Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 June 3

Andy Zipf – no consensus to overturn, default to endorse. The two views here are (a) that as the only voices were for delete, that should have been the close, and (b) that given two relists and only one, rather weak, delete !vote beside the nominator, a no consensus close citing WP:NPASR was within the closer's discretion in terms of WP:Deletion process#No quorum. Both views are arguable, and were well argued; there is a small numerical majority for endorse but no overall consensus. – JohnCD (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Including the nominator, two editors stated that the article should be deleted. No editors contested. Not sure why Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) decided that the debate needed to be closed as no consensus is beyond me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: The rationale for the no consensus closure is stated atop the AfD discussion page, where I stated that the !vote following your nomination appears to have been based only upon sourcing in the article, "as nothing here at all actually convincing of his own notability as an article" (bold emphasis mine) "As nothing here" implies that the user's assessment of notability was only based upon sources in the article. See also WP:NEXIST, an important part of the Wikipedia:Notability page. AfD discussions are closed based upon the strengths of arguments relative to Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and are not closed based upon an !vote count. Also note that I closed the discussion with no prejudice against speedy renomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I nominated, I searched for sources and found only one to support notability. I said nothing about nothing here. I'm sorry that I did not make that more clear. I am not being disingenuous as I searched and found nothing. @SmokeyJoe: offer some of the sources that you have found. I have no clue why so many editors assume I stated that there were no sources in the article because I have re-read what I wrote, and I did not write that. I wrote that I could only find one source. So, I'm sorry that I didn't explain it more clearly, but there are no sources which is why I nominated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I said nothing about nothing here." - that's not what is said. "!vote following your nomination..." meaning the other opinion expressed in the discussion is the "nothing here" based purely on the existing article content and hence seem to carry little or no weight. Since it had already been relisted twice they elected to close it using their own discretion as no consensus. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz, the point is that you, nor anyone else in the discussion had made a minimum case for deletion. I have just read through the first thirty ghits of ""Andy Zipf" -wikipedia". Of the first thirty, all are promotional and/or non-independent. So, I now agree to "delete". However, your nomination implies that you looked at one and decided it should be deleted. Swister's implies that he made a cursory review of the nomination and agreed, but that !vote is severely weakened if you not that he posts near identical poor English no-details !votes on very many AfDs. The closing admin did very well to note that the arguments made were insufficient. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's entirely a lie @SmokeyJoe:. I a compelling case. I showed which guideline the subject should meet and he did not. I also did WP:BEFORE and found only one source that meets WP:RS and I offered it. You on the other hand did absolutely nothing in the discussion and instead come to the aide of a useless admin who didn't look at the evidence and then call me out for not making a case. What sort of logic is that? I have seen articles that meet WP:N be deleted because empty heads like yours come along and see "there are not sources in the article" and then nominate, and then similar empty heads agree that there are no sources in the article and "agree with nom". In generaly, the music AfDs see very little traffic, save SisterTwister and me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lie? A compelling case? Are we talking about this, "Fails WP:MUSICBIO and definitely WP:GNG. I found ttps://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/av/2011/07/album-stream-andy-zipf---jealous-hands.html but that's not particularly significant coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)" as the entirety of your case? I see two assertions and one poor source that you criticise. If you did anything per WP:BEFORE, you didn't say so, and so it must be assumed that you did not. You found one poor source, but how hard did you look? Please say when you nominate. I do not back down from saying that your cursory nomination was inadequate. This is not to say that the article should be kept. Similarly, SisterTwister, he is usually right, but gives inadequate explanation. If you don't want AfD to be run and decided by empty heads, don't make empty head sounding nominations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Nominator disingenuously implies a lack of sources findable when there are an abundance of ghits to review. The only support was our notoriously shallow delete !voter, whose !votes imply zero investigation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete as per the consensus (shallow though it was). Nobody turning up in over three weeks to argue for the article speaks a lot. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but wrong forum. I might have closed this as WP:SOFTDELETE, but the actual close was reasonable too. And, given that there's WP:NPASR, the right thing to do here would be to just re-nominate it, rather than spend a week arguing about it here, so I suggest speedy-closing this DRV. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No. This is the right forum as it was closed and there is no other forum to discuss AfDs that are closed as "no consensus" against evidence that it should be deleted. If there is, show me where. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as within discretion. I can't see the AfD "discussion" as having much value. The delete !vote words look to be in a random order but perhaps there's a bug in my browser. "No quorum" applies, as Roy helpfully suggests, and closing as "no consensus" is one of the options available to the closer in this situation. Thincat (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and softdelete. There was shallow consensus to delete here. More importantly the closer's rationale was invalid on its face. The state of the article isn't the issue. The question is whether adequate sources to prove notability of the subject actually exist. In AfDs the burden of proof in establishing that such sources exist rests on the editors making the "keep" argument. Nobody in the AfD actually attempted to make that argument. The closing admin's rationale is based purely on a speculation that sources establishing notability might exist. That's not a good enough reason for "no consensus" close in this case. Nsk92 (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The !vote following the nomination went against the grain of WP:NEXIST, coming across as an incomplete analysis that assessed notability upon sources in the article alone. Nowhere in my close did I base anything upon "speculation that sources establishing notability might exist". It's unclear how you came to this conclusion. Ultimately, the nomination rationale was fine, but the delete !vote following it did not carry much weight relative to this aspect of WP:N, because topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in an article. If the user simply stated that they performed source searches to better qualify the deletion rationale, I would have been fine with deleting the article. Again, I added a WP:NPASR clause to the close, so the article can be renominated at any time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The argument of the nominator and of the other AfD participant, User:SwisterTwister, was that the article did not present sufficient evidence of the subject's notability. In the absence of positive evidence to the country, this argument alone is sufficient to have the article deleted. (That is basically how PROD works). There is no formal obligation on the "delete" proponents to perform searches to see if sources establishing the subject's notability exist. The default presumption is that the subject is not notable, and it is up to the "keep" proponents to present positive evidence overcoming this presumption. So the "delete" proponents did do the minimum that was required from them here, while no "keep" arguments or evidence were presented. Nsk92 (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nsk92: not the argument was not that the article did not present sufficient evidence, it was that there is an insufficient number of RSes. I provided the only RS that discusses the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. After a discussion relisted several times, with a unanimous "delete" consensus, I simply cannot endorse this. What we have here is a close that should have been a !vote.—S Marshall T/C 17:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion closures are not based upon an !vote count, they're based upon the strengths of arguments relative to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When the headcount is 2-0, the 0 part does indeed make it unanimous, but it's hard to call the 2 part a consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whose arguments did you take into account?—S Marshall T/C 21:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:S Marshall, I would like to applaud the closing admin upholding the principle of NOTAVOTE in this extreme case of a unanimous agreement on extremely weak arguments to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The concern I have is that the close had no basis in the debate. As far as I can see the closer looked at the debate, rejected its conclusions and substituted his own opinion about what should be done. We've always taken a dim view of that.—S Marshall T/C 07:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOQUORUM seems to suggest the closer may base the close on the state of the article as well as that of the discussion. The specific close no consensus seems unobjectionable to me (can there really be said to have been a consensus to delete?) though I agree the rest of the closing rationale looks more like a !vote than advice on our guidelines and policies. Thincat (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. I didn't notice this when it was open. If I had, I would have !voted "keep" based on substantial coverage in The Washington Post [1] (which goes into some detail about Zipf's odd business model) and No Depression [2], plus the somewhat less thorough coverage in the Telegraph Herald [3], WAMU [4], Culture Collide [5],and Paste [6]. The "no consensus" close was reasonable under the circumstances (and a soft delete would have also been reasonable), but since there have now been objections I think the most efficient response would be to reopen the existing AfD, at which point I would add my keep !vote and other interested participants could contribute as well. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why this has come here. The close was no-consensus. Anyone who thinks it should be deleted can simply start another AfD; anyone who thinks it should be kept can await such an AfD and !vote accordingly--or, much more effectively, add additional sourcing now. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This was a WP:NOQUORUM situation, there being few comments (and I agree the second one is poor), and closing as "no consensus" with no prejudice against speedy renomination (NPASR) is within the closer's discretion. Simply start new AfD. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to nominate for speedy but some other bureaucrat said it did not qualify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Görlitz (talk • contribs) 04:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Where the nomination statement is weak and suggests a lack of BEFORE and the only delete vote is a boilerplate, uninformed statement that admits to being based on the article's current sourcing rather than available sourcing, there is no quorum, and the closer deserves praise for remembering that consensus is not a vote. Rebb ing 03:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I usually close these as soft delete (as the equivalent of an expired WP:PROD), but no consensus is a fair reading as well. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse Soft-deleting at this point would be pointless. The "no consensus" close was explicitly done without prejudice; it can be renominated and cruise to a speedy keep to placate those who need procedure-for-the-sake-of-procedure. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think softdelete would have been a better outcome, but NC was also reasonable. Hobit (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. There was an unanimous consensus based on valid arguments. The closer's view should have been added as an opinion, but it does not match the outcome of the discussion. Sandstein 05:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete – unanimous consensus to delete. SSTflyer at 04:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a (two-strong) unanimous vote to delete. As the closer perspicaciously noted, there was no consensus. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and allow speedy relist. NA1000 is correct, nominators need to state that they followed BEFORE if they want to be presumed to have done so. Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the same boat as S Marshall. If NA1000 had !voted, there would have been no consensus. Softdelete or speedy won't work now, because there are enough eyes for it to be contested, and I suspect a fresh XfD at this point will simply produce a higher participation lack of consensus. I cannot endorse this close, as admins should not be casting supervotes by furthering arguments that were not raised in the discussion – participating in the discussion to ensure those points were raised would have been a better course of action. But in practise it's "endorse" or "do nothing", which amounts to the same thing. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete per unanimous consensus to do so. If the closer felt the !votes were weak, then they should have left a !vote explaining that and the next closer to come by wouldn't almost certainly closed it as no consensus. Closing something against unanimous consensus otherwise is a WP:SUPERVOTE. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The short discussion was unanimous, but per Wikipedia:Consensus, consensus is not based upon unanimity. See the quote below from WP:CONSENSUS, and also see my comment below. Essentially, the overall strengths of the overall discussion relative to guidelines and policies were not quite convincing enough for me to delete the article, and the discussion had been through two full relistings with very minimal input, with only two total users opining. I will keep in mind the notion of leaving a comment in cases such as this, rather than closing, on a case-by-case basis relative to each unique AfD discussion. To be specific, this would be a comment, rather than an !vote as stated above. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Also, "unanimous consensus" is literally correct but at the same time sounds a bit excessive, when I read "unanimous consensus" I would expect half a dozen votes, here there was only one (poor) comment beyond the nominator. Cavarrone 15:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – My close was not an !vote at all. If I had !voted, I would have stated something about the notability of the topic or lack thereof, with qualification relative to guidelines and policies. This is my standard modus operandi at AfD when !voting. I apologize if my close has been interpreted as some sort of !vote, but it was not. Simply put, the overall strengths of the arguments in the quite short discussion were not quite strong enough to convince me to delete the article, and AfD is not based upon a vote count. Rationale in the nomination was fine and adequate, but the !vote following it was not persuasive enough relative to WP:N and WP:NEXIST. Again, the !vote stating "as nothing here at all actually convincing of his own notability as an article" came across as having a reasonable likelihood of only basing notability upon the state of sourcing in the article, particularly the "nothing here" and "as an article" parts. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, NPASR close was enterely reasonable given the lack of participation. And I don't see how an argument such as "as nothing here at all actually convincing of his own notability as an article" could carry any weight, I would be worried otherwise. Cavarrone 14:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.