Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 6

Parsing comments from Phillip Greaves debate
The below comments I have copy-pasted from the debate so that I can see them better. Please note that two three entries did not have an emboldened inital word. I have added one and put it in italics, again simply so that I can group the comments to better understand them. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

endorsed-ish

 * When the number and perceived strength of arguments diverge this radically, I prefer that the would-be closer participate and rebut the weak arguments. I think that admin discretion allows closing against small numerical majorities. This looks like a no consensus to me, but very close when considering BLP. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Endorse - The keep calls were crap...I mean, really, really utter crap. "No significant reason for deletion. Also, this is perfectly acceptable article"  ?  Another keep that just echoed "per the above of that argument, we have an IP that weighed-in twice, and so on.  It is high time to see a push back against simple numbers games. Tarc (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Endorse (note: I opened the AFD) The reason initially cited for deletion was WP:BLP1E. Aaron correctly noted that none of the keep votes properly addressed that rationale and weighed those votes accordingly. That is the role of a closing administrator and I see nothing to see that was not followed properly. NW ( Talk ) 05:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Endorse- the closing admin has given a detailed explanation of which votes he gave less/more weight, and why. I've read the discussion and am satisfied that the closing admin has judged rightly. Consensus rests on strength of argument, not strength of numbers, and this debate illustrates that a few very strong arguments can actually outweigh a multitude of weak ones. Reyk  YO!  23:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Endorse. I relisted it the first time because pretty much all of the keep arguments are...questionable at best. The closer is supposed to weigh arguments, not count noses, and he appropriately attached great weight to Bigtimepeace's spot-on analysis. In short, this is well within the closer's discretion, which is at its maximum in a borderline BLP case. T. Canens (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

overturn-ish
My comments will be in, err, blue. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)  Very short, almost votes, does not engage in substantive debate or rebuttal
 * Overturn I don't understand it either, and I think "redirect" was the best reading of the consensus there.— S Marshall T/C 08:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * overturn consensus was crystal clear to keep, and there was no acceptable reason to override it. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Overturn, I cannot see how the decision was arrived at reasonably in the context of an overwhelming consensus not to delete the article. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Overturn. In the AfD there wasn't a single endorsement of the nominator's positions.  There was a single poster who seemed to prefer redirection or merging. Any Admin who closes such a debate with a Delete should be deAdmined.  It's a shocking and gross abuse of power. Nfitz (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Counting votes
 * Overturn - The "votes" issue matters when you have a close count. For example, if the keeps outnumbered the deletes 5-4, an article perhaps could be deleted if they gave better arguments. But it was 100% keep at first, and pretty close thereafter. That is what you call consensus. This is a classic case of administrator abuse of power. The administrator decided "I want it my way" and said whatever he pleased. He ignored the fact that everyone wanted it kept. The long explanation was a means to justify this. If he really wanted it deleted, he should have closed it as keep, then made his own separate AfD and explained why. Dew Kane (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Addresses "one event" issue, but still very little substantive debate or rebuttal
 * Overturn There was absolutely no consensus for deletion at the AfD in question. Issues regarding BLP were considered and addressed, and there appears to be no reason to override rather clear consensus. Alansohn (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Overturn mostly per Stifle. Also pointing out that the one-event issue was addressed (if not in detail) by some pushing for the keep. But there is no way to read a result for deletion into that discussion.  I honestly think the relist was wrong too.   Hobit (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Addresses "one event" issue, the crux of this debate
 * Overturn, but not sure what to. While many of the keep arguments were indeed poor, there was some validity in them. In particular, Tokyogirl79's point that the book being on amazon was one event. Him being arrested is a second event., while strongly rebutted by Bigtimepeace, casts serious doubt on the assertion that nobody addressed the BLP1E concerns. Even worse is the closing admin's statement that Shaliya waya and Tokyogirl79 do not discuss Greaves, which ignores the follow-up statements made by both and focuses only on the (admittedly weak) initial !votes. Since this was given as the main reason for closing against the numbers, I don't think the close can stand. However: since the majority of the arguments have seriously limited validity, no consensus would be better than keep. Given the limited attendance and the number of issues raised here, relisting could be appropriate. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)