At 09:55 AM 5/5/2008, Nathan wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lar#Gary_Lynch_deletion

List readers can decide for themselves whether the summary below is accurate. Some people aren't cut out for a collaborative editing project - and I'm not referring to Lar.

Indeed. "Collaborative editing," to be practical, includes the ability of human beings to tolerate each other and work together, and people who see something they think "really stupid" (I don't know if that word was actually used, it expresses an emotional state on the part of the observer who says it) will respond in various ways. It's actually a small minority who will respond with patient and thorough civility. Most people will simply walk away, but, of those who will say something, most will be ... frank, in ways that could be considered uncivil. That's why we distinguish between "a really stupid argument" and "this administrator is really stupid!" Even though both are really, to some degree or other, uncivil. We should, indeed, be more careful about the "your argument is stupid" or "steaming pile of crap" form of incivility, but to conclude, as Nathan appears to have done, that someone isn't "cut out for a collaborative editing project" is to go too far.

The possible incivility in the post on Lar's talk page was the lead sentence:

"I am absolutely appalled by the poor judgment and carelessness shown in your actions with regard to this article."

I must say that, looking at the AfD and not at the article, which I couldn't see at the time I looked because it was deleted, I'd have to agree with the writer, that "poor judgment" was shown. As to "carelessness," that's a tougher call. But if this close wasn't "careless," if it was deliberate and careful, I'd *really* be worried about the judgment of the administrator. The arguments were correct that the closer closed as if one out of the three comments, the only substantive one, did not exist. It's more common that "no consensus" on an AfD, as has been noted, would result in Keep, and possible exceptions to that would be due to other considerations (such as a standing objection by the subject of an article), which doesn't seem to be the case here. And AfDs aren't votes. A single cogent and controlling argument should be enough, especially when it implies Keep.

Increasingly, I'm seeing article deletions based on defects in the article. Used to be, if I'm correct, that someone would stub such an article, not delete it. That is, if an AfD shows that there *is* sufficient reliable source for an article, it is far more efficient, if one is not inclined to fix the article, to keep it, and stub it. That way it's all there in history, etc., and it is much less work for everyone, and no Deletion Review and other fuss. The argument for notability was presented, clearly and cogently and civilly, in the AfD, by the author who later, from the above comment by Nathan, is apparently seen as being unsuited for the project. We need more people like this allegedly unsuited user, not fewer.

Lar commented in his closure:

Compare with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christopher_TsaiWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Tsai, recently deleted by me... this person is less notable than Mr. Tsai is. For a marginally notable BLP, with few or no sources, and no prospect of further expansion, the default outcome failing consensus (we had 3 commenters) should be delete. Therefore Delete, without prejudice to recreation if a significantly improved source demonstrating clear notability should appear later. --++http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LarLar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lart/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Larc 20:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this argument is a variation on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, in this case it's "other stuff does not exist." Secondly, how the admin could claim that there were "few or no sources" and "no prospect of further expansion" is, as the editor who made the Keep argument later said, "beyond me."

Lar did state that he looked at the Google search suggested by the objecting editor. However, the basic mistake he made here is that he relied only on his own searching, which would probably, necessarily, be relatively brief and unthrough. Since he had doubts about the searches and the evidence, he apparently concluded, "no proof of notability," and then equated this with "no prospect of further expansion." This is one reason why AfDs default to Keep. Due to his doubts, he should have, perhaps, relisted the article, suggesting to the voters that they look again, and provide better sourcing, perhaps in the article itself.

But I looked at the searches listed by the Keep voter, and got into serious notability, with the second such search, immediately. A more sophisticated user would have given specific sources, not merely a Google search with lots of spurious hits. Specific: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D07E6DF1038F930A3575AC0A9609...

Now, to the other side:

Lar offered to userfy the article immediately. The objecting editor, after he learns how to work collaboratively, would properly have said "Thanks," done the small amount of work necessary to make the article better sourced, showing notability, or more if he cared, and then placed it in article space. Or asked Lar to do so, which would be better and be less likely to become contentious. The keeper was correct: Lar's close was improper, but the goal of administrative process on Wikipedia is good results, not perfect process. We follow a rough process, with just about everything reversible, so it's enough that we get it *usually* right, for what isn't right can be fixed. The wikidrama makes it harder and far less efficient. Administrators get to make mistakes, and, in the long run, the only criticism I'd level at Lar here is that he didn't more actively intervene once he realized there was a problem with his close, apologizing to the keeper. And if he hasn't realized that, then I'd revise my opinion about his actions not being worthy of serious criticism. I'd worry he'd do it again, and again.

Abd