- Frederic H Dustin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
There was a consensus between those that voted keep and those that originally wanted it deleted that the article was notable and did merit inclusion however needed work to improve it however the administrator that deleted the article ignored the consensus, said the article wasn't notable and deleted it. 72.1.222.140 (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Overturn this really poor judgement call by Seresin. The deletion reasoning was that the keeps failed to provide reasoning for keeping. We default to keep and need a reason to delete, not the other way around. One delete said "delete if..." then the if condition was never proven. Another delete said "just not notable", which is a classic argument to avoid in deletion discussions, and the only other delete changed his/her mind to weak keep. The nominator's weak nomination was that the article made two big claims to notability but a search on yahoo turned up little to support it. Yahoo searches for information in Korea are not easy because of accent marks, and other language problems. The deletion policy says to keep unless a sound objective reason to delete has consensus. This did not happen in this AfD, so we need to overturn it. If it was me, I would have relisted it based on the first !voter's statement that he/she changed their vote from delete to keep based on improvements made during the discussion. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 18:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- That was not my rationale for keeping. My rationale was that there were legimiate concerns about notabiliy, and the keep comments did not sufficiently refute this. The two that did were both weak keeps, and one even said there were still notability concerns. One was just keep, which was a useless comment. One was an SPA who has only edited the article, and one only made accusations about systemic bias. However, there were delete comments that all questioned the notability of the subject. A no consensus might have been germane as well, but I still believe that, when the keep arguments are considered with relation to how they addressed the notability concerns, deletion was the correct closure. seresin | wasn't he just...? 19:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- The man was the first person in the United-States to get a master in Korean language and literature, is partly responsible for introducing basketball into the country, was the first person to write a guide book about the largest island in the Republic of Korea, created and still owns one of the largest tourist attractions on that island, has received several awards and honours, has taught at several universities, is a noted philantropist giving away 80% of the money that he makes and is the foreigner who has lived the longest in the country. How is he not notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.222.140 (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- overturn significant arguments regarding notability her made. The fact that they came from SPA should not have made them be discounted. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- We need more independent sources. Cite some and you can have it back straight away, that was the problem and it was not, as the closer says, addressed. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can someone confirm, please, whether the version in the cache is effectively the deleted version? BlueValour (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Overturn the closers arguments as stated above should have brought him to a keep, or at worst a no-consensus, not a delete. "concerns about notability: is not a reason for deletion. The deletion arguments weren't substantial. The references, though not great, were enough to show the accomplishments. DGG (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Since when are notability concerns not a reason for deletion? seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- The deletion policy lists several criteria for which an article can be deleted. Nowhere in this policy does it mention "concern" about an article's notability as a valid reason for deletion. Have a look over Wikipedia:Deletion policy#REASON. While several people effectively said they are concerned about the notability of the subject of this article, nobody stated that they performed an exhaustive search to find reliable secondary sources to verify the existing assertions of notability in the article. The failure of such an exhaustive search would be a valid reason to delete the article. From the discussion at the time you closed it, it was apparent that several good wikipedians were in-fact attempting to perform such a search. Their initial results were good enough to satisfy one of the original delete !voters. The fact that they improved the article substantially should have lead you to weigh the earlier delete !votes less. Closing it as you did unilaterally ended the process while there was no consensus for the deletion, and therefore was a mistake. I am sure you had good intentions, but it would be better if you would just consent to the restoration of the article and then possibly relist it in a while if notability is still a concern. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- yes, I interpreted "concerns about notability" as being unsure about notability, and if notability is merely subject to possible doubt, then the article is kept by default--it has to be stronger, such as no evidence for notability DGG (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I should note that when the article was originally up for deletion, it was because it consisted of roughly two lines and no references or sources at all. There is no question that an article in that form would merit a rapid deletion however I and others then started working to greatly ameliorate the quantity and quality of the information within the article. As can be seen in the votes for deletion, we were changing people's minds even to the point where the originial nominator was conditionally ready to pull his nomination for deletion. Sadly, we were not able to improve it further since when I went this morning to look at the article, to my shock and confusion, I saw it was deleted. I admit that those of us working on the article are not veterans of this site and we're not fully versed in the wants and requirements of Wikipedia but whenever someone raised a concern or noted that something was lacking, we did our best to quickly and adequately fulfill those requirements. Likewise, for all those other concerns and requirements needed to make this a quality article, if we are told what they are, we will do what is necessary to properly remove all flaws and imperfections and make this an article worthy of this encyclopedia.--72.1.222.140 (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Overturn and then prune mercilessly until only the information that can be verified by reliable sources is left. Guest9999 (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- It seems my closure has been deemed inappropriate by the majority of editors here. I am willing to accept this. Speedy restore and reclose as seen fit. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Consent to overturn and relist. Although I voted delete in the AFD, it was a pretty weak delete; but I'm not really sure it goes past a pretty weak keep, either. There's a lot of WP:V-dodgy stuff as Guest9999 notes. As far as the process goes, though, I think "no consensus" is a truer representation of the outcome. --Dhartung | Talk 07:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Overturn I started the article intending to work on it bit by bit as I got time. I was unfamiliar with Wikipedia and was unaware that it would get jumped on for deletion right away - rightly so at first as there were only a few lines. Having added a few references and a significant amount of information as evidence of Dr. Dustin's 'notability', I was surprised to find one morning that all my and others' hard work had disappeared. Without just cause, from what I've read of Wikipedia's policies. Like I've said, unless Wikipedia is going to run out of space in the next couple weeks, give it just a little time - all references will be provided (where possible - much of the information was gained through personal communication), as well as a list of articles about Dustin in Korean sources. Written in Korean, I suspect there will be few English-speaking editors who will be able to verify them. So before hastily deleting the article again (if it gets restored), please first try searching beyond the English version of Yahoo, and ask a Korean to check the sources I'll provide. Further, many sources are in Korean newspapers which cannot be found online - though they are readily available in any decent library in Seoul or Jeju. I'll provide the dates and page numbers of those newspaper articles. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jejujejujeju (talk • contribs) 14:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
|
