Jeffrey H. Norwitz (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I started an article on Jeffrey Norwitz, a professor at the Naval War College, who is the author or editor of several positively reviewed books. In addition to serving as a professor he is also an active NCIS agent. He is a specialist on counterterrorism. Shortly after I started the article I went to add more information to it, only to find that the article had been deleted.

The administrator who deleted it did so after processing OTRS ticket 2009011410017732. The deleting administrator and I corresponded. They acknowledged that the article had been neutrally written, otherwise complied with all our policies, that Norwitz had no actual complaints about the article. The deleting administrator told me Norwitz simply didn't want a wikipedia article. The deleting administrator told me that their interpretation of the role of an OTRS team member that they felt they were authorized to delete articles to comply with an outside individual's request, when, in their sole judgment, the individual was of marginal notability. I don't agree that Norwitz was of marginal notability in January 2009. Since the deletion Norwitz has published another book. He has broadcast youtube videos. He has made more public appearances. So I think his notability is even more clear cut now.

I am concerned that if the deleting administrator's interpretation of the mandate of an OTRS member is generally shared this represent a dangerous loophole for circumventing the criteria for speedy deletion. Articles that do not contain an indication of notability are subject to speedy deletion. But articles that assert notability are not subject to speedy deletion. Individuals who disagree whether an article is on a notable topic can still nominate those articles for deletion, via PROD or a full deletion discussion. But administrators are not usually authorized to delete articles on notability ground`s when the article does assert notability. It is the interpretation of the deleting administrator that they are allowed the exceptional power to delete articles when he thinks the topic isn't notable, on his sole authority, if the subject of the article requests its deletion.

For what it is worth there are lots of biographies of Norwitz scattered around the web. So it is not as if Norwitz was trying to reduce his online footprint in order to protect his privacy because he was an interrogator at Guantanamo. Rather Norwitz just doesn't want a biography on wikipedia. Geo Swan (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Assuming there are no other factors involved, list at AfD. Wikipedia:BLP#Deletion says that If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., because of questionable notability or where the subject has requested deletion), this is addressed via deletion discussions rather than by summary deletion. The policy at the time the article was deleted contained almost identical language. The policy goes on to say that summary deletion is appropriate if the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, but the article was well sourced, didn't say anything negative about the subject, and didn't have any other neutrality problems that I can see. Of course it may well be that the AfD comes to a consensus that Norwitz' notability is sufficiently borderline that his request should be enacted, but that's a discussion for elsewhere. Hut 8.5 13:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Restore article and optionally list at AfD, where we have normally given very little weight to individuals who do not want to be written about if they are clearly notable, and he would appear to clearly meet WEP:PROF. It is not required that even with marginal notability that we delete the article on request, though in exceptional cases we have done so after consensus. Deleting an article on request is fatal to NPOV--individuals will request deletion if they do not like what we say, and only permit an article if the find it favorable. No reputable journalist or encyclopedia or work of reference can accept such conditions; that Who'sWho, for example, does accept them is why we regard them as not a Reliable Source for anything. Do no harm would not be relevant if he had a public career; a person who makes public appearances and publishes books in his own name cannot then claim anonymity or secrecy. The admin is furthermore wrong about the role of WP:OTRS--we at OTRS are not WP:OFFICE, and have no right to over-ride Wikipedia policy. We help individuals to be sure, but within the parameters of Wikipedia policy, but our only key function is that we have the ability to receive private information. This misinterpretation is sufficiently severe as to cause some concern for the continuation of the individual in OTRS. OTRS is to help our actions towards individuals meet policy, not to make policy. DGG ( talk ) 15:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict)At first glance, I'm with Hut 8.5, but I don't see this article in the cache so I'm unwilling to use a word in bold quite yet.—S Marshall T/C 15:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Restored at the time I did the deletion in 2009, I was the one that handled the OTRS ticket. My mindset at the time was to err on the side of caution and have short articles like this removed. Geo has been speaking to me off and on since the deletion and I agree that the content itself is neutral, but still at the time of deletion I was in that mindset. Now close to being the end of 2011, I was a n00b and realized it was not the best course of action now. After speaking to more OTRS staff since the DR was brought up, they felt that it would be wise to restore the material and let a regular AFD deal with the subject. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have created a procedural AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey H. Norwitz. Cunard (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Reading (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

closing admin is applying !supervote when 100% consensus for delete. redirects should only happen after an AfD is there is consensus LibStar (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin's comment: It seemed to be that having the article as a redirect would be logical, given that the page for the competition the person the page was about won existed, and (at least at the moment) doesn't seem to be controversial in its existence. Having the redirect in existence also reduces the possibility that somebody will come along and recreate the page because "oh, they don't have an article on him, I should write one", which I've seen happen on multiple occasions, with the resulting speedy and salting winding up ruffling feathers. In addition, redirects are cheap. That said, if DRV decides otherwise, that's not a problem. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete per consensus at the AfD. Then you can make a redirect if you like. Reyk _YO! 06:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There was no consensus against redirecting. There is no evidence that the delete !voters considered it and rejected it as an option. In these cases, an admin should have the discretion to implement the consensus for removing the article either by deleting the article or converting it into a redirect. I would have done the former in this case: it is a thinly sourced, barely watched BLP. But doing the latter was a legitimate exercise of discretion. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Can't agree with that no one discussed a redirect being used to determine there was no-consensus against a redirect. If the clear outcome was "keep" since there would have been no discussion about a merge and redirect (which would have kept the content in line with the discussion), should an admin do that? No an admin's job is to read the consensus in the discussion not to make up alternate undiscussed options and implement those. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 12:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete There was clear consensus in the discussion to delete the article. A redirect was not even mentioned in the discussion. Therefore, the AfD participants, Mike3685 (talk · contribs), DonCalo (talk · contribs), and LibStar (talk · contribs), should not be mandated to address a redirect in their arguments. As Mkativerata notes above, the article is a "thinly sourced, barely watched BLP":

  The first source is a dead link. Cached at http://web.archive.org/web/20070831190954/http://www.actjcl.org.au/actjcl/junior2004.htm by Internet Archive, the page is a list of statistics about the 2004 ACT Junior Championship from the ACT Junior Chess League's website. It is therefore a primary source. More about the chess league can be read at http://www.actjcl.org.au/actjcl/about_actjcl.php^WebCite
  The second source^WebCite is a list of statistics; http://www.netspeed.com.au/ianandjan/^WebCite is a self-published unreliable source.
  The third source^WebCite is from Guinness World Records, a primary source about the subject's record breaking.

  The AfD participants decided not to retain this poorly sourced material in any form. The nominator wrote:

  Many sources are almost impossibly to verify, especially content on high school and other academic achievements and balloon modelling.

  The nominator invokes Wikipedia:Verifiability in his nomination statement, and I agree with him that the article fails that policy. The information about Jeremy Reading's birthdate violates WP:BLPPRIVACY, which states:

  With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object.

  I performed several searches on Google and was unable to find a reliable source to confirm Reading's date of birth.

  The article also provided Reading's Universities Admission Index (UAI), which was unsourced.

  These two examples of unsourced, private material about a non-notable individual should not have been preserved under a redirect, which could be easily reverted.

  By overriding these users' unanimous consensus to delete, the closing admin denied them the opportunity to present the case that the page's history should be deleted per Wikipedia:Verifiability instead of retained under a redirect. I ask The Bushranger to modify his close to "delete", after which he can create a redirect as an editorial decision. Cunard (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete, but with no objection to a redirect afterwards if desired. The consensus at that debate was that the content of the current article should be deleted, and creating the redirect without deleting the history seems to go against this. That said, a redirect isn't a bad idea, and I would be happy for one to be created after deletion. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't understand what's wrong with Mkativerata's view here. At first glance, to delete the history seems both bureaucratic and needlessly destructive. What am I missing?—S Marshall T/C 15:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relistto discuss whether the redirect should be after deletion. A redirect is always an option as a compromise close, unless it was rejected by consensus at the discussion, which does not appear to be the case. Indeed, the nom didn't even ask for it: the nomination said "Nominated due to lack of notability. This person's achievements are not important enough to warrant a separate page", Everyone agreed with that. A redirect or a merge would be in accordance with the nomination. Normally I would say that if the redirect is thought inappropriate, then RfD is the proper action. The problem here is that the material in the history behind the redirect is really improperly promotional. and should be removed altogether--as I will say at a renewed discussion. (I agree that the closing admin should clearly have done that, which is why I'm saying relist, rather than endorse.). Alternatively, we have discretion here to correct errors in the best way possible. So perhaps the best close here would be delete history on the basis of finding the right solution, IAR if necessary. DGG ( talk ) 15:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete essentially per DGG. Despite DGG's different bolded "vote" I think the best way forward following his logic is to recognize that a delete was the best close of the AfD given the (limited) discussion. A redirect can be created as an editorial decision by anyone following an AfD (unless of course the AfD has established a clear consensus against such a page) and creation of one here is probably appropriate but after deletion rather than instead of it. Eluchil404 (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• In fairness to the closing admin, I can't imagine why this redirect could conceivably be controversial in any way. I suppose this was technically against consensus though, so an Overturn to Delete and then redirecting might make sense. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Closer should have !voted rather than redirected. I'd think the redirect would be uncontroversial but given that it isn't the right thing for the closer to do would be to retract the close, !vote, and let someone else close. So relist in effect. Hobit (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that a redirect is uncontroversial. None of the "overturn" votes has opposed a redirect.

  As DGG notes above, "The problem here is that the material in the history behind the redirect is really improperly promotional. and should be removed altogether." As I note above, the content contains private material that should be deleted per Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:BLPPRIVACY.

  The Bushranger, I ask you to reconsider your close. If you disagree with myself and DGG that the content is problematic, then the discussion will have to be relisted. If, after re-reviewing the article's content, you agree with my and DGG's assessment, I ask you to delete the page per the consensus of the AfD and create a redirect with none of the problematic history under it ("delete and redirect to Beauty and the Geek Australia"). Cunard (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin comment: I don't have a problem at all with deleting the articel then recreating a redirect. If that won't be a problem (what with the DRV in progress) I can go ahead and do that straightaway. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Because you are the closing admin, there is no problem with your amending the close to "delete" while the DRV in progress. After you delete the article and create a redirect, the DRV can be speedy closed. Cunard (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Craig (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article was closed by a non-admin. I do not think there was a consensus on this discussion yet and I do not believe it was a non-controversial close. As the original submitter I believe the page still fails WP:POLITICIAN and GNG. I have raised it with the closer on his talk page and not received a response. Mattlore (talk) 04:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist- definitely not an uncontroversial close. Reyk _YO! 06:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs)'s close—"Being kept because extra references found"—invoked his personal opinion about the article, casting a supervote. It is not even clear what the "extra references" were. He utterly ignored requests on his talk page to explain his closure or to self-revert. If he plans to close discussions and not be prepared to justify his close, he best avoid closing AfDs until he understands what to close and what not to.
  Clearly, there was no consensus for keeping the article. This AfD was definitely ineligible for a non-admin closure—it was not uncontroversial, as opinions were divided. Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions states, "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." Goodvac (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist, I was involved in the discussion and I think the article is a weak keep, but I do not think there was consensus for that when the discussion was closed. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. With no discussion about the new sources bar one comment and delete !votes still in the majority, this wasn't a justifiable NAC. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• relist clearly, outside the boundaries of non admin closure. LibStar (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I am the non-admin who closed it, I just thought that having the extra references would help justify the article and would produce a consensus as Keep. However, if you feel so, I would be all up for relisting and promise to keep out of it. Rcsprinter (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. Goodvac and Libstar are entirely wrong, of course. Any experienced user in good standing may close a discussion, provided they have not participated in it or otherwise compromised their neutrality. And even if an administrator had made that close, we would still be overturning it here. The problem is not that it was a non-admin close, but that it was a bad close.—S Marshall T/C 15:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Your opinion is contrary to WP:NAC. A non-admin shouldn't be within a mile of of closing a deletion discussion unless the outcome to keep or merge is abundantly clear. Tarc (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I find your faith and trust in our admin corps rather touching.  :-)—S Marshall T/C 19:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is both the non-admin close, which violated the guideline Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions, and the close itself. Goodvac (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if an administrator had made that close, we would still be overturning it here. The status of the closer is not relevant.—S Marshall T/C 23:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist - Goodvac and Libstar are spot-on, this close completely flies in the face of WP:NAC. Tarc (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAC is an essay, one that I rather agree with and it seems you do to, Tarc. However, others may quite properly disagree. Policy-based discussion is not required to be on the presumption that essays express Wikipedia policy. Thincat (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since I didn't actually claim that it was, your response is largely without merit. We have an guidelines that covers exactly the situation that this DRV resolves around. Editors are free to disagree with that, but I'd prefer to see an actual rationale as to why. Marhsall's response above, particularly, is weak. Tarc (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I chose not to cite the essay WP:NAC because the guideline Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions already covers this situation: "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." Goodvac (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh please. Let's not start looking up to Wikipedia administrators as if they were authority figures. They're a bunch of generally sincere, earnest, and well-meaning people who make errors of judgment as much as the next guy. There are a number of children and self-confessed recreational drug users among them. Most people who spend any time at DRV come to see that the wisdom of Solomon is not one of the tools they get when they pass an RFA, except for Tarc of course.—S Marshall T/C 23:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not misrepresent my comments—I have not said that admins are "authority figures" or that they are infallible or impeccable. I am merely quoting a relevant guideline that bars non-admins from closing controversial AfDs. You can derive whatever connotations from it that you wish, but it's a guideline that ought to be followed as much as the notability guidelines that are the basis of deletion discussions. Goodvac (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a misrepresentation to say that your comments set up administrators as authority figures. You're recommending following a guideline that does exactly that, and you don't seem to be giving any reasons for following the guideline except that it's a guideline and therefore, in your view, should be followed. Anyone can write anything in a Wikipedia guideline.—S Marshall T/C 09:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No, according to policy WP:GUIDES, guidelines are "sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" (my bolding). I follow guidelines because they represent community consensus. I have yet to see any reason an exception should be made when applying Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions to the erroneous non-admin close in question. Goodvac (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• relist with the same comments as S. Marshall and Thincat. The problem isn't the NAC per se. It's the bad close. Hobit (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, in case folks missed it, Rcsprinter explained his thought process and basically endorsed relisting. Why don't we just do that and get on with editing? --Nuujinn (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]