WP:Deletion review/Log/2015 December 1#Blank userspace drafts

:{{DRV links|Opal Tometi|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opal Tometi|article=Opal Tometi}}

Unfair Deletion, Please overturn. The closure of the page is unfair and the comments to delete inaccurate. 98.190.145.152 (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Your original deletion review request referred to :File:Foo.png, which was created and then deleted as a test back in 2006, but I infer from the other parameters of your request that you intended this to be about Opal Tometi. I have fixed the request to point to the correct article. No opinion yet on the validity of this request. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Coverage is moderately significant and the number of !votes pretty light, and merge was the (weak) consensus. I don't personally like the idea that just because someone isn't significant outside of what they've done that they aren't significant enough for an article. One could argue Obama's really only significant as a politician (for example). I'm also not real thrilled with AfD being used instead of the talk page for a merge discussion. That said, I suspect merging is a reasonable editorial outcome (one I'd probably support but not one I'd feel strongly about). Eh. relist and add a note at the merge target for a broader discussion (which I think the existence of this DRV is likely to attract as might the notification on the merge target) and a fish to the AfD nom for bringing the issue to the wrong forum (AfD rather than the talk page of the two articles) for a merge. Hobit (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Relist I would normally be very doubtful for someone whose role was merely "setting up the social media aspects of the movement.", but considering that this was such a large part of the movement, there might be a case. It probably should have been relisted at the time for further discussion. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Relist - I note that this was a non-administrator close; per WP:NAC, any administrator may unwind the closing and re-list the AfD. Given the light participation and extremely brief four days the AfD was listed', re-listing would seem entirely appropriate. The period the AfD was listed was so brief as to be considered irregular and contrary to our standard AfD procedures; this was no WP:SNOW closing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

:*Good call, I'd noticed the NAC but missed the timing. An admin should just re-list this now. Hobit (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Relist only if there's better consensus I suppose but to be honest, I unlikely see any other option as it seems she was not best know for anything else, and that redirect was best as she was closely connected to the group. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist The close was defective in several ways but, most importantly, the closing statement and the closer's remarks here give the strong impression that the closer did not assess consensus. Rather they took a view about the article (quite possibly informed by the AFD discussion). The closer should have !voted. Thincat (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• Speedy relist on the basis of any reasonable objection to an NAC close. It being an early close is sufficient. Please don't hold this DRV discussion open for seven days, but relist and let the nominator and anyone else add their contributions to the AfD discussion. Note also that it does not even belong at AfD, and there is no suggestion to delete. Mergers should be discussed on the talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Blank user space pages|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Blank userspace drafts|article=}}

The editors were never notified their pages could be deleted. The delete votes ignored WP:BITE and other reason why terrifying new users shouldn't be done. Editors who could back and find all their work wiped out were never told and adds to the collapse here. 166.170.48.222 (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse. Decision looks proper to me. But if you started one of these pages and want it restored, then log in as that user and send me a request on my talk page — I'd be happy to restore it for you. (This is not an offer to bulk-restore all the pages deleted through this XfD, nor to restore pages for some user other than the one who created it.) —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

:: Ok, I demand that every page be restored. Better one hundred worthless pages remain than one editor be scared off. 166.171.123.40 (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

::: That's kind of what David said not to do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• not-endorse If someone would notify all those who had their pages deleted of this offer (or there was some other way they were aware of it) I'd say that David's offer would address the issue. For the record, I don't know why anyone needed these deleted or how it helps the encyclopedia and I _can_ see how it might hurt (someone may not go back and finish this much delayed article). But I'm open to the notion that I'm missing something and deleting these is helpful in some way. Hobit (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

:: {{u|Hobit}}, the pages are for the most part quite literally the same as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Aber32/Clan_Pollock&direction=prev&oldid=689936589 this basic version of the Article Wizard template]. A few may have had a title but nothing more. As discussed there, deletion helps clear up the 46k pages at :Category:Stale userspace drafts and a host of other similar categories so we can actually focus on the few legitimate drafts out there rather than weed through tens of thousands of pages with almost nothing there. I don't see what is gained in the absolute minute chance that someone will return after two, three, four years and could possibly be hurt over having started a blank draft? Legitimate or just plausible drafts are moved to draftspace, attack pages and the link I delete under the speedy criteria and I take the drafts that already have been created to MFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

:: {{u|Hobit}} I didn't think about it but I did inform every editor with an MFD notice about the deletion discussion. I'm an admin as well and I will echo David's offer that if any editor there returns and requests the restoration of their page, I will do it immediately. I hope that alleviates your concerns. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• relist. Looking atthe discussion, I am not sure there was consensus to delete. The place to argue the merits further is at a relisting. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse and keep deleted. {{user|Ricky81682}}, are all the drafts completely blank like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Aber32/Clan_Pollock&direction=prev&oldid=689936589 this basic version of the Article Wizard template] or just contain "a title but nothing more"? If this is true, I recommend that the pages be kept deleted because no one's work has been deleted. Furthermore, deletion is a net positive to the project because it helps clear up :Category:Stale userspace drafts and other similar maintenance categories.

  If any of the pages are non-empty (other than just a title), then I recommend relisting those for further discussion.

  Cunard (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

:: The ones the IP picked, yeah. To be accurate, of the ones I blanked, some replaced "New article name" with the title, some have example.jpg included. Some like User:Seanji3317/A good and cheap wedding dress saling site has "New article name is A good and cheap wedding dress selling site" with no idea of what website they are advertising so a few has a line or so of text but nothing remotely close to substantive. A few, such as User:Hughesfcu/Hughes Federal Credit Union, also contain a link at the bottom to the website. If it would help, I can restore them all and people can debate them but no one should be expect a lot here. Hunt through the stale drafts categories and you'll probably clear out 5-10% (meaning over 2k-4k pages) like that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

:::Thank you for the detailed explanation of the pages' contents. I don't think it's necessary to waste your time restoring all those empty or near-empty pages. But if other editors find that helpful, then I won't object. Cunard (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn There was no consensus to delete - it was 2:2 by my count. Andrew D. (talk) 08:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• What possible utility there is to reverse deletion of empty pages, that would be speedily deleted per CSD A3 without even seeking consensus opinion, where they in article space? jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 16:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• Editor retention. The last thing editors want is to find out all their hard work has been destroyed. 166.171.123.40 (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• A blank page consisting of nothing but a title and the Article Wizard default text is not something I would describe as "hard work". Reyk _YO! 07:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse or at the least blank the remainder I voted there but overthinking this, I count three deletes (me, User:Jni and the IP nominator), two keeps/blank the rest (User:Anne Delong and User:Nyttend) and one just keep statement (User:Graeme Bartlett). Depends on if you count the IP or else it's 2/3 for keep. Graeme to me missed the point when he stated that he "would be annoyed if someone proposed a blank page of mine for deletion" when these pages weren't blanked (I blanked them). No one is proposing completely blank pages for deletion. Nevertheless, his keep makes sense in that he was correct in analyzing them as sandboxes but he seemed to be against doing anything and didn't respond to the policy-based concerns regarding the categories and the like. I don't think a view against doing anything should be weighed that heavily since it doesn't really line with WP:STALEDRAFT policy (which suggests both blanking and deletion for "entirely unsuitable drafts") including the consensus seen by how many deletions are done for that type of content at MFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse, if these 'drafts' were all massively stale, and contained no content, and David is willing to restore individual entries upon request, I don't see what harm is done here. Certainly, degunking maintenance categories is a good enough response to the "what's the point?" keep !votes in the discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC).
• Comment. If it was "proper" (was it?) it shouldn't have been and anyway it was all very silly. Thincat (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse- removing pointless clutter from maintenance categories is a sensible reason to delete these. No problem with restoring individual ones on request, rather than all of them for bureaucracy's sake. Reyk _YO! 11:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• And for the editors who return fearful to ask about their lost work? What should be done for them? 166.171.123.40 (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• WP:NOTTHERAPY. If you come back after two or three years unable to ask someone about a blank draft, there's no point inconveniencing everyone else due to their inability to handle it. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse of course. This zeal for bureacrazy for removing empty non-content by non-contributors, who vanished years ago is completely ridiculous waste of everyone's time. We don't owe anything to the creators of these editing experiments, and there literally is nothing to be salvaged there, for use in our project. Thanks to Ricky81682 for great cleanup work! jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 16:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse. I disagree with the decision, but closing as "no consensus" would be a stretch, and closing as "keep" would be absurd, because the weight is clearly in favor of deletion. Nyttend (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• Note – The filing IP is part of the exact same range 166.170.48.0/22, who has been stalking and harassing all of User:Ricky81682's actions since August 2015, likely in retaliation as part of an ongoing dispute/disruption over at WP:WOP. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 October 16, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive895#User:Waenceslaus reverting edits made in line with an RSN decision they disagree with, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive894#List of highest grossest Indian films, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Box Office India has gained a lot from Wikipedia for more details. --MuZemike 04:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse/speedy close, per DRV Purpose item 8. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - abandoned drafts are even liable for speedy deletion in accordance with criterion WP:CSD#G13. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

:: These were created under the Article Wizard system and not the Articles for Creation system and applying G13 to those has been expressly opposed repeatedly. Believe me, I'm not the one making up ways to make getting rid of these things more complicated. I'm well aware that if I listed two dozen separate pages like these at MFD, they would be deleted but somehow listing them at one is considered a black mark. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Rhonda Patrick|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhonda Patrick|article=}}

Another !supervote by the closer Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn. The majority of editors who commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhonda Patrick considered that while the subject is not notable as a scientist, the media coverage is enough to show general notability. The closure did not correctly summarize the consensus. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus or keep. With 11 keeps vs 6 deletes, I see absolutely no consensus for deletion. 103.6.159.92 (talk) 07:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse- within administrator discretion. Closer correctly gave weak arguments less weight. RAN should have a) discussed this with the closer before bringing this here, and b) not used DRV as a means to pursue a personal vendetta against one of our better admins. Reyk _YO! 08:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

::Reyk this accusation is unfounded and in poor taste. RAN is clearly acting in good faith given the outcome of discussion compared to what was debated. Did you not see the discussion on Spartaz's talk page? This was clearly discussed and DRV, the best resolution. The keep arguments do bare weight based on sources provided. The delete argument also have valid points none are overwhelming. The vote count does however favor inclusion this should point to a lack of consensus. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 10:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

::It was already discussed on their talk page. I have no "personal vendetta" against anyone. When you find an error, you look back to see if the error was made more than once, just like I would do if I saw someone misspelling a word, or introducing an incorrect date to an article, or using the wrong template. In this case I was correct and the person is using a !supervote in more than one AFD by discounting keep rationales and ignoring consensus. You can ignore SPAs and ignore pure votes with no rationale, but not over-ride consensus with a !supervote. Why have consensus building if the closer just ignores it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I voted delete because the researcher did not meet the standard of WP:NACADEMIC and almost all of the refs related to the research rather than the researcher per say. However in further discussion on the talkpage of the admin closer (yes, there is a discussion ongoing there, although this DR seems to have been started before the admin has properly responded) evidence has been presented that the subject appears as a public intellectual/medic on a very well viewed youtube channel. It seems to me that this is therefore a debate about the merits of WP:NACADEMIC vs WP:GNG, with different people taking different views. Therefore it seems to me almost by definition that the result of the AfD should have been WP:NOCONSENSUS, with further investigation as to the subject's status as a public intellectual. JMWt (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• endorse discounting weak arguments based on YouTube videos is entirely reasonable. Afd is not a vote. --ℕ ℱ 13:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn The topic got a good airing; the editors participating seemed to be quite experienced and, overall, did not form a consensus to delete. Spartaz and DGG seem to have personal views on such notability which are somewhat extreme but, per WP:INVOLVED and WP:NVC, these should not trump the more general view. Andrew D. (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn Per Andrew.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn Per Aymatth and Andrew. I didn't see a strong consensus for deletion and there was enough media coverage to act as reliable secondary sources. JAGUAR  14:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn to No Consensus - I looked through the AfD; the strongest vote was given by DGG but even then he dismissed the article as "not really improvable" without suggesting why. A news search reveals a problem typical of XfDs where there is a broad coverage of sources, but all give only short mentions to the subject. Some think this meets GNG, others don't - essentially I don't think the community has any general agreement. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn per Aymatth and Andrew. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse. Many of the keep comments were only very weakly based on policy and it is within the closing admin's discretion to notice that and discount them. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

:*{{ping|David Eppstein}} That is insulting to the experienced editors who expressed opinions. What part of "Reliable sources such as the Boston Globe, Daily Telegraph, CBC, SF Chronicle, etc. discuss the subject's work in some depth. This is sufficient to establish notability." is only very weakly based on policy? Aymatth2 (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

::*You do understand the difference between the words "many" and "all", no? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

::: Aymatth2 I'm genuinely interested in your response to the following: I used to be a science journalist. Every week the major journals issue press releases to get news about the latest findings. So the same piece of research can appear (let's say) in the Guardian, BBC, NYT, etc.

::: Would you say that the presence of articles focussed on that research from many different news publications shows that the researcher is notable? I'd say no, from me experience as a science journalist these things happen all the time. Sometimes it takes almost no time at all for the research to be forgotten. If the articles in this article are about the research primarily and not the researcher, does that show more than that the research might need to be referenced on an appropriate page and instead say something about the notability of the researcher? That seems to me to be the crux of the difference of understanding of the WP:GNG here. JMWt (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

::::Per WP:GNG such significant coverage means she meets our inclusion guidelines. I can't say I think that all these sources _should_ be covering her, but I also don't think they should be covering (in such detail) soccer players, D-list actors, or a lot of other folks. My opinion isn't the bar for inclusion--it's coverage. And we've got it in spades here. Hobit (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

::::: OK, but it isn't significant coverage of her, it is coverage of her research (which arguably is not particularly significant in the scheme of things) which also happens to include some of the detail of her as a person. If we use your standard, many different researchers could legitimately have pages created about them based on having a paper discussed widely in the news.

::::: I'm not just being difficult, I am genuinely trying to understand and explain the differences that editors are seeing when understanding this issue. JMWt (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

:::*The sources in the article showed the subject has become a minor pundit on vitamins. There are online interviews like [http://fox5sandiego.com/2015/02/23/new-research-on-autism-and-vitamin-d/], [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh0xB4OJdpQ], announcements like [http://www.childrenshospitaloakland.org/main/news/research-by-chori-scientists-indicates-causal-link-230.aspx] and news items like [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/10686624/Vitamin-D-could-it-stop-modern-diseases.html], [https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2015/01/05/research-suggests-vitamin-could-affect-brain-function/kdJThHsLlEpVRrdaesCS0K/story.html], [http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Serotonin-may-be-autism-key-5288888.php], [http://blog.sfgate.com/inoakland/2015/03/05/oakland-researchers-propose-a-way-to-explain-why-what-you-eat-may-affect-your-behavior/], [http://www.dnaindia.com/lifestyle/report-nothing-fishy-about-it-2070843], [http://www.dailycal.org/2014/02/25/researchers-verify-link-vitamin-d-potential-autism-cure/]], [http://abc7news.com/archive/9482845/] on different topics published over a period of time. The consensus was that they cumulatively showed notability. The closing admin ignored this consensus. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

::::*Dr. Patrick oversees a [https://www.patreon.com/foundmyfitness?ty=h systematic promotion campaign] of herself and her work. So far, the general public, as well as many WP editors, have a mistaken impression of the importance of her work. Please see my argument below. Agricola44 (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC).

• Endorse. Far from being a supervote, it is a decision with a cogent summary of the main issue: the coverage is of the research, not the person, and doesn't meet BLP standards. That was indeed stated in the discussion and not refuted. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

:*Many people are known more for their work, which should be the focus of a BLP, than for their private life. Homer comes to mind. Far from being a cogent summary of the consensus view, the closure was a statement of a minority opinion. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

::*Homer is not a great example for BLP. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn !vote count was in favor of keeping. DGG made some solid arguments for deletion, but the keep arguments showed that her _work_ has seen a ton of notice (and coverage) and thus WP:BLP doesn't exclude coverage of her. We can freely use reliable primary sources about her as needed. This is something that is true of nearly all academics. The fact that she doesn't meet WP:PROF does count against her, but she easily meets the GNG. I'll say again--the argument used for deletion here would apply to nearly any academic and so without a !vote count supporting deletion, deletion isn't reasonable here. If the !vote count was significantly in favor of deletion I could certainly see closing this as delete. But there is certainly no consensus to delete and no overriding policy-based reason to delete in the face of the discussion leaning hard toward keep. Hobit (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse closure of this Afd as delete based on sound policy arguments such as those by experienced users as user:Agricola44, user:DGG and others. Arguments for keep were flimsy and in some cases indicated special pleading. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC).

::Incidentally, I would like to see a requirement that the initiator of a WP:Deletion Review be required to inform all contributors to the Afd. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC).

:*{{ping|Xxanthippe}} Is there a policy that says a person is not considered notable if the sources primarily focus on their public work rather than their private life? Or is this just the personal opinion of the closing admin? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

::::I have always consistently argued just the reverse, that the sources must focus on the aspect of their life that makes them notable. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

:::::I would agree DGG. A source about someone's intellectual property is inherently about the person who created the research, composition, theory, etc. Unless said intellectual property becomes well-known enough to warrant a separate article, i.e. Gone with the Wind, Beethoven's 9th Symphony, UniFrac algorithm, it is part and parcel of the creator, who can copyright, patent, sell it or destroy it. The work does not have the reciprocal ability to change the author, thus it is dependent upon the creator. I did say in the original discussion, one cannot just remove aspects of someone's life and say they don't count toward the subject's notability. The only place we differ in this is that the standard is not PROF, it is GNG, as it is the foundation for all notability. SusunW (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Frankly, I'm surprised that the article was deleted. Reviewing my comments, I stand by them, but I think the consensus disagreed with me quite clearly.I suppose that the fairest thing to do is relist to get more opinions. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn I appreciate your honesty in this {{u|DGG}} the outcome was surprising. Relisting at this point seems a futile effort as it is unlikely to generate nonpartisan input, which evaluates the content. SusunW (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus - Given the relatively high AfD participation, the split 10–7 !vote in favor of keeping the article, and even allowing for the usually sound reasoning of DGG for deleting it, I cannot see a clear consensus in favor of any course of action at this time. Overturning to "no consensus" will permit the dust to settle and allow for the nominator or others to resubmit the article after a reasonable time, if they so choose. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn -- I didn't get notice about this AfD until I saw it discussed at WP:PROF and I'm not an admin, so I can't see the article. I also know Agricola44 and DGG on the delete side to be very well versed in policy, especially on GNG and WP:PROF. I've interacted far less with the Keep voters; however, from what I see of their arguments, many seem well grounded in policy (obviously this is on some borderline no matter what). If there are no sock puppet, POV, etc. problems in an AfD and numerically one side has significantly more votes than the other, I believe that the closing argument favoring the minority view needs to be expressed much more clearly than I see here. For instance, "The argument that sources are about the research have not been well refuted" is, in my reading of AfD for PROF, quite a point of disagreement about whether this matters for WP:PROF (and it is not clear whether this deficit refers to notability or sourcing for the BLP). Having just praised DGG's general argument quality above, I don't think that the closing admin should be making reference to DGG's persuasiveness in other AfDs as a rationale for closing. It looks like No consensus to me. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

:*I agree with you there. Arguments based on the experience of one or more editors is implicitly an ad hominem attack on the others. RockMagnetist(talk) 04:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn I am not an administrator and I therefore do not know if I am authorized to comment here. I did however participate with "keep" in the original discussion and since the article's deletion have tried to plead for it to be restored. I am particularly thankful to {{u|DGG}} for participating in this discussion and moving in favour of keeping the article as I believe it was on the basis of his clearly worded arguments that several editors called for "delete". During the course of all these discussions, several other third party sources relating to Rhonda Patrick's contributions to medicine have come to light. It is a pity we are unable to use them to expand the article, now that it has been deleted. I look at a fair number of AfD discussions and I must say this is the first time I have seen the views of so many highly experienced editors dismissed as out of scope. Maybe the outcome of this discussion should simply be an invitation to the administrator who deleted it to restore it for further enhancement. I believe part of the problem at the moment is that he is not available for Wikipedia editing until this Thursday.--Ipigott (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

::* You are most certainly allowed to comment here and your comments are welcome! Thincat (talk) 11:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

::* {{yo|Ipigott}} As a novice, it's not clear to me what the outcome of this process is even if overturn reaches consensus, however, {{u|Keilana}} did, in fact, userfy the article immediately prior to deletion, which means you can view the original contents here if that is useful to the discussion. Snazzywiki (talk) 04:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse. In scanning the above discussion, it seems to largely recapitulate the AfD. For example, a large fraction are simply of the "overturn per ______" variety or seem to discuss the motives of the editors favoring delete. A SPA even weighs in, advising to just count keeps vs deletes! The cogent overturns again fall back essentially on GNG: i.e. there are many sources in the mass media, case closed. I'd like, therefore, to expand a little on my opinion that the correct interpretation for this individual is WP:TOOSOON. Practically no reporter in the media is a scientist, but they certainly understand what the general public wants and know a good human interest story when they see one. This is the phenomenon that is at the heart of this discussion. Numerous academics have been the subject of such coverage and, in Dr. Patrick's case, there are many instances, but they are all essentially the same story on the same specific subject: her work on links between vitamin D and serotonin, e.g. [https://twitter.com/clarkjesse/status/552119146419609601 here], with implications for autism, ADHD, etc. That is the hook for the reading public that reporters recognize and is the sole reason that Dr. Patrick (who is an entry-level scientist) has gotten such outsized coverage, essentially a "Matthew effect" of the media, as it were. So, here now is the issue. One side recognizes notability based simply on a naive cull and tally of these sources. I have never been a supporter of this philosophy because, if this is true, then we could, in principle, simply write code that would create articles automatically and editors could just join former elevator operators and people who used to develop film. A different philosophy, which I advocate in this case, is a more judicious interpretation based on what is encyclopedic. Specifically, Patrick's work is very recent. If it is truly consequential, this fact will emerge in due time through the usual avenues of citations, reviews, etc., as judged by her scientific peers. It is too early for this to happen. (Her collective papers on this subject have only ~20 total citations, so far...not bad, but certainly not notable.) In the end, the average non-specialist WP reader will be presented an impression of Dr. Patrick and her work based not on its scientific importance, but rather on what reporters knew would be a good hook for their readership. To me, this is a subtle form of misrepresentation, is the kind of thing that tends to trivialize WP as a legitimate encyclopedia, and happens way too often here. Agricola44 (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC).

:: I basically agree with your assessment here, but for me the issue is not about the research coverage (which as I've said above seems to me to be rather run-of-the-mill and which every week is replicated for different "newsy" science discoveries), but about whether the subject has notability as a kind of pundit or public intellectual. It seems to me that the fact that she has appeared on a youtube channel has obscured an unbiased assessment (and, I think, I may not have given it enough weight) - if she'd appeared regularly on a popular national news TV show, I don't think there would be any confusion about whether she could be notable as per WP:GNG even though the research itself is not particularly notable. JMWt (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

:::Let me add here (as I said above), that even the "punditry" angle for me is very questionable, given her [https://www.patreon.com/foundmyfitness?ty=h well-organized campaign] of self-promotion, which includes solicitation of funds to feedback into the promotional process. Agricola44 (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC).

::::Once again the "discussion" has come down to one side making judgment calls about the other side's ability to evaluate guidelines or data. "One side recognizes notability based simply on a naive cull and tally of these sources" is quite insulting. The guidelines repeatedly state that a subject meets GNG if they have been covered, over time, in independent sources. There is no qualification of what their contributions or non-contributions may have been, nor does the term "encyclopedic" appear in either WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. However, both state "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below." We interpret these guidelines differently, but yelling louder, writing more, or insulting those who disagree does not make your position stronger. SusunW (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

:::::I'm sorry, but assessing notability by mindless culling and tallying of the sources is exactly what is going on here. Should one instead be more judicous, i.e. (1) weigh that the sources are all basically on the same topic (yes), (2) consider that the subject of the article is well-known for self-promotion (yes), (3) examine the contributions of reporters' bias/ignorance and accumulated advantage (yes), and (4) contemplate why her scientific peers have not yet acknowledged her notability (yes)? You should be clear that GNG and the like are guidelines. There's no rule that obligates us to have an article just because there are sources. In short, the nature of the sources matters, not just their number. Articles like this are a serious problem for WP. An extreme example (that perhaps makes the point more clear), is the Jacob Barnett article. There are a huge pile of sources from major outlets (e.g. BBC), etc., all of which are by reporters looking for a good human interest hook, that paint this individual as an accomplished scientist who has made very important discoveries. These sources are all wrong, but, because they are "sources", we've been so far unable to remove this article from WP. The 4 points I made above apply...FWIW, Dr. Patrick will likely be notable in the future, if she sticks to science. However, she might veer off into promotional guru-hood. It's too early to tell, and since WP is not a crystal ball, it's best to wait on this article. Agricola44 (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC).

:::::*A few contributors to the AfD discussion pointed out the subject is not notable as a scientist and recommended deletion for that reason. But the real question, as User:JMWt says, is whether she is notable as some sort of pundit. Most felt the sources are sufficient to show she is notable in this "WP:GNG" sense and the article should be kept. The closing admin decided to delete anyway on the basis that the sources were more about the subject's research than about their personal life. That is, user:Spartaz ignored consensus and introduced a novel argument for deletion with no basis in policy. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::There is now no claim the the subject passes WP:Prof and, as several others editors have noted, other sources refer to her academic work but are trivial, self-promotional and even attempt to raise funds for her.[https://www.patreon.com/foundmyfitness?ty=h] At best WP:BLP1E. The closer's argument is sound. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC).

::::::*"novel argument", hardly. And please do not imply there was any consensus – there wasn't. At most, the overturns can argue for "no consensus", as some have done. And the "pundit" argument is likewise false, unless commenting on one narrow topic, as repeated across many sources, is now a recognized notability guideline. Frankly, I'm quite surprised that all panelists here seem to be completely unconcerned regarding the self-promotionalism that very likely plays a large role in her perception as a pundit and that they are willing to argue this on the basis of YouTube videos! I get the feeling of a large dose of WP:ILIKEIT. Since we've collectively brought this nearly to an ad hoc AfD discussion, I'm going to try to bow out now. In the end, the real question is whether the closer violated procedure, with those favoring WP:SUPPORT believing so. Spartaz (the closer) summarized policy-based reasons, including the burden-of-proof being on keep, for the decision, so it seems there would have to be arguments much stronger than those above that would be needed to overturn. Agricola44 (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC).

• Comment (while I decide how to !vote) Probably overturn (but I really need to see the article and the references it uses). Notability requires extended coverage in reliable sources - it doesn't matter if what is reported is fluff provided it has not emanated from PR. WP:PROF does not need to be satisfied if WP:GNG has been met. Verification requires solid material. BLP requires both and one does not countermand the other. I am concerned that the presence of popular material has obscured any more substantial aspects. My general knowledge of this area makes me realise that it it very possible that a partisan article could be produced. This is not a reason for deletion unless the article is inevitably partisan because of limited available references. Thincat (talk) 08:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

::{{ping|Thincat}} A "userfied" version of the article can be seen at User:Snazzywiki/Rhonda Patrick.--Ipigott (talk) 08:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

:::Thanks {{ping|Ipigott}} for posting the link to the userfied version. I now see why several people I often agree with on WP:PROF have strong feelings for delete -- if this were still at the AfD stage, I'd recommend a rewrite so that it makes clear that the notability comes from the many RS mentions of her work and not from the academic notability, but this isn't the forum for that. I do still stand by (and even more strongly) my previously stated idea that the result should be a no consensus close or relist (or even keep); I think the arguments made for keep side were based on policy so the closing admin should not have dismissed them in favor of the other side and arguments on other AfDs. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn (relist, no consensus or even keep would have been within discretion). The keep !votes were given less weight on grounds of assertion but the assertions seem to be of opinions rather more than facts. It looks to me that the delete !votes also asserted opinions. Some people argued for deletion based only on failing WP:PROF but that is an argument contrary to our notability guidelines. Now. people may !vote contrary to the guidelines (they are only guidelines) but it is important to say why in the particular case the guidelines are not appropriate and why WP:GNG should not apply. I agree with the closer that it was argued that the references were largely about research involvement. I also agree this was not well refuted. However, I don't know there is any policy or guideline that references must extend beyond research involvement to avoid article or BLP deletion - therefore I don't think refutation was required. So, technically, matters were somewhat defective but there is no reason to criticise one side over the other. Indeed, I see no need to have criticised at all. It was an exceptionally worthwhile discussion and it seems not to have reached a consensus. Note: the userfied version has no history so I could not see if that was current when the AFD was closed. Thincat (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse. Nominator, who is plenty familiar with the DRV process, has not attempted to discuss the matter with the closer first, which is a prerequisite to listing. Stifle (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

:* There was an extensive prior discussion at the closer's talkpage. It seemed fairly clear that they weren't budging. Andrew D. (talk) 12:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

:: (edit conflict) Oh, that's a rather dubious suggestion. The matter was discussed with the closer[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spartaz&oldid=693246724#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FRhonda_Patrick] although the nominator did not open the discussion or contribute. Spartaz asked for more references for review and some were provided but when he commented later he did not refer to this aspect. This DRV was only started many hours later (but I would have waited longer). Thincat (talk) 12:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn Especially for reasons of WP:GNG as elaborated on by {{u|SusunW}} at length on the original AfD. Additionally, I'd also like to point out any discussion of YouTubing is somewhat misleading since the channels in question are actually more far well-known on the Apple iTunes platform than on YouTube ([http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blogs/doug-elfman/joe-rogan-s-three-hour-podcast-show-tops-11-million-monthly-downloads possibly up to around 730,000 views per episode]) . See original discussion at length on Spartaz talk page. Whether this formally contributes to notability in a formal (if not practical) sense, however, I understand is debatable (for reasons of WP:RS). this unsigned comment was by Snazzywiki

:*You're arguing WP:BIGNUMBER? Agricola44 (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC).

::* YouTube nor podcasts themselves actually qualify as WP:RS, so not in this case. Thank you for the link, it's a helpful read. Snazzywiki (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

::: WP:BIGNUMBER makes a strong case, but a) it isn't a policy and b) I'm not sure it is correct in 2015 anyway. The problem seems to still exist: is a widely viewed podcast (youtube, itunes whatever) notable? If not, why not? What makes a broadcast radio show notable whereas something distributed via a different method not notable? And if a pundit appears regularly on a show which is notable, does that make them a notable pundit? I simply don't think we have a policy that covers this and I can't see how we can possibly get consensus when there are very strong opinions that hold the current policies do not apply to this situation. JMWt (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

::::The answer is that reliable sources require some sort of independent editorial oversight, which blogs and U-Tubes don't have. Self-published sources are not considered to be reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC).

{{outdent}} I'm not sure that's a given (ie there is no reason to think that youtube channels or podcasts are any more or less independently edited that any other form of broadcast media today). Some are, some aren't. As to the other point: the sources are not here being used to verify facts but to assess notability. I don't think that it makes a whole lot of difference to notability if the pundit appears on a podcast rather than having a column in a newspaper (with comparable circulation) today. JMWt (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

::Editorial standards still necessitate things like reliability and permanence. For example, it would be an entirely different matter if the YouTube videos themselves were cited in a publication, something like a medical reference that said "Dr Patrick, a well-known web commentator on health, indicated...". I don't think YouTube count is convincing for precisely this reason. Whether the policy should be changed is a separate discussion. I think DGG was correct in the AfD: there are so many obvious cases of notable women lacking WP bios who should be at the top of the priority list. It's regrettable to waste so much of everyone's time on these extreme edge cases (and I think it hurts the cause too, as it gives the impression of pushing an agenda). Agricola44 (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC).

• If RAN hadn't listed this at DRV without any discussion with me when i was still considering the reps on my talk page its likely I would have undone my own close as its clear that its not quite as cut and dried as I had supposed when closing but since he decided a discussion was required, I'm happy for this to run its course. I'd personally suggest a relist to consider whether the sources discuss the individual or their work - and, if in the case of the latter, whether a standalone article or section in another article is more appropriate. Given the immediate and missive pill-on on ly talk page I wonder whether there is some coordination going on as there appears to be a gender gap issue here that might be bringing like-minded people together to discuss the issue. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

:: One has to assume good faith, I think. I think it was a tough call and people thought differently about your decision to close, and wanted to continue the conversation - which has, on the whole, been respectful. JMWt (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

::*This discussion made me check to see if there is any policy or guideline that says BLP sources should discuss the individual in depth rather than mainly their work. I could not find any, but started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Known mainly by their works. Response has been underwhelming. I suspect that changing the policy to say either "they should" or "they do not have to" will be impossible, but "do not have to" would get more votes. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)