- Andrew Dismukes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This is a request to review the propriety of applying a non-admin WP:SNOWCLOSE to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Dismukes. The SNOW was applied 10 hours after the AfD discussion was opened and after just three non-policy based !votes were registered (e.g. "Who are we trying to cancel next, Liz Cheney?!", "He's a cast member and writer on SNL" and "The very night he complains on his national television show that his article doesn't have a photo, suddenly that article gets nominated for deletion?! Obviously, someone was watching."). The closer, in a comment on their Talk page, indicates their close was based on a headcount ("In 10 hours that the AfD was open you got 3 Strong Keep !votes" [1]) It is not unusual, in AfD, for the initial batch of !votes to veer one way or the other, which is why we have a customary seven day discussion except in exceptional circumstances. SNOW specifically directs closers that "Especially, closers should beware of interpreting "early pile on" as necessarily showing how a discussion will end up."
This is not a request to review if this article should or should not be deleted, this is a request to review whether discussion should be terminated after 10 hours on the basis of three early pile-on !votes that were not policy-based. Chetsford (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh. If I were an admin, I'd revert the WP:BADNAC. But, even if that were the case, looking at the article, the AfD, and doing the most cursory of BEFORE searches, there's snow in the forecast. So not really sure what the right answer is here. SportingFlyer T·C 19:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree a cursory search would support a
DeleteKeep conclusion. A nuanced and detailed search would not, I believe, support such a conclusion. One of the DeleteKeep !voters used a WP:GOOGLETEST argument which, as I acknowledge in the OP, does produce extensive results. On drilling down into them, however, we realize these are merely the appearance of a name in cast and credit lists and the substance of biographical matter is sourced to non-RS. These are arguments that would, correctly, be made over a period of days in an AfD discussion. However, the shut-down of discussion after ten hours precluded such argument from occurring. Chetsford (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC); edited 20:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to get drawn into an AfD argument at DRV, so I'll leave it at this, but I'd be surprised if you get even one other person to agree with you on this. I can provide WP:GNG sources in WP:RS if needed, and the program he's on has cultural relevance both in the US and abroad to the point where simply appearing is about as close to a notability lock you can get for that particular type of comedian. The procedure was incorrect, but the result's going to be the exact same. SportingFlyer T·C 21:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "the program he's on has cultural relevance both in the US and abroad to the point where simply appearing is about as close to a notability lock you can get for that particular type of comedian" We have specific criteria for inherent notability of actors under WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER and being a supporting cast member of Saturday Night Live television comedy program is not among those. Therefore, this BLP has to meet the GNG guidelines. Since the arguments against Delete advanced a substantially similar argument - that merely appearing on the Saturday Night Live television comedy program constituted inherent notability when our guidelines establish no such standard - they were not based in policy and a ten-hour close based on three non policy-based arguments is not what is envisaged by WP:SNOW. Chetsford (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it's not inherently notable, no specific role is, but anyone who is a supporting cast member will inevitably pass GNG, as Dismukes does. The close was inappropriate and an admin should just come by and undo it, but this was a WP:TROUT-worthy nomination in the first place. SportingFlyer T·C 23:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- anyone who is a supporting cast member will inevitably pass GNG Unless we've recently adopted lower GNG standards for U.S.-based actors than the revolving door of Indian actors with more extensive credits than Dismukes whom we (correctly) purge daily, I can't imagine any world in which this is true. Like most actor BLPs for the American TV show "Saturday Night Live," the BLP is tortuously sourced to fleeting and incidental mentions in cast lists and show summaries in RS while biographical detail relies on non-RS sources. The result, for many of these, are actor BLPs that represent questionable snapshots in time of rep players that never were (i.e. Paul Brittain, who may actually be notable but barely so, though with a more extensive claim to it than this guy) and who disappear into obscurity after their run is done. While notability is not temporary, on the question of SNL BLPs we have allowed ourselves to indulge a CRYSTALBALL mentality in the permission of these BLPs which assigns to them inherent notability by inference, even if we're careful to say that's not what we're doing. But, I digress. Chetsford (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist - since we are here to discuss the formal procedure, a WP:BADNAC, closing was by far too quick CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and Relist:
- The closer was out of line. The fact that the nomination was silly is not important here. The appeal here by the nominator is not silly.
- Maybe we need stronger instructions discouraging non-administrative snow closes. If there is an important reason why a nomination has to be snow closed, isn't it likely that an admin will agree to do the snow close?
- The statement that there were three pile-on non-policy !votes is wrong. One of the pile-on !votes cited notability guidelines. The fact that it also cited non-policy reasons doesn't make it non-policy. But it was a BADNAC.
- Maybe we need stronger instructions discouraging non-administrative snow closes.
Robert McClenon (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, first, I appreciate the enthusiasm. However, I don't think there's any particular urgency to reopening/relisting it so it might be advisable to let the discussion here run its course. But, I'm a biased participant in this discussion so will defer to you and others on how to proceed. Chetsford (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Reopen/Relist Even if a SNOW close was appropriate, the floor I've always respected is 6-0 in 24 hours, not 3-0 in 10. Still, SNOW isn't ever essential or necessary and I agree that a premature SNOW NAC which leads to a DRV doesn't serve the purpose of shortcutting a pointless discussion. Jclemens (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Reopen and relist. Textbook WP:BADNAC. A good heuristic: The closure being challenged in good faith is a sign that the decision was controversial and therefore ineligible for a non-admin close. A self-revert would have avoided the above ink being spilled. czar 01:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn, too little for a snow close but yeah, this is getting kept. Hobit (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|
