Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Victoria Taylor

There is definitely consensus that this article shouldn't exist
As quoted by the "delete/merge, merge or delete, Keep or Merge and redirect." Those are different only in how the article is removed as a standalone bio except for one. "delete" - article is blanked "merge" - article is blanked "merge and delete" - article is blanked "keep" - article is not blanked "redirect" - article is blanked. When evaluating consensus, the first test is if the article will be blanked or not. If there is a consensus to blank it, the admin heavy lifting is HOW to blank it. Not knowing HOW to blank it is an issue with the closing admin but it is not an indication of consensus to NOT blank it which is what is implied here. Here's my count.

27 !votes were stated for a clear blanking (i.e. no double votes like 'Keep or merge/delete') 15 !votes were stated for clearly not blanking the article.

Consensus seems pretty clear, particularly in a BLP that there is consensus for blanking the page. How that is accomplished (merge/redirect, merge/delete, or immediate redirect or immediate delete) is what lacks consensus ans is what needs an admin to determine. But please don't confuse that with 'no consensus' and a keep. BLP's can also be closed as 'no consensus' so delete. Either way, it's clear that this article has consensus to either out right delete it, or merge and delete or merge and redirect. None of those options is a "no consensus, keep". --DHeyward (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with DHeyward; I'm completely confused as to how Northamerica1000 arrived at the "no consensus" conclusion.--Jorm (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * First of all, no consensus closes typically default to the article being retained. it's important to note that AfD closes are not based upon vote counts, but rather, upon the overall consensus (or lack thereof) in discussions, relative to the strength of commentary per Wikipedia guidelines and policies. As I stated in the close, most of the commentary was guideline/policy based. No consensus for a particular action emerged in the discussion. As such, a breakdown of the types of !votes that occurred can help to explain the no consensus close, while keeping in mind that this close was not based upon a vote count, but rather, in this instance, upon the overall lack of consensus in the discussion. Again, most !votes were guideline/policy based. Also, there is no consensus to blank the article, and as a side note, the word "blank" is not even present in the discussion. Blanking the page would go against the sentiments expressed in the keep !votes. Also, per the breakdown below, if this were to be closed based upon a vote count with majority rule, as implied above, then the result would actually be "keep".


 * Delete – 12, which includes:
 * the three delete/merge and merge/delete !votes, which condone deletion after a merge
 * the one delete, redirect !vote, which condones deletion and then redirection


 * Redirect – 1


 * Merge – 14, which includes:
 * the two Merge and redirect !votes and the nominator changing to merge


 * Keep – 20, which includes:
 * the "Prevaricate" !vote, which essentially supports article retention in rationale
 * "Keep, if not redirect" (considered primarily as a keep !vote, per "i'd prefer a keep but redirect comes next")
 * "Keep, but merge" – condones merging content related to Reddit, and retaining the article as a biography


 * Ambiguous !votes calling for two outcomes were:
 * "Keep or Merge and redirect"
 * "Merge or delete"


 * – North America1000 05:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe you're missing the forest for the trees as you didn't address the substance of my concern. There are only 2 states for an article:  It either has content or it doesn't.  The various ways we interpret discussion is first to establish whether consensus exists for a standalone article with content or it doesn't.  If we had a box filled with marbles, rocks and sea shells and 30 were tasked with determining whether the box was primarily a container for marbles, !votes summed up like 6 blue marbles, 6 gray marbles, 5 large marbles, 6 small marbles, 6 brown rocks and 1 sea shell can't be considered "no consensus" on marbles because of disagreement about color.   "Delete", "Merge and Delete", "redirect" and "merge and redirect" - are all different ways of saying "no content at this location."  Then it remains a question of "how" to remove the content, not "if".

Please familiarize yourself with Guide to deletion. The table makes it handy to help evaluate action. I believe you mistakenly evaluate from the columns where you should be evaluating per row since that is where consensus is formed. Namely:
 * 1) Page history - Only pure delete votes delete page history. Clearly consensus is to retain page history keep+merge+redirect.
 * 2) Aricle state - only "keep" outcomes retain articles in their current state.  Clearly consensus favors delete, merge or redirect so no article state is kept.  At the same time, the "delete" option doesn't have consensus.  Consensus is therefore "redirect" as that option is a large overlap or merge and redirect.
 * 3) Stand-alone article - only keep outcome is yes.  Clearly, consensus forms the "no" sum of delete, merge or redirect.
 * 4) article content retained - delete and redirect is 0%, merge is 0-100%, keep is 100% - consensus sum of delete, redirect, merge indicates somewhere between 0-100%.  This is the only close one and "merge" is the only category captures all of the "article content" consensus.  In other words, consensus is that article content is somewhere between 0 an 100% with neither extreme (keep or delete+redirect having a clear consensus.

So to summarize, consensus is "retained page history", "redirect," "no stand alone article," and "retain article content between 0-100%". The only way this doesn't have consensus is if those four choices weren't represented in a single column and created a mutully exclusive condition. But there is a representative column that exactly matches. "Merge" is described exactly by those 4 areas of consensus. Those four row items are what is supposed to guide discussion. "Delete" "Merge" "Redirect" and "Keep" aren't 4 non-intersecting circles on a venn diagram. When evaluating consensus, each component must be weighed. "Delete" is shorthand for "no history", "no contet retention" "no standalone article" and "no redirect". There is substantial overlap with other outcomes for these components and when the overlaps are evaluated, consensus lives in the "merge" category.


 * For your analysis,
 * "merge or delete" are not separate outcomes that you discounted ("merge" implies some information is in the article that isn't in the other articles, "delete" implies all the information is already in the other articles so no merging is required (note I !voted delete but mentioned merge only because the coverage may not have been complete. It's not ambiguous.  Both end up with no article so the outcomes are the same, not different.
 * Ignoring the definition of "prevaricate" which policy would advocate a speedy delete of a prevaricated BLP, I don't see how you extracted "Keep" from This article should be kept as long as it is interesting. Then a decision can be made. She may become famous for the thing she did which caused her to get the sack and is being kept a secret. given that it's the poster child statement for WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TOOSOON and WP:ITSINTERESTING.  The challenge to him went unanswered.
 * and these keeps after it was spammed across other venues?
 * Strong keep - her paid editing is only recently coming to light, which is quite likely to be another incident..... User: Red Slash That statement refers to doxxing and the charge is likely a BLP violation. Not a very strong argument for a keep.
 * Keep, too important of an event in Reddit's history that nearly 100% hinged on Victoria Taylor's persona in the unfolding of events of the AMAgeddon. Note: I do have a conflict of interest as an active participant ('Redditor') on the reddit site. 90.2.141.89 Not only mentions his COI but he has a total edit count of 2. This AfD is the first.  IP so maybe he has more but given the spamming of redditt, the COI and edit count, giving any weight here seems dubious.

--DHeyward (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "All previous comments" - I sent you an email but forgot to notify you on your talk page. Please check your email. -- Callinus (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Aah. It still invalidates the keep reasoning to cite "Delete".  --DHeyward (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. I was going to ping the user but I didn't get around to it. I might re-AfD this in a bit. -- Callinus (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Contesting this lzy approach to "consensus" might be more sucessful. --DHeyward (talk) 08:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I was wrong, renominating it did the trick. It's deleted.  Now a redirect.  No history.  --DHeyward (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)