- Alexandra Quinn (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This was closed 17 hours early as keep, despite the fact that the BLP1E issue I raised was not well addressed during the discussion. Normally, I would let that go since the difference keep and NC is pretty academinic, but despite the fact that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz indicated that the early close prevented him from raising an issue with one of the sources the closing admin instead decided to give the keep side a say in whether this should have been relisted instead of allowing HWs issue being discussed. This seems unfair to me so, since the keeping side have vetoed the relist, I'm bringing this here to ask DRV to relist this discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 16:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- this is the link to the discussion on the deleting admin's talkpage. Spartaz Humbug! 16:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from closer. As two delete proponents had asked on my talk page to reopen, I thought it was fair to ask for input on that request from the keep !voter who three of the four subsequent commenters had agreed with. I actually hadn't made a final decision on whether I'd relist it yet (this DRV kind of jumped the gun), though I was leaning against. It was closed on the seventh day after the day the nomination was made (not "early", as we don't count by hours), and four days after the last new sources were introduced into the discussion, so there had been plenty of time for comment on those. And I see HW participated in the last AFD on this same article, which was closed as no consensus just earlier this year. Even with a comment from him added to this AFD, I don't see the close reasonably changing unless also merely to "no consensus". postdlf (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- why wouldn't you want HWs comment discussed? You did close a bit early so it's a bit rich to say that it's hard cheese because he commented in another discussion 6 months ago. Spartaz Humbug! 20:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and reopen. First of all, as Spartaz accurately pointed out, the discussion was closed nearly a full day early. The discussion period is seven days, not six days plus whatever small number of hours the closer deems sufficient. Second, it's completely inappropriate for the closer to discount my opinion/analysis (or anyone's) in advance, without even having the minimal courtesy to ask what issues would be raised, or to decide what the community consensus on a previously undiscussed issue would be, without community input. Third, the issue I wanted to raise was not trivial, and had not been discussed previously. One of the two sources provided by Morbidthoughts turns out, according to both Worldcat and Google Books, to be a work of fiction, It's obviously not a reliable source for a biography, can't be used to establish notability, and treating it as such was poor judgment. Finally, the closer's comments on their talk page on the BLP1E issue, referring to their own opinion rather than the discussion, hardly inspires confidence that there weren't elements of a supervote involved in the close. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does Worldcat[1] or Google Books[2] label it as a work of fiction? It is a true crime book. A non-fiction recount of the author's investigation into his brother's murder.[3] Morbidthoughts (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Here [4] (Worldcat) and here [5] (Google Books). The latter is the link you posted to the AFD, so I'd ordinarily presume you're familiar with it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Embedded is not a fiction book despite their label. It is a memoir of a real television producer.[6] I've also read the book and remember several of the events he wrote about including the sexcetera piece on Quinn and the virgin on Playboy TV. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's not what the author says. He may call it a "memoir", but he also says "It reflects the author’s present recollections of his experiences over a period of years. Some names and characteristics have been changed. Some characters have been combined, events have been compressed, and certain episodes are re-created and not meant to portray actual events." There's a technical term for books which "are not meant to portray actual events: fiction. And any book carrying a disclaimer like that doesn't meet the requirements of RS or BLP, and shouldn't be used to establish notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The disclaimer covers the characters, events, and episodes from his "reality" tv shows, not the book. You often see this disclaimer in these types of shows because they can edited or even staged. The recollections are from producing the shows. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an absolute goddam falsehood. Those are the author's own words, from the copyright page of the book (pdf edition). "This book is a memoir. It reflects the author’s present recollections of his experiences over a period of years. Some names and characteristics have been changed. Some characters have been combined, events have been compressed, and certain episodes are re-created and not meant to portray actual events." Don't accuse me of fabricating or misattributing direct quotes. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't get ornery with the wikilawyering there. I read the book. I saw the copyright page.[7] I know what the disclaimer is for. It's the same as for almost all "reality" tv shows. He carried the disclaimer into the book as it is about his work producing the show, which was the original point you missed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closers must weigh policy arguments. That's not "supervoting"; that's how we avoid AFDs becoming mere headcounts. postdlf (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - on the one hand, I don't see why we shouldn't re-open any AfD closed early upon request. On the other hand, the only commenter who bit at the suggestion of 1E was Tarc, who name-checked it and then admitted he was ignoring what BLP1E says and does and actually arguing something completely different, so I can't see the discussion turning out any differently. WilyD 10:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, bullshit. What I said was is that my view of what it means to be a person notable for only one event falls onto the conservative/strict interpretation of BLP1E policy, as opposed t others who are more liberal in its application, e.g. there are those who feel that if a subject goes on an interview circuit following their one-event then that surpasses the "subjct is a low-profile individual", an interpretation which I stridently disagree with. Variations in policy interpretation are not wrong, nor does it mean I "ignored" the policy. Tarc (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist to allow the full discussion period. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and reopen, no good reason provided here for not doing this by the book, and when there are good faith arguments coming from both sides it's best that procedure is followed. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Note that at the same time I closed three other AFDs (1, 2, 3) by the same nominator and involving the same subject matter, which had been open for the same length of time. They're not asking to reopen those because they got the result they wanted, notwithstanding that in the "17 hours" they were closed "early" someone else could have just as conceivably added another comment. Instead here we have "someone else wanted to comment in support of my deletion nomination", and so we're quibbling over hours. Deletion procedure says seven days, not 168 hours. I don't spend much time at DRV, but AFAIK we've never overturned an AFD close as "early" because of the hours and minutes in the nominator's timestamp rather than the day of the log page. postdlf (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have waited to close those discussions personally until they were over the 7 days but the consensus was clear in them - unlike this one where the BLP1E wasn't that well discussed. I would have left it but for HW having his point to put forward. I would not object to your reopening, undeleting and relisting them if someone had an argument they wanted to put forward. I have closed enough DRVs to know the view taken is to give missed arguments a hearing and, if you go through my talk archives, you will see that its not unknown for me to relist and reopen discussions if a good faith user has a valid argument that might affect the outcome of the discussion. Your comment otherwise appears to be an attempt to play the man and not the ball. Spartaz Humbug! 16:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Balancing Wikipedia:Process is important and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy is a bit of an art. I don't think there's anything wrong with your close, but I'd rather err on the side of making everyone feel like they haven't received the bum's rush when there's no real downside. WilyD 08:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - at most the awaiting attempt at impeachment of one of the sources, the Embedded book, may have moved the result to a keep due to no consensus. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - Personally I think it perhaps should've been closed as No Consensus but either way it's a keep and it being open for another day probably wouldn't of made a blind bit of difference. –Davey2010Talk 20:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think you'd have !voted the same way if you'd known that one of MT's sources is classified as a work of fiction? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- my beef isn't the close so much as the refusal to relist to discuss HWs point when the discussion was closed early. Spartaz Humbug! 22:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly ... Yes, I admit I may of thought twice but I'd of probably gone keep anyway, Spartaz - Perhaps it should've been reopened for the remaining hours but I still believe it wouldn't of made a difference but meh we all see things differently here I guess. –Davey2010Talk 03:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that that is feasible here, I expect a long drawn out argument over several days, once this is reopened. Under the circumstances, the original discussion should be re-opened rather than post a new AfD, and could stay open for another week. The result will be the same. WP:There is no deadline, and the AfD tag doesn't harm the article. Kraxler (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that Dr. Mies just closed 8 AfD between 4 and 7 hours early today (the top 8), it's routine, done every day. Somehow we have to tackle the backlogs, instead of wasting time. (I fully agree with Dr. Mies's closures, I'm lightyears away from complaining.) Kraxler (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't mean Postdlf's close was on time. What it means is his wasn't the only one that was early. If Drmies' closes were here at DRV then I would be saying exactly the same thing. AfD debates have a minimum duration for a reason.—S Marshall T/C 19:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, in principle, and I've looked very careful at the timestamp since this incident, closing only discussion that have passed the finish line. Kraxler (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd love to see stats on exactly what percentage of AFDs are closed only after 168 hours. If that is really the accepted rule, and not simply what the day of the log page is, then I'm not alone in being unaware of that (despite being a regular AFD closer), judging from another admin's comment above, another experienced editor's comment here... So that should be clarified in the procedural text (or maybe we should have an RFC about it to confirm). And if that is the rule the community wants, then we need to question whether logging by calendar day is really the best way for closers to have AFDs organized. postdlf (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Back in 2007, the discussion that extended AfDs from 5 to 7 days explicitly stipulated that 7 days means 168 hours (here). Practice may well have evolved ---- I fully accept that pointing to eight-year-old discussions on DRV doesn't normally cut much ice! ---- but if the practice has evolved, then I don't know of a discussion that documents the evolution. I think it's one of those rules we have on Wikipedia that's enforced when an articulate and well-known editor asks for it to be enforced, and is otherwise often ignored. We're probably overdue a RfC on it.—S Marshall T/C 18:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Friday (31 July) admin Swarm closed the top three AfDs about 15 hours early. I have been able to identify the reason for this common occurrence: The AfD log, when listing a discussion, requires it to be added to the top of the list, so that in the end the most recently added is on top. When looking at the list as soon as it appears in the 7-day-old log, the closers start to scroll down the page from the top, so they begin closing the most recent first, and the oldest AfDs last. So the top ones may get closed early while the bottom ones are more likely to run well beyond the 168 hours, there being more than a hundred discussions on many days. Is there some logical reason why this anti-chronological order is used at AfD? Shouldn't new AfDs added at the bottom instead? Kraxler (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The finally accepted proposal was a bit later . In 2009 actually. There was a diversity of opinion in the discussion but the closing summary clearly calls for AfDs to run "the full seven days" which in context has to be interpreted as 168 hours. While practice has never followed this slavishly, it is consistently considered a (minor) procedural defect at DRV. As for top posting, I haven;t searched the archives but my memory is that it helped even out the level of discussion across the day. When the first AfD of the day was at the top of the daily log it consistently got more comments than the last. But now that discussions migrate down the log during the course of the day they are more evenly attended. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
