This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

WP:AN#Towards_closure has a discussion about the various AfDs and DRV of Theresa Greenfield. More-or-less started by Jimbo. Hobit (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• I've asked him to revert that close.—S Marshall T/C 23:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  ...but he won't hear it from me. Anyone else want to try?—S Marshall T/C 00:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  ...No. I get the urge to worry about process, but the situation has become far to embarrassing for the project for attempts to prioritise process over outcome to end up well. WilyD 05:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  Embarrassing? Are the US press in some kind of tizzy, or something? This business of sysops making binding content decisions after a few hours' discussion is terrible and it won't end well.—S Marshall T/C 10:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  I tried to initiate a merge discussion for the article and this was reverted as well on the grounds that the discussion was binding on the content, even though the reason unelected candidates fail isn't a WP:GNG argument but rather several different ones, especially WP:BIO1E. SportingFlyer T·C 10:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  @S Marshall: Yeah, maybe it will result in addressing whatever ridiculous process distortion caused such an unacceptable situation in the first place. older ≠ wiser 10:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  It's not totally clear to me how it got called to Jimbo's attention, but whenever we have colossal failures and lots of people involved, we should be embarrassed. WilyD 11:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  There's so very often a reason why US politics has got to be a special case, isn't there.—S Marshall T/C 12:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  Not sure why there's anything special needed. An article for a major party candidate in a general election for a national legislative body in any country where English is the primary language should be presumed notable at least for the period leading up to and immediately following the election. If a losing candidate does nothing else noteworthy for some period of time after the election, they can be considered for merging/redirecting/deletion. older ≠ wiser 13:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  In the world's largest English-speaking democracy, that idea would fail because it would lead to BLPs without reliable sources.—S Marshall T/C 15:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  It is perhaps a separate issue whether English is the primary language of India (it is one of the official languages and a second language for most educated Indians, but it's debatable whether English is the primary language for the nation). But regardless, BLP articles without reliable sources are a different kettle of fish. There are clear and bright line rules for such cases. I mean it is somewhat incongruous that we keep articles for elected officials from centuries past where the ONLY notability is a bare mention in some record book that they were elected to the office -- and yet articles for major party candidates to national office in contemporary elections with an abundance of reliable sources are deleted as unnotable. older ≠ wiser 13:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, don't get me started. We have articles on people who're "notable" for playing professional-level football for eight minutes in 1963, and the hamlet of Hick Sticks, Where The Fuck, Iowa (pop. 83), but we delete articles about full professors at major universities because they create the reliable sources instead of being the subject of them. I get that, and it's an issue. But we have a problem now, and it's that we've just demonstrated that political candidates are entitled to repeat the deletion discussion every three weeks in the runup to an election, and that this strategy pays off. From now on, where US elections are concerned, no decision is final unless it's "keep".—S Marshall T/C 16:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

  Having an article isn't treating it like a special case, and it isn't relevant that she's American. The process was fixed in an ad-hoc way, but ideally such failures are sufficiently rare a process for fixing the process that fixes the process isn't necessary; we can just act like people who are here to build an encyclopaedia, not a bureaucracy. WilyD 05:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

  I would argue the nationality is relevant considering these types of issues arise like clockwork every two years with the US election cycle. I just did a cross-check and while I didn't spend much time on it I can't find a single instance of an Australian candidate being deleted (likely due to the difference in the political systems, but just as an example.) SportingFlyer T·C 11:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• I guess two comments:
  • I continue to believe that this article, and a handful of similar articles, easily meet the GNG and related guidelines. Not every candidate, just those with in-depth, independent coverage (generally at the national or international level). I don't know why we'd treat a political candidate differently than an actor, or tennis player or whatever. I think this was an outstanding result.
  • Process-wise, we've discussed having AN be the right place for an appeal of DRV. Not sure that's what this was (it was about the underlying issue) but AN isn't a crazy place for that discussion.

Hobit (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• I'm mortified (well, to the extent I can be mortified about things on Wikipedia), so I think there's plenty of room for debate on this, preferably once the US elections finish. This happens every two years. We need more fixed rules. SportingFlyer T·C 10:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• While you and I disagree on a lot in this context, on that we are on the same page. I feel like a small group has been overriding both our actual policies/guidelines and the broader consensus. Folks couldn't get an actual guideline change, but it was enforced as if such a rule had been put in place. I've no doubt the people involved are looking for what is best for the encyclopedia (I know a lot of you fairly well and tend to agree with most of you on most other things), but it is one of the worst cases of a small group overriding the broader consensus I've ever seen here. It really pisses me off. But I'll be a lot happier if we settle on exactly what our rules should be (and are...). I care a lot about having these articles, but I care a lot more about the process being fair and the outcome being representative of the broader consensus of our editors. Hobit (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• Well, I don't agree with you on that, either - I think the consensus is closer to not wanting to turn Wikipedia into a giant Amerocentric campaign brochure than to allow these sorts of articles, and I don't think we're doing anything that's "overriding" any guidelines. But I also respect any proposal generally gets tied up in a "no consensus" outcome. I don't really know what the best solution is - we could workshop something, but considering we seem (respectfully) diametrically opposed on this, I'm not even sure where we'd begin. SportingFlyer T·C 14:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• I think what we could do is workshop a few proposals. I'm loath to have 4 or 5 options out there, but I think that's probably what we need to do. There is the "if there are multiple, independent, reliable sources covering this person in-depth we should have an article" (basically my view and where I think policy/guidelines are at). There is the "a subject cannot be notable just for being a candidate for office", which is where I believe you are (and where you believe policy/guidelines get us). I suspect we need a few middle-ground proposals too. Things that would get folks in the US running competitive national races to have an article (at least in the Senate, but I'd think the house too). There are folks running campaigns that have, according to 538, <1% chance of winning. Most of those folks *really* aren't notable--just folks willing to write their name down and spend 10 hours/week on it, almost as a hobby. But others are massive, $100 Million+ enterprises with massive amounts of coverage and more biographical information than 99% of our BLPs have. So yeah, work-shopping would be good. Ideally we create a well-ordered set of ideas so that if we have ideas (say) 1 to 5 where if a person supports 1, 2 would be their obvious 2nd choice. I'd be willing to work on that with you (and others) but probably not until late December (the joy of being a teacher in Covid times is that I don't have enough free time... Hobit (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• I've just posted on Jimbo's talk page that, if urgently needing to overturn a community decision because the community is wrong, the venue should be the village pump not drama central (because sysops don't make binding content decisions); and the discussion should have a fixed duration (24 hours?) to prevent accusations that the closer picked a moment that favoured their side.—S Marshall T/C 09:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
• I'm very disappointed that after multiple consensuses came up here at DRV against having the article, that its proponents forum shopped a favourable result with a 13-hour discussion on AN. Stifle (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • That sounds procedurally offensive, but it involves the intractible issue of never-elected election candidates. It's hard to think of what should be done. Now that the election is over, things should sort themselves out. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Would like to list en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_March_of_the_Black_Queen.mp3#filelinks for deletion review. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 November 14#File:The March of the Black Queen.mp3

You’ll need a rationale. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

For a reason it improves the information presented. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Howdoesitgo1, I have asked Fastily to contact you and explain their decision. This is the usual first step for a deletion review. If, after talking to Fastily, you still believe that the decision was wrong, please either begin a deletion review by following the steps listed at WP:DELREVD, or else ask me here and I will do it for you.—S Marshall T/C 13:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)