Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Spark: A Mother's Story of Nurturing Genius

Does anyone else want to take this to Deletion review? The closing admin clearly erred in their judgement. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Sometimes AfDs don't go the way you want. It has happened to me too. Unless you really do think that a massive mistake has been made, I think the best thing is to find something else to work on. That would be a much more productive use of your time and of much more value to the project. Remember that this was an article put up for AfD by its own author. This was destined to be a trainwreck from the very outset. Surely we have all wasted quite enough of our time on it? --DanielRigal (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The closer's decision was based on sound arguments and a large majority vote. I can't see the DRV would get anywhere. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC).


 * Yes, I was considering deletion review. There was a clear no-consensus. There were a lot of comments so it may have gotten lost in the text, but while people complained about the exaggerations in the sources, these two  hype-free sources are a full page each in small type, and though people argued there was no critical material to include in the article, these two   refute that. Either two of these are enough to meet the WP:NBOOK guideline, even though I felt the exaggerations were not enough to disqualify any source for reasons I could elaborate on.  Subuey (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Continuing to argue about the merits of the case will get you nowhere in DRV. The consideration there should only be whether the closure was made appropriately. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * When weighing the merits of the deletes versus the keeps as the closer did, this should have been taken into consideration in the closer since it was all included in the afd. Subuey (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The closer said he took the NBOOK debate into consideration. -- Green  C  01:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, he also took the argument that it was a recreation of Jacob Barnett into consideration, and since those concerns were addressed, it is obviously a fail to WP:AGF. Subuey (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll take it to DRV if no one else does. The keep arguments had guidelines behind them, the delete arguments were that the Times and Washington Post and BBC and USAToday and all the others were not reliable sources... and didn't present reliable sources of their own. --GRuban (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you do please give a ping to all contributors to the AfD, or at least to me . Xxanthippe (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC).
 * Closer also mentioned the valid WP:G7-ishness of this AfD that was mentioned.-- ☾Loriendrew☽  ☏(ring-ring)  02:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As nom I'd support a DRV.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't have to answer this if you don't want to, but why on earth did you you put an article that you had written up for deletion if you did not want it deleted? That seems quite bonkers to me. It definitely opens the door to the G7 argument, although I don't buy that myself, but it also denied the AfD a chance to get started with a coherent nomination setting out the reasons for deletion for the discussion to start from that. The fact that it became a complete mess is hardly surprising. Did you not see that coming? --DanielRigal (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know what anyone expects from a DRV. There were policy arguments on both sides of the discussion, and a definite supermajority of delete votes, with more than a 2:1 ratio of delete to keep.  It seems like the Keep folks disagree with the Delete folks about interpretations of our policies and guidelines.  But deletion review is not the place to get into nuanced discussions about policy, since that would involve repeating the same arguments advanced during the deletion discussion (see WP:DRVPURPOSE).  That was the purpose of the AfD in the first place, and the Delete votes won out.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * @Sławomir Biały: But see, that's part of the problem. It's not a vote. Admins are supposed to close an AfD based on which side had the stronger arguments, not which side had more votes. So, if 99 editors want and article deleted because they don't like it, and 1 editor wants to keep the article because it meets WP:GNG, then admin is supposed to close in favor of keep.  That's pretty much what happened here.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a red herring. No one voted delete because "they don't like it".   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No? Name a single, coherent argument in favor of deletion that's actually based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You asked . Take mine for example. I rejected NOTE due to WP:SUSTAINED ("I'd like to see more long term coverage"), WP:RS and WP:SPIP ("controversy over the topic both in the real world and in Wikipedia"). It would have been better to link to these in the AfD, but after 10+ years of AfD you get lazy and merely give a opinion in natural language, but that doesn't invalidate it. Most of the delete arguments are based in policy and guideline. -- Green  C  15:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Easy if you look. In addition to the above: David Eppstein, Grand'mere Eugene.  Also, I mentioned NPOV and FRINGE a few times.  Many other voters saw this as an attempt to get around deletion of the original article (my own vote included).   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * @GRuban: Do you have experience with taking an article to WP:Deletion review? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been a Wikipedian for 11 years, so probably have been involved in some, but can't name any off the top of my head. First step is to ask the deleting administrator directly. If people want to know how I would approach the DRV itself, it will probably look much like that. If anyone has better arguments, please do say. --GRuban (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Administrator asked, said DRV. So Deletion_review/Log/2018_February_27. sorry, I noticed and appreciate your request, but I looked at the AfD to gather a list of participants, and it would be a task. So I'll ping you here, and if you want to do the work of gathering the list and pinging them, I'm sure that would be fine. --GRuban (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)