Lance Gokongwei – Overturned to "no consensus". I advise Superastig not to close any more AfDs whose outcome is not obvious. Sandstein 16:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Lance Gokongwei (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) IMO the close has two issues: 1) A non-admin closure in a borderline scenario is inappropriate. Wikipedia:Non-admin closure is an essay but it states that The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial is a WP:BADNAC. The closer had acknowledged that Consensus seems to be borderline, resulting in this likely being a close call that is not a good non-admin close. 2) The close did not weigh the two sides accurately. Numerically, the consensus is 4-3 keep to draftify/delete, being insufficient for a keep close unless the keep votes is significantly stronger. The closer suggests that one of the draftify votes should be disregarded as WP:PERNOM, which is understandable, but there is insufficient evidence that the keep side is significantly stronger. The first keep vote is essentially a policy-free WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, shown by However, there are also other Wikipedia pages of other CEOs who have not been notable outside of their business, such as Jim Walton, William Clay Ford Jr. and Theo Albrecht Jr, the second keep vote is from the article creator, whereas the final vote unclearly cites that WP:NBIO is met without addressing which sources demonstrate so nor address that the arguments that a draftification is required is unnecessary. Therefore, three of the keep votes should be given slightly less weight. With the keep side at best being similar compared to the draftify/delete side, and the numerical outcome being 4-3, IMO this should be at least be overturned to no consensus ~~or vacated for another closer~~. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to no consensus It is probably leaning toward keep, but closer to no consensus. Even the closing statement itself could be interpreted to be no consensus: Consensus seems to be borderline. Nonetheless, the article needs to be improved to prevent renomination in the near future. While I disagree with the close being done by a non-admin, it is obvious that there was not consensus to delete/draftify the page, so there is no need to vacate the close to be redone by an admin. Likewise, as this AFD was already relisted twice, reopening the discussion will almost certainly lead to the same solid policy-based arguments on both sides. One of the largest concerns in the AFD was that the content was promotional and more related to JG Summit Holdings, Gokongwei's company, rather than Gokongwei himself. This was partially addressed by the article creator here. Also, there were no valid delete/ATD votes after the last relist which occurred after the creator modified the page. Frank Anchor 13:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] @Frank Anchor: Agree with your thorough comment. I wasn't suggesting to draftify/delete the article, IMO overturn to NC is probably the best, and I have striked my vacated for another closer part. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] Relist For me, I think it is better to be relisted so consensus will be reached. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] Consensus was not reached after the first two relists, so it is unlikely a third relist would be any different. Frank Anchor 03:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] Two relists are enough. So, a 3rd relist can't do anymore. It's either the closure is endorsed or overturned to no consensus. SBKSPP (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] Vacate NAC and let any admin close. Jclemens (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] Endorse I disagree with the closer that all keep !votes are strong. One of them states WP:OTHERSTUFF and thus is week. The rest, including mine, are valid. But, I agree with him that the only draftify !vote is valid. I really see nothing wrong with the closure since he pointed out that it's a borderline keep. SBKSPP (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] You cited WP:PERABOVE and then referenced a bit unclearly WP:BIO, while not explaining which references meet so or how the promotional concerns have been addressed. In the future it might be beneficial to elaborate a bit. Additionally, MrsSnoozyTurtle the deletion nom said drafting might be all right, IMO their vote, which is not a keep, is valid as well, though perhaps in your opinion it could be stronger, which is definitely reasonable. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] So what if I stated PERABOVE? There's really nothing wrong if I agree with any of the keep !voters in the AfD. The sources in the article, set aside the links about his profile, are reliable enough IMV and therefore I'm convinced that the person meets BIO. That's enough explanation. So, I'll still endorse the closure no matter what. You can never change my mind. SBKSPP (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for your response. I find it contradictory, however, that you agreed with the closer in entirely discounting User:SeanJ 2007 as a WP:PERNOM vote, given that you only belive one of the draftify votes is valid. Nevertheless, reading your description in the AfD it seems to be a WP:PERABOVE with a rather unclear assertion, it might seem obvious to you that WP:NBIO (I'm assuming you are meaning WP:BASIC here) is met and the article is non-promotional, which you articulated somewhat here, but I don't see why your vote should be weighed significantly more compared to SeanJ 2007's. I don't believe PERABOVE or PERNOM votes should be entirely dismissed, unlike WP:ITEXISTS or WP:ITSPOPULAR, but I think your vote should be given equal weight compared to SeanJ 2007. VickKiang (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] My vote is not just plain PERNOM because I briefly explained that the sources in the article, set aside the links about his profile, are reliable enough IMV. Therefore it has more significant weight than SeanJ's plain PERNOM vote. It's truth. So if you don't have anything good to say about my vote, then don't say anything at all. SBKSPP (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] It's truth. So if you don't have anything good to say about my vote, then don't say anything at all- I don't think there are any guidelines/essays/policies stating that I couldn't comment reply somewhat to your suggestion. Though (I'm not suggesting you are believing so), if you think that I am commenting here too frequently and badgering the process, I will abstain from continuing this thread further per your suggestion. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] I don't see how the cited sources "being reliable" is a valid keep argument? Just because something is verified doesn't mean it's received SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to NC I find the !votes to draft are largely stronger, but I don't see how this could get to delete at this time. I think a relist is now reasonable because this DRV will bring more eyes, so no objection to that. I see no problem with a NAC here, I just think this one reached the wrong conclusion. Hobit (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to No Consensus but "Duh". What difference does this make , except to permit a quicker renom? No Consensus leaves the status quo, which has the same effect as Keep. Another nomination is likely also to result in No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Good close. Correct. Well worded. Superastig (talk · contribs) is a long-running very bold NAC-er very often raising eyebrows, often failing WP:ADMINACCT with respect to politely responding to enquiries, but again on close examination the close is good. I recommend any uninvolved admin to counter sign the close to make it fully legit. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] The correct close was “keep”. The deletion nomination was weak. There were no valid votes to delete. Votes to Draftify did not specify what exactly is lacking before it can come back. The stand advice at WP:RENOM applies. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] “Keep”, not “no consensus”, was correct because not a single participant gave a reason to delete. The !votes to Draftify were all vague. The article contains numerous reliable sources, the top three WP:RSPSS generally reliable sources, refs 2,7,10, satisfy the GNG in my quick review of them. Not a single participant made a serious start at any source analysis. On “keep” vs “delete”, the discussion has no substance supporting “delete”. On “Draftify”, is it contested superficial comment. Despite the number of participants, noting the complete ignoring of the several reliable sources in the article, “keep” is the right result. Anyone not happy should read WP:RENOM. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to no consensus. There wasn't a clear majority for either side. Two of the Keep comments asserted that the subject is notable without providing any real evidence, and the other two didn't engage with the notability arguments at all (or at lease not with anything listed in WP:N). The Draftify comments didn't particularly go into specifics either, and their position would have been stronger if somebody had gone through the sources in the article, for example. In all I don't see a particular consensus. I would also be happy with Hobit's suggestion of another relist now this has attention at DRV. Hut 8.5 19:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to NC. I don't read a consensus there. Non-admin status not a factor. Thparkth (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] No action. I don't see a compelling reason to change "keep" to "no consensus", which has the same effect. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] Comment from the closer: The nominator, MrsSnoozyTurtle, thanked me for my closure of the discussion a couple of days ago. I'd rather not comment about this DelRev any further. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] I don't believe that the nom thanking you would count as an endorse vote, however, MrsSnoozyTurtle: feel free to comment here if you would like to endorse the closure. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] Hello VickKiang. The reason I thanked Astig was to show appreciation for what is often a thankless task. In hindsight, I think No Consensus would be more appropriate than Keep, but as nominator maybe I'm a bit biased :) Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for your clarification, and thanks for Superastig for the bold close, as much as I disagree with it. VickKiang (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] Comment people have asked what purpose an overturn to No consensus has. My answer is that in addition to allowing a relist a bit sooner, it also helps our admin (and non-admin) closers get a sense of the consensus of the community in cases like this. I'd think reading DRVs would be one of the best ways to learn the more nuanced issues with closing a deletion discussion. Hobit (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to no consensus. An inappropriate NAC and an AfD polluted with socks and double votes and an article in need of work to separate the wheat from the chaff makes for a confused picture. I'd like to hope somebody would do the necessary editing and re-nominate if they don't feel the wheat is sufficient to establish notability. HJ Mitchell \| Penny for your thoughts? 10:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. This was a very muddy AfD and therefore wholly inappropriate for a NAC, especially when the close itself reads like a supervote. JoelleJay (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Lance Gokongwei – Overturned to "no consensus". I advise Superastig not to close any more AfDs whose outcome is not obvious. Sandstein 16:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

IMO the close has two issues:

1) A non-admin closure in a borderline scenario is inappropriate. Wikipedia:Non-admin closure is an essay but it states that The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial is a WP:BADNAC. The closer had acknowledged that Consensus seems to be borderline, resulting in this likely being a close call that is not a good non-admin close.

2) The close did not weigh the two sides accurately. Numerically, the consensus is 4-3 keep to draftify/delete, being insufficient for a keep close unless the keep votes is significantly stronger. The closer suggests that one of the draftify votes should be disregarded as WP:PERNOM, which is understandable, but there is insufficient evidence that the keep side is significantly stronger. The first keep vote is essentially a policy-free WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, shown by However, there are also other Wikipedia pages of other CEOs who have not been notable outside of their business, such as Jim Walton, William Clay Ford Jr. and Theo Albrecht Jr, the second keep vote is from the article creator, whereas the final vote unclearly cites that WP:NBIO is met without addressing which sources demonstrate so nor address that the arguments that a draftification is required is unnecessary. Therefore, three of the keep votes should be given slightly less weight. With the keep side at best being similar compared to the draftify/delete side, and the numerical outcome being 4-3, IMO this should be at least be overturned to no consensus ~~or vacated for another closer~~. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus It is probably leaning toward keep, but closer to no consensus. Even the closing statement itself could be interpreted to be no consensus: Consensus seems to be borderline. Nonetheless, the article needs to be improved to prevent renomination in the near future. While I disagree with the close being done by a non-admin, it is obvious that there was not consensus to delete/draftify the page, so there is no need to vacate the close to be redone by an admin. Likewise, as this AFD was already relisted twice, reopening the discussion will almost certainly lead to the same solid policy-based arguments on both sides. One of the largest concerns in the AFD was that the content was promotional and more related to JG Summit Holdings, Gokongwei's company, rather than Gokongwei himself. This was partially addressed by the article creator here. Also, there were no valid delete/ATD votes after the last relist which occurred after the creator modified the page. Frank Anchor 13:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Frank Anchor: Agree with your thorough comment. I wasn't suggesting to draftify/delete the article, IMO overturn to NC is probably the best, and I have striked my vacated for another closer part. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relist For me, I think it is better to be relisted so consensus will be reached. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was not reached after the first two relists, so it is unlikely a third relist would be any different. Frank Anchor 03:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two relists are enough. So, a 3rd relist can't do anymore. It's either the closure is endorsed or overturned to no consensus. SBKSPP (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vacate NAC and let any admin close. Jclemens (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I disagree with the closer that all keep !votes are strong. One of them states WP:OTHERSTUFF and thus is week. The rest, including mine, are valid. But, I agree with him that the only draftify !vote is valid. I really see nothing wrong with the closure since he pointed out that it's a borderline keep. SBKSPP (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You cited WP:PERABOVE and then referenced a bit unclearly WP:BIO, while not explaining which references meet so or how the promotional concerns have been addressed. In the future it might be beneficial to elaborate a bit. Additionally, MrsSnoozyTurtle the deletion nom said drafting might be all right, IMO their vote, which is not a keep, is valid as well, though perhaps in your opinion it could be stronger, which is definitely reasonable. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So what if I stated PERABOVE? There's really nothing wrong if I agree with any of the keep !voters in the AfD. The sources in the article, set aside the links about his profile, are reliable enough IMV and therefore I'm convinced that the person meets BIO. That's enough explanation. So, I'll still endorse the closure no matter what. You can never change my mind. SBKSPP (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I find it contradictory, however, that you agreed with the closer in entirely discounting User:SeanJ 2007 as a WP:PERNOM vote, given that you only belive one of the draftify votes is valid. Nevertheless, reading your description in the AfD it seems to be a WP:PERABOVE with a rather unclear assertion, it might seem obvious to you that WP:NBIO (I'm assuming you are meaning WP:BASIC here) is met and the article is non-promotional, which you articulated somewhat here, but I don't see why your vote should be weighed significantly more compared to SeanJ 2007's. I don't believe PERABOVE or PERNOM votes should be entirely dismissed, unlike WP:ITEXISTS or WP:ITSPOPULAR, but I think your vote should be given equal weight compared to SeanJ 2007. VickKiang (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My vote is not just plain PERNOM because I briefly explained that the sources in the article, set aside the links about his profile, are reliable enough IMV. Therefore it has more significant weight than SeanJ's plain PERNOM vote. It's truth. So if you don't have anything good to say about my vote, then don't say anything at all. SBKSPP (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's truth. So if you don't have anything good to say about my vote, then don't say anything at all- I don't think there are any guidelines/essays/policies stating that I couldn't comment reply somewhat to your suggestion. Though (I'm not suggesting you are believing so), if you think that I am commenting here too frequently and badgering the process, I will abstain from continuing this thread further per your suggestion. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the cited sources "being reliable" is a valid keep argument? Just because something is verified doesn't mean it's received SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC I find the !votes to draft are largely stronger, but I don't see how this could get to delete at this time. I think a relist is now reasonable because this DRV will bring more eyes, so no objection to that. I see no problem with a NAC here, I just think this one reached the wrong conclusion. Hobit (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus but "Duh". What difference does this make , except to permit a quicker renom? No Consensus leaves the status quo, which has the same effect as Keep. Another nomination is likely also to result in No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Good close. Correct. Well worded. Superastig (talk · contribs) is a long-running very bold NAC-er very often raising eyebrows, often failing WP:ADMINACCT with respect to politely responding to enquiries, but again on close examination the close is good. I recommend any uninvolved admin to counter sign the close to make it fully legit. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The correct close was “keep”. The deletion nomination was weak. There were no valid votes to delete. Votes to Draftify did not specify what exactly is lacking before it can come back. The stand advice at WP:RENOM applies. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“Keep”, not “no consensus”, was correct because not a single participant gave a reason to delete. The !votes to Draftify were all vague. The article contains numerous reliable sources, the top three WP:RSPSS generally reliable sources, refs 2,7,10, satisfy the GNG in my quick review of them. Not a single participant made a serious start at any source analysis. On “keep” vs “delete”, the discussion has no substance supporting “delete”. On “Draftify”, is it contested superficial comment. Despite the number of participants, noting the complete ignoring of the several reliable sources in the article, “keep” is the right result. Anyone not happy should read WP:RENOM. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. There wasn't a clear majority for either side. Two of the Keep comments asserted that the subject is notable without providing any real evidence, and the other two didn't engage with the notability arguments at all (or at lease not with anything listed in WP:N). The Draftify comments didn't particularly go into specifics either, and their position would have been stronger if somebody had gone through the sources in the article, for example. In all I don't see a particular consensus. I would also be happy with Hobit's suggestion of another relist now this has attention at DRV. Hut 8.5 19:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC. I don't read a consensus there. Non-admin status not a factor. Thparkth (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No action. I don't see a compelling reason to change "keep" to "no consensus", which has the same effect. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the closer: The nominator, MrsSnoozyTurtle, thanked me for my closure of the discussion a couple of days ago. I'd rather not comment about this DelRev any further. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that the nom thanking you would count as an endorse vote, however, MrsSnoozyTurtle: feel free to comment here if you would like to endorse the closure. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello VickKiang. The reason I thanked Astig was to show appreciation for what is often a thankless task. In hindsight, I think No Consensus would be more appropriate than Keep, but as nominator maybe I'm a bit biased :) Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your clarification, and thanks for Superastig for the bold close, as much as I disagree with it. VickKiang (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment people have asked what purpose an overturn to No consensus has. My answer is that in addition to allowing a relist a bit sooner, it also helps our admin (and non-admin) closers get a sense of the consensus of the community in cases like this. I'd think reading DRVs would be one of the best ways to learn the more nuanced issues with closing a deletion discussion. Hobit (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. An inappropriate NAC and an AfD polluted with socks and double votes and an article in need of work to separate the wheat from the chaff makes for a confused picture. I'd like to hope somebody would do the necessary editing and re-nominate if they don't feel the wheat is sufficient to establish notability. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. This was a very muddy AfD and therefore wholly inappropriate for a NAC, especially when the close itself reads like a supervote. JoelleJay (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

18 November 2022

Lance Gokongwei (closed)