GloZell Green – No consensus, closure endorsed by default. This concerns the "delete" closure of an AfD of the WP:BLP article of a YouTube celebrity. About half the contributors to this discussion would prefer to overturn the closure to "no consensus", arguing that there was no consensus for deletion and that the sourcing is adequate; furthermore they argue that the closer was out of line by appearing to base the closure on his own assessment of the quality of the sources. The other half would endorse the closure, arguing that the closer was at least within his discretion to assess the sourcing as inadequate for a BLP. Although I personally consider the "overturn" arguments to be somewhat more convincing, both lines of argument are at least defensible under current policy and practice. I therefore find that this review discussion does not result in consensus to overturn the "delete" closure, which is thereby confirmed by default. – Sandstein 06:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
GloZell Green (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) I don't feel that the administrator interpreted the debate correctly. The discussion clearly suggests that there was no consensus to delete the article. There were independent reliable sources in the article which were pointed out by three (yes three) independent editors, and the admin kept on seeming to ignore this per the discussion on his talk page. Sure, some keep votes were not guideline-based as with many debates, but so were many of the deletion ones, some of which were just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also, may I point out that one of the first things WP:People states is: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I along with other editors noted in the discussion that she satisfied this criteria, again they were ignored by the administrator. Till 14:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion; is incubation an option? It was a tough call, but I agree with the closing administrator in how he interpreted the discussion and the Wikipedia policies brought up—including the interpretation of the student newspapers as not being "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as per WP:SOURCES. That said, it may be worth userfying or otherwise incubating the article to see if more sources can be located in the professional media. —C.Fred (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] His direct words: "I have to conclude that the person does not meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENT based on what has been provided". Only one editor cited those guidelines, whereas three editors noted the WP:GNG and WP:BASIC guidelines which were completely ignored. She satisfies significant coverage in reliable sources which the admin completely did not take into account. This IMO clearly proves that the closure was faulty. There are also some sources that aren't student newspapers and have WP:SIGCOV, such as these: [1] [2] Till 15:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Per WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, "consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." Toddst1 (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I get that, but surely one cannot be deemed 'consensus' when three editors cite the same guidelines as reasons for their keep !votes. IMO that is a strong argument to make and should have been taken into account by the closer. Till 00:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] When 3 editors misinterpret a policy or guideline, yes it can. Toddst1 (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion: I agree, the closure required judgement but it's not really that tough a call. The closing administrator seems to have interpreted our policies and guidelines mentioned in the discussion correctly, recognizing the ~~weak~~ rough consensus in the AFD. As Fred said, the student newspapers are not "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Kimmel was a mention, increasing her fame, not her WP:Notability. There's a difference between pop-culture fame and WP:Notability. Toddst1 (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I'm not thrilled that the closer says (explicitly) that he looked at the references and found them wanting. If he did that, then he should have voted rather than closing. Closing an AfD should be the process of assessing the debate and the policy-based arguments used. It certainly shouldn't be a process of the closer personally assessing the sources and coming to a decision. (If it was that process, then there would be no point in anyone else discussing at all, would there? At best, such a process would treat the debate as an "admin's suggestion box".) But in fairness to BWilkins, I do think there was a consensus to delete there, if the policy-based arguments are given their correct weight. I think that rather than restore BLP-violating content the best way to regularise this is to ask another admin to re-close it.—S Marshall T/C 19:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] If part of the arguments presented are surrounding the references, the admin sure as hell better review them for WP:RS/quality as part of the groundwork for decision. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] The closer should evaluate the discussion that was presented and then determine consensus. Calling the references very poor was unncessary and out of line. I think that even further suggested that the close was defective and contained some bias. I mean this isn't knew, I addressed that on your talk page. Till 00:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Well no. BWilkins correctly ignored the editors' comments who didn't understand RS. That's his job as closing admin. From WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS: "Arguments that contradict policy, ... are frequently discounted." BW went the extra mile in explaining that in his close. "the policies do need to be clearly gone through as opposed to !vote. Looking at (the very poor) references, I have to conclude... " It sounds like you might have some WP:IDHT going on. Toddst1 (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Can you please stop quoting that guideline? I can read. Till 02:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Mere comment. The closer does need to have at least some regard for sources. If I say "delete: none of the sources even mention the subject" then it may be appropriate for the closer to look to see if in fact the sources cover the subject in detail. However, the focus should be on assessing the relevance of my comment along with those of others, rather than on assessing the source. Thincat (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I disagree with BWilkins and Thincat. Deciding whether the sources are reliable is the job of AfD participants. It's not up to the closer, and in a normal debate where the participants are all in good faith, it's not necessary for the closer even to look at the sources. Sysops aren't authority figures, folks, and they don't make decisions in environments like AfD. AfD is where the community comes to a decision. It's for sysops to note the decision and do as the community tells them. Weighing the !votes is a bit of a dark art sometimes---the closer has to give due weight to the general community consensus as expressed in policy and guidelines as well as to the local consensus as expressed by debate participants---but it's important not to confuse this process of weighing the !votes before you with making a decision.—S Marshall T/C 11:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I think to an extent the closing admin has to check the veracity of the claims being made by AfD participants, though, otherwise it is just head-counting. If someone says "keep, the sourcing is good" then one should do at least a cursory check to see if that is truthful, i.e. the "good" sourcing isn't just to PR sheets or blogs and such. Tarc (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I said, "In a normal debate where the participants are all in good faith." I accept that there may be a need for the closer to review the sources if there's some reason to suspect otherwise. But in the absence of bad faith, then whether a particular source is "good" is a matter about which reasonable people can disagree. PR sheets and blogs aren't usually wonderful sources, but there are times when they can be. In the four years or so for which I've been a fairly heavy participant in DRV, I've come to the view that if the closer is finding themselves making decisions about source reliability, then they shouldn't be closing. What they should be doing is adding a !vote that carefully and patiently explains why the sources are poor. Then the next person who comes along to close it will have a less defective debate to close. Do you see why that's better than just supervoting?—S Marshall T/C 20:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] endorse deletion It was closed correctly, on the correct basis that the bar for YouTube celebrities should be quite high, and this is best handled by interpreting our policies of reliable sources rather strictly. DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn While I generally agree with DGG, the various college paper sources are exactly the sort of RS'es one should look for in an artist who appeals to a younger generation than I am. At the end of the day, I count coverage in three independent RS'es (UF, Dartmouth, Kansas college papers), which means she's not just some local sensation. Sure, the article could be cleaned up a bit, but Till's original statement is the most on-point policy-based argument made in the discussion: "meets notability guidelines through coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources." The BLP aspect actually argues for retaining the article on Ms. Green: for an Internet personality, being denied a Wikipedia article summarizing her works when she meets the GNG is an avoidable harm. Notability is not meant to be an indicator that the person depicted has already arrived, but merely that there's a good reason various people would be coming to Wikipedia to look for information on the subject, and that we have sources as a base on which to say relevant things about the topic. Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I think it a dangerous principle to accept the concept that we are harming an individual by not accepting a WP article on them. Just as we go by verifiability than finding the ultimate truth, we go by including what fits our ideas of what makes an encyclopedia , not doing justice into people in proportion to their true importance. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] If we fail to follow our own rules, because we don't like YouTube celebrities, holding them to a higher bar than traditional entertainers in excess of the GNG, and we impair the spread of their popularity, what is that but impairing their potential livelihood? Granted, 2-300 page views per day are not particularly compelling, but that's far more than our baseline mirror activity. At any rate, we as a community seem entirely willing to suppress articles for the potential of harm of inappropriate allegations, which is good, but I do not see us looking after the potential harm of an inappropriate deletion of a public figure BLP with near that level of care. Jclemens (talk) 04:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] (1) The decision is based not upon whether we like YouTube celebrities, but on their overcoverage. . The decision is based upon the frank recognition of cultural bias; just as we compensate for negative bias by being flexible in accepting less than ideal sourcing for subjects whose conventional sourcing is difficult because of the limits of our culture, so we compensate for cculturally-based overcoverage by requiring proper sources on a more rigorous basis.It's the principle that supports not tabloid, and supports the relatively cautious coverage of internet celebrities. the sources for this article are borderline at best, and any true YouTube celebrity of any real notability should be able to show much better. DGG ( talk ) 08:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] How are three separate college newspapers not multiple, independent, RS coverage? Even if we discount her alma mater as possibly non-independent, I'm still seeing the GNG being met. I'm not debating that many other YouTube professionals are better documented, but I just don't see a good justification for saying that she doesn't meet the GNG, nor am I really sure why "relatively cautious" should be the standard. (2) That people are dependent for Wikipedia coverage of their activities for their livelihood is a sad indication of the extent of our use for promotionalism, the opposite of NPOV. The responsibility we bear to our subjects is that they not be written about unfairly. Your argument would lead to the concept that if we deleted an article, the subject could sue either the people who advocated & carried out the deletion for our negligence, & the foundation for letting it happen, like they could presumably sue PR agent for not carrying our successfully his publicity, or an advertising-supported publication for misprinting their advertisements The only principle that will hold us safe is that we are a source of neutral information, decided without reference to the wishes of the subjects, whose purpose is not the promotion of the activities of the subject, and that nobody can or should think they have the right to expect it of us. DGG ( talk ) 08:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I made that argument, not anyone else, but let's discuss NPOV: It's POV to delete a BLP article from the encyclopedia because they're trying to make a name for themselves, just like it's POV to include an article for the same reason. Notability attempts to make that an objective judgment, so we can focus on making articles on notable celebtrities actually conform to our content standards. And no, I don't think anyone has cause to sue us, but I think Wikipedia's own rules should be fairly applied to all, even to YouTube personalities... because unfair application of inclusion criteria diminishes all of us. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment I think this was probably within admin discretion, but I disagree with the notion that the sources aren't reliable enough for us. This is about an entertainer. Does anyone have any factual issues with any of the information in the source articles? Many College papers are quite reliable and well done. I'd (for example) be inclined to trust information from The State News, Michigan State's newspaper over the Lansing State Journal (newspaper of the capital of the state of Michigan) if the two disagreed on nearly any topic. If I were to close this I'd have gone with NC or even keep. But when it comes to BLPs we give the admins a lot of discretion. So while I (rather vehemently) disagree with the foundation of the deletion arguments, I can't argue to overturn here. Hobit (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Discretion? I think it's the other way around. BLP debates should always be closed with careful judgement, especially when there's both challenging delete/keep arguments like this one. Till 16:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Restore (updating comment above). As noted above the close was likely within admin discretion, though I disagree (strongly) with the deletion arguments in the AfD. That said, new sources and information found by Ssilvers & Uzma Gamal means this _easily_ passes the GNG. So restore. Hobit (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - "I disagree" isn't a valid DRV rationale. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] No one said anything about "I disagree". Till 14:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I don't feel that the administrator interpreted the debate correctly is precisely a "I disagree" call. You don't get to substitute your own judgement for that of the closing admin. DRV should be ffor clear and fundamental errors in applying Wikipedia policy. Tarc (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Principal purpose – challenging deletion decisions: "Deletion Review is to be used if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly". So you have no argument. Kthanksbye. Till 15:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Incorrectly" meaning they erred in application of policy. All you're doing is disagreeing with the final verdict, and the only argument I need is to point this out. You don't get to sub in your judgement call for someone elses. Look at the DRV below for Shawn Welling. Looking over that AfD now, I would have preferred a finding of delete based on the weakness of some of the keep votes, but IMO that's not a valid reason to overturn an admin's decision, as they have discretion to judge the consensus of the debate. Tarc (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] If you actually bothered to read the whole statement, not just the opening sentence, you would have noticed that I linked to notability guidelines that are based on significant coverage in WP:RS which the closer failed to take into account. So don't give me a lecture about 'disagreeing' with him. Till 16:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Your assumptions that a) I didn't read it all and b) the closing admin didn't consider that source coverage is quite a one-two punch of bad-faith assumptions. You're on quite a roll here. Tarc (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I agree with S Marshall that in the usual case closers should close an AfD based on the discussion and not on their own evaluation of the sources. That said, in some cases it may be appropriate for the closer to disregard obviously wrong comments (e.g., a "delete" that states "the subject is not even mentioned in any of the sources" when a source has detailed coverage of the subject). But evaluating the sources' value under our various notability guidelines is too much, and were this not a BLP I would have !voted overturn and reclose, because there's at least a reasonable probability that a different closer would have reached a different conclusion (i.e., no consensus), and so the error cannot be said to be harmless. Nonetheless, this is a BLP, and the special considerations for BLPs, in my view, mean that the closer has discretion to conduct a more in-depth examination of the sources in BLPs than what would be normally appropriate for non-BLPs. I cannot say that Bwilkins exceeded that discretion here, so endorse. T. Canens (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse- This is one was a close call, and both 'delete' and 'no consensus' were available to the closing admin. Either one would have been within BWilkins's discretion and, even though I don't like the dismissive attitude on his talk page, he's right that you need to show why the close went against policy. As far as I can see, it didn't. Reyk _YO! 22:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn (to no consensus). There were sources, supported in the AfD, meeting the GNG. I think the many delete !votes were influenced by the understandable bias of the subject being a youtube sensation. Being a youtube sensation is normally a pretty strong indicator that you will not meet WP:BIO. However, with independent secondary sources noting that she is a youtube sensation, this may be an unusual case. Any reason for for jumpin gto "delete" is that there is an excess of promotional external links. It looks like promotion. It looks like it was written by an enthusiastic fan. This is not OK, but it can be fixed without deletion. The deletion rationale cites WP:BLP. However, this is not a private person, but a performer, and BLP does not urge to err on the side of deletion for non-private people. The close cites WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENT, but having independent coverage trumps these SNGs. "No consensus" because the AfD participants didn't generally see it this way, and neither was there agreement that the notability-demonstrating sources were of sufficient quality (as Jclemens and DGG disagree above). I think this one would do well to be renominated in a couple of months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment there is some material, potentially of interest (sources etc.), at Talk:GloZell Green. Not sure it adds anything, but I thought it should be linked to in the DRV. Hobit (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn: If you look at all the sources now shown at Talk:GloZell Green, I think there is enough information there to reinstate the article. In addition, Green is a major YouTube entertainer, with over 200 million views on her main YouTube channel (she has other popular YouTube channels). I think she certainly passes WP:ENT. The admin did not have all the information available when making the decision. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn: Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is available now (and appears to have been at the time of XfD). Dislike the idea of making YouTube celebrities a special category of content that has to meet a higher bar than the GNG. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn: There was clearly no consensus to delete the article. Statυs (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn/Permit recreation - With the source material already in the very well written Wikipedia article plus the following significant new information has come to light since the deletion, seems like we got a winner: "Here's Your Guide To The Zora Neale Hurston Festival". Orlando Sentinel. January 30, 1998. p. 6. Retrieved 30 June 2012. `((cite news))`: `\|section=` ignored (help) Elizabeth Maupin (May 27, 1999). "Fresh Reflections On Pride And Pain: The Orlando Black Theatre Often Gets To The Heart Of This Production About African-American Girls And Women". Orlando Sentinel. p. E1. Retrieved 30 June 2012. `((cite news))`: `\|section=` ignored (help) Elizabeth Maupin (December 12, 1999). "Theater's New Voices: African-American Theater Groups Are Making Their Presence Felt In Central Florida's Growing Creative Community". Orlando Sentinel. p. F1. Retrieved 30 June 2012. `((cite news))`: `\|section=` ignored (help) "The Public Record: Marriage Licenses Orange County". Orlando Sentinel. July 27, 2000. p. K1. Retrieved 30 June 2012. `((cite news))`: `\|section=` ignored (help) Eugene Tong (May 24, 2007). "A Blogger Shares Life In The Leno Line". The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 30 June 2012. "For The Record". Los Angeles Daily News. May 16, 2007. p. N4. Retrieved 30 June 2012. `((cite news))`: `\|section=` ignored (help) "'The cinnamon challenge': Just say no". Boston Globe. March 31, 2012. p. 8. Retrieved 30 June 2012. `((cite news))`: `\|section=` ignored (help) "USPTO Issues Trademark: Glozell". US Federal News. November 26, 2011. Retrieved 30 June 2012. "Public record - Dissolutions of marriage". Orlando Sentinel. April 11, 1993. p. K9. Retrieved 30 June 2012. `((cite news))`: `\|section=` ignored (help) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I'm also reposting here what Ssilvers posted to the article talk page on 27 June 2012: GloZell has gotten a lot of press that was, unfortunately, not cited in the last version of the article. After reviewing the last version and the information below, you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 June 24. Glozell's main YouTube channel Glozell1 has received over 200 million views. Another of her YouTube channels, GloZellGreen has received over 12 million views. She was nominated for a 2012 Shorty Award. See this. She holds a B.F.A. in Musical Theatre from the University of Florida (1997) She was recently in the news after her video about taking the Cinnamon Challenge received over 17 million views: http://www.ctvnews.ca/cinnamon-challenge-is-risky-say-doctors-1.781893#axzz1z1Aev9hE http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/03/19/youtube-viewers-flock-to-watch-quinn-take-cinnamon-challenge/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57406495-10391704/popular-cinnamon-challenge-has-potential-to-be-deadly/ She has written a popular blog since 2006 at http://glozelllovesjayleno.blogspot.com/ She is currently featured in the webshow Dr. Fubalous, starring Flava Flav. She has performed her comedy act at The Comedy Store, The Improv, The Laugh Factory, Showtime at the Apollo, Steve Harvey Talent Show, among others, and has appeared on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno* and Good Morning America. She was featured in the The University Daily Kansan here. And The Daily Free Press here. She was also featured in *The Dartmouth: here and here; and *The Independent Florida Alligator here and here She was featured by Josh Skinner on his webshow: http://www.withjosh.com/2010/04/23/glozell-youtubes-super-star/ Here is her IMDB page: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3941817/ I hope others will add further research here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn: As the author of this incarnation of the page, I looked long and hard for reliable sources, and I assumed that the college newspapers were sufficient in order to pass WP:GNG. I do not think there was any sort of consensus to delete, as (at least from a headcount) it was 5 to 4 in favor of deletion, with one of those delete !votes not based on any sort of policy (although one keep !vote was also poor as well). Ssilvers and Uzma Gamal have found plenty of new information that I regret not finding when I first wrote the article months ago, which if I may admit was in response to the fact that Aziz Shavershian is allowed a Wikipedia article despite being solely mentioned in reliable sources because of his untimely death. If Mr. Shavershian who became widely known because he died and the "cult" following he gained as a result is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia, then Ms. Green who is alive, well, appearing on TV and in other people's projects, and consistently getting millions of views on her hundreds of videos, and already mentioned elsewhere on the project as a notable YouTuber, should probably receive some decent level of coverage as well.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:07, 30 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.

GloZell Green – No consensus, closure endorsed by default. This concerns the "delete" closure of an AfD of the WP:BLP article of a YouTube celebrity. About half the contributors to this discussion would prefer to overturn the closure to "no consensus", arguing that there was no consensus for deletion and that the sourcing is adequate; furthermore they argue that the closer was out of line by appearing to base the closure on his own assessment of the quality of the sources. The other half would endorse the closure, arguing that the closer was at least within his discretion to assess the sourcing as inadequate for a BLP. Although I personally consider the "overturn" arguments to be somewhat more convincing, both lines of argument are at least defensible under current policy and practice. I therefore find that this review discussion does not result in consensus to overturn the "delete" closure, which is thereby confirmed by default. – Sandstein 06:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't feel that the administrator interpreted the debate correctly. The discussion clearly suggests that there was no consensus to delete the article. There were independent reliable sources in the article which were pointed out by three (yes three) independent editors, and the admin kept on seeming to ignore this per the discussion on his talk page. Sure, some keep votes were not guideline-based as with many debates, but so were many of the deletion ones, some of which were just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also, may I point out that one of the first things WP:People states is: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I along with other editors noted in the discussion that she satisfied this criteria, again they were ignored by the administrator. Till 14:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion; is incubation an option? It was a tough call, but I agree with the closing administrator in how he interpreted the discussion and the Wikipedia policies brought up—including the interpretation of the student newspapers as not being "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as per WP:SOURCES. That said, it may be worth userfying or otherwise incubating the article to see if more sources can be located in the professional media. —C.Fred (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- His direct words: "I have to conclude that the person does not meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENT based on what has been provided". Only one editor cited those guidelines, whereas three editors noted the WP:GNG and WP:BASIC guidelines which were completely ignored. She satisfies significant coverage in reliable sources which the admin completely did not take into account. This IMO clearly proves that the closure was faulty. There are also some sources that aren't student newspapers and have WP:SIGCOV, such as these: [1] [2] Till 15:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, "consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." Toddst1 (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, but surely one cannot be deemed 'consensus' when three editors cite the same guidelines as reasons for their keep !votes. IMO that is a strong argument to make and should have been taken into account by the closer. Till 00:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When 3 editors misinterpret a policy or guideline, yes it can. Toddst1 (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion: I agree, the closure required judgement but it's not really that tough a call. The closing administrator seems to have interpreted our policies and guidelines mentioned in the discussion correctly, recognizing the ~~weak~~ rough consensus in the AFD. As Fred said, the student newspapers are not "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Kimmel was a mention, increasing her fame, not her WP:Notability. There's a difference between pop-culture fame and WP:Notability. Toddst1 (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not thrilled that the closer says (explicitly) that he looked at the references and found them wanting. If he did that, then he should have voted rather than closing. Closing an AfD should be the process of assessing the debate and the policy-based arguments used. It certainly shouldn't be a process of the closer personally assessing the sources and coming to a decision. (If it was that process, then there would be no point in anyone else discussing at all, would there? At best, such a process would treat the debate as an "admin's suggestion box".)
But in fairness to BWilkins, I do think there was a consensus to delete there, if the policy-based arguments are given their correct weight. I think that rather than restore BLP-violating content the best way to regularise this is to ask another admin to re-close it.—S Marshall T/C 19:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If part of the arguments presented are surrounding the references, the admin sure as hell better review them for WP:RS/quality as part of the groundwork for decision. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The closer should evaluate the discussion that was presented and then determine consensus. Calling the references very poor was unncessary and out of line. I think that even further suggested that the close was defective and contained some bias. I mean this isn't knew, I addressed that on your talk page. Till 00:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well no. BWilkins correctly ignored the editors' comments who didn't understand RS. That's his job as closing admin. From WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS: "Arguments that contradict policy, ... are frequently discounted." BW went the extra mile in explaining that in his close. "the policies do need to be clearly gone through as opposed to !vote. Looking at (the very poor) references, I have to conclude... "

It sounds like you might have some WP:IDHT going on. Toddst1 (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop quoting that guideline? I can read. Till 02:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mere comment. The closer does need to have at least some regard for sources. If I say "delete: none of the sources even mention the subject" then it may be appropriate for the closer to look to see if in fact the sources cover the subject in detail. However, the focus should be on assessing the relevance of my comment along with those of others, rather than on assessing the source. Thincat (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with BWilkins and Thincat. Deciding whether the sources are reliable is the job of AfD participants. It's not up to the closer, and in a normal debate where the participants are all in good faith, it's not necessary for the closer even to look at the sources. Sysops aren't authority figures, folks, and they don't make decisions in environments like AfD. AfD is where the community comes to a decision. It's for sysops to note the decision and do as the community tells them. Weighing the !votes is a bit of a dark art sometimes---the closer has to give due weight to the general community consensus as expressed in policy and guidelines as well as to the local consensus as expressed by debate participants---but it's important not to confuse this process of weighing the !votes before you with making a decision.—S Marshall T/C 11:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think to an extent the closing admin has to check the veracity of the claims being made by AfD participants, though, otherwise it is just head-counting. If someone says "keep, the sourcing is good" then one should do at least a cursory check to see if that is truthful, i.e. the "good" sourcing isn't just to PR sheets or blogs and such. Tarc (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said, "In a normal debate where the participants are all in good faith." I accept that there may be a need for the closer to review the sources if there's some reason to suspect otherwise. But in the absence of bad faith, then whether a particular source is "good" is a matter about which reasonable people can disagree. PR sheets and blogs aren't usually wonderful sources, but there are times when they can be.
In the four years or so for which I've been a fairly heavy participant in DRV, I've come to the view that if the closer is finding themselves making decisions about source reliability, then they shouldn't be closing. What they should be doing is adding a !vote that carefully and patiently explains why the sources are poor. Then the next person who comes along to close it will have a less defective debate to close. Do you see why that's better than just supervoting?—S Marshall T/C 20:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion It was closed correctly, on the correct basis that the bar for YouTube celebrities should be quite high, and this is best handled by interpreting our policies of reliable sources rather strictly. DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn While I generally agree with DGG, the various college paper sources are exactly the sort of RS'es one should look for in an artist who appeals to a younger generation than I am. At the end of the day, I count coverage in three independent RS'es (UF, Dartmouth, Kansas college papers), which means she's not just some local sensation. Sure, the article could be cleaned up a bit, but Till's original statement is the most on-point policy-based argument made in the discussion: "meets notability guidelines through coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources." The BLP aspect actually argues for retaining the article on Ms. Green: for an Internet personality, being denied a Wikipedia article summarizing her works when she meets the GNG is an avoidable harm. Notability is not meant to be an indicator that the person depicted has already arrived, but merely that there's a good reason various people would be coming to Wikipedia to look for information on the subject, and that we have sources as a base on which to say relevant things about the topic. Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it a dangerous principle to accept the concept that we are harming an individual by not accepting a WP article on them. Just as we go by verifiability than finding the ultimate truth, we go by including what fits our ideas of what makes an encyclopedia , not doing justice into people in proportion to their true importance. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we fail to follow our own rules, because we don't like YouTube celebrities, holding them to a higher bar than traditional entertainers in excess of the GNG, and we impair the spread of their popularity, what is that but impairing their potential livelihood? Granted, 2-300 page views per day are not particularly compelling, but that's far more than our baseline mirror activity. At any rate, we as a community seem entirely willing to suppress articles for the potential of harm of inappropriate allegations, which is good, but I do not see us looking after the potential harm of an inappropriate deletion of a public figure BLP with near that level of care. Jclemens (talk) 04:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The decision is based not upon whether we like YouTube celebrities, but on their overcoverage. . The decision is based upon the frank recognition of cultural bias; just as we compensate for negative bias by being flexible in accepting less than ideal sourcing for subjects whose conventional sourcing is difficult because of the limits of our culture, so we compensate for cculturally-based overcoverage by requiring proper sources on a more rigorous basis.It's the principle that supports not tabloid, and supports the relatively cautious coverage of internet celebrities. the sources for this article are borderline at best, and any true YouTube celebrity of any real notability should be able to show much better. DGG ( talk ) 08:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How are three separate college newspapers not multiple, independent, RS coverage? Even if we discount her alma mater as possibly non-independent, I'm still seeing the GNG being met. I'm not debating that many other YouTube professionals are better documented, but I just don't see a good justification for saying that she doesn't meet the GNG, nor am I really sure why "relatively cautious" should be the standard.

(2) That people are dependent for Wikipedia coverage of their activities for their livelihood is a sad indication of the extent of our use for promotionalism, the opposite of NPOV. The responsibility we bear to our subjects is that they not be written about unfairly. Your argument would lead to the concept that if we deleted an article, the subject could sue either the people who advocated & carried out the deletion for our negligence, & the foundation for letting it happen, like they could presumably sue PR agent for not carrying our successfully his publicity, or an advertising-supported publication for misprinting their advertisements The only principle that will hold us safe is that we are a source of neutral information, decided without reference to the wishes of the subjects, whose purpose is not the promotion of the activities of the subject, and that nobody can or should think they have the right to expect it of us. DGG ( talk ) 08:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made that argument, not anyone else, but let's discuss NPOV: It's POV to delete a BLP article from the encyclopedia because they're trying to make a name for themselves, just like it's POV to include an article for the same reason. Notability attempts to make that an objective judgment, so we can focus on making articles on notable celebtrities actually conform to our content standards. And no, I don't think anyone has cause to sue us, but I think Wikipedia's own rules should be fairly applied to all, even to YouTube personalities... because unfair application of inclusion criteria diminishes all of us. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this was probably within admin discretion, but I disagree with the notion that the sources aren't reliable enough for us. This is about an entertainer. Does anyone have any factual issues with any of the information in the source articles? Many College papers are quite reliable and well done. I'd (for example) be inclined to trust information from The State News, Michigan State's newspaper over the Lansing State Journal (newspaper of the capital of the state of Michigan) if the two disagreed on nearly any topic. If I were to close this I'd have gone with NC or even keep. But when it comes to BLPs we give the admins a lot of discretion. So while I (rather vehemently) disagree with the foundation of the deletion arguments, I can't argue to overturn here. Hobit (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Discretion? I think it's the other way around. BLP debates should always be closed with careful judgement, especially when there's both challenging delete/keep arguments like this one. Till 16:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore (updating comment above). As noted above the close was likely within admin discretion, though I disagree (strongly) with the deletion arguments in the AfD. That said, new sources and information found by Ssilvers & Uzma Gamal means this _easily_ passes the GNG. So restore. Hobit (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - "I disagree" isn't a valid DRV rationale. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No one said anything about "I disagree". Till 14:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't feel that the administrator interpreted the debate correctly is precisely a "I disagree" call. You don't get to substitute your own judgement for that of the closing admin. DRV should be ffor clear and fundamental errors in applying Wikipedia policy. Tarc (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Principal purpose – challenging deletion decisions: "Deletion Review is to be used if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly". So you have no argument. Kthanksbye. Till 15:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Incorrectly" meaning they erred in application of policy. All you're doing is disagreeing with the final verdict, and the only argument I need is to point this out. You don't get to sub in your judgement call for someone elses. Look at the DRV below for Shawn Welling. Looking over that AfD now, I would have preferred a finding of delete based on the weakness of some of the keep votes, but IMO that's not a valid reason to overturn an admin's decision, as they have discretion to judge the consensus of the debate. Tarc (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        If you actually bothered to read the whole statement, not just the opening sentence, you would have noticed that I linked to notability guidelines that are based on significant coverage in WP:RS which the closer failed to take into account. So don't give me a lecture about 'disagreeing' with him. Till 16:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Your assumptions that a) I didn't read it all and b) the closing admin didn't consider that source coverage is quite a one-two punch of bad-faith assumptions. You're on quite a roll here. Tarc (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with S Marshall that in the usual case closers should close an AfD based on the discussion and not on their own evaluation of the sources. That said, in some cases it may be appropriate for the closer to disregard obviously wrong comments (e.g., a "delete" that states "the subject is not even mentioned in any of the sources" when a source has detailed coverage of the subject). But evaluating the sources' value under our various notability guidelines is too much, and were this not a BLP I would have !voted overturn and reclose, because there's at least a reasonable probability that a different closer would have reached a different conclusion (i.e., no consensus), and so the error cannot be said to be harmless. Nonetheless, this is a BLP, and the special considerations for BLPs, in my view, mean that the closer has discretion to conduct a more in-depth examination of the sources in BLPs than what would be normally appropriate for non-BLPs. I cannot say that Bwilkins exceeded that discretion here, so endorse. T. Canens (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- This is one was a close call, and both 'delete' and 'no consensus' were available to the closing admin. Either one would have been within BWilkins's discretion and, even though I don't like the dismissive attitude on his talk page, he's right that you need to show why the close went against policy. As far as I can see, it didn't. Reyk _YO! 22:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (to no consensus). There were sources, supported in the AfD, meeting the GNG. I think the many delete !votes were influenced by the understandable bias of the subject being a youtube sensation. Being a youtube sensation is normally a pretty strong indicator that you will not meet WP:BIO. However, with independent secondary sources noting that she is a youtube sensation, this may be an unusual case. Any reason for for jumpin gto "delete" is that there is an excess of promotional external links. It looks like promotion. It looks like it was written by an enthusiastic fan. This is not OK, but it can be fixed without deletion. The deletion rationale cites WP:BLP. However, this is not a private person, but a performer, and BLP does not urge to err on the side of deletion for non-private people. The close cites WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENT, but having independent coverage trumps these SNGs. "No consensus" because the AfD participants didn't generally see it this way, and neither was there agreement that the notability-demonstrating sources were of sufficient quality (as Jclemens and DGG disagree above). I think this one would do well to be renominated in a couple of months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is some material, potentially of interest (sources etc.), at Talk:GloZell Green. Not sure it adds anything, but I thought it should be linked to in the DRV. Hobit (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: If you look at all the sources now shown at Talk:GloZell Green, I think there is enough information there to reinstate the article. In addition, Green is a major YouTube entertainer, with over 200 million views on her main YouTube channel (she has other popular YouTube channels). I think she certainly passes WP:ENT. The admin did not have all the information available when making the decision. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is available now (and appears to have been at the time of XfD). Dislike the idea of making YouTube celebrities a special category of content that has to meet a higher bar than the GNG. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn: There was clearly no consensus to delete the article. Statυs (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn/Permit recreation - With the source material already in the very well written Wikipedia article plus the following significant new information has come to light since the deletion, seems like we got a winner:

"Here's Your Guide To The Zora Neale Hurston Festival". Orlando Sentinel. January 30, 1998. p. 6. Retrieved 30 June 2012. ((cite news)): |section= ignored (help)
Elizabeth Maupin (May 27, 1999). "Fresh Reflections On Pride And Pain: The Orlando Black Theatre Often Gets To The Heart Of This Production About African-American Girls And Women". Orlando Sentinel. p. E1. Retrieved 30 June 2012. ((cite news)): |section= ignored (help)
Elizabeth Maupin (December 12, 1999). "Theater's New Voices: African-American Theater Groups Are Making Their Presence Felt In Central Florida's Growing Creative Community". Orlando Sentinel. p. F1. Retrieved 30 June 2012. ((cite news)): |section= ignored (help)
"The Public Record: Marriage Licenses Orange County". Orlando Sentinel. July 27, 2000. p. K1. Retrieved 30 June 2012. ((cite news)): |section= ignored (help)
Eugene Tong (May 24, 2007). "A Blogger Shares Life In The Leno Line". The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 30 June 2012.
"For The Record". Los Angeles Daily News. May 16, 2007. p. N4. Retrieved 30 June 2012. ((cite news)): |section= ignored (help)
"'The cinnamon challenge': Just say no". Boston Globe. March 31, 2012. p. 8. Retrieved 30 June 2012. ((cite news)): |section= ignored (help)
"USPTO Issues Trademark: Glozell". US Federal News. November 26, 2011. Retrieved 30 June 2012.
"Public record - Dissolutions of marriage". Orlando Sentinel. April 11, 1993. p. K9. Retrieved 30 June 2012. ((cite news)): |section= ignored (help)

-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also reposting here what Ssilvers posted to the article talk page on 27 June 2012:

GloZell has gotten a lot of press that was, unfortunately, not cited in the last version of the article. After reviewing the last version and the information below, you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 June 24.
Glozell's main YouTube channel Glozell1 has received over 200 million views. Another of her YouTube channels, GloZellGreen has received over 12 million views.
She was nominated for a 2012 Shorty Award. See this.
She holds a B.F.A. in Musical Theatre from the University of Florida (1997)
She was recently in the news after her video about taking the Cinnamon Challenge received over 17 million views:
*http://www.ctvnews.ca/cinnamon-challenge-is-risky-say-doctors-1.781893#axzz1z1Aev9hE
*http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/03/19/youtube-viewers-flock-to-watch-quinn-take-cinnamon-challenge/
*http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57406495-10391704/popular-cinnamon-challenge-has-potential-to-be-deadly/
She has written a popular blog since 2006 at http://glozelllovesjayleno.blogspot.com/
She is currently featured in the webshow Dr. Fubalous, starring Flava Flav.
She has performed her comedy act at The Comedy Store, The Improv, The Laugh Factory, Showtime at the Apollo, Steve Harvey Talent Show, among others, and has appeared on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno and Good Morning America.
She was featured in the The University Daily Kansan here.
And The Daily Free Press here.
She was also featured in
*The Dartmouth: here and here; and
*The Independent Florida Alligator here and here
She was featured by Josh Skinner on his webshow: http://www.withjosh.com/2010/04/23/glozell-youtubes-super-star/
Here is her IMDB page: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3941817/
I hope others will add further research here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn: As the author of this incarnation of the page, I looked long and hard for reliable sources, and I assumed that the college newspapers were sufficient in order to pass WP:GNG. I do not think there was any sort of consensus to delete, as (at least from a headcount) it was 5 to 4 in favor of deletion, with one of those delete !votes not based on any sort of policy (although one keep !vote was also poor as well). Ssilvers and Uzma Gamal have found plenty of new information that I regret not finding when I first wrote the article months ago, which if I may admit was in response to the fact that Aziz Shavershian is allowed a Wikipedia article despite being solely mentioned in reliable sources because of his untimely death. If Mr. Shavershian who became widely known because he died and the "cult" following he gained as a result is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia, then Ms. Green who is alive, well, appearing on TV and in other people's projects, and consistently getting millions of views on her hundreds of videos, and already mentioned elsewhere on the project as a notable YouTuber, should probably receive some decent level of coverage as well.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:07, 30 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.

Sharur (mythological weapon) – Nothing to review. The article was redirected, not deleted, and the redirection has now been undone. – Sandstein 11:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sharur (mythological weapon) (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) <Hello! I am the original creator of the Sharur (mythological weapon) article, which was rapidly deleted without much discussion by User:GrecoGeko earlier this week. I feel that this article has sufficient notable and reliable sources to be qualifited for inclusion upon Wikipedia and that granting more time rather than just a deletion will only lead to further improvements. Thank you for considering my undeletion request for this article.> — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrPhen (talk • contribs) 05:02, 24 June 2012‎ Close This article was earlier tagged for speedy deletion[3] which was correctly declined.[4] A highly out-of-process AfD notification[5] and file creation[6] took place and this request file has been tagged for speedy deletion.[7] Meanwhile the article was converted to a redirect claiming AfD authority for deletion[8] and this has been reverted. The article was never deleted and should never have been but I can understand the confusion that has been caused by all this. At any AfD I would suggest the article should be kept. Thincat (talk) 09:26, 24 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.

Sharur (mythological weapon) – Nothing to review. The article was redirected, not deleted, and the redirection has now been undone. – Sandstein 11:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

<Hello! I am the original creator of the Sharur (mythological weapon) article, which was rapidly deleted without much discussion by User:GrecoGeko earlier this week. I feel that this article has sufficient notable and reliable sources to be qualifited for inclusion upon Wikipedia and that granting more time rather than just a deletion will only lead to further improvements. Thank you for considering my undeletion request for this article.> — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrPhen (talk • contribs) 05:02, 24 June 2012‎

Close This article was earlier tagged for speedy deletion[3] which was correctly declined.[4] A highly out-of-process AfD notification[5] and file creation[6] took place and this request file has been tagged for speedy deletion.[7] Meanwhile the article was converted to a redirect claiming AfD authority for deletion[8] and this has been reverted. The article was never deleted and should never have been but I can understand the confusion that has been caused by all this. At any AfD I would suggest the article should be kept. Thincat (talk) 09:26, 24 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.