- Gurm Sekhon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
The closer found "no consensus", but none of the keep votes cited policy (apart from one who cited the independent sources rule), and did not address the WP:BIO concerns expressed by a majority of participants. Orderinchaos 10:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse closure The one keep argument was strong, pointing out that WP:BIO really just requires sufficient sources. Mayors, for example, don't hold national office and under a very strict application of the concept of subjective notability, we would probably delete articles on Michael Bloomberg (no state-wide office!) and so on. This is why it's important to look at the sources, as Sarcasticidealist did. The goal of notability standards isn't to exclude articles where we could have a neutral, verifiable (and thus reliably sourced) article... the idea that we should delete them anyway based on hard but arbitrary rules about the level someone has to risen to in life is outdated at best, and excludes a lot of articles we really should have. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. --W.marsh 15:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Bloomberg gets even international media attention, and from my general awareness was probably notable even before assuming his current role. I'd also argue that the equivalent of Lord Mayor of a state capital (in Australian terms) would basically have the same status as a state MP. However, this person failed notability even without considering his local government roles. Most of the references in the articles are to statistics showing election results, and the only references anyone can find to him are purely of him speaking in his official administrative role. Background to this as well - there's been some concern for a while about POV pushing coming from the Australian Greens, who have created many articles on non-notable figures in their organisation, opinion pieces especially in suburb and LGA articles where they do well, and lists of unsuccessful candidates in elections and the like. I actually originally found this article when cleaning up an LGA article that had become infested with cruft and checking the blue links out. Orderinchaos 16:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is Sekhon's official administrative role, in which he speaks, that gives him his notability. POV pushing and other actions coming from the Australian Greens, should it exist, and how you found this article, is nothing to do with whether this AfD was closed properly. Tyrenius (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- (As an aside, and recognising we have gone a bit off-topic, have a look at Australian Greens Victoria and you'll get the idea of what I mean - perfect example.) Orderinchaos 21:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- (ec) He gains coverage in the media and is clearly a public figure. He is featured as a spokesperson.[1] In an article on election results, a third of the text features him and his comments as "State convener for the Greens in Victoria".[2] The Age is a respected newspaper. There were weak keeps and basically weak deletes, for example, "I can see how this might be a borderline case for notability." In weighing the arguments, as closing admin, I did not find a consensus to delete the article. Tyrenius (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I guess the question goes to - how could one improve this article? I'm not seeing a way to do it. At present it is a puff piece, and likely to remain so. The bit about the Age is irrelevant as he is not its primary subject. Orderinchaos 16:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- The Age is not irrelevant if it includes Sekhon in a non-trivial way, and a third of the article (in one case) is noteworthy. He is the main figure speaking about an issue in another case. It is not a puff piece: it is NPOV and referenced, just stating the facts. Tyrenius (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree re the NPOV. But anyway. (edit) I've done what I can to fix it. We're still missing a whole heap of biographical detail and the only source for anything other than his council career is a party publication. Orderinchaos 21:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse Just from reading the debate I'd say the closing admin got this just about right. Spartaz Humbug! 19:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse. Looks pretty much like no consensus to me, from the AfD and above. I suggest you wait and relist the AfD in a few months. DRV is not AfD round 2. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am *well* aware of that - you would be well advised to read my contributions to other DRVs. Orderinchaos 21:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I am pleased to this was listed at DRV. I too remain puzzled at how the closing administrator saw no consensus from three keeps (two of them weak), of which only one cited policy or guidelines as opposed to five deletes that actually cite policy and guidelines. The one that did cite policy made the very debatable point that the sources provided that were independent of the subject were non trivial. Without wanting to rehash the AfD this clearly not correct. I would suggest that the decision be overturned and the article relisted for further discussion. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- You are aware that AFD isn't a vote and that consensus is judged against policy not headcount? Spartaz Humbug! 22:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Hence my saying "of which only one cited policy or guidelines as opposed to five deletes that actually cite policy and guidelines". I think I understand what consensus means. Read what I wrote, not what you thought I wrote. (note: the word "one" was added, mistakenly left out before). -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse and just nominate in another two months--it makes more sense than to do it that way after a no consensus. I consider this borderline. The role of an admin is neither to merely count, nor to impose his own view, nor to determine the better of contrasting policy-basedarguments, but to determine the consensus of the people at the Afd, considering only the views based on any rational interpretation of policy. The community, not the admin, decides what considerations are most important in the matter at hand. DGG (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. The role of the closer is to determine an existing consensus, not to substitute their own opinion. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an excuse for overturning results. Rebecca (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse (no consensus): Most of the delete comments misunderstand WP:BIO, and the fact that meeting one of the "inherently notable" categories is sufficient but not necessary for inclusion. Others misunderstand the principle that the fundamental criterion for notability is source references. AfD is not a vote. David Mestel(Talk) 23:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
|
