Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Angela Beesley

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 9

Your statement at the DRV closing needs some clarification. What was your summary of the DRV discussion. You state alot of opinion there. Mercury 04:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarified the initial statement. Hope this helps. - jc37 04:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think thats a good close. You state alot of opinion and no summary. This is an area of contention and the surrounding issues can be discussed in DRV. You did close in my favor, but you did not proper close. Please wait until 5 days, yes, i think that would be best. Especially with this much of a contentious issue. We have learned in the past that trying to hush the community, or appearing to do so does not work. Heck, even I took my time. Regards, Mercury 04:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I did summarise. Essentially, the "discussion" was about two (three?) things: The duality of you as the AfD closure, and speedy deleter; and The question of "notability" vs. BLP questions. DRV has absolutely nothing to do with the latter. As I made clear in the close. What do you think was "missing"? - jc37 04:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion was about whether the deletion should be endorsed or overturned. You didn't attempt to resolve this question, and in fact managed at the same time to bold the word overturned while saying that the article should remain deleted, which is completely useless. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"Useless", to whom? - jc37 05:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

JC, I think the confusion is that you basically said, "Overturn," but didn't restore the article, and just sort of punted the issue off of DRV to "someplace". And closed it early, before a consensus could form. Lawrence Cohen 05:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Overturn, but left it deleted pending further discussion "elsewhere". Yes, that's a decent summary. Below, I suggested a place for such discussion at RfC. The talk page of the deleted article might be another place, if RfC isn't wanted. Honestly, if this wasn't about a Wikipedian, I don't think that any of us would be having this discussion. I seriously don't care: about the article, or about the person (no offence intended, just haven't met her, so have no opinion). My concern is the process, and whether it was followed, and the policies, and were they followed. Answer: No and maybe. Hence, overturn, and m:The Wrong Version, while the community sorts this out. DRV is simply the wrong venue for the latter part of this. - jc37 05:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy closing a controversial DRV is completely improper. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, speedily closing a contentious discussion can indeed be proper. Do you feel that anything further would be gained than restatements and a headcount (which we don't do). - jc37 04:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It can be, but it is not proper in this situation. DRV is there for a reason, please do not side-step it. -- Ned Scott 04:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reversed your re-closure. Please don't close it again yourself. It's too soon and there are too many questions yet. Lawrence Cohen 04:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What questions? - jc37 04:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

See here, and I posted the same concerns to DRV and updated my statement. The amount of sourcing for Beesley will only grow in time unless she stops doing public work. In 6, 12, or 18 months, the article will be re-made because the notability will be bulletproof, instead of on some random personal interpretation fences. What then? Besides, since it's so torn may as well let the DRV run the full duration. It can't hurt and may show a clear consensus either way. Lawrence Cohen 04:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you didn't read the closure. DRV isn't the place for that determination. And second, it can indeed "hurt". As the two of you are showing. Reverting a closure because you want to discuss something outside the venue is a bit amazing to me. Especially considering it's obvious you didn't read the closure itself. - jc37 04:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I read the close. The DRV seems pretty civil. Why not let it run? If most people say endorse or overturn, it will at least represent community will, which is what matters. Lawrence Cohen 04:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"most people" = vote counting, which we don't do. I'm still wondering what you feel is "missing" from the discussion? It's rather clear-cut. Was speedy deleting an article that had a recent result of No consensus something to be endorsed or overturned? Answer: Overturned. The rest should be discussed outside DRV. - jc37 04:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't count heads, but if 90% of the people end up saying endorse or overturn, the issue is pretty much set then. Which can't hurt. If it was a clean overturn, why not restore the article fully? That was my concern. Based on the no-consensus, it shouldn't be a redirect. I suppose someone can simply reverse that, except that Mercury also deleted the article. If the deletion isn't supported, why not let consensus run out? If this deletion needs to be properly overturned, the community at large can make that choice. Lawrence Cohen 04:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And, if that long close by you was as you say effectively "Overturn", why didn't you restore the article...? Lawrence Cohen 05:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I find your closure a bit unintelligible. The question of whether Mercury's deletion was appropriate is perfectly within the scope of DRV. Where else would you expect a deletion to be reviewed? Second, if you believe that another venue is more appropriate, you need to take steps to move the discussion there, whether it is arbitration or whatever. Otherwise you simply ensure that a structured discussion will be smeared randomly across every venue (ForestFire). Generally it's unhelpful simply to tell people to stop talking -- if that's the best resolution you can come up with, please don't attempt to close the discussion. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats a good question. Who gets to decide if a BLP deletion was right or wrong but not DRV and the community? Lawrence Cohen 04:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

DRV seems like the obvious place to discuss it. If you feel that the DRV reaches an incorrect conclusion feel free to take the issue to arbitration. Obviously the Foundation can also step in to decide the issue one way or the other. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) - Unintelligible? What confused you? As for pointing to a discussion location, I was going to suggest an RfC, per WP:DR, but felt that it would probably be better to let someone else make that determination. In looking over Wikipedia:Deletion review#What is this page for? I don't see how any of the notability discussion belongs here. The only "confusing" thing (for those discussing) is the fact that Mercury was both discussion closer and speedy deleter. If they were two separate people, the speedy deletion could be speedy overturned per the closure (though I hope talk page discussion would happen first), with no need for the DRV at all... - jc37 05:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy closing a contentious deletion review is a bad idea. Deletion review is exactly the proper forum for determining whether the deletion was correct. Discussing her notability (as illustrated by all prior AFDs and the article) is needed to know if she is of marginal notability, and whether she is of marginal notability determines whether WP:BLP#BLP deletion standards is applicable. Thus the discussion of her notability is germane to whether policies and processes were appropriately followed.

Please review Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war, particularly principle 2 which says "The proper venue for such discussion [of possible undeletion] is Wikipedia:Deletion review.", principle 7.1 "Early closure of discussions based on WP:SNOW is harmful", and finding of fact 3 "Gaillimh's early closure of the deletion review was inappropriate". This was clearly a subject on which administrators are disagreeing, and cutting off discussion in the proper venue is a mistake as it made a wheel war more likely. GRBerry 21:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

First, thank you for your well-reasoned response and comments. Believe it or not, it's appreciated : )

In looking over prinicple 2, I disagree with your interpretation. I think it's just re-affirming that DRV is the place to review deletions. I don't see anything about "notability".

7.1 pretty much says that SNOW should be invoked on a case-by-case basis. Noting that I didn't close due to SNOW, but rather it was in an attempt to lessen, not increase disruption, as the discussion had nothing new to say regarding the deletions (head counts are unnecessary), and even the speedy deleting admin agreed/confirmed that the AfD close of No Consensus was appropriate. In other words, he was essentially claiming to WP:IAR of discussion closures by his speedy deletion, in order to follow what he felt was appropriate interpretation of "rules" (BLP policy).

As for FoF 3, that was more in response to that incident. I don't see "wheel war" in this case. (But then I've just signed back online, and haven't looked to see what's currently going on.)

Anyway, I don't intend to re-speedy the discussion. In my opinion, that would now defeat the whole purpose of attempting to reduce disruption. It's probably better to allow abuse of the process page in this case than to try to suggest that process be followed (even if it would reduce the confusion by removing one of the questions/concerns).

I'm staying neutral to the discussion itself. As I note above I honestly have no opinion about this.

So anyway, thanks again for your response. And I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 23:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I know JC37 means well, however, I have requested he revert his close. He had speedily closed twice before. I see that it has been reverted. I'll leave a note AN/I. Mercury 12:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Jc37 closed this again at 12.40 UTC. I have reverted. There's still a few hours to run, now that's no biggy, but Jc37 has already attempted a speedy close in the first few hours and edit warred when reverted. He's not in a neutral position to close this controversial debate. Can someone totally uninvolved do it at the right time?--Doc^g 12:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I wholly reject that I am not, not have not been beutral to this discussion (something that the above commenter has not been). That said, as I've noted elsewhere, I don't intend to restore my closure. Someone else may if they wish, I suppose, but whatever happens, I'd really like to see this not become any more disruptive than it seems to continue to be. - jc37 13:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:Doc glasgow, User talk:Durova, and User talk:Mercury.

And also WP:AN/I. - jc37 13:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

When I opened the AFD I acted in good faith, although to some people it may not look that way. If there's a lesson to be learned from my own mistakes of the past month it's that we all ought to extend more good faith in each other and guard against slipping form WP:BOLD to WP:HASTY. If the result is to relist I won't be writing a new nomination. Someone else may wish to. Let's show that we can conduct this maturely. Durova^Charge! 13:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly when and how did the subject express she didn't want an article written about her?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a diff somewhere in the afd if you read through it. Or you can take my word for it ;) Angela also nominated it for deletion herself some years ago.--Doc^g 13:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I hope I wasn't coming off as extraordinarily lazy. I actually did spend about 7 minutes looking for the diff, but to no avail.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am very lazy. I just found it, right at the top of the DRV discussion.[1]. Sorry about that.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"if they ignore the result of the AfD, they will ignore that of the DRV as well". A clear majority for overturn, but Shell Kinney just makes his own decision. The same procedure as with the AfD before - the opinion of the people is falsely considered to be based only on non-BLP aspects, and therefore BLP will be separately invoked by admin fiat. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If majority, according to you, is equal to counting of !votes, then I am in disagreement with you. Consensus can only exist within the purview of policies and guidelines. In this case, however, the line and scope of discretion is pretty thin. No decision is the right decision, no one is wrong. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above. Consensus is not a head count. - jc37 14:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously a real consensus is not going to happen here. So you have the option of majority vote and arbitrary admin action. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It is currently being closed by a (hopefully) uninvolved party. I have no idea which way he/she will decide - but I pledge to accept the decision, whether I like it or not. I hope others can too.--Doc^g 14:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Not as if non-admins have a choice to accept it or not. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It should, given both sides believe their reading of policy to be correct, come down to majority count. It probably won't, but it should. Neıl ☎ 14:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. But the admins make the preposterous assumption that they can, and the non-admins can't, correctly interpret policy. So they can simply enforce their own opinion by saying the community opinion is "objectively" incorrect. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm an admin and I will have to accept the neutral closer's decision as much as you. Your opinion that the majority should count is not policy, but if the closer decided to headcount that'll be the close. If he doesn't that will be the close. People will be unhappy either way. We just need to accept the decision. If you want majority voting to be binding, then propose that as a new policy.--Doc^g 15:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because the closer may have been uninvolved in the discussion doesn't mean he's neutral. He'll likely decide according to his own opinion. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem only arises when both sides have good arguments based in policy. This does not happen that often - usually, given enough sets of eyes, the majority usually has the sound argument anyway. However, if both sides have strong arguments (as here), closing any way other than by majority is making the same mistake that led us to DRV in the first place. One closing admin's opinion shouldn't supercede the community's. Neıl ☎ 15:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the one person must make a judgment on consensus and policy. I see no other way to do it, than to put number>clueful judgement, which has never been our way. If you want to propose we move to a new majority system, fine. Try to get a consensus to change the policy then.--Doc^g 15:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)