Wikipedia:Deletion review/David Anber

The following discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was that this should be kept deleted. - brenneman^{L} 02:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {Subject Name}

I'm new at this so please excuse me if I am doing this wrong. I would like to nominate an article for deletion review. It was deleted and I believe that the closing admin misinterpreted the debate.

I suggest that the proper outcome of the debate was No Consensus and by implication should be kept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/{subject name}

In his reasons, the closing admin stated: "There are intelligent arguments on both sides, and ultimately it came down to the numbers."

There are two things wrong with this analysis: 1. A significant minority gave a number of reasons why the article should be kept. The closing admin's reasons do not indicate that the reasons of the article's proponents were defeated, he said it came down to numbers, which I believe is misreading the lack of consensus here.

2. As for the numbers, there was a roughly equal number of justified and elaborated arguments on both sides. Many users posted without giving reasons why. I think this contributes to the argument that there really isn't consensus. The posters in favour of the article could have enlisted other people to parrot their arguments "as per so and so" but they did not. The numbers should be read in light of the numbers of arguments rather than the number of votes.

I would like to see this article restored simply because of lack of consensus:

"Precise numbers for "supermajority" are hard to establish, and Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. When supermajority voting is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus. The stated outcome is the best judgment of the facilitator, often an admin. If there is strong disagreement with the outcome from the Wikipedia community, it is clear that consensus has not been reached." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus

Find lack of consensus from original AFD debate and as a result: undelete CLEAR POLI SCI JUNKIE 07:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion A number of the keep arguments came from anon and new users, which the admin is entitled take into account. Based on the numbers and arguments, it boils down to whether to not the subject meets WP:BIO. Based on the afd, it appears that generally the opinion was "not yet" (so no objection to creation in the future if more notable achievements are brought to light) MartinRe 11:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, close was valid. To address {subject name}'s comment, "I'd be a bit disappointed if fewer and fewer comparable "footnote-type-tid-bits" were weeded out of Wikipedia. I like being able to look up a topic and find little tiny facts that I can't find elsewhere", name} no articles link to this one, which for me is an almost certain indication that this isn't encyclopaedia material. Pretty much the only people looking up {subject name} are going to be people personally connected with him, and an encyclopaedia does not cater for this. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, and I forgot the obvious point: A little tiny fact that can't be found elsewhere violates WP:V. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, valid and properly-closed AfD. Discounting anon and new-user votes isn't just a possibility, it's a universal practice. Also, I agree with Samuel's comments above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Andrew Lenahan. DarthVader 12:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per MartinRe and Starblind. Whatever their good intentions, we cannot trust anonymous and very new users to understand WP policy, and it is within administrative discretion to discount them. Xoloz 12:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Undeletion What many people are failing to consider is that many people in politics, myself included, prefer to protect our identities especially when commenting on people that we come across in the political field. This happens more often in politics than other fields, due to the nature of the beast. The arguments in favor of keeping the article were persuasive enough to result in lack of consensus.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.122.119.146 (talk • contribs) . -- Mackensen (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• How do you know people are failing to consider it? What you describe is reasonable, but one of the costs of it is that you lose credibility in deletion debates. It's a choice you make. Having an account here doesn't necessarily mean you have less anonymity anyway--if you don't want people to know who you are, don't disclose personal information. The upside is that as you develop a stable identity here, the credibility problem goes away. · rodii · 16:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• So why not create an account which protects your identity but gives you a handle that people can come to know you by? You don't have to use a real name, you can use just about anything non-offensive as a user name, but it will be the same as being "you" to people who interact with you. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• If you have an account with a pseudonym, you're more anonymous than when you contribute with an IP address that can be traced. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.