- Bernice Madigan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
From the closing admin's talk page:
|
Hi, I notice that you have closed this AfD saying that the "result" was Redirect. How did you determine that, when 6 editors argued that the subject met WP:GNG through WP:SIGCOV and WP:SUSTAINED? One vote was an outright Delete, three were redirect or delete/redirect, and two (including the nominator) suggested a minibio. How does that result in a redirect? Also, how does it help establish notability guidelines for supercentenarians, which the Wikiproject LONGEVITY argue that they are doing? Or have they already been established, but not actually stated anywhere, so that editors waste time arguing on AfDs for cases that the LONGEVITY project have already determined are outside their unstated guidelines? I will ask this question on the LONGEVITY page, though in reality it is an ANTILONGEVITY project, with some of the most emotional language I have seen in Wikipedia discussions used by those trying to delete all these articles, rather than assessing them individually. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Subprojects don't write policy. Not all votes are equal and jts not a democracy or straight up vote. The delete side had better arguments. Listifying barely or non-notable subjects into one notable or significant list is an established practise, which is why I closed it that way. . What biographical data has been lost that couldn't be included jn a list. Spartaz Humbug! 10:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, a lot. Did you even look at the article before deleting it? I had just done some revisions, which, I discovered, added back some information deleted by a supercentenarian deleter saying it was "unsourced" - it was not unsourced, it was just not specifically referenced at that point in the article. The Delete side arguments are highly emotional, and are based on making the article so minimal that there is nothing worth saving, rather than actually checking if there is SIGCOV and adding it. However, your answer makes clear to me that there is no point at all in participating in AfDs for people who "could just be included in a list", if their articles are so poor that it appears that there is nothing else to say about them.RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
I agree with RebeccaGreen that in the AfD there were strong policy-based arguments for retention that provide significant coverage in reliable sources such as:
- "She is notable WP:GNG with articles in the Huffpost [1] and Independent [2], which I don't believe are sourced in the article. She has appeared on ABC news, featured in AARP Magazine, filmed for the Center for aging at the University of Chicago, participated in several scientific studies on aging [3]. She is notable for her age, which is another way of saying she is notable for her lifespan and reliable sources cover basic aspects of her lifespan. routine does not apply here because the reliable sources are about her and there is nothing routine about living to 115."
- "As well as the articles found by I am One of Many, I find an article in National Geographic[4], in the Herald&Review from Illinois, about her being the oldest person on Twitter[5], in the Detroit Free Press, which says that she was also on Facebook[6], and in Metro US[7]. This is not routine coverage - she meets WP:SIGCOV; and it runs over several years, so WP:SUSTAINED. The article could certainly be improved to include these sources and the information in them, but that is not a reason for deletion WP:NEXIST"
Several of the "delete" arguments were very short and contained very little reasoning about why Bernice Madigan was not notable. It is untrue that "The delete side had better arguments".
"Listifying barely or non-notable subjects into one notable or significant list is an established practise, which is why I closed it that way" is a valid personal opinion to have, but there was no consensus in the discussion to implement that approach for this case.
There is clearly no consensus to redirect when (after disregarding the single-purpose account Garlicolive) all of the editors who supported retention provided policy-based arguments.Overturn to no consensus. Cunard (talk) 12:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I don't see any new information above that was not already mentioned in the AfD. The close clearly was within admin discretion. --Randykitty (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse a redirect was allowed and the OP should go write the minibio instead of wasting our time at DRV. WP:PAGEDECIDE applies here. Legacypac (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus or Relist - I'm not convinced that Spartaz considered whether there was biographical data that could be lost, based on his own statement on his talk page. I'm willing to reconsider this position upon further explanation from Spartaz. schetm (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- These old-age discussions kill me. I really really don't care if they are old. I really don't care if they are only notable for being old. I care if they have coverage that meets WP:N or if there is some extraordinary reason we should ignore WP:N. WP:DRV should be about just evaluating the discussion, but I don't feel AfD is capable of having a solid and fact-filled discussion on this topic. So I'll look at the underlying sources instead. The National Geographic one certainly looks to be above the bar needed for WP:N. The rest that I looked at are either local or barely touch on the subject. So WP:N is borderline. The discussion is also borderline and mostly useless IMO. overturn to no consensus is where I get to. There are no great arguments or numeric consensus in that discussion to do anything, including redirect IMO. Hobit (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I agree that I don't see any new information in overturn! votes that was not already mentioned in the AfD. The close was clearly within admin discretion, and the nominator should indeed go write the mini-bio if they feel the content is so valuable. The redirect made that opportunity easy. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Closers comment. This fell squarely in closer's discretion. Only 1 really good source says it all. There is a long standing consensus to listify barely notable pages with a single shared characteristic and that is what I did here and have been doing for well over a decade. No biographical data will be lost as anyone can merge from the history. To be clear, I have not evaluated the sources or read the articlee myself as my job is to close according to the discussion and community norms and not take an opinion on the sources or content myself. Spartaz Humbug! 17:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not within the closer's discretion to give less weight to the comments made by Ravenswing, I am One of Many, RebeccaGreen, Schetm, and me because we all provided policy-based arguments for retention. We all concluded that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. There are at least five good sources about the subject. As discussed in the AfD by RebeccaGreen, there is this article from the National Geographic and this article from the Detroit Free Press. The Detroit Free Press article discusses a Boston Globe article that provides significant coverage of the subject and this article from The Berkshire Eagle which also provides significant coverage of the subject.
I am One of Many also wrote in the AfD: "She has appeared on ABC news, featured in AARP Magazine, filmed for the Center for aging at the University of Chicago, participated in several scientific studies on aging [8]." – I cannot evaluate the ABC News and AARP Magazine sources as they are not linked. But this article (linked in the AfD) from Boxcar Media provides very substantial coverage of the subject and verifies the information about the ABC News appearance, the coverage in AARP Magazine, and the filming at the Center for Aging at the University of Chicago. Only 1 really good source says it all. ... To be clear, I have not evaluated the sources or read the articlee myself – it was not the consensus of the discussion that there was only one really good source. How do you conclude that there is only one good source without having evaluated the sources yourself? A merge is a valid editorial action to take if there is a consensus to do so. There was no consensus in the AfD to do a merge instead of to have a standalone article. Cunard (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC) Edited to add more information. Cunard (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Its longstanding consensus that in close calls the closer has some discretion. Its reasonable for me to close to a meta consensus. Your opinion my differ but that's where we are. Spartaz Humbug! 18:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not matter if some voters found the subject notable - notable topics can be merged together per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Therefore a merge/redirect close is perfectly alined with "notable" votes. Legacypac (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Consensus#Levels of consensus says, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." There was no "consensus on a wider scale" that articles like this one should be closed as "redirect" even when the community is split on notability and whether there should be a standalone article. Closing to a "meta consensus" requires that a wider consensus has been established through RfCs or in policies or guidelines. No such prior "community consensus on a wider scale" exists in this situation to make closing as redirect within discretion of the closer.
Cunard (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus. There were reasonable arguments (and defective ones) on both sides in the AfD. The keep side argued that the subject met the GNG, and the position that, say, [9] and other sources are enough to pass the GNG isn't unreasonable. Questions such as whether we should cover the subject as part of another article are matters of editorial judgement to be decided by the AfD participants. The closer shouldn't try to substitute their judgement for that of the participants, even if the outcome is close. Hut 8.5 19:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus, which defaults to keep. Even the closer doesn't argue that there was a consensus in the discussion to merge/redirect. The closure seems to be based on the closer's assertion that there is a meta-consensus to merge
barely or non-notable subjects into one notable or significant list is an established practise , but the closer has not identified any policy or guideline or RFC which supports that. The reality is that we have a pattern where in some cases there has been a consensus at AFD to merge/redirect that particular article, but in other cases not to do so. So there is no meta-consensus to enforce merge/redirectin the absence of a local consensus to do so.
- So in effect, this closure was a supervote, imposing a personal view as if it was policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus – Admittedly I'm involved in this discussion, but my recommendation here goes against my own !vote, which was to redirect/merge. A straightforward reading of the full discussion shows:
- Support for keep: Ravenswing, I am One of Many, RebeccaGreen, Cunard, Garlicolive (SPA), schetm
- Support for delete: The Blade of the Northern Lights, Legacypac, Newshunter12, EEng
- Support for redirect with mini-bio: The Blade of the Northern Lights, Legacypac, JFG, EEng, SportingFlyer
- Indeed this looks like a no consensus outcome. The redirect option gathered support from almost all editors who also supported delete, but from none of those who supported keep. In other words, the middle ground solution or merging to a list was accepted by one side and rejected by the other. Therefore it's a stretch to consider a redirect to be within admin discretion. With less participation, or with defective arguments on either side, the closer could have invoked WP:ATD, but here the outcome does look like a supervote. I also note that the article has been expanded, with improved sourcing, during the course of the discussion, and that is generally a good outcome of the scrutiny arising out of the AfD process. In conclusion, a net positive for the encyclopedia. — JFG talk 22:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
