User talk:Doczilla
|
Doczilla stays busy meeting real life deadlines and may not see inquiries soon.
The big lizard therefore will not always respond swiftly even though messages are appreciated. |
David J. Jackson AfD
[edit]Hi there. Can you elaborate on your closure rationale on David J. Jackson? We had three delete !votes (including the nom) and two keep !votes (both of which had policy-based rationales). Even if it's just a straight vote count that doesn't seem like a strong consensus, particularly when the discussion hadn't been relisted even once. Interested in your thoughts, thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- That two-sentence stub of an article? "David J. Jackson is a political science professor at Bowling Green State University in Ohio. He specializes in the relationships between entertainment and politics. He holds a BA from the University of Detroit, an MA from BGSU, and a Ph.D. from Wayne State University." Wikipedia is not an academic directory. After 7 years, the stub remained just that.
- NACADEMIC 7a, which you cited quite appropriately, only says that criterion 7 "may be satisfied" (may, not shall) if the person is frequently quoted and without specifying what counts as "frequently" in the first place. More important is criterion 7 itself: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." Other discussants were not convinced that Jackson made substantial impact. The information you and Goldsztajn helpfully provided (I was glad to see NEXIST cited) did not refute the other arguments and did not address this key issue: What exactly is Jackson supposed to be notable for? Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I said in my !vote what he’s notable for: “his area of expertise, which is celebrity influence on politics.” Not a major figure, clearly, but one who passes a criterion of an SNG. To base the close on its stub status “after seven years” as you said instead of the sources and rationales presented strikes me as a supervote, considering the lack of consensus in !votes after a single week. Would you be open to a relist or changing to a N/C? I’d like to improve the article based on the sources identified and that clearly asserts the claim to notability, but I’m worried about a recreation being subject to a G4 deletion or having a “delete” close held against a new article in an AfD should I create an expanded article on this topic. Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'd agree, response here appears to confirm close was a supervote. Doczilla, you're conflating content questions with notability. There was no refutation that the subject failed WP:AUTHOR. There's also a problem with the notion that the job of AfD is to determine what a subject is notable *for* (this is somewhat of a variant of treating AfD as cleanup): "What exactly is Jackson supposed to be notable for?" "were not convinced that Jackson made substantial impact." The existence of RS that satisfies our various SNG criteria is what determines notability, not our interpretation of the sources, that is for *content* discussion, not *notability* discussion. In general, the status of the article, unless something is particularly egregious (eg libel), is irrelevant to a notability discussion. There's certainly no community consensus that stubs of notable subjects should be deleted, whatever their age. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I said in my !vote what he’s notable for: “his area of expertise, which is celebrity influence on politics.” Not a major figure, clearly, but one who passes a criterion of an SNG. To base the close on its stub status “after seven years” as you said instead of the sources and rationales presented strikes me as a supervote, considering the lack of consensus in !votes after a single week. Would you be open to a relist or changing to a N/C? I’d like to improve the article based on the sources identified and that clearly asserts the claim to notability, but I’m worried about a recreation being subject to a G4 deletion or having a “delete” close held against a new article in an AfD should I create an expanded article on this topic. Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Deletion review for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David J. Jackson
[edit]An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David J. Jackson. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)