- Reginald Bachus (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
"The result was delete. Consensus is sourcing is short and voting to keep on other grounds needs a policy basis to count"--"Consensus is" is not true. Also, I cited GNG, which is a policy. My argument concerning the three sources which qualified the article as meeting GNG (Christian Science Monitor, New York Times, and Atlanta Daily World) was not rebutted by anyone. Plus, the votes were evenly split between delete and keep, with three on each side. Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry, and would love to be mistaken, but there are some errors above, 1)- There were 4 !votes for delete (I provided an ATD) and 3 to keep, and 2)- Sourcing issues were addressed more than once particularly concerning "in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources".
- There were other issues that I felt were important. A source referred to the subject as a Reverend but shows the subject is a business man (which was not covered in the article) with a pony in the race, but I do not see WP:RELPEOPLE as being reached. I don't think the sources show enough notability for acceptance based on the fact he is a civil rights activist. One keep admitted the was "Nothing very in-depth".
- I would think userfication and dealing with the sourcing issues a good ATD. It could even be submitted to AFC. I am past disgusted that an editor weighed in that Wikipedia in essence be held hostage and we should advance notability to somehow show no prejudice. Otr500 (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Temp undeleted for discussion WilyD 08:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse — As stated in my rationale, subject of the article doesn’t satisfy WP:RELPEOPLE neither does he satisfy WP:GNG which requires in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. All the sources presented in the AFD & the article all fall short of WP:SIGCOV. An individual argued to keep the article because if we did delete it, Wikipedia would be seen as racist & my question was and still is, since when did the community start to allow non notable articles be retained because of what “people would say”? That feels like blackmail right there. Furthermore, no the !votes weren’t split, it was 4 deletes and 3 keeps. The closing admin handled this appropriately.Celestina007 (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn I was in the original discussion and took a position of Keep. I think the closer got this one incorrect because it seems to me the subject passes WP:GNG based on the sources included in the article. I grant that not all sources are "quality-notability-type" sources, but enough are to pass WP:GNG and the rest are useful for sourcing. I also mentioned WP:IMPACT in my original discussion. Further, it looks like Celestina007 is taking a selective approach to argumentation--note above that the editor references WP:RELPEOPLE which is an essay on notability but in the original discussion made a big deal about other users referencing essays as if they do not apply. I don't think this is intentionally misleading on the part of the editor, just a simple mistake. As to the number of !votes one way or another, Consensus is not determined by popular vote. We are looking for the correct answer here, not the popular one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the claim that the Christian Science Monitor, New York Times, and Atlanta Daily World sources show the subject meets the GNG was rebutted in the discussion, with the statement that these do not represent significant coverage. Looking at the actual sources in question [1][2][3] I'm finding it hard to disagree with this - all three just quote the subject in passing, which is a common example of trivial coverage. WP:IMPACT is an essay with no official standing and the closer would have been justified in ignoring it as a consideration. The same is true for the unsubstantiated claim that Wikipedia will be seen as racist if the article is deleted. Looks like a reasonable close to me. Hut 8.5 18:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse; I looked originally very closely in the subject's notability, did my own research, checked ALL the links in the article and did not see how he meets WP:RELPEOPLE or WP:GNG. I believe it was a right decision. Let's just move on. Kolma8 (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: I looked at this again, from the point of being wrongly closed as well as implications of "closer error" and considering participants in the AFD (including myself) are so far predominantly involved here. I looked at WP:DEL-REASON (#8), WP:DGFA, and the fact that a closing should be determined according to WP:CONACHIEVE. It was not an even split, being 4 to 3. We cite guidelines many times and also relevant essays that certainly carry less weight on their own. In this case WP:RELPEOPLE refers to Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (people), and the "connection" mentioned to WP:GNG. If there is no evidence to impugn the rationale of those weighing in to "Delete", and therefore the decision to close, then the closing follows WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS pertaining to a "sense of the group" by looking at the "strength of argument" considering applicable policies. Informing the closer that a review is ongoing does not follow discussing issues with the closer "first" then bringing it here. Otr500 (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse based on reading the article. If I had been taking part in an AFD, I would have !voted for Soft Delete. Either a Delete or a No Consensus would be a valid close from the actual result. So Endorse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Delete's an acceptable outcome here - more delete !votes than keep !votes. I would weigh the delete !votes slightly greater on the whole, especially because one keep was basically an WP:ILIKEIT, and a couple of the delete !votes clearly refuted the sources. Furthermore looking at the deleted page it doesn't look like we're deleting something notable. Good close, easy endorse in the end. SportingFlyer T·C 18:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse I'd have closed it as NC, but delete isn't unreasonable given the discussion and quality of sources. Hobit (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In the Christian Science Monitor article, he is quoted near the beginning, at the middle, and at the close of the piece. More than brief mention: Legal pot: Why minorities say they’re being left out of the money
- If you will not the accept the Christian Science Monitor, New York Times, and Atlanta Daily World sources, here are three new sources not previously considered on the XFD or mentioned in the article:
|
