- Christine Blasey Ford (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Inappropriately closed as WP:SNOW based on an early pile-on of keep votes. To be precise, the AfD discussion was closed exactly 4 hours and 44 minutes after the article was nominated. I attempted to reach out on the AfD talk page, but to no avail, and now I'm requesting a deletion review. There is reason to believe that a sequence of consecutive keep votes does not imply unanimous consensus, because a very similar AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Judge (writer), had plenty of delete votes at the beginning, but a lengthy sequence of keep votes emerged about a day after the article was nominated for deletion. In this case, there might have been an early sequence of a decent amount of keep votes, but it was likely that more delete votes could emerge after some more discussion and responding to individual votes. Also, I might want to mention that the Mark Judge AfD had a larger number of delete votes even though that article contains plenty of pre-Kavanaugh coverage and sources. I note that the keep vote by K.e.coffman is more snarky than useful, that the keep vote by Inowen might not take several important policies and guidelines into consideration, that the only vote mentioning WP:SNOW has the rationale "Obviously notable.", and that the keep vote by Octoberwoodland might not have taken BLP considerations into account (if anything is a time-sensitive thing, it's BLP). The other part of the rationale for closing, because this is an article that is being read a lot right now , indicates such carelessness about BLP that I wonder how the AfD closure isn't a Supervote. Next, one editor, Koavf, seems to have suggested redirection, which is a valid reason to oppose keeping an article. Last but not least, the nominator's rationale has to be taken into account when calculating consensus, so the consensus in the AfD was definitely not unanimous.
That the closer chooses to say "unanimous responses" (instead of e.g. "near-unanimous consensus") suggests a personal point of view in the material in question, but this is not my main concern and I will not nitpick anything else in this request. wumbolo ^^^ 17:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- A small detail Drmies but you probably didn't mean "endorse deletion" since the AfD was a snow keep closure. ;) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Salvidrim, that is EXACTLY right. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
- Endorse WP:SNOW is appropriate here, absolutely no chance it would've been deleted, at most a no consensus may have been possible, with a lot of acrimony and bickering earned along the way; if you really want the article to be deleted Afd in a month or two Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I’m generally skeptical on recent news articles. But, I can’t imagine this not resulting in a keep. Anita Hill was a quarter century ago, and her article had 44 edits this month. In any case, AfD was premature. O3000 (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. There's absolutely no way this could have ended up anything other than keep. The AfD nomination was silly, and perhaps WP:POINTy; nobody's arguing she meets WP:ACADEMIC, and while it may indeed be WP:ONEEVENT, it's WP:ONEREALLYBIGEVENT that's been front-page news (at least in the US) for weeks. As a practical matter, the bar for deletion is higher than the bar for keeping, so it's easier to call a SNOW keep early than to call a SNOW delete early. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for clarifying that almost nobody's arguing she meets WP:ACADEMIC. That was my only concern, and now I'm completely convinced that there was no valid keep argument, and the only relevant policy, as you admit, is WP:BLP1E, and only two keep voters even mentioned it. wumbolo ^^^ 19:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I can't see that AfD ending in anything other than a decision to keep the article. I'm sure a few people would have shown up to agree with the nomination eventually, but the AfD got 8 keep comments in under 5 hours and the eventual direction was obvious. I don't see any reason to drag that out for a week on a high profile article, especially as the nomination doesn't contain any reasoning other than links to policy/guideline pages. Even if we did decide we didn't want an article on the subject we still wouldn't want to delete this one. Hut 8.5 19:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*Endorse. Good close. Admin decided correctly. Admin exercised proper and sound judgement. It was indeed clear, and is still indeed clear, that the decision would have been, is, and will be, "Keep" for the article. Sagecandor (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC) Strike sock. wumbolo ^^^ 15:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse As editors before me mentioned, there was no chance that that the article would be closed as a delete. Many of the keep votes discussed policies pointing toward a keep vote (as opposed to arguments like WP:OSE) and there was no question about the quality or quantity of the sources. While the nominator suggested that the article (at the time of nomination) should be deleted by citing WP:ONEEVENT, it was merely an assertion, rather than a thorough analysis of why they thought the subject would qualify under WP:BIO1E. --Enos733 (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Good close, for all the reasons stated above. Nothing approaching a suggestion of a supervote. Additionally reasonable given the poor timing on the AfD per WP:RAPID as well as the incorrect reading of WP:BLP1E in the nomination. Regarding this nomination, nobody should need to !vote WP:SNOW, the point is that in the regular course of events the !votes make it clear it wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of ending any other way. Indeed, !voting WP:SNOW could even be considered counterproductive, as it's a judgement on the judgement, not the article in question. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Obviously. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Sept. 25 closure of AfD by administrator Sandstein. During that discussion, I voted to keep Christine Blasey Ford. In doing so, I specifically cited WP:1E, which states: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." I stand by that guidance and by Sandstein's correct early closure per WP:SNOW. KalHolmann (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per above - agree with a number of people above and nothing new to add. SportingFlyer talk 00:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow endorse: the discussion would not have closed otherwise, and having an active AfD during a Congressional hearing would have been disruptive. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per above. For what it is worth, I believe she meets WP:PROF#1 based on her highly cited publications. See her Google Scholar profile [1]. She frequently publishes under the name Christine Blasey. Thsmi002 (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The close may not have been a Snow keep, but it was certainly a keep. No way should her article be deleted. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Sometimes things are so clearly obvious, and the reasons have already been explained so well, that "Obviously notable" is the only thing one can add. Keep the article. Good close by Sandstein. Are we ready for another SNOW close yet? Bury this contentious issue, and place a large sandstone on top of its grave. Further disruption should be discouraged. Wait at least a year before revisiting the subject, and only if clear evidence of fake sourcing was found to be the entire basis for claims of notability. Otherwise a new AfD would be disruptive. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Is that a threat to chill the atmosphere here? Really? That you even threaten such an absurd action indicates you are not AGF. You will no doubt interpret my comment as you want, but it can certainly apply to both, and in neither case would my statement warrant a "BLP ban", or ban of any kind. On the contrary, you might get a boomerang response to such an absurd suggestion. My comment plainly means, as stated below by Casprings, that this is a "waste of time". "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Well, it was a "response". My comment about "not AGF" was only about your threat, while this DR and the AfD are indeed a waste of time. You are the only one protesting, so stop digging. This isn't making you look good and makes one wonder about your competence. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
-
- I shouldn’t have said “concerns” but “problems”. I don’t see, in the article, and certainly not raised in the AfD, any problems let alone violations of WP:BLP. The objection by the nominator was citing WP:PROF, notability, and the ONEEVENT angle is BIO1E not BLP1E. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment: This is the article on Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, without the section on Sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. It's still in that state probably one of the best quality and well-sourced articles on academics on Wikipedia. Sagecandor (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC) Strike sock. wumbolo ^^^ 15:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
:*I would forgive your WP:POINT behavior if you weren't being so dishonest. wumbolo ^^^ 13:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
::*My apologies, I didn't mean to disrupt anything, and clearly didn't as the edit stood for about 1 second. Sagecandor (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
:::*Like I said, I'm not going to nitpick anything. This is a bad argument and it doesn't take BLP into account even one bit. wumbolo ^^^ 13:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
::::*Thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC) Strike sock. wumbolo ^^^ 15:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Endorse the close by Sandstein. WP:BLP1E states that we should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions are met, of which #3 states "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented". The event in this case is a highly contentious and political supreme court nomination and confirmation battle in the age of the MeToo movement with high stakes consequences for the next generation or two in the United States over the disposition of one of its three branches of government. Ford's nationally televised sworn testimony alleging the sexual assault was among the most significant sub-components of that event and was watched live by millions. If we would retroactively consider the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill Senate confirmation hearing showdown to be a significant event with regard to WP:BLP1E, the Brett Kavanaugh/Christine Blasey Ford showdown equals or exceeds that event, and Ford's role was undeniably substantial just as Anita Hill's was. Since condition #3 of WP:BLP1E has not been met, deleting the Ford article over WP:BLP1E concerns would be a mistake. AzureCitizen (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the close. In my opinion, this person wasn’t notable when the article was created (hours after her name was released and minimal information known about her), but at this point there is no question she is notable. I don’t think this falls under WP:BLP1E any longer, 20 million people watched her testimony and she is a driver of an international conversation. For the record, I argued that the article should be deleted due to WP:BLP1E on the article Talk page before her testimony, but no way that’s true now. Rikster2 (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This is all a bit silly isn't it? GMGtalk 21:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You can call following the BLP policy silly if you want. wumbolo ^^^ 21:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wumbolo: please find something other to do than badger people who post here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I envy your enthusiasm. I wish I still had it. We've worked together before, and it's an exceptionally valuable asset when it's applied in the right direction. But ain't nobody gonna delete this right now, and if they did, there'd be a small mob calling for their head, and they might very well get it. No matter how deep your convictions run that this is another round of unabashed NOTNEWS RECENTISM, the fact of the matter is the best thing we can do is let people have their fun, and revisit it in six months to see if it's still worth keeping. Ain't nothing gonna change that and the best it's gonna do is waste even more time. GMGtalk 02:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, @Wumbolo:, I think you should withdraw this, since it's clearly a losing battle. But I would welcome your help on working on getting No Ashes in the Fire onto DYK if you're interested. GMGtalk 02:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Close was correct on timing, summary and write-up. As this is a review hereby my praise for Sandstein for a job well done! gidonb (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure. I voted Keep in the AfD with reluctance because I guessed that the subject had no wish for further publicity. However, I thought it necessary to point put that the subject passed the WP:Prof notability criteria quite independently of the event she is involved in. I seem to have been the only person to do that. The only criticism of the closure that could be made is that it was early. I see no problem, the trend was quite clear. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]
- If there's any criticism to be made of the close, it would be how early it was. I'm not saying it was wrong, or that it shouldn't be endorsed (as I did, above), but that not being so eager to close it would have saved everybody this silliness. Instead of 8-1 after 4 hours, had it been closed a day later, it would have been 20-1 and this would have been put to bed. Early closes tend to cause more problems than they solve. Don't just avoid impropriety. Avoid any appearance of impropriety. And, Wumbolo really should drop the WP:STICK and withdraw this. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
