Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 19: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Ellen Kennedy: ::Does Wikipedia:Other stuff exists apply to deletion discussions? Dream, I don't think there is any precedence which will be created from this one badly closed Deletion review. Instead, there is a general trend toward a mor |
|||
Line 15:
*'''Endorse deletion''' - Another example of Dream Focus' denial that [[WP:V]] actually matters. The closing admin gave a very clear and detailed rationale, and then DF brings it to DRV with "Meets secondary guidelines, so the GNG does not matter." Since when does GNG not matter on ''any'' article? Clearly, he either didn't understand the closing rationale or just didn't read it. I think DF has been here long enough to know that secondary guidelines don't override the GNG, and there is nothing that is going to make the GNG "not matter" for a particular article. The secondary guidelines exist to provide us with an easy way to estimate whether an article passes GNG. In other words, if an athlete has accomplished x, y, or z (as covered by multiple reliable sources), then they ''probably'' pass the GNG. The secondary guidelines also give us an idea of what qualify as notable events in a particular field, so that even if an athlete has been covered by reliable sources for winning a high school tennis tournament, we can determine that such an achievement is not notable even though it is covered by reliable sources. [[User:Snottywong|<b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#5a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">—SW—</b>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Snottywong|express]]</small></sup> 19:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
:Comment on the issue at hand, not me. And I have been in enough AFDs to know that the secondary notability guidelines always matter, and always have mattered, for keeping something. Until very recently I never heard anyone say otherwise. [[User:Dream Focus | '''<span style="color:blue">D</span><span style="color:green">r</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:orange">a</span><span style="color:purple">m</span> <span style="color:blue">Focus</span>''']] 22:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
::Does [[Wikipedia:Other stuff exists]] apply to deletion discussions? Dream, I don't think there is any precedence which will be created from this one badly closed Deletion review. Instead, there is a general trend toward a more closed site, [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21131 with increasingly more good faith contributions being purged]. The majority of active editors who are in leadership and who write policy have the same constricted view on wikipedia that Jimbo has. In this very deletion discussion, I see a "whos who" of editors who share this constricted view, and also happen to be admins. That is no accident. In the big picture, this deletion review is not important, it is just one more indication of hundreds showing this negative trend, a trend which you can't change. [[User:Okip |Okip ]] 20:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''- This appears to be to be a close made according to strength of arguments rather than just strength of numbers, and the closer gave a very sensible and detailed rationale. This DRV nomination leaves a lot to be desired as well. Firstly, it is not true that secondary guidelines trump the GNG- they never have and, hopefully, never will. Secondly, DF did not "discuss" the close with Ironholds at all- just repeating your keep vote on an Admin's talk page isn't really discussion is it? Finally I agree with Aaron Brenneman's observation that closing administrators are increasingly being attacked for leaving good rationales. This needs to stop. [[User:Reyk|<font color="Maroon">'''Reyk'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:Reyk|'''<font color="Blue">YO!</font>''']]</sub> 20:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
*There's a lot of things wrong here, and I'm conflicted about it. Dr Ellen Kennedy is arguably notable, and indeed she already has an article at [[Ellen J. Kennedy]]. Professor Ellen Kennedy is also quite arguably notable, and she doesn't have an article at all. Ellen Kennedy the voice actress doesn't seem notable to me. The discussion was unsatisfactory in that it failed to consider the possibility of a redirect to [[Ellen J. Kennedy]]. Per [[WP:BEFORE]] and [[WP:ATD]], it should have done. So we have a questionable discussion.<p>A corollary and a consequence of Ironholds' close is that the [[WP:GNG|general notability guideline]] overrules specific notability guidelines. I would dearly love for that to be correct. If it ''is'' correct, then let's start demoting all the SNGs to essay status right now—beginning with [[WP:PORNBIO]], please. But, is there any consensus to that effect? Link it for me.<p>If there's no such consensus, then we don't have a consensus-based close. What we would have in that case would be a close based on the closer's personal reasoning, which is spelt [[WP:SUPERVOTE|"supervote"]]. I think closes like this (and this isn't the only example) show that my remarks in Ironholds' 5th RFA were right on the money.<p>Reserving my !vote for the time being until there's been more discussion.—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 20:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
| |||