User:ST11/AfD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AfD list:[edit]

10 July 2014 (done on 16 July 2014)
The only reason for a speedy delete would be CSD#G4, otherwise it had a claim of notability. I would disagree with the previous G11, as it was too short to really be promotional. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Imprisonment of Roger Shuler: relist
  • Burning on Fort Itaipu Sentinels: this is an interesting one. I'm seeing arguments, but none except the nominator's seem policy-based. However, I would say delete based on the fact that the nominator provides a rational argument and other supplement it. The keep argument is unconvincing.
That is true, but at the end, even the weak delete was giving information about availability of sources, so support for delete was getting a little weaker (as is often the case at AFD once sources get found). This is one of those that is on the fence, but I might would have relisted simply because of potentially new info getting found. Delete was within policy, but relisting was simply one other reasonable option, and maybe preferable because it was less destructive. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Again, I don't think WP:SNOW applies. It was technically "speedy keep", 3 days after listing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER
  • Karen Lindsey: Userfy
  • Paula Franzese: another tough one. Two of the three deletes came before another user went and cleaned up the article, massively improving it. There are policy-based arguments being made on both sides. I would actually have closed this as keep rather than no consensus, based on the fact that after the article was expanded, there was a clear consensus to keep.
  • Brian Poe: delete
  • Padraic Kenney: keep
DGG can be a bit deletionist on local cultural issues (something he admits and I've grumped about), but on BLPs, he tends to be right on the money. This isn't a policy issue, just an observation. ;) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER
Correct. "snow" is a silly thing that is claimed more often when it doesn't apply than when it does. 12 people all saying delete in two days, THAT is WP:SNOW. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER
This is part of the User:Carriearchdale (blocked) and User:Daniellagreen fallout. No consensus is a valid option, but Daniel is bludgeoning it a bit, relisting is another, although some would disagree. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER
  • The Parker Pie Co.: delete
  • Mikhail Skryabin: delete
  • New Republic (Star Wars): relist one more time
  • Extra Credit: relist one more time
  • Brisa Carrillo: delete
  • JWChat: relist
  • Hadith of Mubahala: Hmm, already been relisted twice, so I'd close this as delete for now, because the keep vote fails to bring any argument to the table. A title dispute should not be dealt with at AfD, but rather with an RM. The person casting the keep vote is also coming dangerously close to personal attacks on the nominator.
  • Warren Saire: no consensus
  • Devin Gibson: relist. Although there may be numerical consensus to keep, one of the accounts appears to be an SPA, and both sides have policy-based arguments. I'd want to see more.
This would be one of the lesser used types of relist, but I completely agree. I would note people are complaining about the SPA, but being an SPA isn't against policy and is invalid as a rationale for deleting. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

By the way, if you haven't installed it, you should install this: importScript('User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js'); in your common.js file.

It makes it so every blocked editor's name is struck through in any page they are linked, and if you hover, it says who blocked, when and why. Very handy for dealing with sock issues at AFD or just every day admin stuff. One of the "must have" scripts for admin. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. StringTheory11 (t • c) 14:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The hover-over aspect doesn't seem to be working for me though. I'd say it's likely because I have popups enabled, which I find incredibly useful, both for editing and just browsing. StringTheory11 (t • c) 14:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Not sure. The strike feature alone is worth it, so you can easily see who has already been blocked. Very handy to keep you from chasing ghosts at admin boards, and to separate the wheat from the socky chaff when closing the AFDs. Struck votes still count if they aren't a sock, but still handy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Haha never seen that tool before. Very useful. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Closing 17 July 2014[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Here are some example AFDs you might consider. I've used dated diffs on purpose, in case they are closed in the interum, with the goal of you only reading what is in the discussion in this snapshot in time and assume you are closing now. Not all are large, just split evenly with voting, meaning they need some kind of rationale when closing, even if only a couple of sentences. If needed, you can use the tools to read a deleted article.

  • Shamrock Rovers XI vs Brazil [1]
  • Close: The first keep vote does not seem to actually explain why the article subject is notable, and instead goes into the notability of one of the teams. This does not indicate notability of the match, but rather of the team itself. The second keep vote makes assertions about notability, but does not provide any sources or policies to back them up. The third keep vote is similar to the first in that it argues for the notability of one of the teams in the match, which is not an argument for keeping the article. Jmorrison's argument that most of the article is about the context of the match shows that the information should be in an article on the team itself, instead of on the game. That's why I would close this as delete, but without prejudice towards creation of an article on the Irish team.
    • This is an unusual circumstance in that it was closed as "keep" by Go Phightins!, a new admin whom I consider a friend, and he considers me a mentor. He asked me after the close to review it (which was obviously after I posted this here), and I found his to be a fine, and noted that "no consensus" would also have been fine. Keep in mind that this match was in 1973, so sources will be harder to find, yet there were plenty of mentions that were somewhat recent, showing the lasting impact. This tells me that other sources may exist (participation was a bit low). Opinions were all over the map on this, although participation was rather low. The impression I got from the close is that this was really somewhere between "NC" and "keep". So I would disagree with your close. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Hmm. Will keep this in mind in the future, about the sources being hard to find, yet existing. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Repurposing [2]
  • Close: While I was looking at this, I struck a duplicate vote, so I hope that was fine. The first (and now only) keep vote is basically WP:ILIKEIT, and later on, the same person argues for transwikiing to Wikiversity. Regardless of whether or not it is transwikied or not, there is still quite a clear consensus to delete this. The consensus appears to not be to transwiki either, but rather straight-up delete.
  • Addendum: after this was posted, Spinningshark found some more sources that indicate notability. With these soruces available and others' future comments, I now believe that I would close it as keep
Tricky stuff, isn't it? :) Let me share one thing with you: There have been many times when I was ready to close, and as part of that, will do a quick google/books/scholar check to verify what is being said, then get pissed off over how little the "delete" voters did in searching. Then compile a list of sources and give a scathing Keep vote instead of closing myself. It is one of the few times when I will be pretty dickish without apology. I have 1800 or so AFDs behind me, I've seen lots of good articles get deleted because people were too lazy to do the work. Remember, it is better to have one margin article on Wikipedia than to delete one keepable article. Building an encyclopedia is why we are here, after all. I'm neither inclusionist or deletionist, but there is no reason to delete material if it is salvageable, per WP:PRESERVE. Oh, and I promise not all these replies of mine will be this long. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
This is one of the sort of deletion nominations I cannot understand-- it shows a very narrow view of WP that people would want to delete something of obvious importance to the general reader & that everyone knows about because of the poor quality of sourcing. The only excuse for this sort of nomination is to get other people involved in working on the article--but that only makes sense if it should actually be deleted otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Alex Gilbert [3]
  • Close: Already covered in the above section; see argument there for delete.
I agree, delete. Most search results of that name are someone else. You don't have to, but you are welcomed to make your "close" in same format you would actually close that discussion, for practice. I will come up with a few more in a day or so, assuming you are ok with this format. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • One point that might not be obvious: As an admin, if you never close as "keep" an article that had you instead voted, you might have voted "delete", then you are doing it wrong and your personal opinion in getting in the way of reading consensus. You WILL disagree with consensus sometimes, usually in a mild way, but you have read consensus, not your own judgement. As editors, some of us (including myself) leaned towards being deletionist before getting the bit. As admin, we don't have that luxury, as keeping is less destructive than deleting. It is also less disruptive, as they can always go back to AFD next month if you close as "no consensus" or even "keep". This means that if you must err, err on the side of keeping, not deleting, or pass that one by altogether. Or participate as an editor instead. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree 100%. For example, if there is an article that has 3 keep and one delete vote, then I would certainly close it as keep even if it meant going against what I thought. Or even if there was a discussion split between delete and keep votes, yet in the closing it the keep votes had stronger policy-based arguments, then I would close it as keep. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Even more strongly, the most reliable way to close a really contentious and difficult discussion at afd (or for that matter AfC) is for someone to do it who can honestly say they would prefer if it had come out the other way. I rarely close nowadays, but if I do, it's usually one of these--I will sometimes look for one that might need me to do it to get true closure. I think Dennis has done just the same from time to time. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closing 21 July 2014[edit]

One of these, I decided to vote instead of close myself. This is something I do somewhat regularly, when I'm afraid someone will punt and close as "no consensus", so I come in and attempt to add clarity to the overall debate. That said, I will be upset if you agree with me simply to make it easy. I always expect brutal honesty, as the encyclopedia is more important that any one opinion. The third is a curve ball for you. It and the second one were randomly selected, I haven't read either. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I have invited DGG here, to either observe or participate. He is quite busy so I'm not sure he will be able to, but he has been my mentor for years and I always invite his feedback for either myself, or the person I am mentoring. He and I have different styles and opinions on AFD, but we tend to agree most of the time on articles, and if he chose to offer it, I think his feedback would be valuable. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The main difference between Dennis and myself at the present time are , is that I am currently less concerned about specific articles than situations 1/ when someone who ought to know better is arguing under a misunderstanding of policy. 2/ when I'm try to define the limits of what we do and do not accept. (This is why I will rather frequently nominate some coi articles that people decide to keep. 3/ when I'm trying to affect policy by establishing (or defending) a series of decisions 4/when I'm trying to explain my understanding that we cannot go by what the rules themselves say, because the decision will depend on how we want to interpret them. (I would advise, StringTheory, that in starting out you need to avoid these sorts of situations in closing.)
And I certainly agree with what Dennis says about !voting instead of closing when you have found something that will affect the argument. If you think you need to add something to what has been said to do a good close, you should say it, and let someone else close--at any level of experience.
Your focus should not be on resolving difficult problems--difficult problems often have no satisfactory resolution, or at least none within the scope of AfD. The focus should be on avoiding errors.
There is very little I have to add to Dennis' comments. If I see something, I'll mention it. But remember there is a difference between what I (or he or you) think should be done with the article, and what the consensus view of the rational participants thinks should be done. The community is sometimes very wrong, but none of us have the individual authority to over-rule it. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Meleanie Hain [4] - And feel free to pick apart my comment if you think it needs it.
    • When reading over this, the one thing that really sticks out is that Pha Telegrapher appears to be arguing that the person is notable both for carrying the gun at the soccer game, as well as her death, while others are arguing that she is only notable for the soccer incident or only for the murder. I certainly would not agree with merging, since that would give undue weight to a single incident in that article. However, some of the delete votes do not appear to cite any evidence, namely Altenmann's and Resolute's. Altenmann's seems like a rather extreme reading of WP:BLP1E, while Resolute's borders on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. On the other hand, BabbaQ's keep vote basically says that there are sources, without providing examples. I find the most convincing arguments to be cast by Whpq and Dennis Brown. Whpq notes that although it may technically not be one event, it is a guideline and not a policy for a reason, and the two or three events here are quite clearly closely interconnected, and thus does not show independent notability. Dennis Brown's argument takes a different approach to the issue, arguing that the gun-carrying incident is not the primary notability incident, but rather the murder; he notes that there are very few sources on the soccer event and more on the murder. Thus, it seems that the consensus on this article would be to delete, but a relist to see more would be appropriate too, I think. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Temple Anshe Amunim (Pittsfield, Massachusetts) [5]
    • Hmm. I can't figure out anything of what IZAK appears to be saying here; his/her keep vote is rather nonsensical and a classic WP:ILIKEIT. From what I can gather, (s)he's basically voting to keep the article because it is a stub and because of who nominated it. I would disregard the vote entirely. As Nyttend notes, Doncram's vote fails to take into account that the found sources do not constitute significant coverage, instead showing rather mundane routine coverage and sourcecounting. People seem to be arguing to keep because of the age, but I'm not seeing why this would be an argument for notability; maybe being the oldest would be, but being the 4th oldest is just a random bit of trivia. Lesser Cartographies states that there are obviously sources, but fails to provide any. I think that I would probably close this one as no consensus, seeing that neither side appears to have made a very convincing case for their position here. DGG notes that the GNG itself can be rather vague on what to do, which seems to be the case here, and I'm not seeing a consensus to either delete or keep. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    IZAK is on a bad faith rant against the nominator, saying he is trying to destroy a whole category of articles. Then he started an RFC on it. Right or wrong, votes like that seldom get a full read and get ignored. DGG's first argument is that the age of the congregation is older than the building, which is a novel but useful argument. In some ways, age does matter, not as a matter of policy but of common sense. If I told you about a house that was build in 1775 in Charleston South Carolina, wouldn't you think that the odds are good it is notable? At a minimum, it would be historical, which is another way of saying notable. Sources would exist even if they weren't obvious, so common sense says to err on the site of notability being very likely, before you see a single source. While policy is a close approximation of what is and isn't notable, it is impossible to codify common sense. This is particularly true when dealing with historic buildings (or congregations). Then you have to remember that Wikipedia isn't paper, so we have a greater license on what we can publish. We always want to avoid promotion and fluffy topics that no one will really care about in a year, but a congregation that is over 100 year old is notable. The problem is that it is difficult to back up DGG on this one using just policy, because he is using common sense, but this is a fine example of reasoning. I also see this reasonably being closed as NC or keep, although this is one of those examples where I probably would have closed as KEEP (maybe NC), then rode out the WP:DRV, screaming and name calling, as it is very unlikely that a 100 year old congregation is NOT notable. Not the type of AFD you want to jump into right away, if ever. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


  • Brenda Sue Fulton - This one was closed as "no consensus". What did he do wrong or right? How would you have closed it? Analyse as you see fit.
    • Hawkeye7's argument hits the nail on the head here, and I find his position very convincing, considering he asserts why the subject is notable, and provides sources to back up his position. Necrothesp just is basically saying that it is not notable because it is not notable, as is Davey2010. John Pack Lambert makes a legitimate point, and if that were the only reason for notability, it could be the tipping point, but as Hawkeye7 notes, she is notable for other reasons too, and thus BLP1E does not apply. Altenmann's case of luck may be true, but it doesn't matter if somebody is lucky to be notable if they are still notable. This is one of those discussions that I might not close myself, but rather, as you mentioned you did above, cast a keep vote here citing all the sources Hawkeye7 found. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
this is a case where the community is divided over a basic issue: whether notability has to be based on something intrinsically notable, as well as coverage of it. I tend to think there has to actually be something, but that there are truly exceptional cases where public interest is sufficient. I strongly feel it was not sufficient here, and the incredible blandness of the current article shows it. Decisions in cases of this sort vary all over the place, and there is usually no right decision. Theere is often an AfD for articles like this. I would certainly have voted delete. If I closed, I would have had to close non consensus. BLP1E is actually only valid in clear cases of no importance--it is in my opinion much over-used.
I have rarely seen a non-consensus close overturned at Deletion Review. On the other hand, we do have to decide eventually. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
This is one of those areas where DGG and I differ on how we would vote, and maybe varied slightly in how we would close. Like he said, there isn't always a singular "right", it is all about interpretation. As a voter, I would have given it a weak keep or keep due to sourcing, and the unusual nature of the notability, which was sourced properly. I can envision someone actually looking up that name here, and a wise man once told me that if someone searches Wikipedia for a topic, they expect to find something. But as for closing, I think either NC or Keep would have been acceptable. I think we overuse NC to avoid contention, punting the problem down the road. As DGG has pointed out, I tend to try to make a definite choice rather than close as NC, even if pushing the envelope ever so slightly. The article is lacking, but in all honesty, I probably would have closed as keep myself. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • DGG has indicated he will get over here, so I'm going to add a couple more and leave it for him to cherry pick which he wants to review if any. I also invited Casliber. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Autism Research Institute [6] - This is a mess, which is why I picked it.
    • WOW. I'm not sure I would close this until I have already had, say, 6 months or so of experience at AfD; it's such a huge mess. Stuartyeates's argument, even though I've agreed with him in the past, seems rather nonsensical to me, in that we shouldn't have it because it attracts too many POV pushers. I'd completely discard that. Of course, I don't have access to MrBill3's book sources so I can't check the validity of them myself, but FreeRangeFrog shows that they do not constitute significant coverage and he has not been adequately rebutted. Later on in the debate, once somebody brought up merging, most people seem to agree that merging is the best idea, so I would have to close this one as merge to Bernard Rimland. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Your first answer was actually the correct one: You shouldn't have closed at all, at least at this stage of your adminship. There is nothing wrong with opening up an AFD and realizing you don't want to get in over your head. Heavy science topics, complicated WP:PROF topics, etc., these are what I avoid, among others. There will never be a point where it is a good idea for you to close any and all AFDs, there will always be topics or discussions that are simply best left to someone else. This is true for all of us. That was the lesson: know your limits. I don't know what your limits are, only you can determine that. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The Zilis [7] - A short one. For this exercise, pretend it had already been relisted three times and really can't be listed again. What to do, what to do....
    • Since this was written, Paul Erik added another keep vote, complete with sources inserted into the article. After this, it seems to be a rather obvious keep. However, if I was to have analyzed this discussion before Paul Erik voted, I would have noted that the sole keep vote was characterized as weak. However, in the delete vote, Michig fails to show why the interview does not constitute independent coverage, instead claiming that it does not just because it is an interview. I would have closed this as no consensus in that case.
      • This just shows how a single vote and one edit can make all the difference, and why voting is sometimes a better option than closing. Even with just a couple of votes, they often are not cut and dry. For the record, if not for the extra sources, I would have deleted as that is what the consensus in that discussion indicated. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

22 July 2014[edit]

  • Not trying to overwork you, let them lie a few days if you need, I was just getting a few up ahead so you can as your time allows. And during any of these, "I would not vote or close" is always an acceptable answer. Don't cheat and peak at how they turned out first ;) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Gurrane National School [8] - A softball, but interested in your perspective on this class of article on the whole.
    • I would redirect per the link that Davey and Kudpung cite. Doncram's argument is basically notability by association, which goes against WP's notability policies, not just the guideline linked. I'm not sure that I honestly agree with the guideline itself, and would argue that most schools would be notable (although maybe as somebody who just graduated high school I would be a little biased in that regard). Of course, my opinion on that means nothing in this debate. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes redirecting to local town is fine here. as long as content gets upmerged. Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
  • Peter Frost (anthropologist) [9] - A basic, bread and butter discussion on a complicated subject.
    • I'm admittedly not very familiar with H-index, so I probably wouldn't close this one myself at the moment. However, I am seeing a consensus to delete here, with XXanthippe striking his own vote after being shown to be in error. So far, Pengortm's question to Bejnar has gone unanswered as well. If Bejnar were to reply to this with sourcing, I might be more persuaded of the keep case, but as of now, I would close as delete. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • List of Playboy Playmates of 2014 [10] - A long one, but on a topic that comes up regularly, and like many of those, this AFD is longer than the actual article it is discussing.
    • People seem to be making note that this article does not appear encyclopedic, but that is an incredibly weak argument since different people differ on what they find encyclopedic and there is no clear-cut definition. Otr500 notes that the article may at the moment not be a "true list article", but implies that he would not be voting delete if it were. If that's true, then improvement of the article is the answer, and not deletion, and thus I would count that vote with less weight than some others. Ronz appears to be saying that it is unsourced, but since then it appears that Guy1890 has come and added sources. Before he had done that, I might be inclined to close as delete per BLP, but now that it is sourced I don't think that this could be closed as anything other than keep. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    "Not encyclopedic" is not only meaningless, it is listed as a specific example at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, a must read essay for all admin. Some people will mistakenly say "You can't consider essays!!!", which is foolish, as WP:BRD is just an essay yet it is the gold standard for preventing edit warring. Essays aren't policy, but policy is nothing more than our weak attempt to codify common sense, and common sense is the first and most important policy, given authority via WP:IAR. Of course, we want to use policy where we can, but we aren't slaves to the written word. For the record, I would have voted delete as the information is duplicated elsewhere, and it does seem an end around a previous discussion that determined that being a playmate, by itself, isn't notable. But the keep close was consensus. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 09:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It's Alive (Buckethead album) [11] - I picked this solely because I am a bit of a Buckethead fan, and common outcomes exist for this type of article. Assume it can't be relisted again for the exercise, so you can only use the arguments listed.
    • Somehow I have never heard of Buckethead before.... Anyways, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars and SelfStudyBuddy both make rational, guideline-based arguments for their votes, just interpreting the guideline differently. However, even SeltStudyBuddy notes that the discography itself is too large for track listings, and thus kind of refutes his or her own argument, making it weaker. 128 does not provide any policy or guideline for the vote, instead just stating that he agrees with something that SelfStudyBuddy didn't even say, so I'd weight the vote less. As Drmies notes in the nomination statement, he is looking for a redirect of this page and not deletion, so I would be inclined to close this one as redirect. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
      I normally just redirect them instead of taking to AFD, as that is almost always the outcome. If someone edit wars with me over it, then I AFD and they are happy to get the redirect over a deletion. He is a niche musician with a small but loyal following, and very talented. [12] Mainly, musicians like myself like his work, although he will never see a Top 10 chart listing. And yes, the bucket and mask are odd. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 09:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
      Ah, that's pretty much the same procedure that I do for non-notable asteroids. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Exactly. I will add that sometimes I end up closing an article as delete, deleting the article, then on my own as an editor, outside the role of closing admin, create the redirect if it makes sense and no one suggested it. Seldom will someone cry foul, and it really isn't, because it is deleted. Sometimes a close solution won't be exactly what any of them said directly but has the effect of what most of them want. Not a compromise (where both sides don't get what they want), but a blended solution. There is a difference. You have to be careful with those, as it is "reading the tea leaves" but if it represents what most of them more or less wanted, it is a valid close. It is difficult to give examples, they are rare. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

23 July 2014[edit]

  • Fraser P. Seitel [13] - This one looked interesting with split votes, just relisted for the second time.
    • Hmm, this one is tough. Bearian notes that one of the sources used to attempt to show notability for this person actually only gives a passing mention. While GreenC notes that his reasoning for this is cited to an essay, the GNG says otherwise; to quote the GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". Dream Focus makes the same argument, and SPACKlick is basically just saying that he has significant coverage with no evidence to back it up. On the other hand, while Coretheapple notes that the article has been subject to a lot of COI editing, this alone is not a reason for deletion. Based off of the strength of the arguments, however, I would have to close this one as delete. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
It was closed no consensus, that's an acceptable close, though I would have relisted yet again if I had been closing. But I never actually would have been closing--if I had seen it , I would have argued for keep. The afd was poorly argued-- the decision itself should have been keep, even on the material presented. . As pointed out in the article, he unambiguously met WP:AUTHOR, and this needed to be emphasised. I added the reviews and translations and library counts. WP:Author is a very easy criterion, and should always be considered when applicable. I added enough to make it evident if it gets brought up again. As for notability otherwise, the refs are in fact trivial. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • List of obligatory nude recreation sites [14] - Lists are always fun, even if they aren't about obligatory nudity.
    • Well I didn't know those existed...you learn something new every day, I guess. Again here though, we have a mention by Davey2010 of the list being encyclopedic, which is a very weak argument. Tarc's argument also is basically saying that because something else similar got deleted, this should be too, which is also a weak argument. Carrite is saying that it is notable because it exists, while Clem Rutter is arguing for deletion on the premise of...well I'm not really sure, to be honest; he's basically arguing that it doesn't exist at all, but I'm seeing plenty to show that it does. In general, the arguments on both sides here seem to be pretty weak. I honestly can't see any close here other than no consensus. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
This was deleted; it should have been non-consensues, and I would have closed as such. Again, it was poorly argued. The actual question was whether or not there is a defined subset of nudist camps that insists on nudity. It was not made clear whether this is a formal category, or an informal expectation. (My own understanding from what I have read is that in the US many clothing optional areas people will in fact look with disapproval on anyone wearing clothing, but there are also areas where it is truly optional.) There are no practical guidelines for notability of lists, so the usual questions at an afd is 1/ whether a definition is possible -- which is not the same as the question whether the original contributor defined it accurately--showing they defined it wrong is a reason for amending not deleting. 2/ whether the list is worht having, which is a question of pure opinion. I myself will almost always argue for keeping a list. Some people almsot always do the opposite. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Note that in responding to your question about these, I examined the article before I looked at the argument.

Revival[edit]

@Dennis Brown:, @DGG:. Any chance for a revival of this? We're sitting in limbo here, and if nobody is interested in working on this effort, I may end up having to dishonor my promise, as I can't sit in this position forever. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ST11/AfD&oldid=1070932575"