- Kenneth Brander (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I believe the closer of the AfD (TParis, whom I respect) in this instance interpreted/applied the consensus incorrectly. I discussed the matter with closer here, where you can read his rationale.
Closer wrote:
- "I felt that there was a reasonable GNG argument but that there was a stronger argument that he didn't meet other more applicable notability criteria....";
- "the argument largely fell to no consensus and I err on the side of delete on BLPs.";
- "GNG ... only gives the presumption of notability."; and
- "And when notability is in doubt about a living person, I err on the side of delete. If it were an org, I might've called it no consensus instead."
I don't think that the delete close was proper for each of the following 4 reasons. It should therefore be overturned. Any one of which would warrant a change to "no consensus" at minimum:
- a) closer agrees that there was a reasonable GNG argument (though the subject didn't meet other criteria);
- b) closer admits the consensus of the !voters was "no consensus" (but the closer provided a !supervote);
- c) closer admits he "might've called it no consensus instead" if it were an org; and
- d) closer did not provide any appropriate reason not to follow the presumption of GNG.
Epeefleche (talk) 06:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close - As was pointed out in the AfD discussion, GNG says about the "presumption" of notability:
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article (emphasis added) Leaving aside for the moment the fact that only a single article actually met GNG's criteria for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", the additional discussion required took place in the AfD. That discussion need not be repeated here, but it brought about the clear consensus opinion that Brander, whatever his achievements, was not per se notable. For this reason, TParis' close was not a "supervote", but a valid recognition of the sense of the discussion. BMK (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This was also discussed between Epeefleche and TParis, so the former is clearly aware of the argument, and the role it played in TParis' close, providing the "reason" he says is lacking (point "d").
In point of fact, the applicant's representation of the discussion between himself and TParis departs from fact in several instances, so I would urge that his statement above should not be taken at face value, and that the TParis/Epeefleche talk page discussion should be read directly by whoever closes this review. BMK (talk) 08:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the sources and headcount alone fall in the no-consensus regime (about even headcount, sources that could plausibly be argued either way with respect to WP:N). BLP does explicitly allow for deletion in no consensus cases where the subject has requested it, I think this can reasonably be extended to cases where someone would be likely to request deletion if they were aware of the goings-on. I don't see any indications that that's the case here (although reading the article, I could imagine it is). Is this a concern? WilyD 10:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I agree the headcount alone falls in the no-consensus regime.
- And that the sources do at least that (if not more).
- As to your last comment, I agree that there's no indication that the subject made such a request. Nor did closer state that as a rationale for his close. His rationale, instead, was that his personal general rule (which I do not see support for in any policy or guideline) is to close no consensus AfDs (which he said he might have called this, if it were an org) as "delete" if they are about a living person. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to NC - okay, I'm somewhat on board with giving admins a bit of leeway in NC cases, where there's some reason to. Without an articulatable reason, I can't endorse that. It seems pretty clear everyone agrees it was a NC, just doesn't agree on whether an admin should be allowed to close it as delete on a whim. WilyD 15:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I read the AfD twice and was hard pressed to find any sources that were independent of the subject and provided reasonably detailed coverage (a bio by one's employer meets WP:V but doesn't generally count toward WP:N due to the lack of independence). Could someone list the sources that they think are relevant to WP:N? Thanks. Hobit (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Three responses. First, I understand DRV is not a re-!vote. But rather an inquiry into whether the close reflected the consensus. Second, the closer wrote he "felt that there was a reasonable GNG argument" but that there was a stronger argument that the subject didn't meet other more applicable notability criteria, and that "the argument largely fell to no consensus and I err on the side of delete on BLPs". So the closer himself gave a nod both to the article meeting GNG and to consensus of the AfD !voters being no consensus. I agree with closer on both those points. Finally, the article can be seen here. To answer your question, I believe the two most significant refs (of the 20; though the others also count towards notability) are the 15-para article devoted to Brander at David A. Schwartz (July 9, 2013). "Rabbi Kenneth Brander, rabbi emeritus at BRS, named a vice president at Yeshiva University". Sun Sentinel, and the 5-para article devoted to one of Brander's opinions at Anthony Marx (September 11, 2004). "Jewish Law Addresses Storms". Lakeland Ledger. Epeefleche (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Overturn to NC. The !vote count was close and things were largely a matter of opinion. Subject has a reasonable claim to meeting the GNG with one strong source and a number of weaker ones. If there were no good sources, deletion would have been the right outcome. But there is a real claim to meeting the GNG here, and so I can't endorse deletion given the !vote count. That said, if the subject requests deletion, it should be granted as notability is borderline. Hobit (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Page restored for DRV Kenneth_Brander. I have no other input to the DRV, BYK and WilyD have already made my point.--v/r - TP 18:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. This unsatisfactory AFD discussion was difficult to close and left the closer with a wider than usual discretion. I think a close of delete fell within reasonable discretion. However, I do think that the closer's remarks on the talk page suggested something outside proper discretion. To repeat the quote: "And when notability is in doubt about a living person, I err on the side of delete." That is a fine principle to use when !voting at an AFD but not when assessing consensus. If I (as a !voter) find marginal notability I may, on BLP grounds, decide to !vote delete. That, along with other !votes, will shift the consensus. It is not appropriate for the closer to assess this consensus objectively and then shift the result a second time. I hope my quote from the talk page discussion hasn't been unfairly selective. It does seem to me to indicate the thrust of the closer's overall remarks. Thincat (talk) 07:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Tx. We agree on most of the issues, but I wonder if you might consider this. In an AfD that is difficult to close because it is unclear what the !voters consensus is (NC vs. D), I agree we give the closer latitude. Latitude to weigh it as an NC, or as a D.
- But that's not what happened here. As you point out. Here, closer stated: "the argument largely fell to no consensus". So that was his assessment, as to which he had latitude. And I agree with it. And I imagine you wouldn't disagree with it.
- What he did next was the problem. You articulately describe why it's a problem. I tried to as well on closer's tp, but he disagreed.
- Given that, as you say, closer's change of the NC that he saw to a D -- an act you call "outside proper discretion." I agree when you also say: "It is not appropriate for the closer to assess this consensus objectively and then shift the result a second time."
- Thus, I think applying your analysis, your !vote would more naturally be to overturn to NC -- which is what closer weighed consensus as before engaging in the activity we agree was not appropriate. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought seriously about !voting overturn because the closer said he followed a line of reasoning that, in my view, was unsuitable. However, in this particular case I think an acceptable decision was reached albeit by a wrong method (although I would have preferred NC). Some sort of explanation was required because the reason for the close was not self-evident. However, because a cursory rationale would have led to me endorsing, the detailed and careful but belated explanation made me unwilling to change my mind. However, I very much agree with your reasoning in opening this DRV. Thincat (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have preferred a "no consensus" close in that case, but I agree that "delete" was probably within the closer's discretion. It's permissible to give extra weight to claims that the article is poorly-sourced when the subject is a living person.—S Marshall T/C 11:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and Restore, I am seeing coverage from multiple independent sources including Jewish Standard, The American Synagogue: A Historical Dictionary and Sourcebook, Sun Sentinel, and the New Jersey Jewish Standard. The arguments suggest that this should be closed as NC. He is an influential figure in his region and passes WP:GNG. Valoem talk contrib 23:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- DR is not AfD-redux, we're not here to re-argue the case. Rather the question here is whether the close was appropriate or not. If the closer took into account the quality of those sources, then I believe it is within his discretion. BMK (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Beyond My Ken: We certainly can view DRV as an AfD-redux. I prefer DRV as I see less bias in general when it come to judgment. This is deletion review and when reviewing the context of deletion it is best to look at the discussion as a whole. To say we can only make a judgment of the closing admin limits the potential of what we do here. Very often there are DRV's where we question, not the judgement of the closing admin, but the judgment of all those who participate in the AfD. We have and will continue to override consensus because we are a cluocracy. Some AfD inherit IDONTLIKEIT votes and those have been overridden here. In this specific case however if you choose to look at only the close, it should be no consensus. If counting the votes (which I don't) excluding IPs I am seeing 3 to 5 in favor of delete, however the major argument focused on "university assistant deans are not notable", which is not a guideline. We look at WP:GNG, and whether or not he has been covered in reliable independent sources. He has and is thereby notable. I stand by overturn to no consensus. Valoem talk contrib 18:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you're going to ignore the part of the Deletion Review instructions which says: "Deletion Review should not be used: ... to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;" BMK (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It is at times like this where WP:IAR has never been more appropriate. Valoem talk contrib 18:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sustain The arguments both here and at the AfD are confused, and would support any close at all, because our concept of notability is not what we pretend it is. . Actually the reliability of the sources was borderline (they're mainly but not entirely local, and I tend to have doubts about the reliability of at least some local sources for locally important people); but I could construct an equally good argument either way, depending on what I wanted to do with the article, and if I had had an opinion on overall notability , I would have argued the details of the sourcing accordingly. I suggest that at least some of the participants may have done similarly. I do not think we generally actually use the GNG i except in the most unambiguous cases, because for borderline cases, we can argue the details of the key words: reliable, independent, substantial in any direction we choose. The argument of=ver the sourcing is thus a disguise , a conventional way of arguing for what is basically a global assessment. If the very same sources had said he holds a major national position, they would have been interpreted as adequate. I'm arguing sustain in this case because too much of the article is a stretch, and therefore I find the local sources question a suitable way to decide. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
