Monisha Shah – Deletion clearly endorsed. The only other question for me as closer here is, can it be draftified and what is the process for eventually returning the article? It wasn't addressed by all participants below, but there was a general support for draftifying and allowing the article to continue to be worked on in draftspace. If and when there is sufficient significant reliable sources that addresses the AfD (& DRV) consensus regarding non-notability, I will leave it to estbalished editor discretion on the best (read: least drama-inducing) way to have that conversation - whether it's AfC, or DRV under purpose #3.
Finally, there are varying degrees of commentary provided around the views of individuals regarding the requirement, or preference, or non-requirement, of a closer providing a statement summarising their decision on any AfD which has some sort of contentiousness or public profile; I will leave it to others to assess where the community's views currently sit on this. Daniel (talk) 09:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Concerns over interpretation of Per Consensus by Closer, and failure to elaborate on that decision when requested on talk page is a disappointment and results in escalation here. Closer seems to have demonstrated lack of recent practice by failure to use XFCloser and making a minor technical error on closing and not correcting it when pointed out. Not really a problem in itself but a question mark if should have been closing this AfD as it can look like a !Supervote. Case for relist also increased as removal of references for an article by a delete !voter is a means of disrupting defence. The subject's Wikimedia appointment is not particularly relevant, but the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL) appointment was, as was to a lesser degree that at the BBC. While a Relist was probably the correct decision at the time of I am not convinced that is a healthly current result given the gap, and I would suggest unless a keep, overturn or Allow recreation result is expected a draftification (preferred) or userfication (fallback) is given. Obviously I !voted at the AfD and obviously IDONTLIKEIT and obviously of the Closer had responded I might not be here. ( We all have RL but if you've not got the time then one should probably eloborate close reason or not take on this nature of AfD close, but of course anytime RL can always crop up). Thankyou.
Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I rather did not like that AfD. The COI issues on the keep side were plain and my sense is that there was some type of discussion elsewhere to get so many delete !voters. But reality is that there is a reasonable argument that WP:N is not met and that seems to have won the day. I'd lean toward keeping such a bio myself--WP:N is close enough for me and I'd prefer we have articles on people like this. But that's not where the discussion got to. weak endorseweak only because something seems odd about the whole AfD. Issue that caused me to be weak addressed by Joe Roe below (rhymes!), and as such I've updated my bolded !vote. Hobit (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC) Hobit (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And that's the other shoe. Thanks. I worry that we might be losing an article we'd otherwise have over issues unrelated to the article. That said, the claim that WP:N isn't met isn't unreasonable... Hobit (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I don't really understand Djm-leighpark's objection to the closure: technical problems don't invalidate the close, and the short statement, while not ideal, isn't a sufficient basis to change the outcome. Unless there's actual evidence of canvassing (and I think Joe's explanation of the high participation is correct), there's nothing for us to do since the delete !voters had a substantial numerical majority and made reasonable and well-defended arguments. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I don't think draftification/userfication would be appropriate either: the consensus was clear that Shah is non-notable just two days ago, so unless some sort of additional sourcing can be presented I don't think the community has much appetite for relitigating that debate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I don't understand the basis for this appeal. The consensus is overwhelming. Counting the nominator, it appears to me to be 16-4 for deletion. Is the nominator saying that the closer should have supervoted against consensus, or is the nominator saying that the AFD was fatally flawed and should be relisted again? If yes or yes, I disagree. Any other close than a Delete would be a valid appeal. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The close was possibly poor, an explanation from the closer would have been helpful, but it didn't happen, and I can obvious AGF reasons why not. The UK !voters are probably more concerned about the Committee on Standards in Public Life CPSL/BBC aspects, others more concerned about the chair of the board at Wikimedia UK aspect. To be clear, to keep it simple, in all events please draftify or userifiy is requested; the former is preferred to avoid any CFORKs. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments like ...failure to elaborate on that decision when requested on talk page is a disappointment...not correcting it when pointed out...obviously of the Closer had responded I might not be here...We all have RL but if you've not got the time then one should probably eloborate close reason or not take on this nature of AfD close, but of course anytime RL can always crop up...an explanation from the closer would have been helpful, but it didn't happen, and I can obvious AGF reasons why not are unfair when you are referring to things that were raised for the first time on Friday, today is Sunday, and the closer hasn't edited since. You could have waited more than 48 hours, over a weekend, that's a holiday weekend in the US, before faulting the closer and starting a DRV. A closer needn't edit every single day in order to close an AFD. Levivich21:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich: Evaluating my possible RL timelines next week, which are unclear to me but some are heavily serious, I choose to raise this one at this time, 48hr has elasped and I'm drifting from CPSL out of shortish term memory. And if people wish to have a go at me that's fine; and if this is heading for an an endorse result and its continuance is unhealthly that's fine .... withdrawal is accepted providing there is no objection to draftification or userification. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't complain about "people wish to have a go at me" when you "had a go" at the closer in your nom, and again in your follow-up comment, which is what prompted my comment. There's no problem with you launching the DRV if that's what you want to do. You could have just said, "the closer didn't respond yet and I didn't want to wait because [reason]". But instead you chose to fault the closer for not responding to you, and that's what I take issue with. You also said multiple times that the closer's non-response is what caused you to file this DRV, which plainly isn't true, as you just admitted you chose a time that was convenient to you. If you want to file a DRV, file a DRV, but don't pin it on the closer for not responding within 48 hours over a holiday weekend. Levivich22:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's too much disagreement about what the article actually contained at various points to opine without reading it so a Temp Undeletion for Discussion would be very helpful. Jclemens (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On one pass through the references in the deleted article (which is much reduced from the AfD-ed version), I lean to !vote "Keep", enough GNG-meeting sources. Maybe the sources are not independent enough, or don't cover the subject directly, enough? The AfD does not discuss the best sources well enough. To the "Keep" !voters, I advise them to point to the WP:THREE best sources. User:Pigsonthewing provided too many sources, and User:Smartse rebuffed many, but it is not clear whether all were rebuffed, and I think that most of the other participants didn't engage in deep source analysis because there were far too many thrown on the table. Proponents should point to no more than WP:THREE sources that demonstrate notability, or others will not read any of them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with a WP:REFBOMB is that once participants have sampled enough sources and seen nothing that constitutes SIGCOV in RS/IS they tend to conclude that further investigation is a waste of time and !vote accordingly. I'm no proponent of WP:THREE and I actually think that a little bit OVERCITE on stub and start type articles can facilitate further expansion, but because articles are so often stuffed in bad-faith with trivial references to imply notability when there isn't any this needs to be done judiciously. Regards, 91.221.17.220 (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus The amount of editing to remove sources during the AfD was clearly overly aggressive and inappropriate, and thus it is problematic to assure any !voters saw a non-gutted version of the article. Frankly, this looks more like a political urination contest than a legitimate AfD, and I'm inclined to tell everyone to wait a while and start over. Wikipedia's anti-COI immune system, made up of well-meaning editors, can occasionally (and yes, this is such an occasion, I suspect) overreact and lead to unhelpful results. Jclemens (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this idea there is something wrong with editing an article when it's at AfD coming from? People do it all the time. It's a good way to work out whether there's a salvageable topic underneath an article with content problems. It's so common that it has its own XYZ: WP:HEY. If there's something wrong with those edits, anyone is free to revert them. And discussants can always see the prior version in the history, which there is a link to in every AfD, as well as the recently added "edits since nomination" link to the diff. In any case, I do not see how one editor's choice to trim down the article should override 16 others' support for deletion. – Joe (talk) 07:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also puzzled by this. The content of an article is irrelevant to an AFD discussion as notability is judged on the sources presented at AFD. Jclemens' argument would hold some weight if numerous independent sources had been removed, but that was not the case. Further, challenging the outcome of an AFD is not what DRV is for - it is for judging whether or not the closer correctly judged consensus and as already pointed out here, the consensus was clear. SmartSE (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Smartse, there have been very rare occasions when DRV has ignored that principle and overturned an XfD because the XfD reached an outcome that was catastrophically wrong. "What DRV is for" is to improve deletion outcomes on Wikipedia. The argument JClemens makes is rarely successful at DRV, but it isn't completely outside our scope.JClemens also raises another point which has yet to be taken up: he mentions a "political urination contest". For the benefit of those of you who aren't up to speed on British politics, I should say that recent and ongoing events in Her Majesty's Government mean that it would be extremely convenient for our political right if the Committee on Standards in Public Life had a lower profile. Can we be sure that our decision here was free from POV influence?Finally, on reading the AfD, your position that the consensus was clear does very much seem to be open to challenge.—S MarshallT/C13:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with your presumption is that the editor (me) who edited the article to conform to WP:BLP (aka clearly overly aggressive and inappropriate) is neither British or right wing... If removing clear and unambiguous BLP violations (along with some that were less clear and rather ambiguous) counts as a "political urination contest” then pop a squat besides me and we can shoot our streams all over this place. There is no “but its at AfD” exception to BLP even if some seem to believe (mistakenly) than an article should be frozen with no additions or removals when its nominated for AfD. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As was made clear on the now-deleted talk page of the article in question, your edits did not merely remove "clear and unambiguous BLP violations", but removed valid, well-sourced statements with a justification that misquoted and was contrary to policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits17:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And that's the rub Horse Eye's Back: as a nonspecialist, looking at sourcing and editor conduct, your edits look terrible. No one is suggesting that "edit[ing] the article to conform to WP:BLP" is inappropriate: modest deletions of clearly inappropriate content DO happen all the time and without objection. What you did was prune out a number of sources that didn't particularly violate any policy whatsoever, during an AfD, when you favored deletion. That's a user conduct issue for which you should be counseled, and as a consequence, the AfD is tainted by your unreasonable editing. Whether or not the article is kept or deleted, you have at least one uninvolved editor, me, who says that your conduct is sufficiently outside of expected behavior that the result should be a re-do because that's what's most appropriate to demonstrate integrity in the process. Jclemens (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)User:S Marshall Ok but nothing has been presented here to suggest a catastrophic error that is contrary to policy. If the subject clearly met WP:BIO but the !vote tally went against that, then fair enough, but that is definitely not the case here. If her appointment on CSIPL was as important as you seem to think it is, how come there was absolutely no coverage about it in RS? Your opinion and the keepers at the AFD are irrelevant without there being sources discussing it. As for your suggestion that this is politically motivated, I think you need to take your tinfoil hat off, and if you must, look through my contribs over the last month to see how laughable that suggestion is. SmartSE (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hackles down, gents: I did not say that either of you, personally, were a right-wing shill or political advocate. I questioned whether our decision there was free from political influence and there were a lot of people involved in making it. Look at the !votes below, framing the AfD as a very clear consensus, despite the rather obvious dissent from well-established editors and their well-reasoned positions given during the debate we're analyzing; or framing the DRV nominator's concerns as a minor technical error. I put it to you that the frames being put on this are rather hard to reconcile with the facts, and this wouldn't be the first time politics had affected a Wikipedian decision.I do totally understand and sympathize with the concerns. I too am tired of constant promotional editing on Wikipedia, and that article was indubitably promotional. But this is an accomplished and successful woman who would be notable even if totally unconnected with WMUK, and the decision to delete her article rather than to edit it into a NPOV biography is, with all due respect, an outlier in terms of our policies.We should explicitly decide here whether a non-promotional article about Ms Shah's membership of the CSIPL and other high level public appointments is permissible. I could write an article about her that doesn't even mention WMUK, and I wouldn't want to see it G4'd.—S MarshallT/C16:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- On reading the undeleted article and several of its past revisions, I agree with the majority that this was inappropriate citation overkill and promotion. Having an impressive resume and being notable are often correlated, but are far from synonymous. I think the participants got this one right, and the closing admin evaluated consensus correctly. ReykYO!10:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am astonished that we can decide to delete the biography of someone on the CSIPL. That's an amazing decision. Wow. Needs a lot more explanation than was provided there, because this is pretty much self evidently a notable person. Does the closer think the community decided to delete this version of the article for egregious promotionalism, or do they think this person should not have an article at all? I think the latter case is rather hard to justify.—S MarshallT/C11:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing that someone on the CSIPL is automatically notable? Or that WP:N is met? Or something else? As I said, I'd support having this article as I think the sources are just at the bar. But that's not where the discussion got to and I don't think we have anything near a consensus about automatic notability that applies here. Hobit (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer: yes. She is *exactly* the sort of person - a member of UK's Committee on Standards in Public Life, formerly a trustee of Tate and on the board of the National Gallery - about whom one would expect to be able to to find an encyclopedic article on WP. The locus of the failure (my view) here is possibly with notability criteria; and the test that the system has failed is that this person, despite holding highly significant roles in UK society, is excluded from the encyclopedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - DRV isn't a rerun of, or an end-around, an Afd. I see no legitimate rationale for an overturn. A minor technical error wouldn't affect the clear consensus. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse with the option to draftify on request, but I have to criticise Doczilla for giving an incredibly weak closing rationale, which should have at least summed up the arguments on both sides and explained why consensus to delete had the upper hand. Looking at a couple of opinions, while some "delete" rationales are detailed and convincing, others are weak pile-ons. With a close like that, a DRV was almost inevitable. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closer appears to have correctly found that there was consensus to delete. The discussion was good, thorough, and quite easy to follow. It resulted in essentially clear consensus. Unlike the nominator I don't see anything wrong with this close: Closer not being the expected closer-routineer? Cool, big plus! Supervoting? What... why? Irrelevant technical error? A-okay. To relist after more than seven days had passed and a nice long, thorough discussion was had with no discrete unresolved threads? Terrible idea! Proposing a whole array of outcomes none of which garnered consensus in the AfD? Bit strange. Etc. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that elaboration was necessary. I could have taken into consideration the fact that several of the "keep" voters announced their COI issues. The arguments for deletion were clear enough, but there was no need to write an essay about them when consensus was clear and the time spent on useless rambling could be spent reviewing other AfDs or just living my life. Doczilla@SUPERHEROLOGIST19:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: This seems to be a bit below the belt to me - what exactly do you suggest Doczilla did wrong or should have done differently? In my experience (and sadly WP:OFD doesn't include this stat) the vast majority of AFDs are closed with very short summaries and that seemed entirely appropriate here when here was a clear consensus to delete, both numerically and on a policy basis. Djm-leighpark impatiently opened this DRV without waiting for a reponse from Doczilla but their very next edit was to post the explanation above which is entirely reasonable. Should admins not sleep or leave the house for 48 hours after closing a discussion? SmartSE (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartse: Something like "The result was delete. This is a marginal case, but basically the analysis by SmartSE and Jip Orlando has not been adequately refuted. I would remind everyone to keep calm at an AfD discussion and accusing other editors of having a COI is not necessarily helpful." And I agree that Djm-leighpark should have waited for a response before running off to DRV. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of xfds are closed with simply The result of the discussion was foo; sure it's polite to expand upon that if so requested, but failure to do so is mostly a rather minor faux pas. There is a strong community expectation that a more detailed explanation will be provided in close or highly contentious cases, but even then I've seen plenty of bare no consensus closes where everyone just shrugged and moved on. Admittedly this is more of a I'll know it when I see it issue, but IMO this is not the type of discussion where a failure to write a lengthy close can be considered the gross oversight needing a drv; it seems most other community members agree with me, but ymmv. Regards, 91.221.17.220 (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This XFD was easily amongst the least disputed of deletion discussions. The only way this could have been less disputed would have been by removing the people with clear conflict of interests (eg, you) from it, and a large portion of the chatter would have gone with it. What you mean here is 'less disputed by me'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus (Disclaimer: I rarely work on BLPs, even less often participate in AfD, live in Mexico, and have no clue what the UK's Committee on Standards in Public Life even is. I've never heard of the subject, either. I came here after seeing Tagishsimon's note at Women in Red.) Concur with Ritchie333 that failing to explain how closer reached the conclusion is problematic, but disagree that the close was justified. Whether or not she is on the board of the Wikimedia Foundation or the Committee on Standards in Public Life, or the writer has a COI if they are not violating Wikipedia's policies and have disclosed that they have a COI, are totally irrelevant, as is whether the article was well-written, or not. The closer should have discounted those arguments, as well as assertions, not supported by any of the sources that she was a "marketing professional" (sources say she is a media/broadcasting and business development executive) or she was accomplished but non-notable (Being noted in sources over time makes her WP-notable).
Per policy/guidelines, the question for an article to exist on WP is does the person have sufficient coverage, in multiple reliable sources, over time, to develop a reasonably complete, neutral biography. We have that: origin, education, career, more career. She has been noted in various sources from at least 1999 to present. The Asian Express and Broadcast articles both provide significant coverage of the subject and supplemented by the other sources that were in the article (even eliminating those that are not independent) clearly show that there has been adequate coverage, over time, sufficient to write a reasonably complete neutral biography and an article that easily would meet both WP:Basic and WP:GNG. SusunW (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I used the phrase "this is like the articles of many non-notable marketing professionals..." not that she was one. I never said she was. Jip Orlando (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noted Jip Orlando. The problem is not that you evaluated the material and came to that conclusion but that others agreed with you and the closer did not explain how they weighted what appears to be "pile-on" votes. SusunW (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's the right question. The burden is on those advocating for the use of a source to show the source is an RS; we don't presume a source is an RS (or a GNG source) unless shown otherwise. To answer your question: lack of byline, lack of masthead, lack of published editorial or ethics policies, lack of being cited by other RS, and their stated goal of promoting Asians in Britain (see the link by Susan above). Levivich21:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of by-line is not necessarily indicative on non-reliability, nor is having a specific aim to highlight persons who would otherwise be un- under-represented in mainstream media. It has a masthead and editorial policy stated on its print edition[2] and is cited and described in other sources.[3], [4],[5]. SusunW (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, when you say The burden is on those advocating for the use of a source to show the source is an RS, I've searched our policies and guidelines and I can't find that anywhere. Could you show me where that's from? When you try to rule out the Asian Express for having a stated goal, I'd point out that WP:BIASED is a lot more nuanced than that.—S MarshallT/C22:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disputes over whether or not a source is reliable can best be resolved at WP:RSN, which I've found to be a very useful dispute resolution venue. Certainly much more useful than DRV. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Broadcast piece was also not in the article, unless I missed it combing through the archives of previous versions. Your link to an essay is an opinion, not policy or guideline. Asian Express isn't word for word, as it leads with where she is born, but that's a minor point. Our guideline Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations says "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics", of which this is not [academic]. Good that you found the press release; I could not. Unless you are saying that the government is not a reliable source, using its PR is no different than paying, say UPI or the AP, to reprint their stories. As with all sources the question is who wrote it, who published it, and what is their reputation for accuracy. I think we've established that the sources [Government, Asian Express] are unlikely to stake their reputation to print unreliable information, even if they reprint press in some instances. SusunW (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. However, it is reliable, and along with the Broadcast piece, which asserts "BBCW chief executive John Smith said: 'Monisha has made a major contribution to BBC Worldwide in terms of building our business in emerging markets'...", clearly shows that what she did was not routine. Combining the sources we have sufficient information to write a reasonably complete and neutral bio of the subject with clear notability based on sourcing. Thus, she meets Basic, even if we aren't at GNG. I get that you voted delete and have a strong opinion. I wasn't involved in the AfD and don't have any opinion of her or the positions she has held. I am looking only at policy/guidelines to see if there is enough info to write the article and whether the close should have explained the rationale of how they weighed the delete. In the great scheme of things, the close will likely be endorsed, and the article likely recreated, IMO. SusunW (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not independent? Are we seriously ruling out Her Majesty's Government as a source by saying it isn't independent from Monisha Shah or WMUK?—S MarshallT/C01:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, yeah, we're seriously ruling out Her Majesty's Government as a GNG/BASIC source because it's not independent of Shah, because Her Majesty's Prime Minister appointed Shah to Her Majesty's Committee, which is sponsored by Her Majesty's Cabinet Office, and has among its duties, advising Her Majesty's Prime Minister, and it's Her Majesty's Government who paid Shah for working on Her Majesty's Committee, with money from Her Majesty's Treasury. So when Her Majesty's Government issues a press release saying Shah's been hired, that doesn't count as independent notability. Levivich01:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This level of WP:IDHT is what makes me suspect we have a political urination match going on, rather than a consensus-building discussion, S Marshall. It's the worst facet of Wikipedia, when a bunch of people who have a political agenda pretend that Wikipedia policies unequivocally support their POV, and the failure to take seriously the independent concerns raised reminds me of... Well, nevermind. Jclemens (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Calling inappropriate behavior inappropriate behavior is actually more of a WP:SKYISBLUE issue. The fact that, instead of thinking "Maybe I shouldn't have edited in such an aggressively biased and transparently hostile way during an AfD?" you instead try and accuse me of bad behavior for pointing out yours, suggests that counseling is unlikely to lead to your enlightenment. But by all means, keep arguing, because the only way for your 'side' (whatever and whyever it may be) to lose this DRV is to expose an even more partisan side than what you showed in the editing during the AfD. Jclemens (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn for someone else to re-close, on the basis of DRVPURPOSE point 5: substantial procedural errors. The closer's behaviour amounts to a breach of WP:ADMINACCT. Policy says: Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings. Administrators should justify their actions when requested. I've had DRV on my watchlist since 2009 and I don't recall ever before seeing an admin refuse to explain their close. But in this deletion review, just above, Doczilla does exactly that, and there's no explanation in the close itself. Not only does fair process require that decisions have reasons, it also creates issues with WP:G4 -- we can't write a fresh version that overcomes the reasons for deletion because those reasons have not been articulated. This can't stand. It's a close that doesn't give closure.—S MarshallT/C01:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh look, and offwiki canvassing on Wikipediocracy, which is about 50% Wikipedians who hate WMUK and about 50% a self-help group and therapy provider for people who failed at Wikipedia.—S MarshallT/C09:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is this worse than on-wiki notifications at WiR, where 100% of members are explicitly incentivized to increase the number of biogs on women? How many of the !voters were drawn here from that notification versus the one on Wikipediocracy (or on Wikipedia Sucks, for that matter)? JoelleJay (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because all the people who respond from WIR haven't been site-banned for cause? Wikipediocracy is a safe harbour for sockmasters and people we can't work with; you don't go there to write an encyclopaedia.—S MarshallT/C02:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly...if most of the people at Wikipediocracy can't participate in AfDs or DRV, how is it canvassing? My point is that one venue has hundreds of active members in good standing whose participation could easily sway consensus, and the other has a bunch of people who literally can't !vote. If we agree that it's fine for notifications to be posted at WiR, then surely discussions at WO or whatever shouldn't be censured as "canvassing"? JoelleJay (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved). Nomination rambles about several unimportant topics - if it's a minor technical error, then don't bring it up at all, and accusations of a supervote usually come when admin favors a minority position, not the majority one - but does bring up one potentially relevant point: the removal of sources by !delete voters. Sometimes !delete voters do get a bit overzealous in trimming, yes, but examining the page history, these deletions were entirely merited. Even if the article is brought back in the future - and I'm sure it will be brought back in a year or so after more sources exist - the removed references should absolutely stay out: they're trivial, passing mentions on topics of unclear importance. Who cares she was a judge at an art show? These deletions were good faith, positive changes. As such, the delete result should stand. SnowFire (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There are good reasons why we close AfDs by admin decision rather than as a straight vote, but if the admin is going to go against the raw numbers—especially in a case like this where the numbers skew so strongly—it needs to because the minority have demonstrated that policy is on their side. In this case, there were five people arguing to keep at the AfD but three of them are variants on "this is a topic on which we should presume notability even if we can't find sources". (There are some rare circumstances where presumption of notability is legitimate on a BLP, but this isn't one of them.) As such, I don't see how the closer could have closed this in any way other than 'delete' since any other outcome would have been a blatant supervote and nobody's suggested any legitimate grounds to invoke the closer's power to supervote.
Statement of the obvious perhaps but I'll still say it; a lot of the keep voters at the AfD and the overturn voters here seem to be under the impression that this closure has invoked WP:SALT, which isn't the case. If and when the reliable sources actually exist to create a neutral and well-sourced biography, there's nothing to stop anybody from recreating the page tomorrow. ‑ Iridescent06:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist for further discussion . Earlier versions of the article had more sources and better described notability. There was some very aggressive editing, basically gutting the article to make it an easier deletion target. That is seriously not Ok. Once again, sources can be used for both verifying info and to establish notability. Montanabw(talk)09:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The close was in line with the consensus of the discussion that was had. Quite a few comments here are attempting to re-hash the discussion or complaining about things that were not discussed. But to humour, lets see 'Purpose' at WP:DRV.
Deletion Review may be used when:
1. "If someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly" - given the clear consensus of the discussion, you would need to make a damn good argument for why such a one-sided discussion consensus should be ignored in favour of a minority opinion. (see Iri above).
2. Not applicable.
3. "If significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page" - there is no indication of this.
4. Not applicable.
5. "If there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion." - at best, you could argue there was a single minor procedural issue, and even then thats not a written process its a matter of convention. Its certainly not remotely close to being 'substantial procedural errors'.
Actually, 3 is applicable, as I pointed out above. If I was able to find 2 significant articles (when UK sources are often blocked from Mexico), within a few minutes, others could have as well. To my eye, that brings into question the process for this AfD. Be that as it may, to Iridescent's point, someone could simply recreate the article using those new sources. I'm out, as I must resume work on the project I am working on. SusunW (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse technical errors do not invalidate closes. The use of XFDCloser, or any other tool is not required and closes without it occur as a matter of routine; in fact I've seen errors that resulted from misclicks while using that script, I just correct them pinging the closer in my edit summary to let them know I have done so and move on. Editing of articles that are at AFD is common and even encouraged e.g. WP:HEY. It can potentially be disruptive, especially if done in bad faith, but it's a complex issue and not one that prejudiced the outcome here, no !votes suggested ignorance of WP:ARTN. Notability is not inherited nor is there an SNG that covers the CSPL or BBC, this has been explained. A relist would be defensible, but a bit out of the ordinary given the strength of the consensus that had emerged. I think it's polite to provide a longer close explanation promptly, but it's also polite to allow the closer some time between the request and drv, a week's delay between close and drv is not particularly extraordinary. Ultimately there were no procedural errors that would warrant overturning, nor did the closer incorrectly interpret consensus. BLPs are usually subject to the strictest application of GNG, and for good reason. That said I see no issue with restoring a copy to draft space, it is plausible that offline sources exist or that GNG may be satisfied in the future, some articles, even BLPs have been deleted and later returned to mainspace once notability was established. Barring new developments that make notability overwhelmingly clear I would respect the outcome for 6 months and not submit the draft for review until the middle of next year. It also allows time for the circus to move on (cf. the Kyle Kulinski case). It's worth noting that draftspace is the preferred venue for COI submissions, and it would have been better to use the AFC process to begin with. Regards, 91.221.17.220 (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Even if this were a coin-flip -- I don't think it is -- there clearly isn't enough here to overrule a good faith closing. And to say the closing wasn't in good faith because of a small technical flaw requires extreme wikilawyering. As for the argument about whether a person "deserves" a Wiki page, that's just utterly confusing. Having a Wikipedia entry is not a reward for merit and Wikipedia's role is to recognize notability, not confer it. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse but trout the closer. The outcome was correct based on numbers and arguments, but a contentious discussion like that would really have benefited from a couple of sentences of summary and it should have been obvious that such a brief closing rationale was going to be challenged. By saving a few minutes of their time in not writing a closing statement, they've wasted considerably more of the community's time by leaving the close open to the this near-inevitable challenge. Ultimately though, the last thing Wikipedia needs is another thin BLP on someone who isn't a public figure; such articles cause nothing but trouble for Wikipedia and the subject in the long run. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?20:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (by DRV nom.): I'm reasonably certain the DRV has determined draftification will be permitted by the closer. I had come to the AfD late, tired, and because the article and been hacked down probably determined analyzing through too hard and going to do my head in and put in the !keep vote with the expectation of a relist. Its likely the article was not fully developed, had possible COI tainting, and perhaps was not well argued. I'd normally expect SPS from things like this videoRtxsQ052euk on the UK Cabinet Office official YouTube Channel to be brought to bear; I like to sometimes feel a bit of character in the old biosgraphies than a raw list of appointments. If it had relisted I might have had a go at a HEY though it probably would have been mentally damaging and would have been a fight through edit waring. Perhaps I ought to apologise to Doczilla, to a degree his user page freaked me ... what's going on on here .. I'm too busy to RL to respond to stuff .. that sounds stupid but I felt a marked lack of empathy from it: distinguished professor of psychology, who teaches courses on mental illness, social behavior, forensic psychology, and mass media, including a course titled Batman. Challenging? Let keep it simple. Accept my apologies for not not giving you an extra 24 hours, I'll try to look up the global bank holidays in future. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse While of a very different order, in the current context, it's still worth signposting the care with which the close of the AfD on MKuCR was handled in contrast with this. Two arguments were presented in the keep side, sourcing and presumed notability, both were effectively refuted (SIGCOV/sourcing weaknesses and no inherited notability) and no subsequent delete arguments added anything new as a result of the counterpoints; consensus is delete, but qualifying my endorsement as closers owe a duty to the editorial community and the broader public to elaborate reasons for their judgments in cases like these (eg where there are extended discussions or where there are people in the public domain). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I strongly agree with the assessments by SnowFire and Iridescent. I also want to reiterate that it's not at all standard let alone required for closers to give detailed explanations for close decisions that are in line with such strong consensus, although it would have been preferred if they'd done so in this case since there was so much discussion. The outcome was clear; and from the sources presented in the article, at AfD, and in this DRV, it looks to be the correct one: the dearth of reliable, independent, significant coverage indicates this person is not notable at this time, per BASIC and GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I am extremely loth to disagree with S Marshall, whose judgement, particularly here at Deletion Review, I have found to be almost impeccable. However, after seeing the article and AfD flagged at Wikipediocracy (I normally avoid mnaming the site on-wiki, but it has been named above), I examined the sources cited (prior to the removal of some) and searched for additional sources myself. I'm normally a pretty good searcher, although British newspapers are a problem since I don't have access via a UK library. I didn't find anything I could add to demonstrate notability, which I considered marginal, and no one added useful sources to the AfD rather than the article, so I did not participate. While I have never pretended to be a good judge of consensus in discussions, I was not surprised by the closure as "delete". Two core issues appear to be raised here as reasons for overturning that close. The closer's not having written a detailed rationale does not in itself violate ADMINCOND or the requirements for closing an AfD. Many Wikipedians (although I am not one) are worried that our numbers of active admins are too low and administrative backlogs are a serious problem; it would be counterproductive to harshly criticise an admin for trying to help out by closing an AfD, unless it was a bad close in itself. That brings me to the second and more important argument that I see being advanced here, in particular by S Marshall, which is that the closure was incorrect because it failed to correctly weigh the arguments made, and specifically (my interpretation of what is said above) that the subject's term on the Committee on Standards in Public Life confers automatic notability. This appears to be an honest difference of opinion between Wikipedians, and I concur with the closer that that case for notability did not win out in the AfD. S Marshall says above that they could write an article on the subject that would demonstrate notability; I would encourage them to do so if this decision results in endorsement of the deletion decision, but only if the Committee term is not the basis for notability. If it is, I submit that the information about the subject in the article on the Committee suffices, and if the current focus on the Committee in UK news media is leading to its becoming so prominent that it will in the near future be seen to confer automatic notability on its members, the way to proceed is to reflect that increasing prominence in that article; if this is happening, it will become apparent from the media (and possibly academic) coverage of the Committee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yngvadottir (talk • contribs)
Yngvadottir, this is getting slightly into the long grass, but I strongly question the current focus on the Committee in UK news media is leading to its becoming so prominent that it will in the near future be seen to confer automatic notability on its members. The CSIPL isn't the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, which is the one that regularly makes the news, but an obscure advisory body whose function is to monitor the performance of regulatory bodies rather than to act as a regulatory body itself. (Even the BBC barely mentions it, and owing to its contractual obligation to cover all government proceedings the BBC tends to pay more attention than the rest of the media to bodies like this.) I very much doubt that one UK resident in a thousand has ever even heard of it, or that one in ten thousand could tell you what it does. ‑ Iridescent08:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaah, thank you, I think I was confusing them, and I see I actually forgot to sign, so my ping didn't work. But that was intended as a summary of the implications of S Marshall's argument, particularly at 13:29 and at 16:35 on 29 November. (Tagishsimon's response at 14:27 on 29 November and 2 or 3 opinions at the AfD also indicate a view that appointment to the CSIPL confers notability. As I wrote, I do not see this view as having carried the day at the AfD, and it seems to me to be the more important of the two dominant issues raised here. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are in fact related somewhat, when Iridescent talks about being an advisory body, that advice does feed into issues the Commissioner is focusing on due to the remit of the commissioner on ethical standards of Members of Parliament. I am one of those 1-in-a-1000 UK people who knows about it but *only* because I fed into the 2021 COVID review (due to my job) and at no point did the committee members themselves come up. The committee gets more visible when something it is investigating is a hot topic, currently COVID, procurement, MP's contracts-for-friends is one of those. Previously it was Cash-for-questions etc. The rest of the time it just putters along in the background being very quiet. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
