Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 May 16

Andrew Dismukes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is a request to review the propriety of applying a non-admin WP:SNOWCLOSE to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Dismukes. The SNOW was applied 10 hours after the AfD discussion was opened and after just three non-policy based !votes were registered (e.g. "Who are we trying to cancel next, Liz Cheney?!", "He's a cast member and writer on SNL" and "The very night he complains on his national television show that his article doesn't have a photo, suddenly that article gets nominated for deletion?! Obviously, someone was watching."). The closer, in a comment on their Talk page, indicates their close was based on a headcount ("In 10 hours that the AfD was open you got 3 Strong Keep !votes" [1]) It is not unusual, in AfD, for the initial batch of !votes to veer one way or the other, which is why we have a customary seven day discussion except in exceptional circumstances. SNOW specifically directs closers that "Especially, closers should beware of interpreting "early pile on" as necessarily showing how a discussion will end up."

This is not a request to review if this article should or should not be deleted, this is a request to review whether discussion should be terminated after 10 hours on the basis of three early pile-on !votes that were not policy-based. Chetsford (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh. If I were an admin, I'd revert the WP:BADNAC. But, even if that were the case, looking at the article, the AfD, and doing the most cursory of BEFORE searches, there's snow in the forecast. So not really sure what the right answer is here. SportingFlyer T·C 19:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree a cursory search would support a DeleteKeep conclusion. A nuanced and detailed search would not, I believe, support such a conclusion. One of the DeleteKeep !voters used a WP:GOOGLETEST argument which, as I acknowledge in the OP, does produce extensive results. On drilling down into them, however, we realize these are merely the appearance of a name in cast and credit lists and the substance of biographical matter is sourced to non-RS. These are arguments that would, correctly, be made over a period of days in an AfD discussion. However, the shut-down of discussion after ten hours precluded such argument from occurring. Chetsford (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC); edited 20:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't want to get drawn into an AfD argument at DRV, so I'll leave it at this, but I'd be surprised if you get even one other person to agree with you on this. I can provide WP:GNG sources in WP:RS if needed, and the program he's on has cultural relevance both in the US and abroad to the point where simply appearing is about as close to a notability lock you can get for that particular type of comedian. The procedure was incorrect, but the result's going to be the exact same. SportingFlyer T·C 21:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "the program he's on has cultural relevance both in the US and abroad to the point where simply appearing is about as close to a notability lock you can get for that particular type of comedian" We have specific criteria for inherent notability of actors under WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER and being a supporting cast member of Saturday Night Live television comedy program is not among those. Therefore, this BLP has to meet the GNG guidelines. Since the arguments against Delete advanced a substantially similar argument - that merely appearing on the Saturday Night Live television comedy program constituted inherent notability when our guidelines establish no such standard - they were not based in policy and a ten-hour close based on three non policy-based arguments is not what is envisaged by WP:SNOW. Chetsford (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course it's not inherently notable, no specific role is, but anyone who is a supporting cast member will inevitably pass GNG, as Dismukes does. The close was inappropriate and an admin should just come by and undo it, but this was a WP:TROUT-worthy nomination in the first place. SportingFlyer T·C 23:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• anyone who is a supporting cast member will inevitably pass GNG Unless we've recently adopted lower GNG standards for U.S.-based actors than the revolving door of Indian actors with more extensive credits than Dismukes whom we (correctly) purge daily, I can't imagine any world in which this is true. Like most actor BLPs for the American TV show "Saturday Night Live," the BLP is tortuously sourced to fleeting and incidental mentions in cast lists and show summaries in RS while biographical detail relies on non-RS sources. The result, for many of these, are actor BLPs that represent questionable snapshots in time of rep players that never were (i.e. Paul Brittain, who may actually be notable but barely so, though with a more extensive claim to it than this guy) and who disappear into obscurity after their run is done. While notability is not temporary, on the question of SNL BLPs we have allowed ourselves to indulge a CRYSTALBALL mentality in the permission of these BLPs which assigns to them inherent notability by inference, even if we're careful to say that's not what we're doing. But, I digress. Chetsford (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist - since we are here to discuss the formal procedure, a WP:BADNAC, closing was by far too quick CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Relist:
  • • The closer was out of line. The fact that the nomination was silly is not important here. The appeal here by the nominator is not silly.
    • Maybe we need stronger instructions discouraging non-administrative snow closes. If there is an important reason why a nomination has to be snow closed, isn't it likely that an admin will agree to do the snow close?
    • The statement that there were three pile-on non-policy !votes is wrong. One of the pile-on !votes cited notability guidelines. The fact that it also cited non-policy reasons doesn't make it non-policy. But it was a BADNAC.
    • Maybe we need stronger instructions discouraging non-administrative snow closes.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• A totally unsustainable close. I'm minded to summarily overturn it and relist the debate, any objections?—S Marshall T/C 22:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, first, I appreciate the enthusiasm. However, I don't think there's any particular urgency to reopening/relisting it so it might be advisable to let the discussion here run its course. But, I'm a biased participant in this discussion so will defer to you and others on how to proceed. Chetsford (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reopen/Relist Even if a SNOW close was appropriate, the floor I've always respected is 6-0 in 24 hours, not 3-0 in 10. Still, SNOW isn't ever essential or necessary and I agree that a premature SNOW NAC which leads to a DRV doesn't serve the purpose of shortcutting a pointless discussion. Jclemens (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Reopen and relist. Textbook WP:BADNAC. A good heuristic: The closure being challenged in good faith is a sign that the decision was controversial and therefore ineligible for a non-admin close. A self-revert would have avoided the above ink being spilled. czar 01:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn, too little for a snow close but yeah, this is getting kept. Hobit (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Niraj Gera (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Purpose 3. I was reviewing this article and felt it was notable since many new sources were added. Reached out to blocking admin [2] but seems like they are inactive. Then reached tea-house where someone asked to come here if the deleting admin was not responding [3] Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 06:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomadicghumakkad I am afraid but this is not the right place for discussing declined (not deleted) AfC Drafts. The Decliner has further been blocked (and is btw not an Admin). Better place to ask would be WP:AFCHD . CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ CommanderWaterford, thank you. Will check that. I had a feeling this is a wrong place for this but then I was redirected here from Tea-house. Tea-house advises are always good so I thought why not. About comments on being promotional and REF bomb, like I had written on blocking admin's page, I would get rid of all of that and improve it to bring it to our standards before accepting. Thank you. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsalt Niraj Gera, but leave Draft:Niraj Gera to be processed by an AfC reviewer. Google tells me the subject is notable, but there is promotion, and the draft is WP:Reference bombed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - A version of the BLP was deleted as G11 by User:TomStar81 (who is an admin). If this is an appeal of the deletion, there is no need to consider the appeal because the draft can instead be reviewed. The title was then protected due to sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Downgrade protection of title in article space to ECP to allow a reviewer to accept when ready, as per User:SmokeyJoe. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Concurring with comments of User:SmokeyJoe, I have declined the draft as 'npov', written to praise the subject rather than to describe them neutrally. The image in the draft is the work of the submitter, which is strongly suggestive of a conflict of interest, and I have noted an inquiry about that. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline request to unsalt The more of these I see, the more I think that the right process to follow is: create draft, get draft approved, request any admin unsalt/move the approved draft. That is, it's a waste of our time to opine on every "I promise I'll write this COI article better if you just unsalt it!" declaration. Show us the encyclopedia article first; SALT is almost always negotiable. Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to User:Jclemens and others - The default protection level of a salted title should be ECP rather than admin. I am saying that existing titles should be downgraded from admin to ECP, and new salting should be ECP unless there is a reason to think that there is misconduct by established editors. I am requesting that this title be downgraded, not unprotected. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  My comment wasn't intended to engage with your suggestion. Globally downgrading admin-only create to ECP seems like a reasonable step to me, but regardless of that, I don't see any need to take action on this specific request until and unless a decent encyclopedia article is made first. Jclemens (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for my slow reply in getting here, at first being an essential worker was wonderful because I still had a job and most of my friends didn't, but 18 months later...well lets just say I'm earning that vacation one set of sore muscles at a time:) ANYWAY...the draft looks better than the original version deleted, but I still have concerns about COI based editing here since of the last four accounts to edit before the axe three had no other edits anywhere else on site and the article gradually because a bloated pedestal for the photographer. On top of that the submission was rejected yesterday for not being there yet, and I therefore feel that it may be in the best interest to keep the article spot locked until this draft is accepted so as to have a safe fall back position in the event that the article degenerates into something resembling its previous appearance. That also doubles as a safety net since it avoids the issues of an AFD, which unlike csd can result in a G4 tag if consensus is to axe, which in turn would make it much hard to return the article to the mainspace. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey TomStar81, Happy to see you here! And please accept my gratitude for being an essential worker in these times. Last night I had spent considerable amount of time to improve the aritlce and I feel it's in a pretty good shape now. I hear you and agree with you about article degenerating into its old form. I am not certain if you looked at the draft I had improved though and might bother you with another look if it's okay for you. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]