- Zara Kitson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Although a majority (by one) of votes were in favour of deletion, Sandstein discounted my vote on the basis that it "does not address the sourcing level and quality".
I clarified the rationale behind my vote in a message at Sandstein's talk page, in which he replied that the argument had been placed that the "amount of coverage she received is what makes her notable". I don't agree that this is a suitable rationale for retention of the article; many non-notable unelected politicians have been referenced in the media multiple times, and in many of the sources provided in the article, she is only mentioned once in passing, thus certainly failing WP:GNG.
Furthermore, retaining this article sets a bad precedent regarding the (ab)use of Wikipedia for electioneering as a campaign resource. --RaviC (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Closer's comment:Our deletion policy requires a consensus in favor of deletion in order to delete an article. Because AfD is not a majority vote, an AfD with one "vote" difference will generally result in a "no consensus, default to keep" closure, as here, unless the "delete" side has the clearly more compelling arguments in terms of our policies and guidelines. I don't think that this is the case here: editors may in good faith disagree about whether a given amount and quality of coverage meets WP:GNG or not. See also my comments at User talk:Sandstein#Article deletion review 2. Sandstein 08:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This makes no sense to me, as I count a seven-to-three delete vote on consensus grounds (before any votes are discounted, but I don't know which ones would be.) SportingFlyer talk 13:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, I only remembered that it was a narrow decision, so I took RaviC at their word regarding the one "vote" difference. But looking at it again it was narrow in terms that we were close to a 2:1 "delete" supermajority. Above this threshold, numbers begin to weigh significantly in my experience, whereas below this threshold, arguments must be examined closely. And I didn't see one side or the other as stronger in terms of argument here, so that's why it mattered that I had to give less weight to RaviC's "delete" opinion. Sandstein 15:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. This was a pretty messed-up AfD. There's some obvious vote-spamming by the nom (which was noticed and struck), plus the canvassing. And, another of the delete !votes was from an IP, so for all anybody can tell, that's just more vote-spam from the same person. The two IP's in question geoip locate to Edinburgh and near London, so it's reasonable to assume these are people who have some political-based COI. All in all, a perfect example of why AfD closing isn't about vote counting. In light of all that, closing the AfD as NC doesn't seem unreasonable. I wouldn't have any problem with an immediate renomination, with the proviso that anything which could possibly be construed to be canvassing will result in an immediate block. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse There was more than one rational keep. I consider this a little borderline, and would probably myself have closed as non-consensus. I'm not sure I would really object to a delete close, however, especially because of the canvassing DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Given how the discussion played out with the canvassing and IP votes, there didn't seem to be a real consensus to delete or keep. The "No Consensus" close seems appropriate. However, I would not have a problem with renominating the article for deletion to see if a consensus can be reached with further discussion. Lonehexagon (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although I voted to delete, I realise this might not be a clear-cut case, I feel inclined to cut the admins a bit of slack sometimes, and avoid early re-opening of discussions. PatGallacher (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is rarely a point in appealing a non-consensus close; it is easier to renominate if one wants to delete, or let the status quo stand if one wishes to keep. The main exception is when the close is a gross misunderstanding on the part of the closer which needs to be publicly corrected. That's certainly not the case here. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Couldn't have been closed any other way. WP:RENOM. Messed up discussion yes, which happens so easily with such a bad nomination statement. See the advice at WP:RENOM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a fan of WP:RENOM because it reduces churn, but it doesn't apply here. It makes sense when the goal is to see if community consensus has changed over time. There's no reason to delay when the first discussion was found to be defective. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The advice is to make a better nomination statement next time. A short delay helps with doing that. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, no consensus is exactly what there was. Stifle's non-admin account (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse no consensus was fair given canvassing and ip concerns Atlantic306 (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse IP-bashing aside, it's a fairly good example of what no consensus could look like. I don't find a consensus on that page to keep, far from it, but likewise I don't see a coalescent around delete. The keep arguments were stronger and seemingly unrefuted; they may not have convinced other participants, but I don't see and am not convinced there's a solid outcome on either side. So, no consensus. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
