Its your prerogative to think that a close made without a proper effort to
check the validity of the only substantive argument is likely to be meekly
accepted by most people - especially when what looks to me like a more than
reasonable set of linked articles are considered "deceptive." If I was told
that an argument I had made was deceptive, I'd be pissed too, even if I
didn't take it 'personally'.
More to the point, Lar didn't restate the WP:BIO guideline in different
wording. He changed the default of consensus=keep. He did so knowingly, and
also knowing that consensus doesn't exist for it. That's why the first
response is so incensed - he can't understand why a particularly strong
standard is being applied to an article that is beyond the normal level of
marginal notability of a BLP.
"Not all intelligent and knowledgeable people in this world will find
success editing Wikipedia". Yes, but nobody so far has made a case for why
this particular person shouldn't, which is why I'm still in this
conversation. Unless we, at least mentally, give people who appear to know
what they're talking about some leeway, we lose too many. That is the actual
mistake made here. Lar is unfailingly polite in my opinion, much more so
than I would have been perhaps, but what that chap was looking for wasn't a
polite "this is the way forward" but a "this is how you make your valuable
but un-WP-like argument clearer so that people don't miss it if they're in a
hurry".
RR
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 8:29 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Agree with Fred - reposting bounced post that was sent
in response to
Relata:
I think Lar just restated the current WP:BIO guideline in slightly
different
wording. The problem as I see it was vast over-reaction by the first
poster
and the other user involved. He took Lar's describing the Google results
as
'deceptive' as directed at him personally - clearly not the case. He
demanded that Lar reconsider his close - not exactly politely, and when he
was refused (quite politely) he ignored all the options described to him
in
order to harangue Lar further.
Lar was correct that he could go to DRV; he could also accept Lar's offer
of
userfying the article and restoring it when it was in better shape, etc.
Minos and Enchantress would rather disparage Lar and argue about the
closed
AfD than take advantage of the next steps available to them. That is their
prerogative, but it won't accomplish much on Wikipedia (as they have
apparently found to their dismay). Not all intelligent and knowledgeable
people in this world will find success editing Wikipedia. It isn't a
crime,
its just the way it is.
Nathan
(PS: There is now a DRV at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_5#Gary_…
)
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>
wrote:
Bottom line:
"Therefore Delete, without prejudice to recreation if a significantly
improved source demonstrating clear notability should appear later."
So if someone wants to do the work, it is simply a matter of crafting a
decent article.
I don't actually agree with the closing, as Minos P. Dautrieve's comment
should have been given stronger weight, but the obvious remedy is to
flesh out the article, not just argue.
Fred
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l