- Benno Bikes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Consensus misinterpreted, should not have been Keep, should at least have been No Consensus, closing admin essentially applied a SuperVote (see discussion on BD2412 Talk page). (I !voted Delete at the AfD) HighKing++ 13:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The early delete !votes were placed before new sources were added. Then more sources were added and the discussion leaned toward "keep". Your long argument for deletion was detailed and clear and made a number of strong points (though I very much disagree with a few of them, they were none-the-less reasonable). I think No Consensus was a better reading of the discussion, but I think given the WP:HEY nature of the discussion and the nature of the sources that keep was probably within discretion. So weak endorse is where I end up. If this were brought back to AfD in its current state, I've every faith it wouldn't be deleted. Hobit (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you - I've no doubt if it was brought back to AfD as it is, it would still have zero references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Also, I've no doubt that if the 4 Article Rescue Squad participants who vote en-bloc (and let's call it what it is - a form of organized meat-puppetry) didn't !vote, it would fail. This level of participation by these organized editors is designed to skew consensus (and it obviously works too). I whole-heartedly acknowledge the article was expanded during the AfD but this is a pretty useless activity unless notability has been established. Finally, nobody voiced any disagreement with the analysis of sources - you say you disagree and I am genuinely interested if you can point to anything I got wrong. HighKing++ 16:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong? Probably not. I just think that we don't need proof that a news article did independent research on a company for a sources to count. I can see your point there, but I don't think that's a realistic bar. And my sense is that in many of those articles the authors did evaluate the products of the company. I think the vast majority of randomly selected AfD participants would find the sources above the bar. But I'm fairly inclusionist, so maybe my bias is showing. But I'd certainly !vote to keep. 21:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment as closer. Quite frankly, this kind of discussion is not the best use of Wikipedia's resources. However, there are many worse examples of that, so I will spend some time on this one.
- The outcome with respect to the existence of this article will not change, nor will any future change to the article (or effort to delete the article) be allowed or foreclosed to by it. As an administrator, I make a point of occasionally trying to close some of the more contentious discussions, the ones other administrators may look at and say, "I'll leave that to someone else". I try to be that someone else. At any given time on Wikipedia there are thousands of discussions needing closure, and closers can't write a dissertation explaining the rationale for each of these.
- In this case, I reviewed the discussion, immediately noted the struck vote and the IP vote, but also that there were participants on both sides of the question who were experienced editors who have a clue about the meaning of the policies in contention. I checked the situation with the struck vote, and the edit history of the IP, and confirmed that both should be disregarded. I noted that most votes to delete came at the beginning of the discussion, that the edit history of the article showed was substantial improvement made to the article a few days into the discussion, and that four out of the last five votes following that improvement activity were for keeping the article. I did all of that within the first minute of landing on the discussion. I have been doing this for fifteen years, and have closed thousands of discussions; these steps are instinctive. Based on this review, I found that the consensus over the course of the discussion was to keep. While another administrator considering the same factors could interpret things differently, I would disagree that my close would be characterized by an neutral and experienced eye as "consensus misinterpreted". BD2412 T 15:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I applaud admins who try to go the extra mile but I would like to think that you should also applaud editors who do the same. I tried to engage on your Talk page but it was clear that you had no immediate and clear answer. From the off, you created new arguments which had not been presented at the AfD (SuperVote behaviour anyone?) and when pressed further you essentially said "suck it up or go complain at DRV". So here we are. It is also clear to me, based on the reference you provided on your Talk page, that you are prone to misinterpreting NCORP guidelines as the reference you provided fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- I too have been "doing this" for 14 years and these days I am almost exclusively working on AfDs for companies/organizations. I too have participated in thousands of discussions and I spent the guts of an hour looking at the article and at all the references in order to provide a detailed rationale for Delete. Also, the approach I take is really very simple. I look at the references, that's pretty much it. The WP:NCORP guidelines are very clear on the requirement for multiple references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and even right now, not one single reference has been produced that meets those guidelines nor were are responses or rebuttals made to the analysis. Look, I'm not going to beat this to death, but taking into account the lack of any Keep !voter arguing the merits of specific references to establish notability (and even ignoring the en-bloc !voting of the Article Rescue Squaddies) this one just doesn't add up to a Keep if we're doing this correctly. HighKing++ 16:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be relitigating the AfD rather than the close. There is, therefore, nothing here to which I can respond. BD2412 T 16:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, just responding to one or two points and providing some clarity about NCORP which (in my opinion) is pertinent and hopefully someone will take up the point about the lack of references and provide a coherent response (maybe even provide a link to one?). I don't think I'm looking for someone to go the extra mile by pointing our that the basic and most fundamental aspect of notability discussions at AfD can be easily resolved by agreeing on a references that meets the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 16:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I probably would have closed this as no consensus. Numerically the !votes are split and all but one of them is policy-based. Fundamentally there is no agreement on whether the sources meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. But it's reasonable for BD2412 to have weighed the keep arguments a little stronger, and the outcome is the same anyway. I can't imagine anyone uninvolved would see it as a consensus to delete. – Joe (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not looking for it to be deleted. The outcome isn't the same - I'm looking for the close to be changed to "No Consensus" so that when/if it is brought back to AfD, it can be brought back quicker and new editors will not see a previous AfD closed as Keep. HighKing++ 16:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You could reasonably contend that BD2412's close was wrong, but I don't think you can reasonably contend that it was a supervote. That's definitely not a supervote. That's a closer evaluating what the community has decided, not a closer deciding they know better than the community. The debate itself is somewhere on the continuum between "no consensus, leaning towards keep" and "keep, leaning towards no consensus". I can see the case for "no consensus" but personally, I'm disinclined to overturn it.—S Marshall T/C 16:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sympathetic to the requesting user - there's nothing worse than having an AfD hijacked by inclusionists who may be making less than rational arguments - but simultaneously, a rational argument one can make to save an article is to improve it beyond any doubt of WP:GNG, which may have been what happened here. Looking through the article as it currently stands, that seems to be the case. I don't see anything here which on its face would cause me to suggest it should be deleted in the future, but I also haven't reviewed any of the sources closely. Perhaps it's possible this does fail WP:NCORP, but it also currently passes an eyeball test. I probably would have closed as a no consensus based on HighKing's analysis of the sources provided, but I see no reversible error. Wait a few months, do a thorough source analysis, and renominate if you feel strongly about it. SportingFlyer T·C 23:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - As the closer says, it was on the edge between Keep and No Consensus, so that Keep was a valid judgment by the closer. I won't bother to explicitly concur with other editors who say the same thing differently. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The closer indicated the marginal nature of the decision and that seems fair enough. The main point of AfD is to decide whether to delete or not. Other outcomes are a matter of ordinary editing and so DRV need not waste time on such hair-splitting. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse And WP:TROUT HighKing for wasting everyone's time asking for something that would have no change to anything at all. He even discussed this on the talk page of the closing administrator first User_talk:BD2412#Benno_Bikes then decided to drag it here. Dream Focus 04:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it that the ARS (Article Rescue Squad) bandits are like buses and several always pop along at once? HighKing++ 11:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I was pinged to the administrator's talk page where you were talking about me. That's how I found my way here. I assume the other two just checked the AFD and saw it was now at deletion review. Most people who posted here are not in the Article Rescue Squadron. Dream Focus 14:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist, it was not ready to be closed, User:HighKing's 16:40, 8 April 2020 !vote was thorough, persuasive, and arguable refuted the strongest "keep" !vote by User:Lightburst at 22:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC). User:7&6=thirteen's strong opinion is clear, but is argument is more rhetoric than substance. To make a decision, a thorough analysis of each of User:HighKing's source analysis is required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I take issue with the idea that it "was not ready to be closed". Even though the discussion was not relisted (for which there is no entitlement), it was opened on April 1, and closed on April 12, so that it already had run for more than one-and-a-half times the length of a normal AfD. The last comment prior to closure was on April 9. The discussion was fallow, and closure was due. BD2412 T 15:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively, SportingFlyer's "Wait a few months, do a thorough source analysis, and renominate if you feel strongly about it." is a good approach. If user User:HighKing would renominate with a more convincing source analysis, I think it could be productive in producing a consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse No compelling reason stated. No do-over is required. Being strident, engaging in unwarranted personal attacks and aspersions (cf., WP:Civil), and filling a lot of space is no reason to give this the time of day. Trying to placate him is no reason to do anything at all. If all !votes were counted at the AFD, it was 7 Keeps to 4 Deletes (including highking, who burnt through lots of type). His words are smoke, not Ipse dixit here.
- Although it doesn't really matter – I have every right to be here – I was pinged here by User:SmokeyJoe. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Good close. Full disclosure: I nominated the article for rescue, and I also spent time adding news sources to the article. I agree with BD2412 that this deletion review is a waste of valuable editor time. Additionally the High King is wrong to constantly attack the members of a group which endeavors to improve articles. WP:TROUT to the High King for this deletion review and for their WP:UNCIVIL unwarranted personal attacks and aspersions and violation of WP:5P4. This particular article is an excellent example of editors working together fulfilling the original mission of Jimbo Wales. This is a notable bicycle manufacturer based on our guideline of WP:N and our policy of WP:V. Lightburst (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
