- Teri Takai (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Consensus lacking, closed by non-admin, more meaningful discussion warranted. 0pen$0urce (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist Article was removed for AfD without consensus. Could merit at least 1 more re-list. Arguments to keep, 1 from author, who seemed to just focus more on nominator less on content, cited wiki policy either inaccuaretly or of out context, and generally didn't seem to be assuming good faith. The other claimed refs were improved, all those references are sourcing from the primary source. And generally seems to be arguing that position automatically warrants notability, whcih is incorrect. Just want a further review. No previous person in exact same position has article, not seeing what puts this person over the top and makes them notable. Seems position is being subtituited for notability.--0pen$0urce (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As the closer I felt consensus was reached and what with the sources presented passed GNG, I will say tho had Wikipedia not been down I would of actually relisted and left a note, Regards, –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - not a particularly accurate reflection of my comments there. I didn't say they had been improved, I said both sets of references were sufficient. Major publications considered her notable enough to track her career and comment on both her appointment and subsequent resignation. "No previous person in exact same position has article" is a ridiculous straw-man - no previous person has held that position because prior to her holding it, it didn't exist. One of the largest public sector organisations on the planet created the position for her. Prior to that she held a position we consider notable in its own right - not the person, the position itself. Prior to that she held a Cabinet-level position as CIO of a state where computers and electronic products account for 42% of all the state's exports; a state larger in terms of GDP than all but 10 countries. But sure, let's re-list it and see what others have to
pile on say. St★lwart111 07:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - demonstatably and unambiguously meets WP:N, as was presented in the discussion, rendering the delete arguments wholly and totally invalid. There doesn't appear to be anything to discuss, so pointless relisting is just unwelcome clutter. WilyD 09:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I believe I take issue with every single part of the nominator's position. With all due respect, there was more than sufficient consensus to close the debate. Quite a few non-administrators are capable of judging a consensus (and a few administrators aren't, although that was a much larger problem five years ago than it is now; most admins in 2014 are relatively experienced and level-headed). It's true that more meaningful discussion is usually warranted in AfD debates, but we have to be realistic. Participation in the project is so low nowadays that many AfDs are relisted several times without any comment at all. Where there's some policy-based argument and analysis of the sources, that's got to be enough.—S Marshall T/C 11:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. A clear keep. And a justifiable case for a non-admin close, too. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, I'd have closed it the same way, User:Nikkimaria's comment pretty clearly refuted the original rationale for deletion and no further reasons were put forward despite the discussion being open for a week subsequent to that. A relist would have been pointless process wonkery at that point. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Endorse More sources were found to meet WP:GNG guidelines. Whether it was closed by administrator or relisted another time, the final outcome probably would have been keep. JayJayWhat did I do? 20:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Were it a sheer matter of numbers, I tend to prefer a bit more discussion (and perhaps I err on the side of "needless wonkery", *shrug*), but Nikkimaria's sources seemed strong and were not rebutted despite the clear evidence that the nominator (and only delete opinion) had an opportunity to do so. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|