- Peter Hood Ballantine Cumming (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This AfD was closed as "no consensus". However, there 7 votes to delete, 3 to keep, and 1 to merge or keep. I believe the keep arguments were very weak and the clear consensus was delete. I contacted the closing admin USER:Joe Roe and he responded:"I'm happy to explain my reasoning. Those in favour of deletion generally argued that the subject didn't meet WP:NPOL and that any coverage was routine. Those in favour of keeping generally argued that WP:NPOL was irrelevant because there was significant coverage. Both of these are good, policy-based arguments. I don't agree that the keep arguments were "very weak". RAN's point about the NYT is perfectly in line with policy, in that an obituary in an international newspaper is a strong indicator of notability under the WP:GNG. On the other hand, several (not all) delete !votes were weak—unsubstantiated assertions of non-notability—which is why I didn't put much weight on the numerical majority in favour of deletion. Overall, my assessment was that opinion on the notability of the subject was split, and that the discussants were unlikely to reach agreement on whether the available sources constituted significant coverage. Hence the close as no consensus."
I respectfully disagree with this assessment. The keep arguments were very weak. An editor made a keep argument because "Generally a New York Times obituary is a defacto mark of notability." Several editors (not just myself) have challenged this argument in multiple AfDs. These obituaries constitute local coverage by the NYT and as has been pointed out in another discussion the New York Times even printed obituaries for every person who died in the September 11th attacks (clearly every one of those persons would not warrant an article). Other keep arguments were that the article should exist as long as the content is verifiable and there is more than one source and another argument by an editor who frequently argues that virtually all articles cannot be deleted because they should be merged instead. The delete arguments were based on the fact the article fails WP:NPOL and the coverage of the subject is routine and local. Rusf10 (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The closer made an appropriate assessment of the weight of the arguments here and concluded correctly. This AfD is one of several dozen started out of pure spite, based on a belief by Rusf10 that "I have now noticed that both you and the subject of the article live in the same town. And to be honest with you, the article List of people from Teaneck, New Jersey should not exist and neither should about half the articles on that list. Believe it or not, every mayor of Teaneck does not qualify for an article." posted here at another AfD. Rusf10 has maliciously followed through on this threat and nominated several dozen articles related to Teaneck and elsewhere in New Jersey; most have failed. In not a single one of these nominations did Rusf10 make any effort to comply with WP:BEFORE, a fundamental obligation necessary to maintain the integrity of the deletion process. This DRV only further abuses process to destroy Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Your sir are abusive. You can keep shouting "he hates Teaneck" all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that this article has absolutely nothing to do with Teaneck. The problem with you is that you assert WP:OWNERSHIP over all New Jersey articles. Rather than make policy based arguments at AfD, you continually attack me at every turn. I did do WP:BEFORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And as explained in the AfD the sourcing is both routine and local. For just once try to make a logical argument that doesn't involve attacking me. Like a typical politician, you believe if you just keep repeating yourself loudly enough, people will believe whatever you say.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude, if you'd have the bare decency to acknowledge that you made the threat explicitly to attack articles from this one place because of my connection there, admit that you went ahead with the threat out of pure malice, apologize for the disruption you caused and learn to follow policy, rather than trying to keep up the efforts, I'd me a lot more sympathetic about the past bullshit. The problem is that you persist in denying a statement -- "I have now noticed that both you and the subject of the article live in the same town. And to be honest with you, the article List of people from Teaneck, New Jersey should not exist and neither should about half the articles on that list. Believe it or not, every mayor of Teaneck does not qualify for an article." posted here -- that couldn't have been any clearer in showing that you're here to somehow get back at me for voting to keep that article. Sick. Alansohn (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yo dude, the comment you keep quoting has no relevance to the discussion here, but please keep repeating yourself. Can you quote that three or four more times in this discussion? The more you repeat yourself the more relevant it becomes.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And you want me to apologize to you after endlessly attacking me and insulting my intelligence? Don't make me laugh.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I am the creator of the article, the closer properly gave less weight to the argument that people covered by a New York Times obituary should be discounted. The argument is that the paper covers the New York metropolitan area so anyone covered by the paper, that lived in that same area, is of local interest only. There are over 300 mayors in the New York metropolitan area at any given time, I could only find 5 obituaries in the Times for any that served during the years that this mayor served. The September 11th attacks obituaries are a strawman, it was a one time policy change by the NYT for a one time event. WP:NPOL lists three examples where a politician gets an article, but the deleters appear to be arguing that you have to meet all three, by pointing out that the subject does not meet the criteria in the first example. None of the delete arguments even considered the option of merge-redirect to the list of mayors of this town. Each of the deleters arguments were thoughtfully countered by actual quotations of policy by @Unscintillating:. --RAN (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Comment. I would kindly ask that this article get relisted just so we can have some (civil) discussion on it again. I don't mind arguing a point that was argued again if it means clearer consensus. If what the Endorsers say is true or accurate, then the community should agree with them. I recommend we get a fresh perspective and try to put aside any longstanding agendas we all have for the good of the encyclopedia. Process is important. It is clear on the face of this action, the administrator did not clearly articulate how they followed consensus in this instance. Please no ad hominem or personal attacks or retailations to such that aren't civil. I admire the editors here, and I don't like seeing that kind of behavior from them.―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 20:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC) PS. All Politicians aren't bad or mean...[reply]
- I am not sure what you mean by invoking process is important in this case, Matthew. Process was followed to a T. The AfD was open for 14 days (so twice as long as usual). When the relist period expired, I assessed the consensus (or lack thereof) and closed the discussion. Per WP:RELIST, AfDs should not be relisted simply because there is no consensus; only if there has been little substantive discussion, which is clearly not the case here. If the conclusion of this DRV is that my assessment of the consensus was faulty, then it should be re-closed correctly. Relisting just for the sake of getting more opinions would be contrary to the deletion process guideline and would encourage the misuse of DRV by people who simply disagreed with the outcome of the AfD. – Joe (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I'll admit I jumped the gun on that one. I didn't review the process as adequately as I should have, but I still appreciate the explanation regardless. Joe, would a renomination still be possible? Since the article in question was closed as "no consensus" and I don't think this would be against deletion policy. Thank you again for your contributions. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 04:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @MattLongCT: Someone can always renominate, yes. Although it would be best to wait for the DRV to close first. – Joe (talk) 08:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Renominating an NC in less than two months can lead to real community tensions. See the essay WP:Renominating for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you both (Joe and Unscintillating). I will take what you wrote into consideration as we try to move forward. I hope we can all revisit this issue peacefully down the road after this Deletion review closes. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 19:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse or change to keep. Established practice is that anyone with a editorial NYT obit gets an article here. It's true it was a relative brief obit, but I'd not like to lose hold of one of the few consistent principles that we hold. Additionally, Teaneck has a population of 40,000 which is very close to the level (50,000) where we routinely include mayors. I have argued elsewhere that it should be 100,000, but the consensus is that it should be lower and I support following the consensus, not my own preferences. DGG ( talk ) 22:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @DGG:- Peter Hood Ballantine Cumming was not mayor of Teaneck (and to my knowledge never lived there). He was mayor of Rumson, NJ, a town of about 7,000 people. Teaneck being brought into this discussion is a red herring by Alan Sohn.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There is absolutely, unequivocally, no such "established practice" as "anyone with an NYT obit always automatically gets a Wikipedia article". Bearcat (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Salisbury is a 2007 AfD, in which an editor states, "NYT obituaries are extremely selective, and have always been accepted here as sufficient sources by themselves to prove notability." Unscintillating (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Unscintillating:Again, you are trying to mislead people like you always do, hoping they don't actually read the stuff you've linked to. That editor in the 2007 AfD was DGG! DGG's opinion is clear (and consistent), but I and other people here respectfully disagree. --Rusf10 (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In the previous post I see multiple fallacious ad hominems confounded with the unclear antecedent "again", bundled with a shift-of-topic rebuttal, sugar coated with the word "respectfully". As for the conclusion, the specific disagreement is not identified. It is not necessary to agree with DGGs 2007 statement to agree with the closer's statement that a NYT obit is a "strong indicator of notability"; but then, I've never seen User:rusf10 apply the metric of "a significant amount of in-depth coverage" to sources, instead he argues from the lede of WP:Notability (people). And that is one of the relevant points about this AfD, that only one editor argued that the topic failed GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You do nothing here but engage in WP:Wikilawyering in order to cause chaos. Time and time again, you argue that nothing can be deleted because of the existence of alternatives to deletion. And here you are trying to back up DGG's statement with something he said 10 years ago (not a policy or even something based on a clear consensus). It doesn't make any sense, a consensus is not the same person saying the same thing twice. The closer of that AfD did not even mention the NYT in his/her closing statement. Can you direct me to any policy that says a NYT obit makes a person automatically notable? No you cannot!--Rusf10 (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The diff for your OP here is [1]. The exact words that your post claims were stated by the closer are: "RAN's point about the NYT is perfectly in line with policy, in that an obituary in an international newspaper is a strong indicator of notability under the WP:GNG."Now regarding the policy ATD, and policy about policy, this is from the policy WP:Civility
|
Editors are expected to...work within the scope of policies
|
- Unscintillating (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, I guess - I don't have a good idea how this review should turn out, but I want to point out that during the AfD, on December 23, after the first relisting, I edited the page, increasing its length by over 50% and adding 6 references (it had 5, now it has 11). Other than my keep !vote, there was one keep and one delete !vote after me and the discussion was closed on the 28th, a day an a half after the last comment. Often when a page grows substantially during an AfD, extra time is given to allow editors more time to consider the changes. I'm not sure if there is a policy about that, but five days usually would seem like enough time, but the holidays may be getting in peoples way. Before my edits there seemed to be a consensus for deletion. Afterwards it was less clear and I could see a case for waiting seven more days or for closing as no consensus, but not for immediate deletion. All that said, there may be more activity if the page is resubmitted for discussion in a different season. Smmurphy(Talk) 00:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
Always explain your reasoning. This allows others to challenge or support facts, suggest compromises or identify alternative courses of action that might not yet have been considered. It also allows administrators to determine at the end of the discussion, whether your concerns have been addressed and whether your comments still apply if the article was significantly rewritten during the discussion period. "Votes" without rationales may be discounted at the discretion of the closing admin.
|
- Posted by Unscintillating (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep There is simply too much reliance on the numerical prevalence of non-policy-based arguments. Even if DGG is wrong about NYT obits, the fact is that if GNG is met, SNG failure is irrelevant. Jclemens (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse SNG failure is very relevant, because NPOL is treated as de facto exclusionary. We should typically delete an individual who passes the GNG if they fail it. At the same time, DGG's point on NYT obits being accepted as proof of notability is very relevant and shows that we have a tension in our practice (and practice is policy). The point of the AfD is to sort out those tensions, and it wasn't able to do that. As such, no consensus was the correct outcome. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn to delete There's no NYT obit rule, and if there were one, it would take the consensus of people who aren't New Yorkers to establish one. And even the NYT describes him as a businessman first. Sure, there are other citations, but when it comes down to it we've done little more with them than fact-check the obit. For someone whose claim to fame is running a lesser business or a minor town, there needs to be more of a narrative than he went to school and then held a bunch of positions, one of which happened to be political, and then he died. The only thing that steps out of that at all is that he was part of the Ballantine family, which I have to think is the real reason he got an obit in the first place.
- I'm seeing a pattern where notability standards are being degraded by general dismissal of WP:NOTNEWS as a standard. I see a lot of routine news stories, and they point to someone whose impact in the record of things isn't going to go any further than 14 Aug 2002 (when his wife died). I do not see how the keep arguments amounted to a rebuttal of this analysis; they seem to be essentially saying that the GNG standard, in practice, is lower than what it actually says. Mangoe (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, we need clearer rules for when Politicians who don't qualify for WP:POLITICIAN can or should qualify for WP:GNG. It's disheartening. I really encourage you to help develop those guidelines as we move forward.―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 19:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The position of the GNGs vs SNGs is disputable, and the consensus seems different about most of them. In the case of politicians, I definitely do not think that NPOL is accepted as exclusionary regardless of meeting the GNG. It would take a while to actually find them, but have dozens of recent AfDs in mind that went the other way, accepting even relatively week GNG arguments for inclusion of political candidates, Treating this on its principles rather than precedent, Using the SNG as exclusive this would automatically prejudice our coverage in every competed election in favor of the incumbant unless the non-incumbant had a prior political office. (in general I do think that SNGs should have precedence, but this is one that should go otherwise.)
- As for the NYT obits, I can think of only one or two from the 20th century where it was not held decisive--even for socialites without any particular accomplishments. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse or overturn to delete: As the discussion progressed, it seemed there was movement towards what the central issue was (the significance of a NYT obit, and whether GNG applied and was met). It just doesn't seem there was any real consensus in the end, though given the better deletes appeared to address not only the issue of NPOL but also GNG (albeit obliquely) I could support an overturn to delete. The keeps on that end mostly seemed to argue, in my view mostly consisting of vague waves to policy rather than analysis of the sources, that the NYT obit was sufficient and that GNG applied and there was enough coverage to meet SIGCOV. But the deletes didn't go too deeply into the weeds either, so my preference would be to defer to the closing admin and endorse the finding of no consensus. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak endorse- the discussion probably could, and should, have been closed as delete instead of relisting since that is where both the numbers and strength of argument seemed to be at that time. But since it was relisted, and opinion was split afterwards with good arguments on either side, I don't see much wrong with the final close. Perhaps once the community comes to some kind of agreement about how much routine coverage contributes to notability, this article can be revisited. I disagree completely with the hyperbolic claims that none of the delete opinions were grounded in policy; it's obvious at a glance that they are. Reyk YO! 09:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse or change to keep as explained well by DGG. Andrew D. (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse per DGG. per JClemens. AfD is not a vote. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep Wikipedia:GNG trumps subject notability guidelines (SNG). He was a mayor of Rumson, New Jersey and has a New York Times obituary written about him. We also have newspaper clips related to his being an executive at several firms.desmay (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn/Endorse to Keep - His status as the former Mayor of Rumson, plus the full New York Times obituary is enough. Scanlan (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The closer appropriately assessed the arguments and found that no consensus existed. I don't see how overturning the decision to close or keep makes sense because both sides of the discussion raise valid policy points. While XFD is not, and should not, be treated as a popular vote, in most cases, if there are multiple editors on both sides on an issue, consensus does not exist, so the proper close is no consensus. --Enos733 (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
