- Phillip Greaves (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The consensus in this AfD was very clearly, beyond a reasonable doubt, to keep. It was first listed for one week, in which everyone who commented said keep. The first closing admin, rather than closing it as keep, decided to relist it. After the relist, there were two additional keeps, and not a single pure delete. There was one redirect, and another "delete, merge, or redirect" who still somewhat favored keeping the content. The final closing admin proceeded to act like a lawyer and also attacked the very statements that everyone gave during the entire discussion.
The close decision appears to be, at best, the closing admin's own opinion rather than adherence to the guidelines for closing an AfD, which are supposed to be based on consensus. There was obviously no consensus to delete. Shaliya waya (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Disagree The job of an administrator is do to certain technical things that most editors cannot do. Administrators do not have the authority to unilaterally declare an article a problematic BLP case when the consensus says otherwise. Shaliya waya (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you would like to read Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus? NW (Talk) 05:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- I don't understand why the closing administrator decided to delete instead of redirect. Could anyone provide an explanation? --Bsherr (talk) 05:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Surely nothing prevents anyone from creating an appropriate redirect? I assume it's largely due to the difference in opinion about the redirect target. T. Canens (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But we've deleted the history, and I'm not thrilled about that from an attribution point of view.—S Marshall T/C 12:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, creating a redirect when the deletion process concluded as delete and not redirect can be construed as disruptive. --Bsherr (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- According to...? I know I certainly would not find that disruptive in most cases. T. Canens (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but Tim, you're a conscientious person who assumes good faith. There are plenty of users who believe that keep means not just the opposite of delete, but no move, no redirect, no expanding or contracting, no merging, etc. Likewise with delete. Heck, I recently got a vandalism warning (me!) over something like this. (Obviously it's not vandalism, but disruptive? Well, maybe I was, in some people's eyes.) The place to decide whether and where to redirect is the AfD, and the AfD should probably be "unclosed" to determine the issue, if that's the consensus. --Bsherr (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Erb? First of all . Shaliya waya's comment that this isn't a single event (ongoing coverage) is pretty darn on topic and it stood unopposed by anyone. Secondly, the closer cited a "redirect" argument as a reason to delete. Finally, we delete articles all the time that meet the letter of our inclusion guidelines. Are you saying if 10 people say "delete" and one says "redirect" (and no keeps) but the closer finds that the article meets the inclusion guidelines we should keep it anyways? And that doing so is the thing we want to have happen? Even I'm not that much of an inclusionist, WP:IAR plays a role in this stuff and guidelines and policies aren't ironclad. Hobit (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the delete votes were completely wrong, then yes. As hard as it can be to accept for some people, their opinion can be wrong. NW (Talk) 03:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, if those !votes are all of the form "Sky is blue" I'll buy that. But in this case the reason for deletion was BLP1E. People argued that in their opinion there was ongoing coverage and the event in question was so significant that it bypassed BLP1E. Those are both reasonable arguments for overcoming BLP1E. That said they didn't cite sources, so they were pretty weak. But taken as a whole it was clear most people felt this went beyond a single event and everyone felt at least a redirect was in order. There was no way it could be closed as delete. If someone had argued that no, it really was one event and a minor one at that and supplied sources to that effect I might buy that the delete argument was stronger. But it was just a case of proof-by-assertion on both sides. Given the numbers, there really was no way to delete here. Redirect maybe, NC quite reasonably, but there was no consensus for deletion. Hobit (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Given the numbers, there really was no way to delete here." <-- That is a statement that should never ever appear at DRV. Many weak arguments cannot counter one strong argument. That is the way it has always worked; we are not a democracy. NW (Talk) 06:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree we aren't a democracy. What I disagree with is the strong vs. weak. If 6 people think something isn't one event and one thinks it is, does the admin get to close the discussion as delete because he happens to agree with the one person? I agree that when the issue is black-and-white facts override opinions. But when it is a matter of judgment, we look for consensus as to what the right judgment is. In this case there wasn't anything resembling consensus that this was a one-event case. Honestly it was a war of assertions. Someone said BLP1E, lots of other people disagreed. It is agreed that there were a series of events that occurred "Greaves publishing the book is an event, Amazon selling it is another, the media controversy is a third, his arrest a fourth, trial a fifth, etc. " What we disagree about is if those are separate events or not. That is a judgment call and what we do is listen to those who discuss it at AfD in an attempt to find consensus. Others argued that this event, or series of events, are so notable as to make the person notable. That too has happened before. Joe_the_plumber for example. "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate." People believe that this event is significant and made that argument clearly. Was it by assertion? Yes. But so was the BLP1E claim in the nom. Only Bigtimepeace made a solid argument in my opinion and he didn't reach a deletion conclusion. TLDR: In cases that are black-and-white (cut-and-paste plagiarism for example) 20 folks saying "it's ok" vs. one saying "no it isn't" the right outcome goes to the one who is right. In cases of degree and judgment the closing admin should pay close attention to the numbers of !votes in addition to their strength of argument. If for no other reason that WP:IAR and because we are not a bureaucracy. But also because that's why we have discussions--to see how well received different ideas and arguments are. Hobit (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps it is merely a matter of philosophy. In my view, how many people made which argument is irrelevant. In my ideal world, every vote made would be neutrally summarized into two columns, and the closing administrator would decide which argument is stronger. And you seem to agree that Bigtimepeace made the only strong argument. I think what you say about BTP's conclusion is misleading though—Bigtimepeace reached a conclusion of redirect. There is really nothing in the article to merge, and a redirect can be created even though the article was deleted. If the closer had reached a conclusion of Redirect, would you still oppose the close? NW (Talk) 06:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with that is that it gives nearly infinite weight to the closer's opinions. If 20 people opine one way and 1 the other if the 22nd happens to agree with the 1 we end up with a result due only to the random chance of who closed the discussion. If the 20 who agreed in one direction were all admins, then it would have gone the other way had they be the one to close. Put differently, a closing admin needs to recognize that just because they find one argument stronger than the other that the general consensus is that they are mistaken. Again, in a black-and-white case it doesn't matter, wrong is wrong. But when it is a matter of opinion, reading, or degree the closer needs to be able to see that the argument they like best isn't generally accepted and close on that basis. Hobit (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that give "near infinite" view to the closer's opinion? Well, perhaps. But one could say the same thing about any bench trial—no matter how many lawyers work for the prosecution and the defense firm, at the end of the day, it usually comes down to two lawyers arguing it out in front of a judge. We need to have someone make the call, and I worry that if we shift too far in your direction, then decisions will not be made on who has the better argument but rather who has more votes. I think that most closers can differentiate between their personal opinion on a matter and their analysis of the strength of the votes, if that makes any sense. Not really sure what I'm saying any more, so I think I'm going to shut up, if that is all right with you :) NW (Talk) 06:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha, then I'll grab the last word. There we have a fundamental difference. #1 I don't think it's a shift to expect the closer to take into account numbers--it has always been that way. #2 This isn't a bench trial. The admin has a mop, not a gavel. Your way of viewing things creates that dreaded so-called "supervote" were the closer does act as judge and jury and makes being an admin "a big deal," which it isn't supposed to be. Instead the admin is to find the consensus. And as others have argued in the AfD, the consensus was crystal clear. Hobit (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn consensus was crystal clear to keep, and there was no acceptable reason to override it. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- @Umbralcorax, Stifle, et al: You're going to have to do more than say "consensus was crystal clear," because it is obvious that people disagree with you. What you can do is say that the vote count was clear, but it is equally clear that we don't do things based on vote count. NW (Talk) 03:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) The trouble with negatively-phrased arguments is that they're inherently vaguer than positively-phrased ones. (WP:NOT is the most egregious example: far from being a coherent policy, it's basically a list of things related to each other by the fact that most editors think other editors shouldn't be allowed to write about them on Wikipedia, and not by anything else). In this case, we're seeing a lot of negatively-phrased arguments used to support a deletion. "Wikipedia is not a democracy." "We don't do things based on vote count." And the trouble is that while these negatively-phrased arguments are irrefutable, they're also of questionable relevance and they impute on Stifle and Umbralcorax things they didn't actually say.
Nobody in this discussion is saying that Wikipedia is a democracy. None of the participants is that unfamiliar with DRV, and none of them is that stupid. What they're saying is that a consensus of established editors wanted to retain this material in some form (whether as a redirect, a merge, or whatever). Saying "Wikipedia is not a democracy" in response to that position is like saying "Wikipedia is not a cookbook"—true, irrefutable, and also irrelevant. NW, I think the weak link in the "Not democracy" reasoning is the bit where you ask, "How did Stifle, Umbralcorax and Hobit reach their conclusion?" and deciding that they must have counted !votes. In Stifle and Umbralcorax's case there is no evidence to support this whatsoever, and considerable evidence that they're experienced enough not to have done so. Hobit's counted !votes but he's done that as part of his argument, the remainder of which is unaddressed. In short, replying to these arguments with "Wikipedia is not a democracy" flies very wide of the mark.—S Marshall T/C 12:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it is the only reasonable conclusion that I can draw. Perhaps (and very likely) they thought otherwise. But until they explain themselves, "consensus was crystal clear" as "Keep It is clearly notable". NW (Talk) 06:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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 to delete clarified Flatscan (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC) when considering BLP. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have said the same thing (about participating in that situation). That is exactly the right thing to do. Hobit (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't take credit for that. I think I originally read it in a comment from S Marshall. Flatscan (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This closer's arguments are lucid and compelling. He addresses the policy framework first, then parses the arguments presented and compares them to existing policy and guidelines. Plus, he's really sexy.
- To claim there were no editors in favor of deletion in the first week is to read the debate in haste. Clearly NW wanted it deleted, or he wouldn't have nominated it. Delicious carbuncle obviously doesn't consider the article as meeting inclusion guidelines. Later, IP 67.85.190.217 presents a clear and lucid policy based deletion argument.
- The total of the material actually about the subject of the article was three words. This is a chapter-and-verse Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Deletion deletion.
- The major point of contention here appears to be that the "judgment call" with respect to Shaliya waya/Tokyogirl79/Stonemason89 and the interpretation of event.
- "This is a case that is receiving continually coverage, and has a high likelihood of ending up in the Supreme Court."
- "If the Yale student abortion art controversy can have an article, then this should as well. [...] Eventually it will go to court.."
- "...this may well go on for quite a long time and even make it to the Supreme Court. [...] Best to keep the article for now..."
- None of the above actually are talking about the person. They are not saying "when he gets to the Supreme Court." They are all also violating ye olde timme "Wikipedia is not a crystal_ball."
- People made bad arguments. People clearly did not understand the policies in place. No on even suggested a page move to The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure publication controversy or its ilk. I'm also having trouble with the individuals who are simply stating "consensus was crystal clear to keep," et alia, in overturning this close. You're either A) not explaining why the way that I weighed the input was incorrect, or B) you're just counting noses. Either way, by doing that you're not contributing to the debate here, you're just voting. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- I think the close wasn't in line with policy, but it was an honest error (or not as some folks seem to think it appropriate). That said, I agree with what some others have said above: When an admin considers closing a discussion so clearly against the !vote he should instead !vote with a well-worded explanation and let someone else close it. Hobit (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If you come to think of it, what the closing admin did was to say a lot of information in the article should be removed, not giving others a chance to agree or disagree with that decision, then deleted it, and called it a close. The closing admin cited three parts of a policy: 1.) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, 2.) Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event, and 3.) Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Deletion. None of these were brought up as a reason for deletion during the discussion, and there is reason to disagree whether or not they apply here. A person does not have to be as famous (or infamous) as Osama bin Laden to qualify for an article containing negative information. If this article were to be about a case, it could perhaps be renamed, which could be an editorial decision following a discussion on the talk page. The thing we should all be most concerned about is libel, and that is not an issue here because 100% of the information is properly sourced. Shaliya waya (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn (no consensus). The discussion does not reveal a consensus, even a rough consensus, to delete. If many participants are wrong or ignornant, they need to be educated. Wikipedia is not ruled by the correct. BLP1E is a very poor reason for deletion where a redirect option exists. The nominator even provided two ex ellent redirect targets. The closer's decision should be overturned. The article should then be redirected per the original nomination. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure provides an obvious precedent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This entire debate seems poisonous and clouded by issues of bad faith, the admin included. No effort was made to attempt to arrive at a reasonable consensus position suitable for all the participants. On the side of the voters, they acted as though wikipedia is a popularity contest, when it is not. When the admin saw the discussion was not to his side, he did not work to find a way to accommodate the discussants, but acted dictatorially in closing the debate.
- Deleting an article ought to be the last resort, when information on the topic should not be present in any form. Was all other resorts exhausted at the time of deletion? Was the information sorted through for parts that ought to be salvaged and possibly moved for the Amazon controversy page? Did people act in the best way possible to enhance the quality of the encyclopedia? The answer is surely no.
- Regarding the article, the Keep people have some main arguments:
- The event itself is notable enough to keep as a separate article
- Further developments in the court case, and any additional information that might emerge about the suspect would be inappropriate for Amazon controversies
- The page title offers a likely location for readers to discover information on this case. In my case, it seemed for quite a while that wikipedia had nothing on the case, which is untrue.
- The Delete people can present the existing rules on biographies on living people.
- It is surely clear that a good compromise position exists. A separate article about the case, with redirects from Philip Greaves, some of the biographical info in a Background section, and a summary section in Amazon Controversies that has a main article link to whatever the case is. This solution has plenty of precedent. Why was it not even considered? There seems to be absolutely nothing wrong in including the information that was present in that article as a standalone article on wikipedia, *as long as it is not written in the form of a biography*. The preferable way to react to the 'incorrect arguments', was to give the correct solution, not piss off a ton of users by saying you are wrong by a technicality.
- I would like to make one final suggestion: this event suggests strongly the need for a cooling off period after AFD concludes in a delete. Deleted articles very often have good information in them that can be rescued and transferred to other articles. It is also ludicrous to ask neutral newcomers to commentate on deletion reviews, if they are not allowed to look at the contents of the deleted article.
- There are more solutions to AFD than Keep or Delete. People need to remember that.--Fangz (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That was an excellent post. I agree with almost every single word, and every word with regard to writing content.
- While closing this I looked at the Amazon controversies section, and some material was already there. Post deletion, that's where merge talk should have gone. Not here. The first port should always be the article's talk page.
- Had anyone above bothered come to my talk page on this matter, I would have provided the deleted material upon request. As I would almost always do if you were going to put it into another appropriate article. If pressed, I'll find heaps of examples of me offering to do so.
- As I noted in my comment above, no one in the discussion even proposed The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure publication controversy. No one's even bothered to make a redirect. Instead the time is spent on this pseudo-legal arguing.
- Here's the bit where you just started making things up: What makes anyone presume that "the discussion was not to [my] side"? And it's not expected that newcomers take part in this discussions without seeing the content. In most cases it will be temporarily un-deleted. If you just ask.
- Aaron Brenneman (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: Please see User_talk:Aaron_Brenneman#BLP1E where on the 5th I'm proposing ways for editors to explore how this material might appropriately be included in the encyclopaedia. I'd like to ask you to please strike out some portions of the above comments. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]
- Forgive me if I preface this comment with a heavy sigh. *sigh* This type of redirection is literally the first thing discussed in the deletion debate, that this material was already deleted elsewhere and thus a simple page move cannot be done. As the article regarding the book itself was deleted, and as there already exists an article that some of the material can be included within, creation of a new (and more appropiately named) article is indeed the auspice of a deletion discussion. The material will be almost the same, and thus probably will be speedy deleted if you just plonk it back into mainspace. As I say on my talk page when discussing the matter, the first point of call would be to re-visit the deletion of the parent article now that new material is being mooted. I'll again make the offer of providing the deleted material to anyone who comes to my talk and asks. In short words:
- Use my talk page. Ask for the material to be restored to User:Whomever/The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure publication controversy.
- Write a good article there.
- Bring that article to this venue. (In a new thread, though, please.)
- Consensus will then arise on if it's different enough (from the material that two Xfds have had deleted) to not be speedied.
- If it's not speedy-able, then it will usually go stright to Afd.
- I do not understand why people are choosing to participate in this debate instead of doing the above. I do not understand choosing to say "overturn" while saying I was only "technically" correct in deleting. I do not understand choosing not to just come to my talk page and discuss it like normal people.
- Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus - The close ("very few of those commenting appeared to adress the issue raised in the nomination") gave way too much weight to the nominator's conslusory statement "I would think that this fails WP:BLP1E." The delete positions were weak. As noted by the closer, thekeep positions showed a lack of understanding of what a biography is ("when the material related to the "one event" is removed) consists of "Greaves is a former nurse's aide,"). The keep positions were weak. Over turning this to no consenus is the correct outcome and will allow the article to be sent back to AfD for better discussion from both sides. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm turning into that guy who responds to every post. Bummer. No one wants to be that guy.
- But
- This comment simply cannot pass. Please see the Wikimedia Foundation resolution that "urges that special attention be paid" to articles of this type. They have only ever made two such resolution. When the nominator explicitly calls out "WP:BLP1E" it is simply not possible to "g[i]ve way too much weight" to it. There is literally nothing more important in the eyes of the Foundation than this. That is also why (responding to MuZemike below) we don't give "benefit of the doubt" at all. We confine ourselves quite strictly to the "letter of the law." As much as it might pain us to do so.
- Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:NOTLAW. Wikipedia is not a system of laws. This is a good example of misuse of Wikipedia's "laws." Shaliya waya (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak overturn to no consensus as I feel rather uncomfortable of giving the retention side the benefit of the doubt while making rather poor arguments for retention in the AFD. Editors are asked to stick with the merits of the article and base their arguments off applicable policy/guidelines rather than raw emotion. –MuZemike 17:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Err, I'm afraid that I don't really understand your explanation. It seems like it could just as easily apply to an Endorse vote. NW (Talk) 04:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, though reluctantly. I applaud the closer's willingness to evaluate the strength of the arguments, and I agree that the keep arguments prior to the discussion being relisted were very weak. I'll go even further and state that the keep arguments overall were weak. However, the consensus against deletion was quite strong. A closer certainly has discretion to place greater weight on arguments that are firmly rooted in policy. Here however, there was a strain of the discussion that purported to reject that this was "one event" for BIO/BLP1E purposes. I don't agree with it, but it was there. This was a legitimate position, policy-wise, and to delete without consensus in the face of it gives the closer too much authority. To be clear, I think BLP is vitally important. However, the deleted article was referenced, and the essential facts were verifiable. It was not a biography, but could have been a move candidate as mentioned above. This would have been a great case for the closer to !vote, it may have made a difference. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse. When one also looks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure, it seems the event ought to be narated somewhere, but not on a stand alone article, and certainly not on a BLP. The closure was in line with the larger, policy based, principle.--Scott Mac 23:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
