Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ryan Wiik

Expanded commentary

 * …this nomination isn't probable but is more-likely-than-not…
 * I'm an accountant by profession, and when accountants talk about outcomes, "probable" is seen as something that is almost surely going to happen, or at least is 80% likely to happen. "More likely than not" is 51% chance or better. ("Remote" would be something that's likely not going to happen, or less than 20% chance.) My point is, I didn't run it up the flagpole just to see if anybody salutes. I feel it is a valid nom. Edge case, debatable, but valid—and debatable by definition means we have to debate it, and in a mature community, having debate means, if I wind up being on the "losing" side of consensus, I can accept that and respect the decision but still know that I did the right thing for the right reasons.


 * … the best and most transparent thing to do would be to nominate this article for AfD and let the community discuss it.
 * Let's be honest here. I'm an administrator, and I could have made the article quietly go away if I really wanted to (or felt it was in the best interest of all concerned, especially Wikipedia). But could I have justified that on CSD grounds? If the sourcing doesn't scuttle A7, the company and media appearances do. I could maybe make a case for G10, but that's fixable by removing the vandalism. So that's not really a path forward.
 * The flipside is, is it better to let the article quietly live on or stir the pot with the AfD nom? Which is more damaging to the subject (assuming any damage results from either)? Does AfD bring the subject Streisandian attention? As I considered the possible outcomes, one I considered is the AfD resulting in a delete decision and the AfD discussion itself being archived or suppressed because of the discussion of the lawsuits and the claims against the subject brought up in it. I decided that's an acceptable cost and went forward with the nom.

It's a messy situation. The fair thing for the article, IMO, is clear-headed, open, transparent discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 13:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)