Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 December 28

28 December 2017

 * Unscintillating (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Endorse, I guess - I don't have a good idea how this review should turn out, but I want to point out that during the AfD, on December 23, after the first relisting, I edited the page, increasing its length by over 50% and adding 6 references (it had 5, now it has 11). Other than my keep !vote, there was one keep and one delete !vote after me and the discussion was closed on the 28th, a day an a half after the last comment. Often when a page grows substantially during an AfD, extra time is given to allow editors more time to consider the changes. I'm not sure if there is a policy about that, but five days usually would seem like enough time, but the holidays may be getting in peoples way. Before my edits there seemed to be a consensus for deletion. Afterwards it was less clear and I could see a case for waiting seven more days or for closing as no consensus, but not for immediate deletion. All that said, there may be more activity if the page is resubmitted for discussion in a different season. Smmurphy(Talk) 00:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I found this in the information page, WP:Guide to deletion:
 * {| style="background:#DDFFFF"

Always explain your reasoning. This allows others to challenge or support facts, suggest compromises or identify alternative courses of action that might not yet have been considered. It also allows administrators to determine at the end of the discussion, whether your concerns have been addressed and whether your comments still apply if the article was significantly rewritten during the discussion period. "Votes" without rationales may be discounted at the discretion of the closing admin.
 * }
 * Posted by Unscintillating (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Overturn to keep There is simply too much reliance on the numerical prevalence of non-policy-based arguments. Even if DGG is wrong about NYT obits, the fact is that if GNG is met, SNG failure is irrelevant. Jclemens (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Endorse SNG failure is very relevant, because NPOL is treated as de facto exclusionary. We should typically delete an individual who passes the GNG if they fail it. At the same time, DGG's point on NYT obits being accepted as proof of notability is very relevant and shows that we have a tension in our practice (and practice is policy). The point of the AfD is to sort out those tensions, and it wasn't able to do that. As such, no consensus was the correct outcome. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * overturn to delete There's no NYT obit rule, and if there were one, it would take the consensus of people who aren't New Yorkers to establish one. And even the NYT describes him as a businessman first. Sure, there are other citations, but when it comes down to it we've done little more with them than fact-check the obit. For someone whose claim to fame is running a lesser business or a minor town, there needs to be more of a narrative than he went to school and then held a bunch of positions, one of which happened to be political, and then he died. The only thing that steps out of that at all is that he was part of the Ballantine family, which I have to think is the real reason he got an obit in the first place.


 * I'm seeing a pattern where notability standards are being degraded by general dismissal of WP:NOTNEWS as a standard. I see a lot of routine news stories, and they point to someone whose impact in the record of things isn't going to go any further than 14 Aug 2002 (when his wife died). I do not see how the keep arguments amounted to a rebuttal of this analysis; they seem to be essentially saying that the GNG standard, in practice, is lower than what it actually says. Mangoe (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly, we need clearer rules for when Politicians who don't qualify for WP:POLITICIAN can or should qualify for WP:GNG. It's disheartening. I really encourage you to help develop those guidelines as we move forward.&#8213; Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖  19:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The position of the GNGs vs SNGs is disputable, and the consensus seems different about most of them. In the case of politicians, I definitely do not think that NPOL is accepted as exclusionary regardless of meeting the GNG. It would take a while to actually find them, but have dozens of recent AfDs in mind that went the other way, accepting even relatively week GNG arguments for inclusion of political candidates, Treating this on its principles rather than precedent,  Using the SNG as exclusive  this would automatically prejudice our coverage in every competed election in favor of the incumbant unless the non-incumbant had a prior political office.  (in general I do think that SNGs should have precedence, but this is one that should go otherwise.)
 * As for the NYT obits, I can think of only one or two from the 20th century where it was not held decisive--even for socialites without any particular accomplishments.  DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Endorse or overturn to delete: As the discussion progressed, it seemed there was movement towards what the central issue was (the significance of a NYT obit, and whether GNG applied and was met). It just doesn't seem there was any real consensus in the end, though given the better deletes appeared to address not only the issue of NPOL but also GNG (albeit obliquely) I could support an overturn to delete. The keeps on that end mostly seemed to argue, in my view mostly consisting of vague waves to policy rather than analysis of the sources, that the NYT obit was sufficient and that GNG applied and there was enough coverage to meet SIGCOV. But the deletes didn't go too deeply into the weeds either, so my preference would be to defer to the closing admin and endorse the finding of no consensus. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 04:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak endorse- the discussion probably could, and should, have been closed as delete instead of relisting since that is where both the numbers and strength of argument seemed to be at that time. But since it was relisted, and opinion was split afterwards with good arguments on either side, I don't see much wrong with the final close. Perhaps once the community comes to some kind of agreement about how much routine coverage contributes to notability, this article can be revisited. I disagree completely with the hyperbolic claims that none of the delete opinions were grounded in policy; it's obvious at a glance that they are. Reyk YO! 09:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Endorse or change to keep as explained well by DGG. Andrew D. (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * endorse per DGG. per JClemens. AfD is not a vote. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Overturn to keep GNG trumps subject notability guidelines (SNG). He was a mayor of Rumson, New Jersey and has a New York Times obituary written about him. We also have newspaper clips related to his being an executive at several firms.desmay (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Overturn/Endorse to Keep - His status as the former Mayor of Rumson, plus the full New York Times obituary is enough. Scanlan (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Endorse The closer appropriately assessed the arguments and found that no consensus existed. I don't see how overturning the decision to close or keep makes sense because both sides of the discussion raise valid policy points. While XFD is not, and should not, be treated as a popular vote, in most cases, if there are multiple editors on both sides on an issue, consensus does not exist, so the proper close is no consensus. --Enos733 (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }