Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 9

Murder of Adrianne Reynolds (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Well, as the closing admin (User:Black Kite – not informed per their request) said themselves, "Probably should be closed as No Consensus... and I fully expect to be taken to WP:DRV". And here we are. The two reasons they gave for not closing the discussion with the result they themselves said was appropriate (No consensus) were:

1. There were no long-term sources per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. This is a blatant supervote rather than a summary of consensus in the discussion, plenty of people provided sources for lasting coverage that were not rejected. Closing admin... agrees, "I appreciate that this seems like a supervote".
2. Following on from the above quote, the supervote is justified because otherwise "we'd have trouble closing the AfDs that no-one else wants to". It seems to me that is exactly what the "No consensus" option is there for. When there is no consensus in an AfD, we should default to keep. Closing admin did the opposite.

In short, there was no consensus for deletion. The closing admin admits as much and has basically provided all the argument needed for a DRV in their own comment. joe•roe^t•c 07:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC) joe•roe^t•c 07:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This raises all sorts of interesting DRV-related issues, and thanks for bringing it. On the facts, I would say that I agree with Black Kite's position. But on good administrative practice, I don't see the fact that I think he was right as enough to justify the close in this case. That's a slightly harsh thing for me to say, so I set out my reasoning from first principles below.

Given that my heart says "endorse" because I agree with Black Kite's position, but my head says "overturn" because administrative discretion does not and should not run that far, I'll go with overturn for another admin to close based on the same discussion.—S Marshall T/C 11:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Lasting impact was argued on the basis of a bool having been written about the event. This was replied to as our needing to wait for sources about the book, an absurd argument, because the book doesn't have it be notable to be a RS for notability of what it discuses. This contradicts BK's basic argument for going against consensus. DGG ( talk ) 15:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - sources are not present, book on event is not notable and possibly WP:SENSATION vio - this case was in 2005, but the article was not created until recently, coinciding with the 2011 release of the book.

• Given that we as a matter of routine wipe our butts with WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:SENSATION to create articles on whatever the tabloids find exciting now, the fact it took so long for this case to be addressed in the wiki (and in 2005 we already had this problem), speaks to the fact that millions of editors didn't think of this contemporary event when creating articles. If this is not stealth marketing, I do not know what stealth marking is.

• While notability of an event doesn't have to be contemporary to the event (ie an event can become notable long after it happened), I have to disagree with DGG: WP:NEVENTS *and* WP:GNG both clearly establish that the sources used to establish notability must be reliable sources. I haven't read the book, but I have read of the previous work of the author, a fiction and non-fiction "true crime" specialist - a field known for WP:SENSATION. While cases with a sesationalistic basis can be notable, there is no significant sources independent of the subject that establish notability - wide reporting limits itself to the usual reporting when the event happened, and reporting afterward is local and nowhere near what generally called significant.

• Even if we are mistaken in the belief that this is marketing, this article was submitted multiple times, without any substantial modification, to WP:AFC - where creation was denied multiple times by different admins and editors skilled in AfC. It only was made a live edit by the actions of a now-blocked user, a user blocked precisely because he abused editing privileges such as WP:AFC creation, and even RfA. Such unusual conditions of creation create sufficient reason to belief that something was not right in the article creation process, and this reasonable expectation does open the door for further administrator scrutiny.

BK defended the wiki against an iffy creation process with good evidence of malfeasance, a number of editors backed him up, and that is what admin discretion is for. Should in a few years renewed interest in the case is such that notability is actually achieved, we can revisit. But for now, neither notability nor WP:IAR supports the inclusion of this article - and the dark cloud of irregularities surrounding it means BK used discretion precisely for what discretion is for: to controversially defend the wiki from (possible) misfeasance, rather than to advance his editorial position. I know BK in his closing said take it to DRV, but I think he was being humble - and S Marshall should listen to the side of his heart that says "endorse" and !vote to protect the wiki, not to allow unscrupulous WP:GAME to get away with it.--Cerejota (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cerejota, why does the book have to be notable for the subject of the book to be notable. Where does it say only a notable work is a RS?

who except a writer on crime would normally be expected to write a book on a crime? DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either I misunderstood your point, or I misunderstand yours. I say: 1)We cannot base notability on a single RS 2) WP:SENSATION, which is part of WP:NEVENTS, is clear that we should weight the sensationalistic nature of the coverage of events. The book might be an RS, but not to establish notability, because of its sensationalistic nature means it has a horse in the race: if the event is seen as notable, then the book benefits in sales. It should be trivial to find scholarly sources of a six year old crime to establish notability independent of scholarly sources, the fact that we can't find these sources means this event is not notable - except in the mind of sensationalistic crime writers and his blocked fanboys/PR agents.--Cerejota (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have to voice disagreement here that a book, published years later, does not contribute evidence of notability due to a "sensationalistic nature". The only thing that can eliminate a later book as demonstrating notability is if you can show that it is not independent of the subject (was it written by victims?). Normally, a book years later is perfect evidence of notability. It demonstrates that others find the subject notable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this sort of thing is getting out of hand. "Dark cloud of irregularities surrounding it"? "Iffy creation process"? "Good evidence of malfeasance"? You have people thinking there's something 'fishy' about this article when you've advanced absolutely no solid evidence to support that assertion. As I've already told you, there's nothing unusual about the AfC that created it -- several submissions are normal, it was previously declined by one reviewer (User:Nathan2055), and if User:NYMets2000 hadn't accepted it when he did then I would have. The logic that because a book came out about the crime this year there could be paid editing involved is absolutely ludicrous -- maybe the author read the book and that's why he decided to write it now, maybe there was renewed interest in other media outlets because of the book and that prompted him, and maybe it's just a bloody coincidence. I get that you genuinely think the article should be deleted on notability declines, and perhaps you have good reasons for suspecting foul play that I haven't seen, but I think until you make them crystal clear it's extremely disingenuous to keep nudging and hint that something is wrong. If this is all based on some sort of grudge with User:NYMets2000 then please try to remember he only pressed a button to move the AfC submission into mainspace, he hasn't contributed any content to it or had any other on-wiki contact with the actual author of the article. joe•roe^t•c 18:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see the same evidence as you do and arrive to a different conclusion. That is a legitimate difference, but I think we have a responsibility to be on the defensive. And in terms of deletion, the evidence of wrongdoing + reasoned reasons of lack of notability + plus the coincidental appearance of a six year old topic to coincide with a sensationalistic book on the subject but no other contemporary sourcing to support a recently acquired notability it all amounts to reasons to delete. I don't hint or nudge at anything: I say it outright and directly, so please strike that out. Simply put, you see these as coincidences, I see it as all too convenient to be coincidences on the face of recent issues related to WP:NOPAY violations of undisclosed COI by paid advocates.--Cerejota (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors have participated in the process and this discussion. Nobody but you is reaching this conclusion. Even if you're correct, I can't follow your logic. Exactly who are you accusing? By not making accusation, you paint all of us keep !voters with the black brush, as below. This is why we have WP:AGF. BusterD (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to No consensus The closing user dis-regarded the Keep !votes totally and missed the points made. As the user him/herself states it should probably have been closed as No Consensus. I say probably should be changed to should have been closed as No Consensus leaning towards Keep. The decision should be overturned the closing user definitly led the way for this to be on Deletion review with quite a weak reasoning for its decision.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree completely with your assertion the argument is weak, and BK is an admin of utmost integrity and I can understand reasoned disapproval, such as what DGG and S Marshall above provide, but this is a total failure to assume good faith. Not only that, but the reasoning was not weak, it was a solid urgency to protect the wiki, something you entirely fail to address.--Cerejota (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn to nc. I firmly believe that when an admin can't close a discussion the way the discussion is leaning because they object to such a close, the right thing to do is contribute to the discussion rather than close. OK, with that off my chest... Is there a valid reason to discount the !votes of the keeps? The key question, as I read the discussion (and the closer's comments) is if there has been long-term coverage of the topic. We've got a new book solely focused on the topic and we've got a part of an (upcoming?) book that at least mentions the topic, likely more than in-passing. Is that a reasonable basis for a claim of long-term coverage? I'd have to say yes. As such the discussion itself should control if that is enough long-term coverage. And the discussion had no consensus on the issue. Thus the right close is NC. Hobit (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, one other issue was raised in the AfD. Are some of the keep !voters meat puppets engaged in getting/keeping material for pay? I saw no solid evidence of that, but I think that might be worth keeping an eye on. I'm personally okay with people writing NPOV articles on topics they have a COI on. But they should be declaring their COI. I don't claim that is or isn't happening here, but if it is occurring it could easily have been enough to influence the outcome of this AfD. Hobit (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. There's no subject we can't discuss further. I have no problem with closer's boldness, and while there's some pointyness in baiting participants ("that's OK - DRV is fine") with an outcome the closer is likely to get reviewed and overturned, I have no problem with that either. Review is good and this discussion is useful precisely for the reasons User:Cerejota outlines. Closer made a judgement call clearly intended to protect this encyclopedia; closer was aware this discussion would ensue, so procedurally, BK is in fair territory here, IMHO. I made my case to keep in the discussion, and while I understand Cerejota's concerns, I'm unhappy with a black brush which has been raised to categorize keep !voters with an imagined group of disruptors, paid editors (a subset of editors I myself imagine exists). I object to that tarring, and am nervous about the rise of this sort of ad hominum critique in AfD and DRV discussions. User:Hobit notes the effect of that brush in the small comment immediately above. There's a lack of good faith in such brushing, since there's no proof (or even much evidence) of such activity here. I'd favor coincidence over conspiracy that a fan of Snapped has written about two episodes which happened to include references to books by one author. I'm not impressed with a logic that because an editor was blocked, necessarily all of the editor's actions should be considered suspect. That would knock out of a lot of the pedia. Finally, as to the gross over-generalization "we as a matter of routine wipe our butts with WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:SENSATION to create articles on whatever the tabloids find exciting now", I think Cerejota misreads both sections of WP:EVENT, and again tars all good faith editors of current events with the black brush. Who you calling "we" Cerejota? BusterD (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that where there are allegations of bad faith against one side, we need to see some kind of evidence before we can take those allegations seriously. As I see it, without evidence the accusations have no weight.—S Marshall T/C 19:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Say you disagree with evidence, but don't say it was not provided. BusterD: I say "we" as the Royal We of the wikipedia community writ large. However, I am a current events editor, and very active on the area (I was recently denied autopatrol because of the creation of the BLP of the perp of the Norway attacks - so I know the pressures on current event editors) - so I think you exagerate (or are setting up a strawman) when you say I am "painting with a black brush" anyone. --Cerejota (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've not yet seen anything that constitutes evidence of bad faith in this, Cerejota. If I've missed it, would you be kind enough to point it out?—S Marshall T/C 20:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Read above, another editor does see the evidence but takes it to mean something else. But he doesn't claim, as you do, that evidence is non-existent.--Cerejota (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on your statements, it appears you were mistreated re: autopatrol. Back to this discussion, at least four editors in this narrow conversation (including myself) fail to see any evidence of conspiracy or even wrong-doing here, so it's quite reasonable to say sufficient evidence wasn't provided. There are only six editors in this discussion as of this timestamp. As I read it, you're the only editor suggesting disruption of any kind. I see no other editor above who sees evidence; User:Hobit ponders potential COI but "saw no solid evidence..." Closer made no reference to disruption or collusion. I see you making allegation, but don't see anything connecting the dots. My problem with your statements is similar to the one User:Joey Roe raises above. If you really believe something is going on, then raise and document it in the appropriate forum. This is one such. Don't beat about the bush. BusterD (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll explain this again, Cerejota, and this time I'll type slower. I did not say that no evidence exists. What I said was that I had not found any evidence. Since you seem to be speaking as if you have, I asked you if you wouldn't mind providing it. Please do so.—S Marshall T/C 21:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You said: we need to see some kind of evidence before we can take those allegations seriously - I will speak even more slowly, because if I am dense, you apparently approach neutron star levels: I have provided evidence, which you can say doesn't constitute evidence, but you claiming it doesn't, doesn't mean it was not provided, because it was. Put simply: disagree with the conclusion, but questioning the method is the very definition of WP:IDHT. --Cerejota (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That's plenty for me. This discussion has turned into a one person show, and that one person is projecting his own WP:IDHT on everyone else. BusterD (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Could all just stop doing this "you wrote this, no you wrote that"- meta discussions. Its better to wait and see what come from this in terms of consensus instead of bickering about a formulation of words. We all have to agree to disagree,--BabbaQ (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (unclose, convert to supervote to a !vote). which is to say that Black Kite is likely right, but closers tempted to super!vote should be encouraged to simply make a comprehensive vote and leave it to the next admin. It is hard to judge the merits with the page deleted, but the close is not enough based on the content of the debate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (and I would be happy with a relist) the AFD discussion is fascinating as it raises all sorts of issues about the event, the article, the timing of the AFD and the motivations of editors. However, I shall focus on the closing rationale. I have no knowledge of the real-world circumstances and have not read the article. The analytical aspect of the rationale seems to me to relate to the AFD discussion arguments and not to consider the merits of the actual article, as it should. In that respect it was not a supervote. However, the analysis seems to me to be faulty because it did not take proper account of the evidence presented of ongoing notability. If that were all then I might have endorsed the close as (only just) reasonable without agreeing with it (or more likely I would not have contributed here). But the closer's general commentry in the rationale too strongly gave his own view of the intrinsic merits of the article's existence. I very much appreciate a thoughtful and clear closing rationale (such as this one is) so I am sorry to be suggesting the close should be overturned. Thincat (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus  Starting with analysis of the first !vote to delete, the entire comment is "I see a lack of lasting effects" with a Wikilink to WP:EFFECTS.  However, WP:EFFECTS says, "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable."  (I would note that a book is a lasting effect even then, and that coverage that is still ongoing five years later far exceeds the standard of a few weeks of intense coverage established by Balloon boy hoax.  Also note that "enduring significance" is not the same as "lasting effect".)  So the allegation that there are no lasting effects is not a valid argument for deletion.  This Delete !vote has not cited a relevant policy, and to the extent that this may be a legitimate misunderstanding of policy, the closing admin should have identified this !vote as such.  Yet the closing admin has not done so.  Having documented that the closing admin has made a significant error in the first !vote, I stop such detailed analysis and move on to the closing statement itself.  This statement says that WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is fundamental to the closing, and that keep arguments have not refuted WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.  But looking at the AfD commentary shows two books, a major magazine (People), a major network newsmagazine (Dateline NBC) and coverage on a popular cable TV channel (Tru TV).  One of the books is reportedly not just a non-trivial mention, but the entire topic of the book.  So the claim of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER being unrefuted does not stand.  As far as why my !vote here is overturn to no consensus rather than overturn to keep, this is for expediency, but I would support the case for overturn to keep if a consensus builds in that direction.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. Which, admittedly, is probably what I should have done in the first place. Oh well, you can't get them right all the time. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn w/o prejudice to relisting (if people need to vent again). True crimes that make it into the book/tv realm have a greater likelihood to be notable (perhaps only for that reason); and those who are looking for lasting effects, perhaps they should think about going after the balloon boy hoax article which as near as I can tell was forgotten within a week by nearly everyone else and lemme guess no one notable will be writing up a book on it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. The closing admin is not empowered to determine what community consensus should have been. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woah, hang on, that's not what I did. Giving certain !votes a lesser weight because they're not referencing policy (i.e. WP:ITSNOTABLE) is not determining consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all due respect, I think the learning point here is that it can be. There is a threshold where you've giving so high a proportion of !votes a lesser weight that editors may very well say you're "determining what the community consensus should have been". I think that you've got wider latitude where there's been bad faith in the discussion or a breach of BLP or copyright, but I don't think that applied here.—S Marshall T/C 12:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't get me wrong, I agree I may have got this one wrong, but the principle applies - if editors are going to throw in WP:ITSNOTABLE (or for that matter WP:NOTNOTABLE) !votes, they have to be prepared for them to be given lesser weight in a close AfD. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Could we get this temporarily restored and blanked so that I can see it? Buddy431 (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]