Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Alysha Boekhoudt

3 times ILIKEIT vs 2 is clear consensus? &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

forgot to ping you, sorry. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

We have some trivial mentions of her name, but zero sources (reliable or otherwise) that actually provide significant coverage (which is required per WP:GNG).

I read your userpage and it seems that you do not like WP:GNG, but it is policy and I see no reason not to follow it.

Admins shouldn't just tally up the !votes, because they aren't !votes, this is a deletion discussion and bad arguments should be ignored. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If you are referring to me, I don't like GNG. I don't think most people actually base their keep or delete decisions on it, but on their general sense of whether an article belongs. Using the criteria at WP:N, anyone experienced here can argue for almost  any reference, that it is either independent & substantial, or just the opposite.
 * However, I follow the rules. You will not see me in an AfD discussion not justifying my !vote by the conventional standards as well as whatever else I might say. And as an admin, of course I follow the standard rules here and everywhere, trying for a middle of the road interpretation of ambiguous situations. The relationship between the SNGs and the GNG is capable of very different interpretations, and the accepted interpretation--or range of accepted interpretations--varies with the particular guideline, as does the meaning of "presumed" . (for example, to take one very definite case, in athletics a single appearance in the Olympics is enough even if it can merely be verified; to take another, for WP:PROF the guideline is specifically stated and always interpreted as an alternative.) The standard is to base the decision upon the consensus of policy-based arguments. To be sure, that too can be interpreted in various ways, but the standard  way is clear to all admins from the decisions at Deletion Review.  I never count arguments, I read them. In a rare situation which I do not think I can honestly close in the expected way, I do not close, but instead add an argument.
 * In this case, national level winners in these events are essentially always considered notable if the event is important enough, and though I am not much interested in the subject field, I've observed enough AfDs to know that this pageant is considered important enough. That's not necessarily my personal interpretation, but the established community interpretation.  The rules at WP are what we consistently do, not just what we say.  If you take this to Del Rev, let me know. I have had one or two closures overturned there, but I don't expect this will be one that adds to that very short list.   DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So a handful of people who always vote on AfD discussions about the niche they are interested in can overrule policy? You may not like WP:GNG, but I don't think you should (be allowed to) ignore policy because you personally dislike that policy. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * But you have misunderstood me again. When I argue for the deletion or keeping of an article I am trying to convince people, and I therefore argue for this in terms of what the usual policy and guidelines say. I also add my own opinion if I think there are other factors. The consensus can do whatever it chooses to do with my arguments. I am however perfectly free to argue to ignore the general policy is this particular case. If people think I'm being absurd and the strict guideline should apply, they say  so.


 * But there is one place where I must follow the accepted policy -- and that;'s in making an administrative decision. I always without exception try to do that. I made an admin decision here about what the consensus is. I consider it justified. I based it on our standard policy for judging consensus and for article deletion. I consider the argument that this was different from the other articles in the group to be valid on the basis of the accepted guidelines for the field, and in particular the way we use the SNGs in this area,  and that there was consensus for this.  I do not consider what I did even controversial, and certainly not in error. I did not decide the other related afds because I wasn't sure what the consensus was in those cases.  If you think I closed incorrectly, take it to Deletion Review. If you just think the consensus was wrong in this case, wait a few months and nominate for deletion again.  DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)