Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 3

< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log
< December 2 Deletion review archives: 2008 December December 4 >

3 December 2008

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The articles for The Mary Pearl Willis Foundation and Lela Howard restored to user:Dembravesfans, so I can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion.Dembravesfans 19:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Jack Schaap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

This page was deleted on April 18, 2007, almost two years ago, and salted from creation. I have now created a full length, non-stub, referenced, notability-establishing article in my sandbox here. I would like to have the page unprotected so I can move the article that is in my sandbox, as it is quite notable, into the Jack Schaap article. Thank you. American Eagle (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, he said he didn't want a Wikipedia article? I didn't know that. And by the way, in my WP:OSE comment saying, I wasn't that is why the article should be recreated, only that it shouldn't be the only reason to delete an article (not having sources). Sources don't establish notability, facts to do. Sources verify them, and the draft article has many reliable sources (even though some are sites related to him). -- American Eagle (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have given this a lot of thought, and have decided to withdraw this request. It hurts me a lot, as I worked on it for multiple hours, but I am set on this. Though he is semi-notable, it fails some WP:BLP issues, especially with the OTRS reports. -- American Eagle (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems fine, permit recreation. Stifle (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. A year and a half has passed so he may be more notable now. I can't tell from the AfDs why this was protected in the first place except for the OTRS point but there seems no reason to retain the protection. The proposed article has a slightly POV tone but that's no reason to stop it being put in the article space now. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 22:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt. Allow recreation. If anyone has a problem with the article that results, they can restart the deletion process anew. Bucketsofg 00:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I strongly suggest we look at the OTRS tag before we undelete? That seems to have been a non-issue since after that deletion the article was created and then went through an AfD. But it would be nice to have confirmation that the OTRS report isn't an issue here. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak don't-restore - The original article apparently had some POV and soapboxing problems, which led to BLP problems. This article doesn't have that, but it was also deleted due to a request from the subject and because he was very marginally notable. The proposed article still doesn't seem to go past marginal notability, so I'm not really inclined to suggest it be recreated. Most of the sources seem to be from organizations that he's associated with and it seems to mostly be some inherited notability from the organizations he leads. (otrs:718714, otrs:647767, and otrs:621092 for reference). Mr.Z-man 07:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Echo Mr Z man This looks like a perfectly defensible deletion of a marginally notazble individual by request. This is allowed under BLP and until notability improves there is no reason to revisit this. Spartaz Humbug! 20:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit re-creation; the original article simply did not show notability. The present does make a plausible claim, although the first half is a little hagiographic. (and I use the word in a more literal sense than usual). I haven't the least idea whether or not the subject wants the present version of the article, but I now think it's irrelevant. DGG (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The OTRS tickets suggest the subject simply doesn't want and article and I'm not seeing any reason to believe that just because the article gets rewritten they would change their stance. I'm curious why you think their opinion is irrelevant because in the case of a marginally notable BLP it is. Spartaz Humbug! 14:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A plausible claim, but not one that I'm convinced would stand up to an AFD. It has lots of refs and links, but only a couple that might barely meet the "independent of the subject" part, if his wife and father-in-law are considered independent. And those 2 don't seem to meet the "significant coverage" part, and this (the host of the source by the father-in-law) doesn't look especially reliable. Mr.Z-man 17:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't restore By my reckoning there is only one reliable source independent of the subject, and that one is the definition of trivial, literally a listing of his name. While it may be verifiable that he holds posts, does work and publishes, the dearth of independent sourcing means that having an article on him against his wishes on a top ten website than anyone can edit is unjustifiable. 86.44.17.192 (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore because the article was deleted for notability concerns, and it seems like those concerns have been met. If the article becomes a problem, it can always be put up for AfD again, but that doesn't look like that will be the case. Tavix (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted I find the notability claims very suspect, almost every source included seems to have either the subject's name on it or that of his wife or an institution he is affiliated with. This wouldn't necessarily be such a problem for any other article that had substantially changed from the previous version but this is a BLP where a questionable notable subject has requested the article to be deleted. In all I think that many of the concerns brought up in the previous AfD discussions have not been adequately dealt with in the draft as it is. Guest9999 (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.


Leroy Jethro Gibbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

  • Relist. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leroy Jethro Gibbs (2nd nomination) was inappropriately closed after less than 24 hours without any clear consensus (views were evenly split) and on incorrect interpretation of the debate. The AfD was proposing deletion, per lack of real world notability and per precedent of related characters, not merger. The result of speedy keep. and reject nomination reflected the closing admin's view but there was no consensus on that result. This is a substantive procedural error. The AfD should be reopened and allowed to run its course. McWomble (talk) 08:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Articles should not be sent to AFD to force a discussion on merger, and that seems to be what you were aiming for. However, if you actually want to delete the article, then open a new AFD and say so. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my own closure. As stated in the AFD, the merger was discussed, but there wasn't consensus about it yet. Using AFD to get around a merge discussion and delete the material instead is even less appropriate than listing mergers on AFD. - Mgm|(talk) 09:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've reinstated the original redirect made by McWomble because the person who disagreed with it said "Undid revision 254919632 by McWomble (I want to read a detailed page about each main character. We should improve this article, not delete it." That is a personal opinion, not rooted in policy and mistakenly assuming the article was deleted when a suitable amount of material was kept elsewhere. - Mgm|(talk) 09:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional note Since the material was already merged (by McWomble), removing the article history for the original character articles would violate GFDL rules. (this also applies to the other characters on AFD at the moment) - Mgm|(talk) 10:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure- it, and the other NCIS character articles, were rather pointy nominations made after a merge discussion went awry. Closing it was the proper course of action. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse outcome of conversion to a redirect. I do not think WP needs biographic articles on every fictional character in a TV series. The appropriate place for that would be on a website provided by the makers of the series. TV series tend to be ephemeral, here this year gone next. An article on the series may be encyclopedic, but I consider the character to be NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • '
  • Wait If it does get merged, there won't be anything to discuss. If not, wait until consensus clears up a little on these characters before renominating. DGG (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - and relist. There's a severe abuse of process here. The closing admin ended the AfD early with a keep, without waiting for a full discussion. They then effectively deleted the article, by redirecting it to another article that is about 5% of the length of the original article. Finally, I've spent 4 days discussing this with the closing admin, trying to avoid starting a DRV - and now when I give up, and come to DRV, I discover that not only was it started days ago, but the closing admin was trying to talk me out of going the DRV route, and failed to inform me that they already participating in a DRV. Nfitz (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to admit here, this was a severe omission on my part. I totally forgot about this DRV when I started the discussion with Nfitz. The cause? Probably working on too many pages at the same time combined with real life. I can do nothing else than apologize. - Mgm|(talk) 00:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, I don't have any reason to believe that Mgm knowingly mislead me. Though I remain concerned that shortly after he prematurely closed the AfD as a Keep, he replaced the page by a redirect, even though virtually none of the material was merged into the other article. Nfitz (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.


List of fictional swords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Bad Faith & very Disparaging Nomination. Charges of "useless" & "unmaintainable list of indiscriminate information" were completely unfounded. Undue weight was given to "delete" (without reasonings) & "delete per nom" !votes. Lack of any reasoning has led to further discussions on closing admins Talk page Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 06:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Isnt that part of the point of WP:Civil(a Core Principal and Policy)? By endorsing this closure and all the "Per Noms" that followed suite, they (and all whom criticise WP), in affect, are being told that this kind of behaviour is "Right" and "the Norm" for WP. I am still wondering what the Deletion Rational is useing as its basis for deletion, as no style guide, policy, guideline or actual problems were pointed out in the Article itself. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 04:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all. It is quite possible to condemn the nominator's incivility while still judging all the other participants' arguments on their merits. That's what I've done in my endorsement. Reyk YO! 04:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But then it goes into territory I do not understand. Please explain to me how the 6 additional !votes ascribing WP:IINFO (or whatever other shortcut to the same place) actually applies to this list? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further...endorsing the deletion is an appropriate route, too. If we don't get upset about the nomination itself and judge the deletion on the basis of gauging consensus, "delete" is a reasonable conclusion. By adding this I only mean to say that when this DRV is closed I don't want my suggestion to relist the debate as being in contravention to my suggestion that the decision was a proper one. Protonk (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse despite the tone of the nomination, a delete close was a reasonable interpretation of that AfD. RMHED (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- the original nomination may have been quite hostile but there was no bad faith or pointy behaviour. And there were plenty of additional reasons for deletion given, both before and after the attempted cleanup. The closing admin made a judgement based on the evidence and arguments presented, and almost certainly made the right call. Reyk YO! 02:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to "no consensus" — looking at the AFD again, I have observed the following:
Hence, at the very least, there exists no clear consensus to delete, and if we even exercise the option of ignoring the rules and endorse this AFD result, we would be setting a poor example for AFD nominations, not to mention opening the door for other tendentious editors to nominate articles for deletion, use whatever personal volition/agendas they have, and get away with it. I would also, as others, like to hear the rationale for deletion from the closing admin. MuZemike (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note that WP:AADD is an essay and reliance on it when it is not supported by consensus should be done cautiously. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seeing as how NOREASON is a basic violation of policy (it would allow for votestacking) and supporting the nominator in this case is a variation of the same thing, I see no reason not to rely on AADD here. It's received a nice amount of support in the past, so I would like to see it made into a guideline. - Mgm|(talk) 09:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would vehemently oppose that, but this is the wrong place to discuss that. May I point you to Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument for some alternative views? Stifle (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You cannot just say Delete and then your signature (same with keep). It does not contribute anything at all to the discussion. Even the deletion policy is clear that AFDs are not determined by a simple "head count," which is what that portion of WP:ATA addresses. MuZemike (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, that's not 100% true. If I had a deletion debate with 3 well reasoned "keeps" and 100 "deletes" with no reason from longstanding editors, I would be more hesitant to close it as "keep" than if I had one with 3 well reasoned "Keeps" and no delete votes. I think that demanding the articulation of a reasoning is important but that a comment presented without reasoning isn't inherently rejected. These discussions aren't determined by headcount but they aren't determined merely by weighing reasoning regardless of how many people hew to it. "Weighing consensus" in the absence of unanimity or near-unanimity means balancing those two poles. Protonk (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist A bad-faith nom can still result in a consensus to delete if most of the delete votes ignore the nominator. Many of the delete !votes ignored the nominator's "rationale" and focused on Wikipedia policy (although it is is troubling that three delete !votes were "per nom"). Most of the keep !votes were directed at the nominator and not the article in question. A relisting that ignores the bad-faith of the nominator will achieve a more accurate consensus which focuses on the merits of the article and not the motivation behind it's nomination. Themfromspace (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist and discuss the topic in a more civil manner this time. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The nomination and support of it is a better focus for our inferiority complex than the article. 86.44.17.192 (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore I think more important than whether one article is - or was - rightfully deleted is the generally principle of civility on Wikipedia. I do not think that the AfD in question should ever be looked at as an example of a WP:CONSENSUS forming, discussed based process that AfD is meant to be. The general temperament and language of the discussion should not be rewarded or acknowledged as part of Wikipedia process unless it is to be seen as an acceptable way to "do business" here. Guest9999 (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not comfortable restoring the article solely on the basis of the tone of the nomination, though this is about as close as it could be before I would say so. How would you feel about relisting it? IT would of course be restored while it is relisted (so that it is just like any other AfD. Protonk (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it was restored I wouldn't see anything wrong with the article being immediately relisted it if someone wanted to nominate it, although I think it would be better if an actual policy based deletion rationale were given rather than "procedural nom per DRV" which seems to sometimes happen in these instances. Guest9999 (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with that would be that people would take one look at the time of the last AfD and vote to keep it. We seem to have people here and in that AfD who feel that the list doesn't meet the inclusion criteria. If the nomination prevented a proper discussion from occurring, shouldn't we restart it? Protonk (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a moot point anyway, because the inflammatory nomination did not prevent a proper discussion occurring. There were enough reasonable arguments there to satisfy me that everything was above board. I oppose overturning consensus on procedural grounds. Reyk YO! 21:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Due to inflammatory nomination. I believe that the afd should be discussed in a more civilized manner.--Lenticel (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist It should be discussed again, civilly. – Alex43223 T | C | E 09:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and relist, reminding participants to review the article as it stands and try to ignore the previous AfD as much as possible. The AfD was tainted beyond usefulness by the incivil nomination, which should not be rewarded with success. More substantially, the balance of the "delete" recommendations were either "per nom" and thus just as invalid as the original nomination, or made without explanation at all, and thus useless as recommendations. I would welcome a discussion in which contributors can actually discuss the merits of the article. Powers T 14:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn as no consensus as it is a discriminate list that serves a navigational purpose as a table of contents, but especially because the nomination is insulting and many deletes are unsubstantiated “votes” with WP:ITSCRUFT and WP:PERNOM style of non-arguments. In this particular case, given the incivility of the nomination, deletes “per nom” are all the more disturbing. Whether you think the article should be deleted or not, we have to take a stand against blatant incivility. I would never want to be party to a deletion in which the nomination attacks fellow editors and readers and I would hope no one else would either. This discussion should have been speedily closed for that reason alone. Moreover, an AfD is for a discussion and not a vote. Three of the deletes in the "discussion" only have “delete” followed by a signature. Three more only have “delete” followed by “per nom,“ and the nomination has already been discredited. Others cite mere essays about “cruft”, which are not policies or guidelines. Which only leaves us with repetitive calls that it is indiscriminate, and yet we know that is not true because it has a clear discriminate criteria for inclusion. Only swords. And only fictional swords at that. And per our other policies and guidelines, as is understood, only fictional swords verified in reliable sources. As far as saying it is unsalvageable, practically everything that is not just made up nonsense is improvable, including this article. Finally, an article such as this one serves as a table of contents to other articles. Also, can the article be undeleted for the duration of this discussion as not all of us are admins and therefore cannot see it and thus whether or not the comments in the discussion are accurate? Thanks! Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.


User:Apovolot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD))

{{{no consensus}}} Apovolot (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment by Closer - I guess the user is saying that he believes there was no consensus for deletion based on the number of !votes or the content of the comments. Editors who are familiar with MfD will understand that discussion is often pretty thin, especially on relatively inoffensive userpages, which may often bring in fewer of the more experienced editors than a highly controversial userbox. At the same time consensus isn't determined by counting the !votes and there are well established precedents at MfD for deletion of userpages that violate WP:USER based upon many, many, discussions of these issues. The close calls that generate a lot of discussion are those where an individual does some level of editing but spends most of the time in userspace and has a lot of personal information on the userpage - the borderline MySpace pages that arguably tell more than necessary about the user. I close a lot of MfDs and I always err on the side of the user; however, I am very familiar with community consensus on userpage material and the keep comments were not in line with policy or its past interpretation at MfD. This was a clear attempt (not necessarily in bad faith, more likely through misunderstanding) to use Wikipedia as a publishing medium for the user's own theories. A review of the user's edits shows that he has used usertalk for forum like discussions of these same theories and has spent a fair amount of space complaining of censorship when others complain that his pages should be deleted; although these are both beyond the scope of this DRV they further show his misunderstanding of the project. These theories as published on the user's page were not likely to ever result in an article because any such article would be WP:OR/WP:COI. If the theories were published elsewhere in reliable third party sources, someone else might have made a good article about them but the material on the user's page would then have been superfluous. If the user had published these theories and they had proved significant enough in the field to result in third party reports, awards, etc. it might be OK to note them on the user's page to indicate the level of expertise the user has in the field; particularly if he were an experienced editor. But that set of facts is not before us and I believe that it is recognized at MfD that allowing people to turn their userpages into OR publishing sites would violate policy and at some level eventually do real harm to the project.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 07:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The keep arguments were the better based in policy. It was held , and held correctly, that an article on this material was not yet justified, being the first publication of original research. But the presentation here is simply a summary of the authors thinking on the subject--a sketch of ideas to be worked out elsewhere. Many of us have undeveloped ideas about fields we are interested in on our user pages --material which well might never result in a Wikipedia article, but none the less is relevant in showing what we are thinking about. I do not see what harm this serves--a user can speculate in a reasonable way if he chooses.This is well within acceptable content. Now, if he were to develop this into full scale proofs at the level of a potentially publishable article, then it should go elsewhere on space of his own, and he could refer to it. But I don't see it as that far developed. Perhaps those who still have doubts would feel better with it on a subpage? DGG (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, as there wasn't a visible consensus to delete. I support DGG's suggestion of using a subpage though, because the main userpage should be about the user. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The material violates WP:UP. A Wikipedia is not a free webhost for extensive material completely unrelated to the project, especially if it involves original research of the user. What was posted here is rather more than a few general throughts about "life, universe and everything" that are typically acceptable on a userpage in broader context. Per WP:UP, a Wikipedia userpage is for things that are related to the user's activities here, on Wikipedia, such as articles the user created or worked on, wikiprojects and general interests, barnstars, brief personal information and so on. Some general comments about one's interests are certainly acceptable, especially if given in broader context of what a user does do here on Wikipedia. But the sort of thing the user had on this page went well beyond that and into the realm of specific mathematical research: three very specific mathematical conjectures, due to the user himself, that, as the page indicated, he intends to publish elsewhere. Using a Wikipedia userpage for publicizing specific research of this nature is inappropriate. This belongs somewhere else: on an external personal webpage, or a newsgroup (such as sci.math.research), or a chatroom or bulletin board or a preprint server. The material is not suitable for a subpage either. As pointed out both by myself and by the closing admin in the MfD, there is no likelihood of this material being able to become a Wikipedia article any time soon. The material is unpublished and can only become notable, in the sense of WP:N, a few years after (and if) it is published. Nsk92 (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I believe in, and feel both policy and common practice permit, giving considerable lattitude in user space. I think the concerns here could be addressed by making it a sub-page as DGG mentioned, and placing a {{noindex}} template on the page. If the user is agreeable to those things, there shouldn't be a problem. If the tag were to be removed, that could be an indication of a purpose inconsistent with permissible use here. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{{no action needed at DRV}}} Seriously now. Let's not be cute. Protonk (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn When I saw this DRV I expected something much longer and more obtrusive than what I see in the google cache version of the user page. Discussing, deleting and reviewing such minutiae takes more time, detracts more from encyclopedia improvement than just letting things lie possibly could. De minimis non curat lex. WP:USER says user pages are appropriate for "helping other editors to understand with whom they are working." and frowns on "Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) ". As it is, it tells us the author has made these conjectures and thinks they're important, and so IMHO is quite helpful in informing other editors with whom they are working. As it is not so "extensive" to be prohibited, it seems to comply with our policy. And besides, there was no consensus to delete.John Z (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn with serious reservations. I agree that there wasn't as much concensus to delete as would be hoped, and that theoretically might be cause for overturning in itself. But there are a lot of MfDs with little input, and I would very much dislike seeing lack of a clear consensus of cast votes be seen as grounds for reversal, as so many get so few opinions expressed on them at all, and I personally know I have myself at times refrained from "piling on" on MfD discussions when it seemed obvious to me that one side had put forward its position clearly and well, and the other hadn't. I am also concerned about the page's creator's history of creating articles on his opinions, as indicated by comments on his talk page and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander R. Povolotsky's problem 1, as they can rather easily give the impression that the editor might be seeking to use wikipedia as a free webhost in violation of policy. My personal opinion is that restoring the content, moving it to a user subpage and "noindexing" it might be the best way to go in the current situation for now, with potential review later if existing concerns about misuse of wikipedia space are not alleviated by editor's future actions. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - no valid arguments for the retention of this blatant violation of WP:UP. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

July 29 in rail transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Overturn: In this AfD, I believe there was a consensus to delete but the closing admin closed it with a no consensus because he said as we weren't trying to get the article deleted, but trying to reorganize it, so it wasn't deleted. I feel like this call was made in error and deleting the articles would be best way to "reorganize" as it is just a bunch of trivia. The closing admin also has to keep in mind that this nomination was in good faith, and I don't find it to be flawed in any way. I saw an article that could use deletion, and I used AfD. Simple as that.Tavix (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's fair to any of the participants to let the debate go on this long, with this much discussion, and then close it with "This debate is flawed, because WP:AFD is not the place to have debates about content." Nor is the closing admin's suggestion to start this all over again, somewhere else (WikiProject Trains), at all productive. The debate was never about trains, but about whether day-by-day articles of this nature are consistent with policy. The nominator tagged each of the articles and went through the nomination procedure, people discussed Wikipedia policy, and the admin even noted that "the weight of community opinion in this debate is substantially against this structure." Stating at the end of the debate, that it didn't matter -- that's not a satisfactory way to close this. Mandsford (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Though I want to continue with "… and reclose as delete," which I think is the result justified by the arguments offered in the discussion (particularly the WP:NOT-based ones), I will not do so. It appears that the closer's "no consensus," instead of constituting an actual interpretation of the discussion, expressed a refusal to interpret the discussion, with a suitably noncommittal choice from the closure options. For this reason, the closure is flawed. Someone else should close this who is willing to engage with the arguments presented; whether the result turns out to be "keep," "delete," or "no consensus," at least the discussion will have been judged rather than brushed aside. (Note: I did not participate in the AfD itself.) Deor (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I now notice that the nominator here doesn't appear to have attempted to discuss the closure with Mangojuice, the closer, before bringing this to DRV. I wish he had, per the instructions at the top of this page. Deor (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - as it's a clearcut case of non-encyclopedic cross-categorization (day and train related events in completely different years), but essentially I concur with Deor, it would be preferable to see what the closing admin has to say first.--Boffob (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Regardless of the closing admin's actual statement, a no consensus close is perfectly reasonable here. Opinions were well divided and many of the arguments on both sides were weak. Further, the full list of pages was added after more than a dozen people had already commented on the AFD. If anything is improper in the AFD, that was. Mr.Z-man 03:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I already explained myself on the AfD, that I became busy right after I nominated it and couldn't get back on for a little while. If someone really would change their vote because I nominated the other articles (of the exact same nature), they had 4.5 days to do so. Tavix (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my own close, because in the end there wasn't consensus either way. I was trying to suggest how consensus might be built in my closure statement but it seems people would rather continue the contentious route than seek points of agreement. "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization" was the only remotely appropriate deletion reason. First of all, this isn't a category. Second, this is surely a cross-categorization of information, but what is non-encyclopedic about it is entirely in the eye of the beholder. There's an argument that organizing by date is uninteresting but clearly some disagreed, and it was pointed out also that categorizing information by calendar date is hardly arbitrary. So how about following my suggestion and discussing the matter with those who edit rail articles instead? Mangojuicetalk 03:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sad There was a censensus, if you actually read the whole lot, the keep excuses are really quite sad and were all rebuffed. Its amazing that the closing admin does not seem to understand what cross-categorization is. The events have absolutetly NOTHING in common with each other, apart form having occured on the same day of the same month. The only keep argument is that its useful for browsing is nonsensical, who browses between events which are related only by the day of the year they happen to have occured in? No one. The average article has 3 or 4 enteries. I am sure some users have emassed many thousands of edits scrapping all this together. endorse because wikipedia is crazy, only the original article should have been nominated and it would have got deleted, because it wasn't we will now be stuck with all the articles, non of which we will be able to delete.--Dacium (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and applaud Mangojuice's interpretation of AfD policy. Content or merge disputes need to be settled on the article's talk page or the talk page of the Wikiproject. There was a three-way debate at the AfD between people who wanted the article left as stood, who wanted the content moved elsewhere, and who wanted the article and content deleted. A three way debate like this is not what AfD is about and clearly no consensus was achieved from it. The content dispute should be taken up elsewhere first and that could result in a consensus to move the information elsewhere and redirect the article. If the article stands for some time after this decision then I have no prejudice against the article being renominated. Themfromspace (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I wasn't and still am not convinced either way about the merits of the articles themselves. However, having followed the AfD closely, I'd agree that there was no consensus formed — much heat and not enough light. Additionally, the nomination was a mess, what with the bulk of the articles being added after the additional listing but not tagged until a day-and-a-half after the addition and with the nominator inappropriately removing another user's comments (mine) from the discussion. I agree with the closing administrator that opening a discussion with the Railway project would be a useful next step — if that doesn't gain any traction, then one of the articles can be renominated for deletion after an appropriate time has passed in an effort to both develop a consensus and establish a precedent that can be applied to the remaining articles in the set. Mlaffs (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop and talk I also looked at closing this but got distracted by RL before I could follow through. There was an overwhelming majority of policy based reasons given in the discussion to delete and most of the keep arguments were of the ITSUSEFUL and ILIKEIT type but, and here is the kicker, I wouldn't have closed this as delete either. Close reading of the discussion showed that many of the delete votes were variants of "this is badly laid out and needs to be merged somewhere but no idea where". There are far too many articles to summarily delete them without exhausting the merge discussions and I would have had closed this as "go away and discuss this with a wider community first and only come back if there is no chance of finding the right merge target". Please bear in mind that I am about as deletion minded as you can find in an admin and I absolutely would not have pressed the button. Please go and have a proper discussion with all stakeholders and see if you can come up with an agreed format for a merge target. Spartaz Humbug! 06:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, with some grumbling since I voted to delete these articles. I still think that the encyclopedic value of these articles is dubious, but while I think the reasons given to delete are solid, they are not so powerful that they will trump consensus or the lack of consensus. I concede that those arguing "keep" were not altogether unreasonable in pointing out that "this day in..." topics are of some interest to a layman reader, and that anniversaries are sometimes covered in media, although I disagree with them that this is the kind of topic which should make its way into an encyclopedia. If I were Wikipedia's dictator I would have these articles deleted, but since I'm not, there has to be a consensus for deletion, or some major breach of WP:V or WP:NOR, and that was not there in this case. I stated my opinion in the AFD, I stand by that opinion, but I am forced to concede that my opinion didn't enthuse everyone. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I do not believe there was a clear consensus either way therefore the outcome of no consensus was correct. McWomble (talk) 08:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse No consensus expresses the situation. The community simply does not know what i wants to do with these articles. Since very general issues are involved, that could affect the creation of sets of 366 articles on many different topics, this really needs some what to be decided generally. My own suggestion would be by experiment: let these rail transport articles be created , and see what people thing of it as a prototype. Then we can have a general discussion on whether to extend the experiment. I point out that if we are not going to sustain the close, I could give arguments why it should have beenan outright keep, rather than an outright delete. I think we're best off with the actual decision, and I congratulate Mangojuice for making it.DGG (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus, as there was nonse. I'm disappointed with the result, but the closure was correct. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not surprised to see all of the endorsements of a no consensus decision by other administrators. But let's not endorse the practice of closing a debate with statements that the discussion was "flawed" and should not have been conducted in the first place. I don't recall that anyone has to ask permission before nominating an article; and if that's actually a valid reason to stop a debate, it would be nice if someone told us to "shut up" early on-- not at the end of the discussion. Neither should anyone endorse the odd suggestion that this be brought instead as a debate in the WikiProject on Trains. One might as well propose gun control ideas at a National Rifle Association meeting. No, the debate will come up again, and it will come up again at Articles for Deletion. Mandsford (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've obviously never heard the old joke about how to get the NRA to support gun control. The NRA has 2 million members; take 2.5 million supporters of gun control to their next annual meeting, have them all join, and then vote support for gun control onto their platform.
Look, that's really not an appropriate analogy. When we need to discuss issues of general style on Wikipedia, we do it on the MOS talk page. When we need to discuss notability criteria for biographies, we do it on the WP:BIO talk page. When we need to discuss issues about infoboxes on movie articles, we do it on the Film project talk page. What's then so "odd" about the belief that the discussion about these articles should take place at the Trains project talk page?
Ultimately, you're making an assumption at the outset that there aren't people involved in that project who will be open to an honest critique of the articles, when I think there's ample evidence to the contrary. These articles were created by Slambo, who's a member of that project, that same creator has willingly and in good faith opened the discussion on that talk page as was suggested, and that same creator has also expressed some ideas about how to better use the information in the articles. If you want to have influence on that discussion, there's nothing to stop you or anyone else from contributing to that discussion, whether you're a member of the Trains project or not. Either way, I suspect the discussion will find a better home for the content, which would lend support to deletion of the articles, at which point we can proceed accordingly. If that suspicion is wrong, then a broader discussion will be appropriate, and it may need another kick at the can at AfD. But in the meantime, will it kill you to give a discussion without the drama that's implicit at AfD a chance at success? Mlaffs (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"all of the endorsements of a no consensus decision by other administrators" - Um, what? What does being an admin have to do with anything? I will assume that you simply meant that since admins are generally more experienced at judging consensus at AFDs that they are more likely to close things as no consensus. The argument to overturn based on the statement by the closing admin and ignoring the actual discussion (which had no consensus) is what's really flawed. We don't overturn otherwise correct decisions based on technicalities. Mr.Z-man 06:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OverturnWeak overturn See reply to Mangojuice's comment as "Move to Portal: namespace". My rationale? As I parse it, there were basically four views:
    1. Delete
    2. Keep
    3. Merge with the "year in rail transport" articles
    4. Move to portal space
There was also some talk about merging with the general day articles (like July 29), but that didn't get much traction, so I'll focus on the main four that I saw on my read-through. As I see it, the "delete" arguments can be read as "get this information out of the article namespace" and the "keep" arguments can be read as "this information should be kept available for the readers". According to at least one editor in the debate, the "merge" option wasn't necessary as the information was already duplicated in the year articles. The "move to portal space" option thus acts as a default option for all sides: it removes the articles from mainspace, it keeps the information available to the readers (albeit not as an "article") and the information is still available in the "year" articles. I also note that some of the delete voters explicitly mentioned that the move to portal space would be ok.
I initially was going to endorse this close, because I can see how it could reasonably be seen as "no consensus". However, I think the closer's rationale of Afd not being the correct venue was not correct, because there were good-faith "delete" votes made during the discussion. If no one was actually arguing to delete it, then of course Afd would have been the wrong venue. However, even if the nominator was misguided in taking it to Afd, the time to close as "wrong venue" was before those good-faith "delete" votes were made. Once editors vote to delete in good faith, it becomes a deletion discussion, and deletion of articles is what Afd is for, and there is nowhere else to go.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I think moving these to portal space is the best solution. But I hardly think that was the outcome of the debate. And BTW, the debate was not flawed as a deletion debate, it just didn't reach consensus. It was flawed if it is to be looked at, after the fact, as a debate about how best to present this material. Mangojuicetalk 15:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, but I don't think that's the best way to look at it. Yes, it didn't reach a consensus to delete, but that doesn't mean no consensus to do anything was there. Anyway, I don't think you made a horribly wrong decision. The debate could certainly have been read as no consensus by a reasonable admin (which you and the other voters above clearly are), so I'm not terribly chuffed about it. Cheers!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Mangojuice has it exactly right with his last comment. There was no consensus to delete these articles, as he properly found. There is considerable disagreement about what else should be done with them, but this discussion failed to generate a consensus to delete. As he alluded to in the comment above this one, while frequently you can distill consensus about what else should be done with an article - merge, redirect, etc. - that's not the primary purpose of the discussion, and given the broad unresolved content issues, one that really was beyond the scope of what could be accomplished here. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but if a solution acceptable to all sides has been proposed, why mandate that the decision be repeated elsewhere? I agree that there was a lot of debate about what would be done with them, but I think I see the various sides as much closer to consensus than the closer and many other contributors here do. Just an example of something well within the area of admin discretion, I guess.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because DRV isn't AFD round 2? Looking at the discussion, I see maybe 2 people supporting a merge to portal-space. Its an idea but not one favored in the AFD and DRV is not the place to have this discussion. No "decision" has been made anywhere yet. Its within the range of admin discretion I guess (pretty much anything is), but that's not how the admin closed it, and since there is an active discussion about this on the project talk page would probably not be appropriate as a close for this DRV (as it would basically circumvent that discussion entirely). Mr.Z-man 06:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're absolutely right that DRV should not circumvent the other discussion, and that DRV is not AfD round 2. I didn't think I was saying that it was a place to repeat the arguments for/against deletion, I was commenting on my read of the consensus as compared to Mangojuice's.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • How does one see a consensus for a merge to portal space? As I said, only a couple people even mentioned it. Mr.Z-man 07:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I explained in my !vote above: as the one option that satisfied all sides.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • No one actually favored a move to portal space: Slambo asked for time to do such a move if his arguments were rejected, and a couple of the delete commentors said they wouldn't object, but didn't even change their !votes. This is much like a debate where about half the people want an article deleted, about half want it kept, and one or two people want it merged. It is tempting to say that a merge "satisfies all sides." Merge voters very often think they are being the mediators -- they think merging is acceptable to those favoring deletion because the target doesn't get to keep having its own page, and they think it's acceptable to those favoring keep because the information will somehow be preserved. In such a debate, "no consensus" is the right outcome: it's not like a bunch of people got together and agreed that merging was a good idea; they got together and couldn't agree... and what's more, the topic of discussion wasn't whether to merge or not. So although it might satisfy all sides, the debate doesn't form a basis for it. If that solution is chosen, it's the closer acting not as an interpreter of a debate, but as an arbiter. Mangojuicetalk 13:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Whatever the outcome of the debate about a single day, this is one of a series of perhaps 100 articles giving rail-related anniversaries. Deleting this article by itself would be pointless, unless the nominator was willing to follow this up with a multiple nomination of the other 100 for AFD, tegether with the associated templates and categories. I am not clear what precedents there are for articles listing anniversaries; I am far from convinced of their merits, or of list-articles in general (except where they list redlinks to necessary, but missing, articles). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

PART One of the Constitution of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) PART Two of the Constitution of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) PART Three of the Constitution of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) PART Four of the Constitution of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) PART Five of the Constitution of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) PART Six of the Constitution of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) PART Seven of the Constitution of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) PART Eight of the Constitution of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) PART Nine of the Constitution of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

These are very important topics related to the Constitution of India and I am requesting the Admins to restore them. Thank you.Sumanch (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that these articles consist more or less entirely of the text of the constitution of India. Is that correct? If so, I think the deletion after trans-wikiing to Wikisource (assuming that's where they wound up) was eminently reasonable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These articles have been transwikied to wikisource:Constitution of India. There is no action to take here. I'll be closing this once I get this mess sorted out.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_December_3&oldid=1140261866"