- Hayley McLaughlin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
At time of closing, the tally to Keep:Delete was formally 3:2—adding the closing editor's vote against (inferred, though not formally registered) makes it 3:3. This is not a compelling deletion vote, and certainly does not justify closing the discussion in less than a week, and in the week before a major US and European holiday (!). Finally, the reason given—that there was no response to the point-by-point critique of article sources appearing in a Comment—is fallacious, in that a response to that critique was provided, on 17 December (in paragraph rather than bullet form). If a point-by-point rebuttal was desired, it should have been requested, rather than proceeding with deletion at the 5-6 day mark, days before a major holiday. 2601:246:C700:9B0:C0C7:A11E:21B1:A25C (talk) 05:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify I do not se that it was closed early: it wa listed at 05:49 Dec 13 and closed on 19:31 Dec . 21. I might think it better not to close a rationally disputed afd on 19:31 of Dec 24 , but this was Dec 21. The close was correct, but perhaps the solution here, as in may Del Revs, is Draftifying to cleanup the refs. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleaning up the [bad] refs is scholarly dishonesty, if the material sourced from those refs is not cleaned up. It is probably too hard, too much to expect a normal editor to do. If the refs were bad, the content is bad. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "cleaning up the refs" idoes not mean fixing technical erors, but rather checking the references and the content and rewriting accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course one knows that when a bad source is removed, the content has to be checked against any new source that is added. Indeed, at my ands, when bad sources were removed either the content was also removed, or the references were replaced and the content checked. (If information was otherwise kept, which were the minority of cases, it was because the information appeared in multiple sources, including IMDB and European or better database equivalents, and in such cases, rather than listing IMDB, etc., the information was marked with [citation needed].) Bottom line, you did not see any "scholarly dishonest" editing from this former academic and WP editor, who regularly promotes Charles Lipson's Doing Honest Work in College to combat the fairly widespread issues of plagiarism here. 2601:246:C700:9B0:E057:9794:CB77:30A (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Scope creep’s !vote of 18:16, 16 December 2019 is pretty convincing that the references are broadly bad sources from the start, and the reply to that post is a clear statement that the message is not heard. The ongoing notions of adding IMDB references add to this. If you, DGG, were to do the cleanup, that would be fine, but based on statements at the AfD, I have zero confidence that the topic proponents would do anything better than gloss a few things and continue as before. No, that is not acceptable. The topic was deleted. At best, call it WP:TNT and insist on WP:THREE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This was presented as a Comment, and not a vote, and it is not for the one closing the AfD to decide what any party's vote might ultimately have been—is it? What policy allows tally of inferred votes, in AfDs? More critically, Joe, regarding your
do[ing] anything better than gloss[ing] a few things and continu[ing] as before —this obfuscates, and is discussion that belongs in the AfD, and not here—it is discussion about the article closure. Moreover, it makes clear that you did not bother to look at the edit history of the article from the opening of the AfD, to its closure. All of the editing that you disdainfully dismiss was of the highest academic integrity, with IMDB and other poor sources being removed, and clearly independent, third-party sources being added. Your cursory conclusion and criticism are incorrect to the available evidence, and therefore deeply unjust. 2601:246:C700:9B0:E057:9794:CB77:30A (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Leave deleted, do not restore. The AfD shows that the article was WP:Reference bombed with weak and bad sources. Call it WP:TNT. Allow a fresh page to be created in draftspace, and urge interested editors to follow the advice at WP:THREE. This should be considered mandatory for an attempt to quickly re-create an article just properly deleted for notability and sourcing concerns. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If have read the google cache for the article, and researched the actress. The article was very well written, but the notability is not established. The sourcing is not good enough. It amounts to promotion of a young actress in need of promotion. The quality of writing of the deleted article says this was not written by newcomers. I’m calling this WP:UPE product. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I am near beside myself with rage. As I have stated repeatedly, I am a former academic that edits for the service of the encyclopedia. How can you and others live with yourself, making unjust accusations supported only by presumption? How can you be so bloody irresponsible, not taking the time even to look at the edit history from this editor's regular IP address? There is no evidence whatsoever, of what you assert, and even the most limited look at my edits make clear, that unless I am in the pay of the most amazing array of persons, living and dead, and being paid to make their articles more unsightly for the critical editing—that your assertion is literally, nonsense. Bottom line, I do not edit in pay of anyone. You, sir, are guilty of ignoring evidence, not presuming good faith, and more broadly of bearing false witness. You should be ashamed. 2601:246:C700:9B0:E057:9794:CB77:30A (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Rage? In contrast, I am quite calm. I think I see some hallmarks of undisclosed paid editing. One of these is an obviously experienced Wikipedian not using their main account. I read what you are saying, and in the end: I do not believe you. The way forward for this topic is WP:THREE. If Hayley is Wikipedia-notable, then provide the best three sources that prove it. Don’t try to bamboozle others with a large number of weak sources. If she is not notable, I advise her and her agents to improve her IMDb entry. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion discussions aren't votes, the closer is expected to take the arguments put forward in the discussion into account, giving greater weight to arguments which are grounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Here that definitely favoured deletion, in that good analyses of the sources in the article weren't effectively rebutted. I'd suggest that anyone who wants us to have an article on this person concentrate on showing notability through a small number of good sources, rather than a larger number of weak or useless ones. It looks like the only source in the article which is much use is [3], which is a Scottish tabloid newspaper and therefore not a great source to base an article about a living person on. The rest are either unreliable, don't discuss the subject at all or don't discuss the subject in depth. She has only appeared in a single substantial role in a notable production so far, it may well be that she becomes more notable as her career progresses and we can have an article on her then. Hut 8.5 16:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, as asked elsewhere, support your assertion that an editor closing an AfD may ignore the prima facie tally of Keep:Delete, and infer from Comments what their ultimate vote will be. Please, quote specifically from the WP guidelines and policies where this is said. It is (shocking) news to me. 2601:246:C700:9B0:E057:9794:CB77:30A (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Very few decisions on Wikipedia are taken through pure votes and policies and guidelines are littered with references to this, e.g. WP:DELAFD These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are each encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy, WP:DGFA Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted, or WP:NOTDEMOCRACY Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting. If you want some outcome to be enacted then you need to put forward a good argument, not just get people to show up and agree with you. And stop shouting. Hut 8.5 16:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion – delete was a reasonable close for this discussion, the sourcing for the article was thoroughly discredited, the keep votes don't really discuss policy, and it was not closed early - if anything it was closed a bit late. SportingFlyer T·C 22:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Submitting to the ongoing rude injustice, but still hoping for good sense to prevail. Please explain—how does one justify circumventing the apparent tally of the formal votes in an AfD to render a conclusion opposite to the apparent one? And how does one justify closing a discussion when it is clear that not all editor's have had their say (with a major international holiday just days away)? Please, quote for me here the WP guidelines and policies that allow this. Otherwise, I made specific points of rebuttal above, and here repeat the main issues. Bottom line, the points above that discuss the merits of the article belong in an AfD, and not here. What matters here are whether the actual views of participating editors at the McLaughlin article were take into account, by allowing sufficient time (they were not, because of the impending holiday), and was the actual tally of votes at the AfD accurately reflected in the closure (it was not). To do beyond that, and to begin discussing again the merits of the article—absent the discussion and the evidence that was being presented and discussed in that AfD—is to misuse this venue. Otherwise, my points about the above are these:
- First, I acknowledge, the process began on the 13th, and so when ending on the 21st, it has been going on for 8 days. This is still not inordinately long. Moreover, the process preceded into a holiday week, the week of Christmas as celebrated in the west. It is reasonable to assume therefore, unless one wanted a rushed decision, to allow the discussion to continue until all interested parties had had their say. (It is very reasonable to assume, looking at the fall-off in the discussion, and the lack of participation of other regular editors at the article, that the impending holiday had an impact on the discussion. I for one turned my attention from it as the holiday approached.)
- Second, in that regard, the comment made by the editor closing the AfD was not "The vote is X to Y in favour of deletion", but rather, it stated that no one had replied to the multiple-bullet analysis of the sources of the article. Three important points about this. (a) In not stating the tally, it made inferences, and therefore decided the closure without a tally, see below. (b) The claim that the multiple-bullet had not seen a reply was falacious (as I had replied in paragraph form on 17 December). If the closing editor wanted a more detailed response, all he need done was ask. (c) The tally, as it appears at the article was 3 votes to Keep, and 2 votes to delete. The rest of the participants offered Comments, and did not state their votes. Even if the editor who closed the discusssion has their vote inferred, the vote tally at time of closing was formally, at best, tied at 3 votes to keep, and 3 votes to delete. It is simply outside of WP guidelines and policy to close a tied vote, or to infer what those commenting might ultimately think when time came for them to express a formal vote. This alone is reason in my view to reopen the discussion, and why I will persist with this matter.
- Third, I argue that it is fundamentally improper here to mix apples and oranges. The views of editors regarding whether the article should be kept or not (whether stated or unstated) should not be brought to bear here, and should be carefully excluded—they can come into play when the discussion is reopened. All that matters is whether the discussion had ground to a halt—it had not, it was foreshortened by the holiday and rapid closure—and whether the closure reflected the formal wishes of the voting majority—which it did not, based on the actual Keeps/Delete votes appearing.
- And, Fourth and finally, I would note for those participating in this Review that the AfD discussion was marked by accusations of POV participation and violations of AGF and bias against non-logging editors—which to my utter astonishment are repeated, just as superficially and baselessly, above. That is, the AfD discussion, and now this discussion, are deeply flawed—the AfD, apart from its shortening, for the reason of bias as well, and for that reason also, should be reopened.
For the record, regarding those accusations: Even minimal due diligence on the part of accusing editors would make clear that I edit broadly and diversely, and not in any support of entertainment personalities (a laughable supposition), given that the living and the dead in all subject areas get my attention. My editing is aimed at one, and only one thing—the quality of the ultimate WP article (with most time being spent on improving citations, and making text align with cited material). Indeed, the primary reason I became involved in the AfD for this article is that I perceived the thrust of the proposed deletion to be academically and judicially unjust, in that the original objections to the articles (all IMBD sourcing, and no available independent, third-party sources) proved in the latter case to be untrue. (There were easily located third-party, non-IMDB sources available.) It was only after I removed the IMDB sources, and found more than a half dozen independent published sources on the work of the actor, that the focus of the discussion moved to questioning my motives.
Besides being off-base, and easily determined as such, the bait-and-switch/move-the-target approaches of claiming the actor is unsupportable except with IMDB sources, then arguing, well, there is third party support, but it still does not make them notable enough—esp. when it was acknowledged many lessor examples exist within WP, and that the actor's last (Netflix LD&R premier) and next (recurring guest star) roles are major and newsworthy, the former with the actor receiving international media attention. All of this smacked of stubborn, personal interest actions of the initiating editor, rather than a real devotion to the quality of the encyclopedia, or this article. (Anyone could have found the many third-party, non-IMDB citations; only I took the time and did so.) All in all, this discussion and premature closing smack of WP operating at its worst. The discussion should be reopened, and allowed to wind down after all concerned editors have had their say, and when the tally is clearly in favour of one outcome or the other, not tied or near-tied. And the editor quick to accuse of POV editing, and those that display bias against non-logging editors—these whould should be encouraged to return to AGF practices, and if unable, should recuse themselves. Because this editor is not POV-involved, has edited at this article to improve it, found citations that other editors did not take the time to find, and otherwise is not going away (or logging) anytime soon. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:9B0:E057:9794:CB77:30A (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want anyone to actually read this and respond to it then I suggest you condense it into a paragraph or two and stop sticking entire paragraphs into bold italics. Hut 8.5 16:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to encourage the behaviour but I'll still have a go at a response. 1. AfDs are open for at least a week, and this was not open during any holiday period. 2. WP:NOTAVOTE. Closers close discussions based on policy. 3. The close was reasonable, the article did not need to be relisted. 4. I have no idea where there's reversible error in that difficult-to-read paragraph, but please quit WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 17:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
|
