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@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_L... )
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l