- Jean-Raymond Boulle (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The above article has been speedily deleted before I could vote. I would like to overturn the vote based on the following comments. I was about to vote, had written my comments and when I was about to paste them, I found that that the article was already deleted. I sent my comments to the admin but they disagreed. Furthermore, there were definitely too few votes.
What has given rise to the deletion notice is that the BLP has been characterised as
(i) a '''run-of-the mill metals trader'''.
(ii) a Plutocrat.
(iii) having 'staggeringly vulgar products'.
But the BLP
(i) is not a 'run-of-the mill metals trader' as anyone can see because he has discovered revolutionary new heart valve technology (Citations 31,32,33,34,35), discovered a $4.3 Billion mine (Citations: 4,5) and been decorated by Sierra Leone’s President. (Citation : 12).
(ii) A Plutocrat is a strongly negative word and is in and of itself a BLP violation (The Wikipedia Guidelines also apply to discussion pages). In addition, I think there's no source saying that he's one and that makes the ‘plutocrat’ argument doubly invalid.
(iii) "staggeringly vulgar products" cannot be used as a basis for a deletion notice. Perhaps editor concerned can provide a source for his argument.
The ostensible basis on which the deletion notice was created therefore has no rational foundation, nor does it offer a 'tipping point' of any kind because its foundations, per 1-3 above, are not based on rational fact or are not relevant or are a BLP violation.
What needs to be done per the third editor is to improve the article where and if there are indications or perceptions of 'promotionalism' or COI, if that is the case. Please can they give substance to these perceptions.
AFD is not clean up and if a notable person's page has hints of COI, that COI content should be edited by neutral uninvolved editors. It does not automatically become a reason for removing. The reason for removing an article is notability and the notability standards are met here. Furthermore, the !votes are betrayed by the logic they claim to be backed with and are therefore not accurately summarized by the closing admin. Consensus on Wikipedia is not a vote but here it looks like only the votes were counted and the weight of arguments was not considered.
And again, especially based on my discussion with the closing admin, he had an opinion of his own on the matter too as seen in his response. This and the fact that he just counted votes, didn't weigh up arguments means that he closed this with his WP:SUPERVOTE, something which is utmost basis of overturning such a closure. If he had an opinion, he should have added his own argument as an editor instead of acting as an admin to close the debate.
I request that the deletion be overturned. If there are any problems with the content or COI, sure, edit it and amend it to more neutral text. 197.226.250.43 (talk) 09:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but this was not a supervote: The point was made and not contested that all references appear to be about the company and not about its owner, so they can't justify an article. Nobody offered an argument to keep and the one you offered on my talk page is 2/3 irrelevant (the wording of the deletion nomination does not impact its merits) and 1/3 not supported by the references, which as far as I can tell are in fact mostly about the company. Three votes is the minimum I accept for an AfD close (other than a softdelete), but it's pretty normal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The process and the nub of all that is going here is that, again, you are reviewing the references. This means you are arguing for the deletion side which means that you must put a vote /comment into the debate and not close it. Further, the deletion was absolutely contested and this is ongoing and empirical evidence on the record that it was. What is important here is that the argument and the basis under which this delete was perpetrated was flawed as pointed out in this deletion review. That's why closing in favour of these flawed arguments alone was a supervote combined with the closing admin's own analysis of references.
197.226.250.43 (talk) 12:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, no, I did not examine the references when closing the AfD since that is the voters‘ task, the closing admin has to examine the arguments given and the relevant policies/guidelines. But if you ask for the close to be overturned and point to the references, then yes I am going to examine them at that point - I do not overturn a close just on you say so.JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse This wasn't a speedy deletion, it was open for the normal 7 days, and with three opinions to delete, could not have been closed any other way. To address some specific point (1) The references for the heart valve 31,32,33,34,35 are the company itself, a broken link though declared to be a press release, two other press releases and this (which is also a press release, but given it's a release from the hospital rather than hoplessly linked to the companies themselves I'd give it more weight) - this latter doesn't mention Boulle at all, let alone him "picking up a rock" and discovering a heart valve. (ii) and (iii) I would doubt have any impact on the deletion or otherwise. The references are the problem the ones I've looked at are PR pieces, source closely linked with the subject or not about the subject of the article himself - one (9) which seems to be broken has a title apparently of "wikipedia republished" which suggests it's a circular reference. That such a short article has 50 references suggests WP:OVERREF. Note this is based on the google cache of the article (which has the AFD headers on still, so I assume to be a fair representation of the article as it was) --81.108.53.238 (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment : "This wasn't a speedy deletion, it was open for the normal 7 days, and with three opinions to delete, could not have been closed any other way." is equally flawed because while there were three opinions to delete, they were not wiki-policy based. That makes them votes, not true consensus and the debate needed more editors who used wikipedia criteria of notability and not their opinion as standards.
197.226.250.43 (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the deleted history (admin only) the page wasn't edited after the 16th December and the Google Cache version I can currently see dates to the 19th December, so if that is the cached version you are seeing it should reflect the state of the article when I deleted it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. It looks a run of the mill delete, one of dozens every day. Just because it was a fair close doesn't necessarily mean the subject isn't notable. The principal editor is free to recreate the article - however take advice from other WP editors before doing so to ensure the subject is notable and referenced accordingly or next time it actually will get speedily deleted. Szzuk (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Add. At the time I wrote my previous comment I suspected their were credible references but did not know for certain, Hobit has identified some references that most likely push the subject above gng. So I'm moving to Endorse and Relist. Szzuk (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse close, relist anyways close was correct given the limited discussion (both quantity and quality), though a relist might have been better. But [1] and [2] are both fine sources. There are many many books that discuss him (e.g. [3] where he is in the title of a chapter and [4] which is more typical of these books). Now given sources like these, this will end up being a fairly negative BLP and we tend to want darn strong sources for such a BLP. But I think we've got them. Forbes and the Globe and Mail are solid sources. This guy is certainly notable. Hobit (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- relist I was going to say the same as Hobbit, but there was an edit conflict. The discussion was not really adequate and a good case could have been made for keeping. There do seem to be some references about the person, the person has been involved in several companies so it can't simply be redirected to the company, and the article is not overly promotional and is within the range of what can be fixed by normal editing. Of course, the necessary work could be done in draft space . It's fairly rare that I'll support a coi article in this field, but this one dos have possibilities. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist per Hobit and DGG. Jclemens (talk) 06:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, but relist. There's nothing wrong with the close, given the comments that existed at the time. I suppose this could have been relisted, but I almost certainly would have closed it the same way as Jo-Jo. I think the core problem here is that the carpet-bomb of references in the article actually acted to the detriment of the reviewers. Faced with a mass of such references, I generally spot-check a couple and base my opinion on that. Had somebody at the AfD pointed out a smaller number of the best sources for people to review, that would have focused attention on those and perhaps we would have had some serious evaluation of them. As it stands, we had three people give rather cursory hand-wave reviews. Now that we've got a couple of specific sources mentioned in this DRV that look plausible, it makes sense to re-open the existing AfD and get people to evaluate those specific sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the discussion lasted for 7 days as normal, not commenting in that time against 2 deletes isn’t the closer’s fault. Mabye try to remake your article and have new people look at it through AFC.Kinetic bombardment (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- [preceding unsigned WP:SOCKSTRIKE added by 197.226.250.43. 05:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)][reply]
- Comment Not a single editor in this AfD reports looking for sources. As noted by the OP here, there are objectional BLP violations. Why does a deletion nomination have no admins enforcing BLP policy?The deletion nomination took less than four minutes. The first !vote was prepared in 49 seconds previous edit at 2017-12-13T04:33:08. The third !vote was done in 7 minutes and 10 seconds. The close was performed in 17 seconds. Total invested time in deleting an article with 50 references: 12 minutes. Unscintillating (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as an editor who had watchlisted the article for over a year, I believe the subject is conclusively non-notable- and yes, I did search for sources. The article stands out in my mind- the article was overly promotional, along with COI issues. Jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC) (later: @Jcc: Hobit (talk) 16:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
[reply]
- Endorse -- there are no indications that the discussion, if relisted, would have closed differently; the subject is nn, and the relisting would not fix that. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Result and close looks solid, good close. Schracq (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- [preceding unsigned WP:SOCKSTRIKE added by 197.226.250.43. 05:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)][reply]
- Overturn to Speedy Keep NPASR This was a policy-free discussion. One editor mentioned the word "promotionalism", but the closer did not state that this was a WP:NOT deletion, either in the close or in discussion since. Unscintillating (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed, thanks to the other editors involved, that these are fake accounts and their concerted votes should accordingly be discarded. These fake accounts and related IPs should not impact the whole process.197.226.59.81 (talk) 08:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
