The relisting of this afd when there was a clear consensus to keep was a supervote. Consensus was clear that the subject satisfied WP:NACTOR. That is sufficient and has been a long common outcome. WP:N states "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right" where NACTOR is in the box. Closers/relistors are meant to evaluate the discussion, not introduce thier own interpritation of policy.
The relisting comment itself was a fishing expedition for a delete vote. Relistor states that consensus existed that he passed the SNG but states incorrectly that that was not good enough. Effectively they say that GNG overrides it's parents guideline without a policy based justifiiction.
When the relister got the comment they were fishing for they quickly closed it within a day, not going with the standard seven days and not giving other the chance to discuss, especially wrong considering their relisting stated "relisting this discussion for another week".
That close too was also a supervote. SIGCOV does not override WP:N. Closer also states that no significant coverage "is evident, in the article or in this discussion" totally dismissing the Otago Daily Times article that multiple commentators said was good.
Frankly all round a poorly closed afd that should be overturned.
Disclosure of own invovelment: I was the first Keep comment. During the afd I improved the article on a series Wilson had a significant role in to a point it demonstrated a passing of notability guidelines (Not that QuietHere was convinced, apperently sources don't count in they can't personally see them). I checked back after the bad relist and saw another Keep comment so didn't feel the need to comment further. Next thing I new the whole thing had been quickly wrapped up as delete. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus - I think Liz got this one wrong (a rare event), but only insofar as reasonable parties disagreed with respect to WP:NACTOR #1, and made the arguments based on policy. The user above (duffbeerforme) also provided sources which depict significant coverage. I don't see consensus in favor of delete. I don't see consensus in favor of keep, either, but I definitely don't see delete. — Shibbolethink(♔♕) 13:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have restored this article for viewing during this deletion review, removed the AFD tag and protected the page so that it remains in the state it was during the AFD discussion. If the decision is to change the outcome of the AFD, please unprotect the page and tag the talk page appropriately. Thanks. LizRead!Talk! 19:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After a complaint, either here or on my Talk page, about only leaving a closure that stated "Delete", I've started to leave more explanatory statements when I've closed an AFD. Recently, some of these statements have been seen as "supervotes" when I meant to sum up the opinions of the participating editors that I found persuasive. I really have no opinion on whether or not there is an article on this subject in main space so I will either go back to a simple one word closure or work harder on the language I use in a closure statement so it doesn't appear that I'm substituting my own opinion for that of the participating editors in an AFD discussion. If I find myself with an opinion on the fate of an article being discussed, I pass on closing an AFD and add my opinion as a discussion participant instead. LizRead!Talk! 19:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Overturn to no consensus(first preference) or Neutral (second preference) but I strongly oppose a keep close. Numerically the vote is 3 (delete) to 5 (keep). However, I do believe that some of the keep votes should be given somewhat less weight. Duffbeerforme and Dflaw4 had insightful commentaries, but I don't see which other editors directly stated that the interview-like Otawa Daily Times piece is Otago Daily Times article that multiple commentators said was good? The rest state vaguely per above but I don't see them directly endorsing the Otawa Daily Times as SIGCOV, they are more asserting that per above WP:NACTOR is passed, not that the piece is SIGCOV. That close too was also a supervote. SIGCOV does not override WP:N. Closer also states that no significant coverage "is evident, in the article or in this discussion" totally dismissing the Otago Daily Times article that multiple commentators said was good- when has one interview-like piece being able to single-handedly pass WP:GNG which requires multiple sources, at minimum two or three? Therefore, IMO none of the keep participants successfully stated that how GNG is passed. WP:NACTOR is more debatable IMO. It states that Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. There is generously two significant roles aforementioned, making the barest passing of NACTOR. Besides, the restored article states He had a supporting role in the 2008 film Second Hand Wedding, in contrast, Second Hand Wedding lists Patrick as a starring role. With the second role debatably significant, IMHO the keep votes should be given somewhat less weight, given three of the votes are vague "per above" ones, so IMO a keep would be an undesirable close. Nevertheless, IMO this probably leans somewhat closer to no consensus compared to delete. P.S: Noting that Dflaw4's comment is at User_talk:Liz/Archive 4#AfD Close of Patrick Wilson New Zealand Actor. Discounting the poorly explained vote by the fifth keep voter, a sockpuppet account, gives 4-3 (keep to delete). That is insufficient for a keep close, so I stand by an overturn to no consensus only but note one to keep. VickKiang(talk) 21:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
VickKiang. When I said multiple it was two, I was saying that it wasn't just me. On that second role, I don't see any question about wether it was a significant role, just about wether it was a notable production, which is why I updated that show's page. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus. This is, unfortunately, a clear case of supervote. After relisting this AFD, and then not getting the result that she wanted, Liz should either have cast a vote to Delete, or left it for another closer. The numerical result is a Keep. There is no way that a Delete can be justified. Some credence must be given to what the community says. Liz should have become a participant (and she is almost always right). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Having taken part in this AfD, I was also surprised by the result. I did raise this with Liz on her Talk page (on 26 October 2022), as follows: "With respect to your close of WP: Articles for deletion/Patrick Wilson (New Zealand actor), I believe you may have cast a supervote. There were five votes to Keep the article and two to Delete it. Yet you closed the AfD with a Delete. You had previously relisted the AfD when there was already a clear consensus to Keep the article, and noted your concerns with regard to WP:SIGCOV. And when you closed the article as a “Delete”, you argued that there was no WP:SIGCOV, which suggests that your own personal view that the notability standards weren’t met took precedence over the consensus, which was that such standards were met. I kindly ask you to consider re-opening the AfD and allowing another editor to determine the consensus." I was also concerned with the fact that Liz only left the re-list open for 4 or 5 days, and closed it soon after two Delete votes came in. I thought the re-list should have been left open for the full 7 days, and then, at that juncture, I would have expected the AfD to be closed as either Keep or No Consensus, or for there to have been a further re-list to allow for consideration of the Delete arguments. My understanding of the closer's role is that they determine the consensus of the voters, without allowing their own views to prejudice the close result. Their role is not to weigh up the arguments that have been made and then side with either the Keep-ers or the Delete-rs, which would mean that they then cast the ultimate vote. If that occurs, then the closing editor has become an invested juror in the proceedings, rather than simply an impartial arms-length bystander whose job it is to determine the consensus of the others. Dflaw4 (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus this is probably somewhere between no consensus and keep, but I prefer not to jump from one end to the other and those two results are the same in terms of keeping the article. The relist should not have happened as there was clear support to keep based on article passing the appropriate WP:SNG, almost bordering on a non-admin WP:SNOW close being appropriate. While two delete votes were added after the unnecessary relist, there still clearly was not consensus to delete. FrankAnchor 13:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC This feels wrong in a lot of directions. But yeah, there is no consensus for deletion. NACTOR is a reason to keep something, like it or not. Hobit (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Keep 1) SNG or GNG are alternatives--an article must meet one or the other. 2) Opinions were numerically that the SNG, NACTOR, was met. 3) The relisting instructions did not reflect #1, and so a failure to produce SIGCOV doesn't affect the notability of the article, given that consensus as that NACTOR was met. I understand that not everyone agrees with me on #1, but the remainder of my argument follows from that fundamental understanding of how SNGs work. Jclemens (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like to re-emphasise my concerns with regard to the way Liz is re-listing during AfDs. At this AfD she relisted not for the usual 7 days, but for just 15 minutes. During those 15 minutes a Delete vote came in, and she then quickly closed the AfD as a Delete just minutes later. This strikes me as problematic, and, in my view, it demonstrates bias. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dflaw4: Per WP:RELIST, A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days. But you can take that to deletion review as well if you feel that close is unsatisfactory to your preferences how a close should be, as in a 3-0 vote (delete to keep) should be closed otherwise? Thanks. VickKiang(talk) 20:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of this discussion needs to be limited to the deletion of Mr. Wilson’s page. If you have concerns about other pages, then raise the discussion on Liz’ talk page or open another DRV, but this shouldn’t be brought up here. FrankAnchor 17:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I generally relist if I don't see a consensus. I don't expect relisted articles to always be open for another full week. And sometimes, one editor can come in an make their opinion known that, to me, along with a deletion nomination, can then show a consensus to Delete. If an AFD discussion has no participation, is relisted, and then another editor comes and makes a strong Delete argument, well, that demonstrates to me that there are two editors who believe an article should be Deleted and no editor arguing for it to be Kept. Editors who participate at AFD can legitimately argue that I relist too frequently but I do so so as not to draw conclusions based on, say, only a nominator's statement (as some AFD closers do). It works differently for Kept/Redirect/Merge consensus decisions because every nomination at AFD already starts with one Delete opinion, that is the nomination statement. So if there was a nomination statement and one editor making a strong argument to Keep an article, then I would relist (and yes, I know that AFD is NOT A VOTE). I will also admit that, for example, an AFD tonight had only 2 editors who participated, both had less than 50 edits to their contribution history and I want to see the judgment of the proposal from more experienced editors so I relisted the discussion.
If there are specific instances that you are upset with, please come to my talk page. I don't enjoy getting called to Deletion Review so I try not to close an AFD discussion unless the consensus is clear to me and I'm sorry that sometimes the nominator or the page creator is unhappy with my closure. But that's what talk pages are for and Deletion Review serves as a secondary forum if the situation can't be resolved on the closer's talk page.
I'll also add that I've come to be very active at AFD over the past six months. So, I expect that I'll get more questions about my closures after closing 20 discussions than an admin who closes 2. I'm not ever going to be 100% correct, no closer is. LizRead!Talk! 09:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC. This does look quite bad from a WP:SUPERVOTE point of view. It's blatantly obvious that there was no consensus for deletion in this discussion. Thparkth (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The fifth keep voter was later blocked for being a sockpuppet account, if that makes a difference to anyone's assessment here. Adumbrativus (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does not appear that the master or any other suspected socks were involved in this discussion, so no effect on my opinion at all. FrankAnchor 18:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. Blatant supervote and poor judgment. ✗plicit 12:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus, supervote. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was guided in my closure by Otr500's Delete opinion and I guess I should have specified that in my discussion closing statement (although we both mention the insufficiencies of IMDb). I've been urged by editors unhappy with a few of my AFD closures that I should include a statement explaining the decision but I believe my comments in this one have been misunderstood so I think I'll return in most cases to only a simple "Keep" or "Delete", etc. when I close a discussion or carefully word my statement so neutrally, without any opinion included, so that these misunderstandings will not happen again. In this case though, I thought the Keep opinions were weak and Otr500's Delete argument wasn't and it was echoed by others who agreed with it. And, as we know, AFD is not a vote counting exercise.
I will also join the ranks of other AFD closers who only take on AFD discussions with unanimous or near unaminous opinions expressed. Right now, there seem to be only 2 or 3 administrators who can close evenly divided or controversial AFD discussions without being brought to Deletion review and I guess I can't count myself among their ranks. I don't think it is the decisions I make but the way I word the decision statements that cause me to be called to Deletion review. I do my best but I have to recognize my limits and, like some admins working in the AFD area, I'll only close AFD discussions where all, or at least the vast majority of, participants agree on an outcome. I use to have a critical view towards those closers who only close those 100% Delete or 100% Keep discussions but now I see where they are coming from. They, and now me, wish to avoid getting a notice to come to Deletion review where even if your deletion is endorsed (and in this case it wasn't), a foe will show up to take potshots at you. Now back to work. LizRead!Talk! 19:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The other lesson learned is seeing how few admins or editors doing NAC closes show up to participate in these Deletion reviews of decisions they have made. In the past, I thought it would help the discussion to explain my decisions but I've noticed admins more experienced than myself do not come to defend or explain themselves at DR. So I guess the closer or deleting admin's participation here is not that crucial to assessing the decision that was made. I don't mean these comments to sound fatalistic, they just reflect my experience here this year with being scrutinized at noticeboard discussions. I do understand the great importance of having a review process for deletion decisions and my visits here have been instructive but probably not in the way they were intended to be. LizRead!Talk! 19:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, on the whole you do a great job closing things. I've been involved in DRV for well more than a decade and the issues you have had a perfectly reasonable. I feel it's just that you put a bit too much of *you* in the close rather than closing based on the discussion.
@Liz:, as I see it, the key questions here are A) Does this pass the SNG and B) are the sources so poor that we have a BLP or WP:V issue that can only be solved with deletion? To my reading, it's pretty clear that the discussion concluded that it does pass NACTOR. The second question is a lot harder. But I don't think it could be said that the discussion concluded there was such a problem. And I think the (fairly poor) sources are enough that it doesn't require the closer step in here and override the consensus of the discussion. If this included "contentious material" I'd have a different opinion (per WP:BLPRS). Basically, I think that your views on WP:GNG vs WP:SNG is somewhat out-of-step with the general consensus on that issue and it shows here. Just be aware of that going forward. We all have views that differ from the community's (e.g. I'm more inclusive than most...) The trick is being aware of that. And if you find a discussion where the consensus and your own views are at odds, !vote (or not) and leave it for someone else to close. Your closes are almost all great, just treat the ones where you find that the community disagrees with you as a learning opportunity. Hobit (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Strictly non-palindromic number – restored and redirected to Palindromic number#Other bases where the term is mentioned. Merging content from the article's history may be done at the discretion any editor. There is a rough consensus in this discussion is that this alternative to deletion should have been implemented. Sjakkalle(Check!) 22:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
In this discussion, there were two issues to resolve: (1) Is the topic is notable for a stand-alone article? (2) Is content suitable for merging to palindromic number? Most participants solely debated issue (1), with a majority concluding the topic is not notable. Another editor and I argued in support of merging. In my view, the closure did not properly weigh consensus on the WP:ATD issue (2).
Merging is an outcome compatible with the rationales supporting deletion. Concerns about notability are satisfied by merging.
The merge proposal was unrebutted and deserves weight accordingly. In order for deletion to be the result, the answer to both (1) and (2) must be No. There were deletion rationales against (1), but no deletion rationales against (2). When a reasonable ATD is on the table, and no reason is given to oppose it, merging is supported by policy (see e.g. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try_to_fix_problems on merging).
Even more so than for other types of ATD debates, explicit discussion is critical for a decision between delete and merge, because deletion of article history precludes normal content-editing. In contrast, after a delete/redirect decision, the redirect can always be recreated later. After a keep/merge decision, editors can always discuss merging outside of the AfD venue.
Notwithstanding the vote count, I suggest that the closure should be overturned to relist for further discussion of delete/merge, or directly overturned to merge. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to merge per nom. I voted delete early in the discussion. I generally prefer a merge/redirect as an WP:ATD when a suitable target is identified, which it was after my vote was cast (and I was not aware of this until now). I oppose relisting as this is really a delete vs. merge discussion with very little interest in an outright keep. FrankAnchor 14:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would have preferred merge as a closure in order to preserve the content, though delete was within a range of reasonable closures. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think per our guidelines we should merge, or perhaps redirect, rather than delete when there is a valid merge target. There clearly is. I'm unsure how much of this should be merged--I think even a paragraph might be UNDUE. But yeah: overturn to merge. Hobit (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...and your evidence resulted in which findings of fact, precisely? Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I provided it as rebuttal evidence to your proposed principle Alternatives to Deletion, which was not included in the final decision either. Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You'll notice that I'm not here touting my contributions there as somehow increasing their normativity. You are, and I can't figure out why. Jclemens (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure how you inferred that. I linked it because it is an organized and efficient presentation. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, endorsed by whom? If you're not trying to ride the coattails of an arbitration proceeding which ended up doing nothing whatsoever with the argument you made, then by all means put it together as an essay. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I presented evidence that Alternatives to deletion are not preferred over deletion at the recent arbitration case. is a statement of fact. Flatscan (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I ate breakfast this morning: entirely true, and entirely irrelevant to this conversation. I don't mean to sound harsh here, but really: either you were trying to use the venue as some sort of [Inappropriate, IMHO,obviously] appeal to authority, or your inclusion of that tidbit was irrelevant, or there's some third option that I'm still missing. Jclemens (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Merge - When the participants are split between Delete, Keep, and Merge, Merge is the compromise. There wasn't consensus to Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is the policy/guideline basis for a compromise? WP:Supervote mentions "compromise" a few times, but it is an essay. Flatscan (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist for targeted discussion of what to merge – perhaps nothing – and whether a redirect is desired. I do not see a consensus to merge, but one may be developed. On a separate note, Liz's comment appears to be participating instead of closing, which I would like to encourage. Flatscan (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to merge Last two !votes were merge, objectively reasonable, and the core AfD question was N (should this have a separate article?) not V (is this thing even demonstrably real?). The alternative would have been to relist, but that's not necessary, because a merge keeps the content that everyone agreed in the discussion was real, but not as a standalone article. In other words, a merge outcome is the natural result of the discussion that was held, regardless of the delete vs. keep count, and leaving it open for more opinions is not at all likely to change that, except possibly to keep if something stunningly good was found--and in such case it could be un-merged later without much fuss. Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
