Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 May 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2015 May 7
2015 May 9 >

8 May 2015

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Romie Tager (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Should have been closed as no consensus or keep. Four delete votes including the nominator (one of which was perfunctory). Three keep votes. Decision was taken at a time when content that contributed to notability had just been removed from the article (including 5 RS references) and before the relevance of that material had been considered in the debate. Article subject met WP:BASIC. -Philafrenzy (talk)

(Nominated for Deletion review by Philafrenzy (talk) Above is written by Philafrenzy. I corrected the formatting per the request made here: Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#New_request). No opinion on DRV nor on AfD. ― Padenton|✉   17:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, noting in particular that although Andrew Davidson voted to Keep, his rationale was based on original research and primary sources, he never provided a response to my queries based on secondary sources, and IMO the closer accurately assessed that situation and others like it.

    I also take difference with Philafrenzy's characterization/assumption that the closer did not examine the AFD, the article, and its talk page thoroughly, rather only looked at some last-minute version after weeks of discussion (the deletions Philafrenzy repeatedly referred to seem to amount to his failure to understand the importance of using high quality sources in WP:BLPs).

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure the closer read everything even though I disagree with the conclusion reached. My point Sandy was rather that the closure at that moment truncated the discussion of material that had been discussed on the article talk page but had not been discussed properly in the debate. The material was particularly relevant because of the contribution it made to notability which was already moving in favour of keep after the discovery that Tager had an entry in Who's Who that also showed that he had won a law prize. The material you refer to had 5 RSs. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The material I refer to (WP:BLP1E) was mentioned nowhere in any high-quality reliable source that anyone could provide, as required by BLP. In spite of a lengthy AFD, nothing surfaced. I believe the closer read the discussion and the analysis of all of the sources correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who's Who Is a Directory. Please see WP:BIO, footnote 6: "Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's the UK Who's Who which does not accept self noms and is known for its exclusivity. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the reason that we do not accept Marquis Who's Who as proof of notability is that it has been heavily criticised (particularly by Forbes) for containing 'inexplicable' entries for people who appear to be obviously unworthy of notice. James500 (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E is not in point here due to the preponderance of other material. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From the linked Wikipedia article: "The entries are compiled from questionnaires returned to the publisher by the featured subjects." Not independent per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article Who's Who (UK) is not a reliable source. It should not be cited as evidence against the independence of the publication Who's Who, or anything else, as that is WP:CIRCULAR. James500 (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They send the questionnaires to the chosen subjects, you can't apply to be in it, and they don't charge. It is their independent editorial judgement who is in it and that is the important factor. It's true they allow some leeway in what people say about themselves. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Philafrenzy, not independent. Solicited feedback. And for your future BLP writing (particularly on lawyers), please understand that there exist multitudes of sources which solicit and print non-independent input from attorneys. Why you are creating BLPs from sources like accountingweb anyway is another mystery. Are you combing through trade journals trying to find tidbits to make people notable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My position was, as stated, based upon the broad range of sources which were quite varied in nature and so countered the BLP1E assertion. I declined to engage with Sandy's bludgeoning, indicating that this was too verbose. But here we are again. This matter seems quite pointy, as the brother seems much the same notability as the sister, and the idea that we should have one but not the other does not seem worth all the energy which is being expended on it. Andrew D. (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the minor difference that Helen Tager-Flusberg was not written to highlight a tax issue mentioned in a tabloid and picked up by none of the mainstream press, with other primary and marginal sources used to pad it up into a real story.

Presumably, you are familiar with WP:PROF? I wouldn't mind at all if you want to submit Helen to AFD to see if others agree.

If you are going to respond to every poster here, could you please refrain from inserting your points in the middle of other discussions? Thx, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't in the Daily Mail that I saw it. I don't buy the paper (because I despise their general attitude - that doesn't mean they are not a RS for facts) and I don't watch their website. It was accountingweb which is one of a number of financial websites that I read.
I just thought the Mail article was a useful summary so included it in the refs. I didn't know then quite how much some people hate them - so much that it can lead to all this.
In any case, what does it matter where it started? All that matters is the article as it currently stands. We don't evaluate past versions, only current versions. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Offtopic. If you don't know why WP:BLP matters, then maybe you should avoid writing them, or at least avoid waiting for other people to fix them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as Closing admin Unless I'm missing something, there were 4 delete comments (inc. nom) and 2 keep (the two editors above). I'm not entirely sure how the concept of "supervote" has been invoked here - that would be me saying "I think it's non-notable", rather than me saying "I have analysed the comments and decided that the delete voters have succesfully refuted the other side". Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing James500. I bolded his keep but he reverted me! Philafrenzy (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Philafrenzy is correct. There were three keep !votes, not two. If you check the rubric of AfD, you will find that !voters are not required to bold their !votes, and !votes should not be ignored or accorded less weight because they are not bolded. James500 (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought you forgot. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very true, though it is not unexpected that unbolded comments may be missed. Black Kite (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this AfD should have been closed as keep or no consensus, that being the being the correct interpretation of the debate, looking at the numbers and the strength of the arguments. Since the entry in A & C Black's Who's Who, a publication inclusion in which, like an obituary in the NYT, and for similar reasons, strongly indicates notability, was only discovered, or at least mentioned, by the final !voter, namely myself, I would be tempted, frankly, to ignore, or accord less weight to, all earlier !votes for deletion that don't acknowledge its existence (or where the delete !voter edited the page after the final !vote was added) as being presumably based on incomplete knowledge of the sources, and close the discussion as a clear keep. I think that if more !votes had been cast, the discussion would have moved more clearly in that direction. The number of the !votes alone, without looking at the merits of the arguments, would produce a result of no consensus. I can see nothing in "the analysis of the sources claiming to provide notability" that would amount to a consensus to delete. Indeed, if we look at the strength of the arguments, the opposite result would be more likely. I think the closing admin's decision should be overturned, and the page should be undeleted. I don't think its worth the effort of relisting the debate to find out if the ultimate result of more !voting would be keep or no consensus, since the practical effect of the two outcomes is the same. James500 (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the avoidance of doubt, and in view of the comments below: (1) The judgements were not the only sources cited by those !voting "keep". The two biographical dictionaries that were cited are independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage that is much more than a trivial mention. (Notice that the guideline doesn't say "more than a passing sentence or two" though that is the case here). (2) In any event, judgements are not necessarily primary sources. Where, for example, they are interpreting the evidence given in the case they will be secondary within the meaning of one of the definitions we use. There, the evidence of the witnesses is the primary source. The source of confusion here appears to be the fact that "primary" has a number of meanings in relation to sources, not all of which are relevant. (3) N doesn't actually say that notability is a case of GNG or SNG or nothing, only that GNG and SNG create presumptions of notability, and even if it did, it would violate the policy, WP:IAR, in that the hopeless incompleteness of the SNG, and the obviously imperfect coverage of sources, would result in absurd deletions and thereby prevent us maintaining Wikipedia, and N would in that case not be a valid guideline, because a guideline can't violate a policy. (4) So, all that considered, no, I did not misunderstand any guidelines, despite what is claimed below. James500 (talk) 04:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One of the delete votes said the article claimed inherited notability and the vote appears to have been based on a superficial reading. The article is clearly not based on inherited notability and the vote should have less weight for that reason. That makes it 3/3. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse appears to be within boundries of reasonable discretion regarding quality of sourcing and such. A relist probably wouldn't have been totally out of the question either but the discussion had been going for over 2 weeks and had taken a turn for the worse, with Philafrenzy claiming abuse of process and so on. I suspect another week would not have helped much. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admins should certainly never be allowed, on the basis of their own discretion, without actual consensus, to reject full articles etc in 'premier' sources, such as an entry in A & C Black's Who's Who (as in this case) or an obituary in the NYT, or a full article in the ODNB or Britannica, or a full chapter in a book published by OUP or CUP, or etc etc etc (just to list some other very obvious ones). The admin will not be better qualified to assess notability than the expert editors of those publications, and it is inconceivable that consensus could exist for such a discretion. I don't like the idea of them rejecting obviously reputable sources generally. James500 (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's because closing admins don't do that (or they certainly shouldn't). They look at the arguments presented by those discussing the article. They don't take a position on the sources, they take a position on the arguments presented about those sources. Black Kite (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What if the arguments are not soundly based on fact or policy and contain false statements? The statement that sources are not RS when they are, or are missing when they are in the reference list, or that they don't exist when they do, I could go on. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I've just read the AfD, and it appears the "keep" proponents do not understand some of the basic principles underlying our notability guidelines, to wit:
1. coverage of the subject must be found in secondary sources, and judicial decisions are primary, not secondary sources;
2. coverage of the subject must be significant, which means more than a passing sentence or two about a case in which the subject barrister is involved;
3. in the absence of a specific notability guideline that applies to the subject, significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources is all that matters;
4. the subject's court cases, philanthropic activities, professional memberships and qualifications, etc., are irrelevant unless those aspects of the subject's life have received significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources.
If the notability of barristers and trial attorneys were based on being mentioned in trial court decisions, then most of the barristers and trial attorneys in North American, the UK and Australia would be notable, when, in point of fact, the overwhelming majority of barristers and trial attorneys are not notable by Wikipedia's notability guidelines properly understood and applied. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject."
Tager met these criteria easily with the primary sources only used as back up sources. The judge's ruling for instance had four additional secondary sources that were all RSs.
Can we have the article restored please so that we can see what we are talking about? In my view the description of the sources in the AFD does not correctly characterise them, leading to the danger of a decision here based on misinformation. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop exhaustively replying to nearly every comment. It's considered poor form (see Wikipedia:BLUDGEON) and at this point is likely hurting your case rather than helping it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEON is only an essay and it is a load of complete and utter nonsense. If it was strictly applied, it would make it impossible to determine consensus by suppressing the non-repetitious expression of additional arguments that have not already been advanced. It would turn discussions into an actual vote, which they are not. There is no 'word limit' on contributions, which is what "equal say" implies, and there cannot be one for practical reasons. I have had it in mind for some time to write another essay explaining why that essay is rubbish, but I haven't got round to it. James500 (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bit of an exaggeration Andrew Lenahan I think. It is a debate after all. I hope the decision will be based on the facts and nothing else. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This cannot be a valid rationale as there were other sources, and erroneously advancing one invalid source cannot invalidate arguments based on other sources that are valid. James500 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If someone thinks that they can win an argument about notability by citing DM coverage then I think we can quite reasonably say that they are talking bollocks and that they have no credibility or understanding of what an RS is, That you are defending this shows that your views have similar worth too. Sorry if this sounds harsh but the DM is utter shit and anyone that thinks that an encyclopedia can rely on it for content doesn;'t understand what an encyclopedia actually is.(I'll leave a space underneath for the inevitable bluster and faux outraged spluttering Spartaz Humbug! 15:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[Placemarker for outraged response]
Your comments do not make me feel remotely outraged. I just think that they are in error. I think that an argument to the effect that if a editor makes one terrible mistake about one source, then he must be completely useless in all respects, and nothing he says about other sources can be taken seriously, even when objectively they are actually good sources and what he says is actually correct, is obviously based on a logical fallacy. In any event, as far as I am aware, admins are supposed to accord weight to arguments, not editors, and your line of reasoning is not compatible with that. How, in particular, can admins accord weight to editors when we have an edit notice that says that commenting on other editors, as opposed to their arguments, at AfD is per se considered disruptive, citing WP:NPA, thereby preventing all discussion of the merits of editors? Think about it: suppose, hypothetically, A makes, amongst other good comments, a stupid comment in an AfD. B does not make any stupid comments in that AfD. But I know, and the closing admin does not know, that B made a stupid comment in a different AfD a week earlier. How is the closing admin going to give the correct weight to B, when he does not know about B's earlier mistake, that 'proves' B's incompetence, and I am not allowed to tell him? I don't think he can. I don't see how that approach could ever work in any way, shape or form. James500 (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I was not a party to the original AfD. As James500 states, he is in the British Who's Who so he is notable. Edwardx (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- within administrator discretion. Reyk YO! 01:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Run-of-the-mill "I disagree with the result" complaining, which is not the rold of Deletion Review. Tarc (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not within administrator discretion to fail to correctly count the number of !voters on one side and base a decision on that wrong number. Nor is it "run of the mill complaining" to object to that. In this case, there was a serious error in the decision making (failing to have regard to a relevant fact) which the admin admits. That is a good reason for a DRV which is clearly within the role of DRV. James500 (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it is, as AFDs are not votes. Closing admins close discussions after judging th consensus of the disucssion, taking note of which editors' opinions are based in project policy and guidelines and which are not, thus weaker. If an AfD on "CoolGarageBand" sees 10 participants, 9 of whom say "keep they have a kajillion youtube likes" while 1 says "the band has received no coverage in reliable sources nor does it meet any criteria of WP:BAND", the article would be deleted. Tarc (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except that, in this case, the closing admin says above that his decision was based on the numbers. Numbers are a factor in consensus, even if they are not the only one. If the strength of the arguments is equal, the numbers will be decisive. James500 (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Obviously the arguments weren't equal. This isn't rocket science. Tarc (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is not obvious at all. Prima facie "satisfies BASIC/GNG + criteria 1 of ANYBIO" is a good argument, and the counter-arguments were full of holes. James500 (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • That you keep re-arguing the discussion shows that you do not understand the role of DRV. Tarc (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • You were the one who started re-arguing the discussion first. I was only giving a direct response to what you said. You said "obviously the arguments weren't equal" instead of saying something like "obviously the closing admin decided the arguments weren't equal, accorded more or less weight to certain arguments, namely arguments A, B, etc. because X, Y, etc., and thus accorded them the correct weight (which isn't remotely obvious either since the closing admin hasn't, as far as I can see, disclosed whether he accorded any argument more or less weight, much less which ones and why). I was well aware that what you said contained a technical error, but I feel that under these sort of circumstances, the best course of action is to answer comments like yours as they were written because I consider it inexpedient to attempt to second guess what the other person really meant to say, or even assume that he meant to say something different to what he said, and, in any event, I consider it reasonable to answer some comments that are not 100% strictly relevant, such as yours, because we are NOTBURO, and the answer may be helpful to the other user. Now, turning back to the matter in hand, it seems to me that what the closing admin has said so far is so vague and unclear that: (1) It is still not 100% clear that he did accord more or less weight to any particular argument. (If he did not, then the numbers (4 to 3) alone produce "no consensus", and consensus has not been correctly assessed). (2) If he did accord more or less weight to any particular argument(s), it is not clear (a) which argument(s) he accorded more or less weight to, (b) how much more or less weight he accorded the particular argument(s) (eg 100% less weight (ie ignore it altogether), 50%, 25% or whatever), (c) why he accorded the particular argument(s) the particular amount of weight he did accord particular argument(s) (ie what policies, guidelines or (thinking of IAR) other ideas did he apply, and how did he apply them) and (d) how he decided (ie the method used) that those weighted and unweighted arguments together produced that result (ie how did he draw that conclusion, how exactly did he add those arguments up). If he accorded more or less weight to an argument(s) that he should not have, or he accorded the argument(s) the wrong amount of weight, or he didn't add them up correctly once he had weighted them, and the mistake is big enough to affect the outcome, all of that is grounds for DRV. I don't consider any of those possibilities excluded at this time. In fact, my provisional opinion is that he could not have assessed consensus correctly because I cannot see how a closing admin could get from that discussion to that result. And that is why we have a good reason for a DRV. I think the best way to move this DRV forward would be for the closing admin to provide a more precise and complete explanation of how he 'worked out' that result, of the exact reasons for that result. Then we can comment on the actual rationale, instead engaging in guesswork as to what it might have been, or re-arguing the discussion, which is what most participants here have been doing. I hope this clarifies my position for you. James500 (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Brevity is the soul of wit, James; I'm not even remotely interested in parsing that text-wall. Black Kite is one of the more respected admins of the project, and barring some egregious vacancy of the senses, his measure of the consensus of an AfD should be regarded as reasonable and within the authority that we vest in administrators to make these judgement. Of course no one is infallible, but after reading the deletion discussion, I concur with the closing and the rationale. You may huff and puff to your heart's content, but it won't do any good. Tarc (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • A significant proportion of what you say above is irrelevant (such as invoking the level of respect that someone commands), and a significant proportion is nonsense, Tarc. In view of the nature of some of your latest comments, I do not think it would be expedient for me to provide further explanation. James500 (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not only that, but James is exempt from the normal conventions of editing that aid readability. James, you appear to be quite proud of not bolding your keep (fine), but would you mind indenting your responses like the rest of us mere mortals do? You start a new thread, without indenting, to debate every editor's input here. Cute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • (1) I didn't start a thread to discuss an editor's input. I started a thread to discuss the input of two editors in separate comments. If I had indented this thread it would have made it look like I was only replying to one of them, and not both of them. That would be confusing. Indentation actually does little, if anything, to improve readability. In fact, on the mobile version of the site, it very rapidly makes discussions impossible to read, probably because of the small size of the screen. Some of the comments above are so heavily indented that they are already becoming less easy to read on my device. So I would be grateful if the rest of you would keep indentation to an absolute minimum in order to make the discussion more readable for me. (2) I am not proud of not bolding my AfD !votes. James500 (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I don't think he's notable. But I also don't think there was a consensus. To explain in more detail: we have no good standards for judging he notability of lawyers, with the exception of those who obtain political office. What references there are usually are either mere notices, or deal primarily with the legal cases they are engaged in--and opinion has varied widely on whether such references show notability for the lawyers. Consequently, each case has to be judged individual on the basis of the arguments, which inevitably tends to be more a measure of effort than of logic. Our GNG guideline seems simple, but each of the phrases in it can be interpreted in many ways, and the interpretations are what count in making decisions, not the principle. For almost all articles such as this, I could construct an argument that I would consider satisfactory in either direction. When dealing with them, I consequently make a global decision on whether it would be in accord with our usual practice to have an article here, and construct an appropriate argument. (I put a considerable value on consistency, for the alternative is a random hodgepodge.) Thus, I judge not notable on the basis that lawyers at this level do not usually have articles.
Among the arguments which I do not think apply: a / The British Who's Who is much more reliable than any of the US versions, but we have never accepted it as by itself a sufficient criterion for notability; perhaps we should, but nonetheless, we haven't. b/ Being a barrister is not by itself notability, any more than any other profession. Being a QC has never been considered as such either (according to our article, it's the 1000 barristers. We could conceivably consider them all notable, but we've never done that. c/ being director of any number of companies is not notable, though it can be taken into account, because such appointments are not made without reason--they do show a certain status in the relevant community d/ we do not have a practice of giving any more consideration to the closing depending upon the general reputation of the closer; similarly, we do not look for occasion to attack the quality of the work of people making arguments based on what they may have said elsewhere. We consider the argument, not the person. e/ we do not have a practice of assigning formal percentage weight to arguments.
There is a certain tendency in closing difficult or borderline cases for the closer to try to reach one result or another. But when there truly is no consensus, it's best to say so. That's how I would have closed. I think a re-argument here might clarify the discussion. Alternatively, close as non-consensus so the next argument would wait for a month. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Short version: Possible compromise: create an annotated list of Queen's Counsel and merge him to it; together with an unassailable argument that notability was incorrectly assessed (failure to realise ANYBIO was invoked with no counter-arguments whatsoever): (cf NASTRO and the list of minor planets for something similar) Long version: In view of comments above: (1) Appointment as Queen's Counsel satisfies criteria 1 of ANYBIO and the criteria of LAWYERS. The honour is well known and significant and indicates pre-eminence with in the legal profession. This being the case, by the rubric of BIO, QCs are likely to be notable (but not necessarily), and a QC who fails BASIC must be merged into an article on a broader topic, which will probably be a list of QCs, not deleted. All the keep !votes said that he was notable, or likely to be notable, because he was a QC. The closing admin should have recognised this as a reference to ANYBIO (because it could not be anything else), should have recognised that all QCs satisfy ANYBIO individually (and LISTN as a group), should have applied that guideline, and should have accorded all those !votes the full weight of ANYBIO. Not one of the !votes for deletion argued that QCs were not likely to be notable (as opposed to saying that they were not all notable, or that he was not notable), that they do not satisfy ANYBIO, or that they do not satisfy LISTN. That is a consensus of 3-0 in favour of "satisfies ANYBIO". Accordingly the closing admin could not have correctly assessed consensus, because, if he had, the worst case scenario would be a merge to a list of QCs, if necessary by creating that list, per the rubric of BIO, not deletion. (2) QCs are automatically included in Who's Who. In this respect the publication is independent of the barrister in question, because automatic inclusion is something that he cannot influence. (This also contributes to proving that the honour is significant and well known). (3) Although there are about 1500 QCs today, in the past the number was much lower. In 1775 it was 14. In 1839 it was about 70. In 1897 it was 238. (1898) 104 LT 98. In 1973 it was 329. In 1978 it was 404. (Final Report of the Royal Commission on Legal Services, v 1, p 479). In 1995 it was 891 (see AfD). James500 (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the NASTRO list was a special case, done in response to repeated arguments from various people (including myself, tho I would not make the same argument today ) that all astronomical objects were inherently notable on the same basis as all geographic features on the Earth. With that one exception, all lists of this sort are limited to those individuals who are notable by virtue of the having received an award or elected position, etc. Keeping NOT DIRECTORY in mind, I do not think we would have consensus to make any additional exceptions. Who's Who, on the other hand, is a directory and an appropriate place for such information. A good case could be made for a free equivalent, but that would be a separate project. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of BIO is that we have lists of people who are likely to be notable because they satisfy one of the additional criteria (as in this case, where they satisfy ANYBIO), in view of the requirement to merge them to a broader topic if they fail BASIC. (Queen's Counsel is an "award or honour": that is why it is called "honoris causa"). The manual of style list criteria for people (LISTPEOPLE) allows us to have a complete list of groups of people most of whom notable (as in this case, where the majority of QCs satisfy GNG/BASIC and/or POLITICIAN as judges and MPs, etc) or who are famous for one event (such as being appointed QC). Even there, there is no requirement that every entry be notable. I don't think NOTDIRECTORY is engaged in any way. A & C Black's Who's Who has not been a directory since 1897. It isn't a bare list anymore. James500 (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 1500 QCs, most are MPs or High Court judges? I note that until recently, promotion to QC was automatic for any barrister elected as an MP, so that may not mean very much. DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was expressing the opinion that most of them are notable on any applicable grounds, not that most of them satisfy POLITICIAN. I am also of the view that circuit judges and recorders satisfy POLITICIAN for a number of reasons, including, in particular, for example, (1) the Crown Court is a national court ("national office"), (2) those judges can sit as High Court judges as part of their office as a circuit judge or recorder, (3) under the practice directions for the distribution of business in the Crown Court, they have been able to try the vast majority of the same offences as High Court judges, including murder, even when sitting as a circuit judge, (4) they tend to receive 'significant coverage'. There are enough circuit judges and recorders to more or less soak up that number of QCs. The Royal Commission on Legal Services says that MPs were appointed QC on application, not upon being elected. This may not increase the 'prestige' of the honour, but it does mean that those entries in the list would be notable (and therefore blue-linked) which is what the exception criteria of LISTPEOPLE requires. Since the number of QCs has increased over time, we could legitimately curate the list by excluding redlinked non-notable QCs appointed after a certain date, if there proved to be a preponderance of those. In the instant case, the relevant date is 1995, when Tager was appointed, when there were 891 QCs, not 1500 odd. If you go back as far as 1839, Alexander Pulling in "Order of the Coif" says that fully two-thirds of the seventy QCs alive at that time were "very eminent", meaning, of course, that they were not merely notable by Wikipedia standards but were figures of first rate historical importance (he mentions John Stuart Mill in this connection). So I have no doubt that a complete list of QCs is definitely in order, the only possible question being whether, and on what date, the list should end. James500 (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, closure within reasonable admin discretion. Distant second choice is overturn to no-consensus. Under no circumstances relist; that would just cause another tendentious argument and come back here a week or two later. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you believe that the subject does not meet WP:BASIC ? Philafrenzy (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Deletion review discusses whether the deletion process has been correctly followed. It is not a venue for the AFD to be reheard. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that the process hasn't been correctly followed as the closer miscounted the votes as 4 delete, 2 keep, when it was 4-3 because one keep was missed as has been admitted above, making it a clear no-consensus. The closer also missed the point that BASIC was clearly met and truncated the discussion when new material had just been added and it was moving towards a resolution (probably a keep). That's three failings in the closing and evaluation of the discussion. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but Stifle is spot-on here. AFD isn't about counting votes, so it wouldn't matter if there were no bolded !votes. The closer is expected to make a decision based on the arguments made, not the number of people making them. The closer isn't expected to form a personal view with regard to BASIC, only a view as to whether that argument has been sufficiently established by participants. And nothing seems truncated there - the discussion ran for almost twice as long as normal and there had been more than 24 hours since the last comment - he hardly cut someone off mid-comment to close it. None of those are "failings". St★lwart111 10:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - allow an impartial admin to close. WilyD 09:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a pretty seruious charge - that BK wasn't impartial in closing this. I think it needs evidencing or withdrawing as it just reads like a personal attack. Spartaz Humbug! 18:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it probably just means someone not involved in this discussion. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • That would make no sense. Why would being involved in this dicussion invalidate the close such that someone else would need to reclose it? We want admins to be willing to discuss their closes, and I'd certainly hope that the starting position of any admin is to endorse their own close (if they don't think they got it right, then they shouldn't have closed it). --86.2.216.5 (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I disagree. An admin should say "I made a mistake" if, after reconsidering the decision, they realise that they have made a mistake. We don't want to discourage them from doing that by saying "if challenged, we expect you to stubbornly dig your heels in, no matter what, and we'll say you are an unsatisfactory admin if you don't". That would be counter-productive. James500 (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Which is unsurprisingly a complete mis-characterisation of what I said. Rather than frothing perhaps you should attempt to comprehend what people are saying "...the starting position..." i.e. the initial state when asked to review their close should be that they closed it correctly. Contrast that to the idea of their "ending position" which could be that they've seen an error they've made, or could be they still believe their close to be correct. The failure of those wanting to overturn to persuade the closing admin to change their mind is hardly an automatic indication of some sort of bias/fault - or as seems to be being implied by the initial comment they were in some way impartial when they initially closed it. I'm sure my primary school debating club managed a better standard than this. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any admin who endorses their own close at DRV totally destroys their standing at an impartial closer. Regardless of the correctness of the close (or the pureness of their act), it's poisonous to the trust the community places in admins to close discussions based on the consensus rather than their own opinion. Obviously I can't know your mind, and should've said "who can act as though they're impartial" rather than "is impartial". That was sloppy language, so sorry on that point. I obviously don't know what goes on in your (metaphorical) heart, and shouldn't have implied otherwise. WilyD 09:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh OK, but I'm a bit confused, to say the least. After all it is standard procedure (and something which I almost always do at DRV) for an admin to explain their own closure (which of course, unless they've changed their mind, is to endorse it). I would be more irritated if the closing admin didn't turn up at a DRV of one of their closures! Though perhaps it's superfluous to add a bolded !vote. Black Kite (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Over the many years I've looked at DRV the closer coming along and usually starting with an endorse of their own close is pretty normal, it's only recently that WilyD has started suggesting it's an issue, I don't think any other DRV regulars have stated such an opinion. It is in my view a flawed argument, as this is supposed to be about process issue and if the admin closed in line with consensus, anyone endorsing the close isn't endorsing the outcome of the discussion, merely that the process was followed and that was indeed the consensus in the discussion. There are plenty of examples of editors endorsing the outcome here despite not personally thinking the result was correct or having opined in the opposite direction during the deletion debate. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stifle is reminded that BLUDGEON is an essay, that it is a very small minority position, that it is a load of rubbish and that what it proposes is unworkable, bizarre and pointless, and would make it impossible to determine consensus if put into effect. Suppose that each of the !votes advanced a different argument, and that all of those arguments were wrong, for different reasons. They would all have to be answered individually. What that essay proposes makes no sense at all. James500 (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: I'm surprised and dismayed that it needs to be said at all that a closing admin (a good one, anyway) doesn't rule on nose count over arguments. I'm astonished that it needs to be repeated as often as it has been at this DRV, which is fast approaching the trout-slapping level. Obviously Philafrenzy is powerfully motivated to outshout everyone, as well as to retry the merits of the AfD here, but there's just no valid reason to overturn, let alone "I don't like that the AfD wasn't decided the way I wanted it to be." Ravenswing 03:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since my concerns are not accurately described in the preceding comment, I just want to clarify that the gist of them is that it appears to me that the closer of the deletion discussion in question interpreted the consensus incorrectly (criteria 1 of DRVPURPOSE). James500 (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: James, you've stated your concerns. Repeatedly, and at considerable length. I am neither required to reiterate them, cite them or address them. As it happens, though, I did. Do I really need to repeat that closing admins are not required to rule in favor of head count? (Apparently so.) Beyond that, given that Black Kite didn't address "consensus" at all, claiming that he interpreted it incorrectly is specious. He stated simply that his analysis of the sources was compelling; that was his right to do. You may feel that his judgment is poor, and obviously you would've ruled differently if the choice had been yours. Retrying the AfD, however, isn't within the scope of DRV. Ravenswing 15:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The closer weighed the arguments. The "delete" argument in the original AFD discussion pointed out that a few tangental newspaper mentions and some primary sources do not equal "significant coverage" and the delete argument made it clear that was the case here. The delete argument pointed out the only press coverage actually focussed on Tager addressed his tax fine, and 1E applies to that. The "keep" !voters have no valid counter-argument. They think it's a vote. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:Anthonyhcole. Question. It seems to me that the keep !voters all argued that he satisfied criteria 1 of ANYBIO for being a QC. Isn't that a valid counter argument? We all said "QCs are notable/QCs are likely to be notable", or something clearly to that effect. I certainly said that (specifically "Contemporary QCs are likely to be notable"), and what I meant must have been very obvious, since that matches ANYBIO almost exactly. Andrew Davidson said Tager was "notable for ... their status as a Queen's Counsel". Philafrenzy mentioned his appointment in a way that clearly indicated he too considered that a grounds for notability ("And a Queen's Counsel too, the most senior form of Barrister in the U.K. Appointed for excellence in advocacy in the higher courts"). No one argued that QCs were not likely to be notable (the minimum to reject ANYBIO, since it says that people who have received a well known and significant honour are likely to be notable and must be merged if they don't satisfy BASIC). Doesn't that produce "merge" per the rubric of BIO, rather than "delete". Was there a valid counter argument against "satisfies ANYBIO" advanced at any point during the AfD? All I can see is people arguing that some (as opposed to most) QCs are not notable or that he isn't, which doesn't seem enough to prevent a merger under BIO. James500 (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As best as I can recall, no one in the AFD discussion argued for merging this article into another based on the policies you cite above. Based on those, yes, one might consider adding an entry for this person to a List of UK QCs or similar. Or not. That argument is yet to be had. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is amusing - first I was accused of writing the article as a personal attack - now I am being accused of doing it for pay. It's just a normal article on a notable person like the c. 1200 others I have created. The fact that people can't tell either way must show I did a good job of remaining neutral? Philafrenzy (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But you didn't answer the question, did you? The question more generally would be phrased as "are you paid to create articles"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is an unequivocal NO. Not this article, not any article. Make your mind up Sandy, am I launching personal attacks against Mr Tager as you originally alleged or writing a puff piece about him as you now appear to think? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The two are not mutually exclusive, but thank you for the answer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_May_8&oldid=1082336651"