Ygritte (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was redirected. My concern here is that the policy of WP:NOCONSENSUS was not followed. The closer admits that they made a controversial close based on their reading of WP:N which is a guideline. I am asking that the close be overturned to reflect policy. Lightburst (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the closer properly weighted the various positions advocated by editors and determined there was a consensus for redirect. The character having a widely known quote is not enough, in my reading, to convey notability and I see no real examples of sourcing or other reasoning put forward to support the idea of this as a stand-alone article rather than a redirect. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The closer did an admirable job of balancing the weight of various comments instead of simply counting !votes. Most of the "Keep" comments make vague references to unnamed sources found in WP:BEFORE searches; the few named sources were shown to be unreliable. –dlthewave ☎ 21:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse This isn't quite as clear as the other similar article at DRV, but redirect was an acceptable close here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - absolutely reasonable close.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Unlike in Hodor where at least some better sources were presented, this one had nothing outside fan-based plot speculations and such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- The closer got this one right; it's no use insisting "Oh, I'm sure there must be sources out there somewhere" without producing them. This is why the consensus, weighing strength of argument, was to redirect. Reyk _YO! 11:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The question is between a separate article and a redirect, and the redirect permits the inclusion of a reasonable amount of material in the list article. This means that information is not really lost by the redirection. This in turn provides a reason why the closer can and should use judgment, and the closer used judgment. I do not have an opinion on whether I would have !voted to Keep or to Redirect, but the closer used proper judgment and there is no reversible error. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. A straight WP:NOTPLOT#1 decision. A patently inappropriate character spinout. It comes nowhere near meeting WP:SPINOUT. Any future challenge to reverse the redirect decision should be made by consensus at the target talk page, Talk:List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hodor (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was redirected. My concern here is that the policy of WP:NOCONSENSUS was not followed. The closer admits that they made a controversial close based on their reading of WP:N which is a guideline. I am asking that the close be overturned to reflect policy. Lightburst (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As a point of interest, this discussion was mentioned[1] on noticeboard for the Article Rescue Squadron, who have this article on their "Rescue List". ApLundell (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Why is this important? It was also posted on list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh I get it, you thought that was canvassing. Well if it was, it didn't work. All the delete !voters from the AfD are here. It is our practice at ARS to follow an AfD all the way. You can look back in the archives to confirm. The article was improved by ARS members. Lightburst (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversial" is not the same as "no consensus". If it was, half the encyclopedia would be paralyzed. ApLundell (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Consensus is an actual policy. If this was closed as no-consensus it would be within policy and a correct close. There was clearly no consensus to delete and no consensus to keep, and no consensus to redirect. Policy says we keep it. The article can be nominated at AfD 100 times, but recreation is notoriously more difficult, and that is why we have this policy. Not meaning to lecture anyone I was just hoping that we could have a policy based close and not a Supervote close. There is literally no reason for editors to debate at AfD if consensus does not matter. Another editor might have a different close based on their own preferences. Another reason why we need to follow the consensus policy. Lightburst (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  In what way was the WP:CONSENSUS policy not followed? Or, alternatively, why was it "clearly" no consensus to redirect? And if your answer is based on the numbers, what about WP:NOTAVOTE? – Levivich 16:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editors volunteered their time to participate in the AfD and improve the article. Some improved the article and others provided guideline based reasons to keep the article. It is a common refrain for editors to claim WP:NOTAVOTE but all regular AfD participants know that an AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE. Andrew Davidson brought many relevant sources to AfD. I added sources to the article. Hunter Kahn discovered sources. The article was improved at AfD and the !vote and opinions were evenly divided. This is a classic no-consensus. We have another actual policy which applies, not a guideline. WP:PRESERVE. I think this is why the rules are set up to say consensus is needed to take action. Otherwise. WP:NORUSH (IK...only an essay) applies. Lightburst (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, You are correct that "Consensus" is policy. I don't understand how that's an answer to what I said.

You had originally seemed to claim that "controversial" implies "no consensus" which is absolutely not true. You can link to WP:CONSENSUS as many times as you want, but it still won't say that. ApLundell (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I think redirect/merge was a valid close here given the state of the article and the general rule minor characters which consist of only WP:PLOT are better suited to lists. I think no consensus also would have been a valid close, but I have no problem with the close or the rationale, and it was probably the correct result. There's also nothing prohibiting the article from being recreated, and though this is not a popular opinion, I'd prefer to see it go through AfC. SportingFlyer T·C 21:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am troubled by what seems to be the implicit statement made here, and indeed at least one other AfD I've recently seen and closed by a different sysop, that if the sourcing presented at AfD is not incorporated into the article it doesn't count for notability. I have always felt given WP:NPOSSIBLE ("Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article", emphasis in the original) that sources shown at AfD are sufficient, if of enough quality, to demonstrate notability whether or not someone has done the work of incorporating into an article. That said I want to give a deeper thought, and explore the advanced sources a bit more, before saying whether the closer weighed participation correctly in establishing what consensus there was or wasn't before a close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and careful consideration. I do agree with the WP:NEXIST guidance. However I also participated in the improvement of this article and my concern is that the closer did not follow the consensus policy. We should close based on consensus, and an article may be relisted and may find a new WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Lightburst (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't your statement that I wonder about, it was the closer's. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Sorry to butt in, but I believe Tone may have been thinking that since the sources presented at AFD were challenged as not actually demonstrating notability, the onus then shifted back to the ones claiming it did to show that it did by doing what I and others said couldn't be done, which was using those sources to build an article that isn't ALLPLOT.

A more troubling trend, in my view, than admins following this line of reasoning is the tendency for editors to copy-paste a bunch of links they Googled up, apparently without even reading them, and claiming they demonstrate notability, and this being enough to create doubt and shift the AFD to "no consensus" -- this is definitely what was en route to happening at the Hodor AFD, as I read all the sources presented on the 9th and 11th, and only didn't go through the ones presented on the 16th because I had just wasted half an hour going through similar sources presented two minutes earlier here by the same editor, who all but admitted to not having read them himself.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse a perfectly reasonable close given the state of the article and the strength of some of the arguments put forward. Redirection is a pretty soft-touch way to deal with a questionable article and, therefore, applying it in preference to No Consensus ought not to be especially controversial. Hug^syrup 22:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - absolutely reasonable close.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Sourcing presented at the AFD was clearly inadequate, and those presenting them either (a) admitted not to having read them or (b) carefully refused to reply when asked as much. Once all the "Notable -- I Googled up a bunch of links I haven't actually read" and "Notable -- someone else Googled up a bunch of links I also haven't read" !votes are discounted, there was a very clear majority in favour of redirecting, and Tone assessed the consensus correctly. If only more admins were willing to do so.

As an aside, the page history hasn't been deleted, nor have any of the sources presented in the AFD, so there's nothing stopping anyone who believes it can be done from writing up a new article within the list that isn't ALLPLOT, perhaps incorporating some of the ALLPLOT content from the previous article, and undoing the redirect once the content gets to long not to get its own article. Yes, doing this without consensus would potentially result in another Talk:List of longest marriages mess, and there's nothing to say that all real-world, non-plot content is encyclopedic and worth including, but if anyone actually believes, in good faith, that the sources linked by Andrew and Hunter, and any other sources that are out there, actually would be enough to build a standalone article, then everything is still there for them to expand the list entry in an article-length piece of encyclopedic prose.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to No Consensus - okay, I'll admit I'm surprised the only Games of Thrones character I've heard of got redirected (unless - is the blonde lady with the braids named `Mother of Dragons'?), but the vast majority of the arguments for redirection ignore all the sources presented, and discuss only what's in the article - and the close reasoning is explicitly based on that. Among the few editors who looked at the question of whether the subject meets WP:N, there was no consensus, and the sources presented are sufficient to be plausible for WP:N (though perhaps not a slam dunk), so neither those who thought they met WP:N, nor those who didn't, can really be ignored. Such a defective closing rationale would be extremely problematic going forward, because it would be extremely ambiguous as to whether an expanded article would fall under G4, given it was based on votes that ignored the discussion and facts. WilyD 09:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Among the few editors who looked at the question of whether the subject meets WP:N, there was no consensus That's because everyone who said "keep" was basing their argument on a quick Googling of "sources" that either mention the subject in passing or consist exclusively plot summary, while the majority of the redirects either didn't feel the need to respond to such inane !votes or felt it was sufficient to say "per Hijiri"; selectively counting the "keep -- notable" !votes that ignored the actually issue at hand, while ignoring the !votes that were based on the issue at hand specifically for that reason, as you are implying you would have done, would have been a much more defective closing rationale, which makes me question your competence as an admin with the authority to make such decisions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- consensus at the AfD was that articles consisting entirely of plot summary are not good, and that the content would be better dealt with in an encyclopedic manner in some other- comprehensive- article. The close reflected that. There's no issue here. Reyk _YO! 11:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The question is between a separate article and a redirect, and the redirect permits the inclusion of a reasonable amount of material in the list article. This means that information is not really lost by the redirection. This in turn provides a reason why the closer can and should use judgment, and the closer used judgment. I do not have an opinion on whether I would have !voted to Keep or to Redirect, but the closer used proper judgment and there is no reversible error. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. A straight WP:NOTPLOT#1 decision. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Sound close, and nothing of value is lost because the redirect is, if anything, more informative, because it includes more context. Guy (help!) 00:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist , on the basis that a wider discussion would help. But even if we keep it as is, I assume that additional published material on the series will give sufficient additional sourcing, includingfrom academic sources, to justify an article. I'd guess probably in early 2021, based on the time it takes for publication. DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Spilo (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page was speedily deleted as an attack page. While I cannot prove it without restoring the article, the page was neutral, did not make any unsourced allegations, and had several (I think seven?) sources from reputable, reliable sources (including Parade, Fox News, etc.). There were also claims made (according to the notices I got on my talk page) against the notability of the topic of the article, and there might be a debate on that, but I believe I gave enough to establish notability. Regardless, that would be a debate, not a speedy criteria. Again, for this to have speedily deleted seems absurd to me. Red Slash 01:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this was deleted on WP:A7, WP:A10, and WP:G10 grounds. I would ask for a temporary undeletion, but if the G10 is correct this is better left to the admins. SportingFlyer T·C 01:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I say below, I don't think this is a defensible G10, but I'm going to hold off a temp restore out of an abundance of caution until at least one other admin looks at it and agrees. —Cryptic 02:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• This wasn't appreciably different from Survivor: Island of the Idols#Controversy in claims, tone, or sourcing, though the text is quite different. None of the three criteria it was deleted for seem defensible - it's not a G10 because it's not libel or legal threats, there's no reason to think it was intended to harass or intimidate, and - while entirely negative in tone - was not unsourced. It's not an A10, if for no other reason than that it's a valid redirect (as evidenced by the deleting admin immediately recreating it as one). And, while I dearly wish we lived in a world where appearing on Survivor was not a claim of significance and did not generate coverage in reliable sources, we don't, so it's not an A7. Overturn. Editorially, I think redirecting was the right call, but speedy deleting it first isn't defensible. —Cryptic 02:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it's obviously not an A7, and it's not realistically an A10 (redirectable, but there's also a little more background on the guy, and (weirdly?) more details on why he got booted from the show. I don't see libel or legal threats, I don't think it's intended to harass or intimidate, and it's reasonably well sourced. So at least by the text, I don't think G10 applies. I think the article is likely to be redirected as is, since it's almost entirely about the show, but of course others sources may exist to justify a stand-alone article. WilyD 08:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Ugh. We're an encyclopedia, not a supermarket gossip sheet. This whole thing could be adequately covered in a couple of sentences in the main article. But yeah, none of the cited CSD fit, so restore the history under the redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Hut 8.5's comment below, I agree, WP:BLP1E applies, and we shouldn't even restore the history. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At least with the listed sources, BLP1E probably does apply here. However, I'm extremely skeptical that it's a problem the material is in the history, when the page is a redirect that sends you to the same material. WilyD 08:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE. The amount of space devoted to Spilo in the main article isn't justified either, per WP:UNDUE. Most of that should be revdel'd. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, did you even glance at the page before linking it? It's wholly inapplicable. As far as UNDUE, it's possible that you're right, but I'd also not be surprised if you're wrong, and the scandalous bits are the only bit of Survivor: The 544th iteration that attracts any attention in sources. WilyD 09:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @WilyD:, @RoySmith:, @Cryptic:, thanks. Is it possible for one of you to please undelete the page so that I and any other editors get a crack at getting the page ready to stand an actual AfD discussion, please? Thank you so much. Red Slash 16:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With G10 being invoked (and, while seemingly wrong, not an obvious misclick or something), I suspect we're all very reluctant to undelete without an absolutely clear consensus. If you're worried about an immediately AfD if deleted, the best practice is probably to leave it as a redirect until you have a draft ready to go then go for it. WilyD 06:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A version of the article pre-deletion is on the Wayback Machine, just for the record. There are a bunch of claims that needed to be speedily removed - or speedily referenced - for violating BLP, but the article could have been stubified and I would not consider a Survivor contestant as eligible for A7 deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just in the US, there's been 38 seasons, roughly 20 contestants per season, so 750-ish. Times a bunch of franchises in other countries. So, figure thousands of contestants total. I disagree that being a member of that group of thousands of contestants is a legitimate claim of importance or significance. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is not in and of itself sufficient for notability. I sincerely believe that the vast amounts of independent (non-industry) media coverage of Spilo and his actions have made him notable. I've been an editor for well over a decade at this point; I know the notability policies. Red Slash 18:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but A7 is about significance, not notability. Being a contestant in a very well known work is not enough to make someone notable by default, but it does create enough "importance or significance" that I wouldn't consider it A7-able. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My comment above was narrowly in response the idea that being a Survivor contestant, per-se, disqualifies A7. I agree that A7 doesn't apply to this particular article about this particular contestant. But, if I wrote an article about Sonja Christopher which said nothing beyond she was a contestant on Survivor, that would surely be A7 territory. I guess we'll just have to disagree on that. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having a regular role in a top television show is a CCSI; I don't see why it should be any different for a reality TV show than for a fictional one (since reality TV is fictional anyway). I think CCSI and N should be judged for a Survivor contestant the same as for any actor. – Levivich 06:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's definitely not an A7 and we can argue about G10, but having this article strikes me as a really bad idea. This guy is and is likely to remain a low profile individual and his sole claim to fame is a bunch of incidents of sexual assault, so that's all we can write about in the article. The incident is covered in more than enough depth at Survivor:_Island_of_the_Idols#Controversy and a standalone article on this person is pretty clearly inappropriate per WP:BLP1E. I don't think we should restore it. Hut 8.5 19:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I would overturn on the basis that the article does not meet the above mentioned speedy deletion criteria. Being a Survivor contestant itself is not notable, however, being a significant contestant (like for instance winners, or highly regarded contestants like Ozzy Lusth, Coach (Survivor contestant), Russell Hantz, Jeff Varner, Rudy Bosch, Cirie Fields, etc, or someone notable for their actions on a show (like Dan) is notable. That's my opinion regarding Dan. However, I would not oppose to some work being done to the article and then seeing if it can withstand an AFD. DrewieStewie (talk) 04:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send to AfD. Not a G10. Definitely not an A7 or A10. At AfD, I would !vote "delete", it is a fan article, no encyclopedic content, BLP1E, the appropriate place to host this content is https://survivor.fandom.com/wiki/Dan_Spilo. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The article and its sources are terrible. Guy (help!) 00:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Well gee, thanks for that. I'm not sure being "terrible" in JzG's opinion is a speedy deletion criterion. Red Slash 14:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse in that the right result is to redirect it to the Survivor page (note: I have been involved in writing that section on that page). There is nothing prior to this season to make Spilo notable, and thus this is clearly a BLP1E situation. A likely search term , so redirect is right. --Masem (t) 23:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It's plausible that this is a BLP1E situation. But that is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Red Slash 14:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, I don't see how the speedy as an attack page is valid. The tone in the article, seems similar to detailed international mainstream media reporting that's come out since the DRV started, such as Global Canada CTV Canada (which is not the network that airs it), The Sun, UK, NBC USA (which is NOT the network it airs on) [2] (Fox USA - again not the network it airs on). Could be improved, but speedy not valid. Whether it should be an article, or just a redirect, is something that should be determined elsewhere. Nfitz (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – This is a G10 in my opinion. Almost the entire article disparages the subject, taking what sources report as allegations and stating them as facts in wikivoice, and employing hyperbole to accentuate the negative (for example, does any RS state that he was "forcibly removed" as opposed to "asked to leave"?). Copyedit the article and insert the requisite "allegedly", and you still end up with a BLP1E. Redirect is the right outcome. – Levivich 15:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the section in the season article is much more nuanced than the separate article, and gives full context. It's appropriate for WP to have the information, but it's not appropriate to highlight it by having a separate article out of context. I consider it a reasonable A10 because of that highlighting. A10 can apply not just because of the content, but because of the way it is presented. (I'm making essentially the same arguement as Levivich, but I read all the material before looking at he comments here) This is an illustration of my general view that A10 (& BLP in general) requires interpretation, not blind adherence to its wording. More than the other speedy categories, it's a matter of intent) DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]