Shawn_Welling – "No consensus" closure endorsed. (SNOW and NAC) – Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 05:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Shawn_Welling (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) I believe the closing administrator misinterpreted the consensus in the deletion discussion. Of the three keep !votes on the discussion, one was an extensive well reasoned proposition, one was a "me too" and one was an "it's interesting" so the focus should be on the merits of the well reasoned proposition. The line of argument in that proposition was shown to heavily rely on sources which were previously believed to be reliable, but then discovered to be closely related through a financial connection to the subject of the article making them WP:SELFPUB. The editor who had made the primary keep proposition acknowledged the issues with the sources cited here [1]. Several editors looked hard for reliable independent sources to either confirm the notability of some awards which had their notability questioned in the discussion or to find evidence of the subject being "world class," but were unsuccessful, suggesting it is WP:TOOSOON and the article should be deleted. I wrote to the closing admin requesting clarification as it was a long debate which may have been difficult to follow for a closing admin here [2] and received a rather snarky reply here [3] which did not answer the inquiry. I tried once again to gain an understanding from that same closing admin by following up here [4], and received another unhelpful reply here [5]. So I have now brought it here for delrev to have the consensus re-examined and clarified. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC) ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse close, and we can certainly return the article to AFD in a few months. Despite the "points" made by CV above, AFD is not-a-vote and DRV is not AFD-Part 2. Unless its being asserted that he performed his close out-of-process, I can presume that admin User:Bwilkins gave the entire discussion consideration before making his decision. A no-consensus default-to-keep is not out of policy and a "deletion" or "keep" or even a "no-consensus" does not have to have 100% support in either direction. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse close: No consensus is no consensus that was what was there. --LauraHale (talk) 02:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment - I am not attempting to get AFD-Part 2. It is a procedural question. Per WP:NRVE, notability requires verifiable evidence. "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition...was not a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity...once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." In this case notability has been challenged, and the only keep argument is asserting that unspecified sources may exist even after many editors couldn't find them. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Perfect 100% consenss is not expected nor demanded. In closing discussions, WP:GTD tells us "The desired standard is rough consensus, not perfect consensus. WP:DRV tells us "'This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome' for reasons previously presented (at WP:DRV) but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate." You offer no "new" information. Also per WP:GTD, "closing admins are expected and required to exercise their judgment in order to make sure that the decision complies with the spirit of all Wikipedia policy and with the project goal." Your arguments above repeatedly turn to the points of the discussion that the closer already told you on his talk page that he read and considered. With respects to you, if you wish to re-hash the deletion discussion, rather than the Admin's interpretation or close, and with my own expecting of this topic to return to AFD in a few months, I wish to re-interate... a no consensus does not require 100% consensus and DRV is not AFD-Part2. We really should await the closer visiting this dicsussion, as neither of us can see inside his head. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] And an additional thought: WP:COI (brought up repeatedly at the AFD) is about Wikipedia editor's personal conflicts when contributing to article topics here which are too-closely-connected to themselves. It does not, and is not intended to, address real-world reporters or film critics writing about things about which they may themselves have a personal knowledge or interest. As Nick Nicholson is not owner of the media which carried his reports as a journalist, WP:SELFPUB is not exactly applicable as he is not writing in his own personal media. And while unacceptable for a Wikipedia editor, personal knowledge is not verboten for real-world writers. But even it were somehow determined that Nicholson was owner of the questioned reliable sources, WP:SPS instructs that "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." But a problem with WP:SPS is that we are not considering Nicholson's personal blog, but instead his reports in otherwise reliable sources about a topic in which it is felt by an editor or two here that HE may have too much personal knowledge or affiliation. While his real-world editors might question or not his neutrality as a reporter, Nicholson's personal knowledge being reflected in his writings in reliable sources is not contrary to our policies or guidelines. While the journalist may not himself have been independent of the topic after 2010, I found no evidence that the sources themselves were not independent of the topic. Perhaps the closer considered this? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment I'll keep quiet on if to endorse or not as I was involved in the discussion. But the only people who have said to keep have come by to say they endorsed the proposal. Just let some people not involved give their opinion. Michael, could you please drop it for now. You already made it personal before. There is no need to continue to battle. Just drop it and move on. Bgwhite (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Battle? Not from me. Said my long-winded bit only in defense of the close. Out for now. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse close I looked at the discussions, checked on WorldFest's policies (~20% winners, ~800 out of 4500), and read the Houston Chronicle and Fort Bend Star articles. I agree with the No Consensus result. The Steve 09:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I was previously uninvolved, and I can't see a consensus to delete in that discussion. Whether or not a particular source is reliable is something about which reasonable people can disagree. At the individual source level, source reliability is evaluated either (1) at AfD discussions or (2) at WP:RS/N. The AfD evaluation has not reached a clear conclusion so it's fully in accordance with Wikipedia's rules that the material in question has not been deleted. The discussion with the closing admin bears examination. This post is advertised in the nomination as a "request for clarification", but it's clearly nothing of the kind. It's a very thinly-disguised demand to self-overturn. In the nomination, the nominator says: "it was a long debate which may have been difficult to follow" (which I interpret as: BWilkins has closed it wrong so he must have misunderstood it). He's got on BWilkins' nerves, which I think is understandable. But still, there's no excuse for this, and BWilkins is duly trouted for replying to the user's first approach with a conflict-escalating reply. BWilkins ought to know better. But on the facts BWilkins explains that MichaelQSchmidt's policy-based arguments deserve extra weight and this appears to be both correct and sufficient, even if poorly phrased. If the nominator remains concerned about source reliability, he is advised to pursue this at WP:RS/N.—S Marshall T/C 09:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Hey whoa there for a moment. I escalated nothing, and the editor certainly did not "get on my nerves". They stated there was one argument. As a fellow Canadian to the OP, I replied that their math was wrong ... no insults, no escalation. I focused them onto the actual arguments placed, as opposed to !votes overall. My response was quite clear, friendly, and informative (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse own closure there was no consensus to delete by any count, or by any analysis of the arguments (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] When one is asked, "Can you clarify your logic please?" and replies "Already did...maybe you missed it?" one should not be surprised that people take offense at it. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Ah, I had mistakenly believed that it was one of the closes where I had been far more verbose. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. I can discern no clear error in the close. T. Canens (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. If he was a musician with similar multiple minor awards and nominations, he would pass WP:MUSICBIO. As-is, I'm surprised we don't explicitly state that multiple minor awards can convey notability in the filmmakers SNG, but it certainly seems like the logical extension of our other notability policies. Even so: those arguing for deletion are focusing too much on the technical minutae of notability and not so much on the common-sense question: should a general-purpose encyclopedia have an entry on this gentleman? Sure it should--he's won awards 6 times in 6 years, for 5 different film projects at 2 film festivals per IMDb. Absent any reason to doubt those, he's clearly a working professional generating a body of work. A-lister? Not by a longshot. But he's far from just some dude in a basement churning out self-published movies. I'm disappointed that that was not obvious to more people in the deletion debate. Jclemens (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse close - There is no consensus in that discussion; Bwilkins made the correct call. LadyofShalott 13:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse when there are no clear judgments about the reliability of the sourcing on which the notability depends, a non-consensus close is appropriate. (my own view would have been delete on the basis that even the sourced information does not make for notability , but this is not AfD 2.) DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - IMO the keeps were rather week ,so a bold finding for deletion could've been made here. But this is the whole "admin discretion" thing, and a NC finding is acceptable here as well. Tarc (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Overturning a no consensus to a delete is very tough when we err on the side of keeping articles. Give it a break for a couple of months and come back a look again. If you still think it should be deleted, review the reasons people weren't convinced this time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Shawn_Welling – "No consensus" closure endorsed. (SNOW and NAC) – Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 05:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe the closing administrator misinterpreted the consensus in the deletion discussion. Of the three keep !votes on the discussion, one was an extensive well reasoned proposition, one was a "me too" and one was an "it's interesting" so the focus should be on the merits of the well reasoned proposition. The line of argument in that proposition was shown to heavily rely on sources which were previously believed to be reliable, but then discovered to be closely related through a financial connection to the subject of the article making them WP:SELFPUB. The editor who had made the primary keep proposition acknowledged the issues with the sources cited here [1]. Several editors looked hard for reliable independent sources to either confirm the notability of some awards which had their notability questioned in the discussion or to find evidence of the subject being "world class," but were unsuccessful, suggesting it is WP:TOOSOON and the article should be deleted. I wrote to the closing admin requesting clarification as it was a long debate which may have been difficult to follow for a closing admin here [2] and received a rather snarky reply here [3] which did not answer the inquiry. I tried once again to gain an understanding from that same closing admin by following up here [4], and received another unhelpful reply here [5]. So I have now brought it here for delrev to have the consensus re-examined and clarified. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC) ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close, and we can certainly return the article to AFD in a few months. Despite the "points" made by CV above, AFD is not-a-vote and DRV is not AFD-Part 2. Unless its being asserted that he performed his close out-of-process, I can presume that admin User:Bwilkins gave the entire discussion consideration before making his decision. A no-consensus default-to-keep is not out of policy and a "deletion" or "keep" or even a "no-consensus" does not have to have 100% support in either direction. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close: No consensus is no consensus that was what was there. --LauraHale (talk) 02:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not attempting to get AFD-Part 2. It is a procedural question. Per WP:NRVE, notability requires verifiable evidence. "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition...was not a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity...once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." In this case notability has been challenged, and the only keep argument is asserting that unspecified sources may exist even after many editors couldn't find them. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect 100% consenss is not expected nor demanded. In closing discussions, WP:GTD tells us "The desired standard is rough consensus, not perfect consensus.

WP:DRV tells us "'This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome' for reasons previously presented (at WP:DRV) but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate." You offer no "new" information.

Also per WP:GTD, "closing admins are expected and required to exercise their judgment in order to make sure that the decision complies with the spirit of all Wikipedia policy and with the project goal."

Your arguments above repeatedly turn to the points of the discussion that the closer already told you on his talk page that he read and considered. With respects to you, if you wish to re-hash the deletion discussion, rather than the Admin's interpretation or close, and with my own expecting of this topic to return to AFD in a few months, I wish to re-interate... a no consensus does not require 100% consensus and DRV is not AFD-Part2.

We really should await the closer visiting this dicsussion, as neither of us can see inside his head. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And an additional thought: WP:COI (brought up repeatedly at the AFD) is about Wikipedia editor's personal conflicts when contributing to article topics here which are too-closely-connected to themselves. It does not, and is not intended to, address real-world reporters or film critics writing about things about which they may themselves have a personal knowledge or interest. As Nick Nicholson is not owner of the media which carried his reports as a journalist, WP:SELFPUB is not exactly applicable as he is not writing in his own personal media. And while unacceptable for a Wikipedia editor, personal knowledge is not verboten for real-world writers. But even it were somehow determined that Nicholson was owner of the questioned reliable sources, WP:SPS instructs that "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." But a problem with WP:SPS is that we are not considering Nicholson's personal blog, but instead his reports in otherwise reliable sources about a topic in which it is felt by an editor or two here that HE may have too much personal knowledge or affiliation. While his real-world editors might question or not his neutrality as a reporter, Nicholson's personal knowledge being reflected in his writings in reliable sources is not contrary to our policies or guidelines. While the journalist may not himself have been independent of the topic after 2010, I found no evidence that the sources themselves were not independent of the topic. Perhaps the closer considered this? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll keep quiet on if to endorse or not as I was involved in the discussion. But the only people who have said to keep have come by to say they endorsed the proposal. Just let some people not involved give their opinion. Michael, could you please drop it for now. You already made it personal before. There is no need to continue to battle. Just drop it and move on. Bgwhite (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Battle? Not from me. Said my long-winded bit only in defense of the close. Out for now. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close I looked at the discussions, checked on WorldFest's policies (~20% winners, ~800 out of 4500), and read the Houston Chronicle and Fort Bend Star articles. I agree with the No Consensus result. The Steve 09:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was previously uninvolved, and I can't see a consensus to delete in that discussion. Whether or not a particular source is reliable is something about which reasonable people can disagree. At the individual source level, source reliability is evaluated either (1) at AfD discussions or (2) at WP:RS/N. The AfD evaluation has not reached a clear conclusion so it's fully in accordance with Wikipedia's rules that the material in question has not been deleted.
The discussion with the closing admin bears examination. This post is advertised in the nomination as a "request for clarification", but it's clearly nothing of the kind. It's a very thinly-disguised demand to self-overturn. In the nomination, the nominator says: "it was a long debate which may have been difficult to follow" (which I interpret as: BWilkins has closed it wrong so he must have misunderstood it). He's got on BWilkins' nerves, which I think is understandable. But still, there's no excuse for this, and BWilkins is duly trouted for replying to the user's first approach with a conflict-escalating reply. BWilkins ought to know better.
But on the facts BWilkins explains that MichaelQSchmidt's policy-based arguments deserve extra weight and this appears to be both correct and sufficient, even if poorly phrased. If the nominator remains concerned about source reliability, he is advised to pursue this at WP:RS/N.—S Marshall T/C 09:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey whoa there for a moment. I escalated nothing, and the editor certainly did not "get on my nerves". They stated there was one argument. As a fellow Canadian to the OP, I replied that their math was wrong ... no insults, no escalation. I focused them onto the actual arguments placed, as opposed to !votes overall. My response was quite clear, friendly, and informative (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse own closure there was no consensus to delete by any count, or by any analysis of the arguments (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When one is asked, "Can you clarify your logic please?" and replies "Already did...maybe you missed it?" one should not be surprised that people take offense at it. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had mistakenly believed that it was one of the closes where I had been far more verbose. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I can discern no clear error in the close. T. Canens (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. If he was a musician with similar multiple minor awards and nominations, he would pass WP:MUSICBIO. As-is, I'm surprised we don't explicitly state that multiple minor awards can convey notability in the filmmakers SNG, but it certainly seems like the logical extension of our other notability policies. Even so: those arguing for deletion are focusing too much on the technical minutae of notability and not so much on the common-sense question: should a general-purpose encyclopedia have an entry on this gentleman? Sure it should--he's won awards 6 times in 6 years, for 5 different film projects at 2 film festivals per IMDb. Absent any reason to doubt those, he's clearly a working professional generating a body of work. A-lister? Not by a longshot. But he's far from just some dude in a basement churning out self-published movies. I'm disappointed that that was not obvious to more people in the deletion debate. Jclemens (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close - There is no consensus in that discussion; Bwilkins made the correct call. LadyofShalott 13:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse when there are no clear judgments about the reliability of the sourcing on which the notability depends, a non-consensus close is appropriate. (my own view would have been delete on the basis that even the sourced information does not make for notability , but this is not AfD 2.) DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - IMO the keeps were rather week ,so a bold finding for deletion could've been made here. But this is the whole "admin discretion" thing, and a NC finding is acceptable here as well. Tarc (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Overturning a no consensus to a delete is very tough when we err on the side of keeping articles. Give it a break for a couple of months and come back a look again. If you still think it should be deleted, review the reasons people weren't convinced this time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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