- Macedonia–Indonesia relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Six votes for keep, six for delete plus the nom. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macedonia–Indonesia relations.) Hardly what I would call consensus to delete. Also, considering the ongoing proposal to make these articles have per se notability akin to populated places, I suggest overturning to no consensus or extending debate.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you talk about this to Black Kite before raising the DRV, Cdog?
By the way, in view of how these DRVs inevitably play out, I just want to say that if anyone was thinking of popping by to tell us that it's not a vote: it's okay. You don't need to. We already know that.—S Marshall T/C 01:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse While marked as neither keep nor delete, Chris Cunningham (Thumperward) is clearly also arguing for delete. So it's 8 to 6 in favor of deletion, and as the closing admin notes in his statement, only one of the keep !votes actually references relevant policy/guidelines. Numerically, this is NC leaning towards delete, but when factoring in the strengths and weakness of the arguments, consensus favors deletion. Yilloslime TC 02:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to non-consensus. Whether or not we count votes, we don;t count votes that exactly that 6-6 vs 8-6 is substantially different. That much disagreement from established editors in a clear failure of consensus. And anyone who thinks there is any degree of consensus in this area more generally hasn't been following recent discussions--while I might conceivably like to see all such pairs have automatic notability, I strongly doubt there is consensus for anything like that. How to deal with individual articles when nobody agrees on the standards is a problem--the current practice seems to amount to a coinflip. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- weak overturn it's perhaps within admin discretion though I personally think NC would have been much better. I certainly disagree with the closing statement given that keep !votes based on notability can't be regarded as weak. I agree with DGG that the coinflip nature of these discussions (based on who closes) is an issue in need of a solution. Hobit (talk) 05:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per both DGG and Hobit. When 8-6 is accepted as one side wins then we are out-of-synch with our own fundamental principle of consensus-based decision making. __meco (talk) 06:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The closing admin is not impartialJudged to harshly I think --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC). In a previous DRV, see [1], the closer expressed a highly opinionated position on the subject of low-key international relations articles generally. As the holder of such opinions, he should not be closing related discussions. Note that these international relations articles are currently the subject of policy debate. While that debate is progressing, these AfDs are not really helpful, and contentious administrative actions by a partisan is definitely not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Trouble is, SmokeyJoe, that it would be hard to find anyone who often closes AfD's who doesn't have an opinion on these. If we demand a fresh admin for a bilateral relations close, then we'll run out of admins before we run out of bilateral relations AfDs.—S Marshall T/C 07:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree very much. Admins generally do a very good job of acting impartially, of shelving personal opinions when closing discussion. Black Kite is no exception, although he is a person with sometimes strong conviction. This time it is special, because he appears, to me anyway, to have a view that is very strong. I certainly don't suggest that a closer on one subject can't close similar subjects, but I do suggest that debaters on a subject not close discussions on similar subjects, and especially not when their contributions to the debate were strong. Even if it just for the sake of appearances. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, within admin discretion. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh ... Endorse. Look, sorry, if the "Delete" votes had been (in general) as weak as the "Keep" ones were here, it would've been an easy Keep (or at least NC). A quick examination.
- "Macedonia is notable. Indonesia is notable. Ergo, the topic of the foreign relations between these nations is a notable one". No, actually it isn't.
- "it will be expanded. Wikipedia has many smaller stubs than this one". WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.
- I discarded these two.
- "sufficient reliable sources for a standalone article". A WP:ITSNOTABLE vote.
- "The reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article meet the Wikipedia Notability standard". Another ITSNOTABLE.
- I gave these less weight.
- Most of the Delete comments expand on why they're being made and make some relation to policy. Therefore, I saw a clear policy-based consensus to delete. Yes, I did make a comment on a previous bilateral relations article, but I saw that one as an extreme case which was being gamed by certain editors. This one is a "normal" AfD which should be closed in a normal way, which is what I did. And SM is right above - at this rate, we won't have any admins that are seen as uninvolved in this area - after all, this DRV has just ruled me out of closing any more, and I'm one of the admins that often tidies up the difficult or controversial AfDs that no-one else wants to close. I don't vote-count, and the day I do, you can ask for my admin bit. If that means DRV every time then fine; I do have a better than average record at DRV, which must count for somthing, hopefully. Oh, and cheers for informing me of the DRV, CDog. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I guess I read a tone of annoyance of "an extreme case which was being gamed by certain editors" as an annoyance with so many relations articles of dubious notability. But what about the five references pointed to by TM? Are they discounted because they were not then in the article, or because "Macedonian Information Agency" is not an independent source. They do contain secondary source material on the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. However, one single valid "Keep" !vote versus a number of valid "Delete" !votes is simply a Delete. If there was a reasonable Merge or Redirect target I'd go for that - anyone who follows my AfD closures knows that I always like to keep the history if it's at all viable - but in this case I don't think there is. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I apologise if I've offended you, but if you simply say "these sources are enough to prove notability" when other editors have pointed out that they may not do, and you cannot rebut those claims (especially as the last comment in the AfD), then you leave yourself open to having your comment given less weight. If you had explained why those sources are enough, and rebutted the arguments of those who disagreed, then I would happily take that into account (as I did with TM's comment). Black Kite (t) (c) 16:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I explained my vote, based it on three relevant policies -- WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N and received no objections from any other participants. None of the delete votes presented any explanation for why these sources are not enough, and you have simply imposed your own personal bias for deletion to toss out votes you don't like. If you can point to a policy that requires me to do a word-for-word rebuttal of all delete votes in order to cast a valid keep vote, I'd love to see it and find out why it only applies to keep votes. The claim that WP:ITSNOTABLE applies to the votes here and can be used to disregard votes is a complete and total falsehood. Alansohn (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, that's not enough. If you provide a !vote which says "this is notable, and these sources prove it", you need to explain why that is the case, in exactly the same way that someone who opines "this is not notable, these sources are not good enough" needs to do. One of the delete votes pointed out that "Our notability requirements are quite clear that if we are to have a stand alone article on a topic, then some of those sources must also be independent of the subject, and they must "address the subject directly in detail ... this article cites no such sources". You need to explain why this editor is wrong. I saw no comment that met such criteria. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry that you are willing to abuse the administrative authority you have been granted to manufacture policy by whim. You claim of using WP:ITSNOTABLE to ignore votes is completely and totally baseless, and you don't even appear to believe that anymore. Furthermore, the fact is that you only applied this essay-based standard to keep votes, while ignoring the non-policy-based delete votes that accord with your personal biases on the subject. There was no consensus for deletion, and it was only by firmly placing your thumb on the delete side of the scale that the result was manipulated to justify your personal bias for deletion. Please point out which policy requires me to deliver a word-by-word rebuttal of the votes you like in order for you to consider them valid. Even an essay would help your claim. Alansohn (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wondered how long it would be before someone yelled "admin abuse". There was a clear consensus for deletion once the weak and/or non-policy-related !votes were taken into account. That's what I did; that's what I stand by. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alansohn "None of the delete votes presented any explanation for why these sources are not enough..." Are we talking about the same AfD? What do you call this if not a detailed explanation of why the sources are insufficient? Yilloslime TC 17:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alanshon, WP:SENSE should be sufficient enough to inform oneself of basic premise of "if your argument sucks, it will not count for much". This is why we have admins; to make judgments on behalf of the users that confirmed their RfAs, much the same as why the USA has an Electoral College, as pure democracy is a bare step above mob rule. Your argument here now is verging on farcical. Tarc (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tacr, are you serious that you consider an argument for retention citing the fact that the article meets WP:RS, WP:V an WP:N "sucks" and should therefore be discounted, we have gone from democracy to the totalitarian dictatorship of individual admins. Sure, we might get a fair and honest benevolent despot every now and then, but far more often we get admins who decide to cast supervotes instead of trying to respect consensus. As is attributed to Winston Churchill, "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others". Give me mob rule any day, because the system you support here is beyond farcical. Alansohn (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mere assertion when faced with more detailed opposing opinion is the weaker argument. Your comment here "citing the fact" is a continuation of mere assertion of correctness, clearly other commenters disagreed that it was "fact". The suggestion that such arguments were discounted is not the same as the deleteing admins statement "I gave these less weight."--82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's pretty much as I would have responded. This user simply gave a "its notable because I can point to these wiki-acronyms", without giving an actual rationale as to why. Tarc (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion no actual admin wrongdoing or improper action is cited by the filer. A difference of opinion is not a valid reason to file a DRV. Tarc (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The rough consensus of policy based arguments seemed to be delete, and is certainly within admin discretion. Quantpole (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, although for different reasons than what Black Kite gives. In general, a roughly balanced AFD discussion with reasonable arguments on both sides ends with a "no consensus", and closing contrary to that needs to be because one side has nothing. Clearly, there are some rather poorly reasoned keep votes in this discussion, (Macedonia notable Indonesia notable=relations notable is not a position which enjoys any sort of consensus, and would allow just about any meshing of novel concepts were that idea accepted) but as long as there is something reasonable on the "keep" side, I don't discount votes as long as they are made in good faith. The question comes down to whether the sources listed by TM are sufficient to hold the ground for this article. A look through those sources shows to me that these relations are really quite vague ("memorandum of understanding"); the kind of diplomatic politeness you see between virtually all countries. I can understand that it is within the closer's discretion to not accept those as sufficient; especially when there is no discussion on how those sources can be used. I voted to overturn the Cyprus-Norway deletion because the arguments there were reasonably stronger on the "keep" side, but in this case I cannot see that much of a case has been made. A tough call, but within acceptable admin discretion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn as no-consensus / keep In addition to blatantly ignoring consensus, the closing admin's rationalization to toss at keep votes as not being based on policy is strongly rebutted by my vote to keep, which read "The reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article meet the Wikipedia Notability standard." My vote, and another vote that directly referenced the sources in the article, were improperly ignored with the shameless excuse of WP:ITSNOTABLE, which is clearly in conflict with what this is intended to mean. It appears that the closing administrator cast a close the way he would have voted rather than trying to assess actual consensus. Why were keep votes summarily ignored while delete votes were not policy based and were not tossed out? Apparently any appeal to policy for retention is invalid while any argument to delete is deemed inherently valid. Wikipedis consensus is worthless if admins can arrogate themselves the authority to toss out votes they don't like to close as only they see fit. Alansohn (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing to do with "not liking" anything; if you claim that sources back up the notability of the subject when they actually only mention it in passing - as pointed out by a number of contributors - then you cannot expect your !vote to be given the weight of those that do link the sources to notability. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As with all bilateral relations AfDs, I see that we've collectively managed to achieve a close without closure, which leads to a DRV without closure. Black Kite—I'll endorse this one, but I want to add that I've reflected on what SmokeyJoe says and I think he has a point. I think you closed this in good faith and in the belief that you're uninvolved in bilateral relations, but I also think that in future it might be better if you !voted instead of closing.—S Marshall T/C 19:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think not - I won't close any more, but equally I don't really care enough about th subject either. The original article which I commented on was unusual - the topic didn't actually exist, leading to Wikipedia having a fictional article (which still exists - disgrace really). This one isn't, and most are similar to this. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh. Please, don't give in to this blatant attempt to bully you away from AfD closures. I used to see this shit time and time again in the I-P topic area; any time an admin intervenes to enforce policy there, the friends of the guilty party scream "OMG INVOLVED ADMIN" forever after in an attempt to get that admin disqualified from future interventions. This is sickening. Tarc (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Overturn to no-consensus The new trend appears to be to discount all keep !votes on procedural grounds, saying the are not properly formatted, or they don't cite policy in a way that satisfies the closing person. Its the equivalent of the hanging chad for Wikipedia. Discounting my comment "sufficient reliable sources for a standalone article", is just silly since I defined Wikipedia policy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- from a reading of the original AfD it seems to me that the keep opinions either did not refer to policy in the first place or were explicitly refuted by other editors. Closing it this way is within the administrator's discretion. Reyk YO! 23:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think there may be material that can be used from TM's five sources in creating content. This doesn't require undeletion, because I read that the material wasn't in the article anyway. I recommend adding such material to Foreign relations of the Republic of Macedonia, on the basis that Macedonia is the smaller nation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as within admin discretion. I agree with the admin discounting two of the keep votes for the reasons they state. Looking at the rest of the votes I find the delete votes better argued and more directly related to policy and as such I found the delete arguments compelling. Dpmuk (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse — as noted before, AFD is not a vote, and the closer gave a good explanation for why the discussion, when interpreted within the framework of Wikipedia policy, pointed towards delete. *** Crotalus *** 17:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak overturn. Very nearly a valid close, but looking at the sources found by TM I think the WP:ITSNOTABLE-type votes that were (understandably) disregarded seem to have some validity. Taking this into account the consensus doesn't seem strong enough to delete. Alzarian16 (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse—the closing admin interpreted the consensus correctly, and used their evaluating discretion wisely. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 09:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn/No consensus As a contributor to the discussion and editor of the page, I am not sure if I should comment here, but I'd say the discussion did not come to a consensus. I feel that the sources I provided were enough for a keep, though certainly they were not definitive. Putting0 that aside, I don't think it is right to put aside non-canvassed editors opinions simply because most of them did not cite policy. Between the sources provided and the close number of opinions on each side, a no consensus option would have served us better.--TM 12:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
