should be taken to WP:DRV, but there does not appear to be any consensus that there is any pattern of bad closures on the part of the admin in question. That is what I'm doing; taking an individual case to DRV. Of the two admins that commented on the Talbott article, one said it should not have been closed as keep, the other said "This was the third AFD, and the first two closed as "keep", so I can't see a third keep as being all that unusual". That is not largely agreeing that it was OK. When you say that previous AfDs showed more (unspecified) sources, that's an argument for an AfD, not for a DRV, you didn't bring that argument up at the time, so how could I rebut it at the time? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I pointed out that two previous AfDs had resulted in keeps and asked what had changed since then. At that point, you could have attempted to rebut the arguments made at those AfDs but you just said "Consensus can change", without giving any reason why it actually should. Dricherby (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering the admins at the time gave no reason, what do you expect me to say? Do you expect me to go through every single previous keep vote from past AfDs and try and rebut them? If you want to advance an argument from a previous AfD, then advance the argument, but just pointing out previous AfDs is meaningless, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I expected you to at least read it and, if you had policy-based disagreements with the overall argument advanced there (and, specifically, with what you viewed as its strongest points), to explain what those were. Previous AfDs are, in general, very meaningful because they point to an established consensus which you were trying to overturn. Here, I accept that the previous AfD was a few years ago and standards for AfDs, and interpretations of policies have moved on since then. However, the fundamental argument at the previous AfD was one of notability – it's not like people were arguing by the "Pokémon test" and things like that. Notability is not temporary so any argument that Talbott was notable in the past is an argument that he is notable today. Dricherby (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm seeing the "keep" and "delete" sides as roughly equal in that debate, two of the "delete" recommendations being disregardable. The way to break the deadlock here is not to wrangle about policy but to check the sources Dricherby lists and see what they actually say, and personally, I'd suggest asking a librarian. Strictly speaking the correct close would probably have been "no consensus".—S Marshall T/C 22:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion, which may appropriately incorporate the analyses in prior discussions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, this is the reasoning: [2]. It didn't incorporate prior discussions. So your comment does not appear to make much sense in this context, IRWolfie- (talk) 07:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, I think the decision was reasonable. There had been two previous AfDs whose result was keep and the arguments for deletion for the 3rd AfD weren't strong, so pretty obvious keep. Aarghdvaark (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse not the greatest close, but seems within reasonable admin discretion given the two previous keeps. A relist after some time has passed might give clearer consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
