Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 22

< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log
< 2012 January 21
2012 January 23 >

22 January 2012

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Arthur Rubin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is a slightly unconventional DRV, as I wasn't involved in the initial AFD; but I noticed it discussed on ANI and saw that this early close caused a certain amount of disagreement, so I'm bringing it here for further comment. This discussion was closed after less than two hours on the grounds that the article has previously been kept several times, and that this was a bad-faith nomination by a possible sockpuppet account. That allegation has been rejected by ArbCom, see here: this was a nomination in good faith. As for the first ground, while this article has been kept at AFD several times before, the last two AFDs, in 2009 and 2010, were both closed as 'speedy keep' after three and a half hours and eight hours respectively. The last AFD for the article which was actually allowed to run for the full period was back in 2008, three and a half years ago, and it's entirely possible consensus could have changed since then. In fact, this time round, one user besides the nominator did make a good-faith comment that the article should be deleted before the AFD was closed. That alone means that Wikipedia:Speedy keep should not have been used: none of the criteria listed on that page applied.

To be quite clear, I'm not asking for the result of this AFD to be overturned to 'delete'; I only think that there are good-faith reasons to doubt whether this person meets our notability guidelines, and that the AFD should be reopened and allowed to run for the full period so those arguments can be properly considered. Robofish (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I was able to satisfy your pescatarian suspicions. I think I have User_Talk:Fortheloveofbacon but I am happy to discuss it further.Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, a dozen speedy keep's with WP:NPASR every day at AfD for ill-prepared nominations would soon improve the quality of nominations.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I might agree, but I'd like to see such a practice written up at WP:SK. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since when has WP:ITSNOTABLE been a reason for a super vote and a speedy close?  It is listed at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions for a reason.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. First of all, that's an essay (even though it's a very useful one). Second, please read it: "Just as problematic is asserting that something is notable without providing an explanation or source for such a claim of notability." Well, two AfDs have provided community consensus. It's nice if one can throw acronyms around, but it's more helpful to know what's actually there. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NotabilityDiviner from WP:ITSNOTABLE states, "Keep It is clearly notable."  Evidence presented by Beyond My Ken is that "notability of subject is well-established", but like NotabilityDiviner, the statement about notability is a proof by assertion.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The previous poster's (PP) last comment to me at ANI dwelt on excrement, and now the PP chooses to tell me I don't know what's in an essay I've referenced.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep clause 2 begins, "2 The nomination was unquestionably...disruption...", and clause 2c continues, "c making nominations of the same article with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion"  SK#2c does not apply unless someone wants to claim that an AfD 3.5 years ago is "recent".  And not only is it recent, it is so recent as to be "unquestionably disruptive".  Unscintillating (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I considered that a 5th AfD was disruptive, yes, since the first two were in-depth and thorough (by now I'm repeating this past nauseam). Number three and four were clearly disruptive, and I had (and still have) no reason to think better of number five. Out of the blue comes this account and finds its way to AfD, getting every detail right, and going straight for an admin with an article--one which, as I noted, has been the subject of disruption before. CoM or not isn't really interesting to me: I have a habit of running into his socks but when I closed this the topic hadn't even come up, and I wasn't thinking of it in the first place. But given Bacon's known history it was odd enough. Here's something funny: I don't think someone who's seventeenth edit, the second after a 20-month absence, is an AfD nomination. Explain to me how that is not fishy. And look at what we're doing here: an ANI thread that's still open, an SPI, and now a Deletion review, and poor Bugs wondering if he can even talk to the guy. Yeah, I don't have a lot of good faith here, and if the mission of Bacon is what I think it is, they've succeeded pretty well. Robofish and SmartSE, if it ever comes down to something I'd want you on my side, but in this case I think your good faith is misplaced. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're suggesting malfeasance because I behaved too properly in submitting it, while condeming previous AfD attempts because the submitter behaved improperly? You have confounded me, sir. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not. I never said you did anything properly. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Out of the blue comes this account and finds its way to AfD, getting every detail right..." Did you mean to say I did everything right without doing anything properly? Also, please note that this user is the one who made the speedy keep. Contrary to what you say above, you expressed a predisposition towards accusing me of foul play from the get-go. Read comment here: "Hmm, maybe that account is compromised--it's odd. Maybe someone else can have a look; I've never dealt with such a thing before. Oh, Rubin, you're kept. I expect some currency in my secret Swiss account soon, since you math people are notoriously rolling in money. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC) I do not know why you insist on this witch hunt, when the admins have said it was a case of mistaken identity. For the sake of professionalism, I have to ask that you please speak to the facts in this case. If you disagree with arbcom's finding or are unsatisfied, this is not the place to beat that dead horse. Talk to them, or even come over to my talk page, if you prefer. But by doing this here you are tainting the proceedings in a way that I have gone to great lengths to avoid, since it has been a perpetual problem from other users with whom I have no desire to be associated.Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The following narrative sums up the situation leading to my actions: I read a comment by the User, and decided to read his user page. When I got to the bottom of it, I found a link to Arthur_Rubin. At first I thought, perhaps, it was tongue-in-cheek and there was another individual with the same name. Then I read the article and found it uncannily similar to a userpage in content. Then I got to the bottom and saw a link to his meetup profile. "This is irregular" I thought. Still not completely sure that User:Arthur_Rubin and Arthur_Rubin were the same, I fired up the edit history and talk pages. Turns out User:Arthur_Rubin likes to weigh in on Arthur_Rubin from time to time. fact, he is the 5th most frequent editor, there. That sealed it for me, so I put my fancy booklearnin' to use, and started reading about the finer points of wiki procedure. You seem to be implying that I appeared out of the depths of the internet only to land on this article. Nothing could be further from the truth. I read here all the time, and you should not misconstrue my lack of participation with a lack of familiarity re: the wiki. Arbcom cleared up that sock issue about 15 minutes after I spoke with them.

    Now, the last time that this was actually put up for review was in 2008, where the reviewers noted that WP:N was actually relatively new and still under development. They did seem to settle, however, on the fact that his Putnam win possibly satisfied the test. I do not think this is WP:PROF because he is no longer in academia, which means that it is WP:BLP1E. I quote "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." This would suggest that the article is unnecessary, but that it would be appropriate to have a "Putnam Winners" article, in which it could be noted that User:Arthur_Rubin was a winner.

    I am voting "Relist" to try to show good faith, so please see that this truly is. If you're bent on seeing something bad, you'll find it... I'm a sock, I'm editing in bad faith, something is fishy, etc... Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think 7 out of 301 edits is significant, even if I were the 5th most frequent editor. (The toolserver isn't working for me, so I can't verify the numbers.) I should not comment on the merits of the deletion or whether procedure has adequately been followed, but it should be pointed out that my edits of the article consist of (1) Adding my birth year, to confirm that it's authorized in the article; (2) Wikilinking my thesis title (as, even among mathematicians, it's not obvious which words should be linked); (3) one minor edit to use {{DEFAULTSORT}}; (4) correcting the spelling of a category; (5-7) reverting clear vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 04:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Adding your year of birth is inappropriate as it is not sourced. Nor is it found anywhere on the internet from which it could now be referenced. By "weigh in" I did not intend to refer simply to your edits, as I don't think your reversions of vandalism would be deemed inappropriate by anyone. This is not intended to be a condemnation of these actions, it is merely that observing your actions re: this article convinced me that the User:Arthur_Rubin and the article Arthur Rubin pertain to the same individual. Rather, I was looking at the totality of your participation across the talk page, the review discussions, your opening of an ANI requesting a speedy keep and circuitously accusing me of sock-puppetry, and now here. Please know that I did attempt to locate information to expand this article or improve it. However, it appears that the majority of information available is found here on Wikipedia alone. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - regardless of the merits of the AfD having been closed early, the article makes a sufficent assertion of reliablity sourced to non-primary sources that I don't see the point of reopening just for the sake of "dem's the rules". - The Bushranger One ping only 00:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you on WP:BURO, however I think "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures." is more apropos here. There has not been a true discussion since 2008. That stands by itself as reasonable grounds for addressing it. Additionally, recall that WP:N has actually developed quite a bit since that last decision was made (I was actually surprised how much when I looked through it just now).Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since when does the fact that something hasn't been discussed in 3 years require the community to engage in self-doubt and debate. 99.99% of articles haven't been discussed for deletion at all, much less within the last 3 years; should we now nominate them all and decide whether we'd be a better pedia without them? Process for process' sake is what will turn this project from an encyclopedia to a debating society. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's standards of notability have changed in the last three years. Experience at the academic AfD noticeboard shows that they have increased markedly. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Your assumption that every commenter here who is !voting "Reopen" would also have !voted "Delete" if the AfD hadn't been closed is actually the logical fallacy. Most of the "Reopen" or "Relist" comments are procedural in nature and not based on an evaluation of the article one way or the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The snowball clause is an essay giving some rough guidelines. It's not precise enough to present logical fallacies in a clear form; I don't think we can prove that this line of argument is either right or wrong. But if you want to talk about fallacies, you're quoting a one-way implication and pointing out that the hypothesis is false. That doesn't falsify the conclusion. Mentioning the snowball clause is shorthand for "the probability of this page being deleted is extremely close to zero, so it's best not to waste time rehashing the same old arguments again". The fact that a few people would support reopening the debate (but wouldn't necessarily advocate deletion) doesn't significantly increase the odds of the page being deleted, in my opinion. Jowa fan (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll actually defer to your expertise on the precision of that statement. I only meant to say that I think "unanimous" is optimistic. But I re-read my comment and thought it sounded a little terse, so if you took it that way, I apologize. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 07:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Even though I disagree with your opinion, I accept that you're acting in good faith here. Best wishes, Jowa fan (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - We all know what's going on here, enough with this "tut tut, AGF" tap-dancing. We have an AfD filed by a "new" user avoiding the scrutiny that'd come with their previous, real account. The same as the last AfD and the one before that. Tarc (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination may have been in bad faith, but looking over the sources I think he only has borderline notability. I'm tied over whether to reopen a troll's request or to endorse a decision which would discourage future nominations of the article. meh... Endorse without prejudice ThemFromSpace 17:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- troll nomination plus empty "only voting delete so you can't speedy keep it" equals good use of WP:IAR. Reyk YO! 19:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we endorse the close purely on the basis of suspicions about the nominating account, then there will be no reason why Robofish couldn't open a fresh AfD immediately. Therefore we do also need to think about whether we endorse the speedy keep on the basis that the whole thing was already thoroughly discussed in 2008. I express no opinion on the former point because I find conduct questions extremely tedious and I don't really care, but on the latter point, I'm very reluctant to enforce a three-year-old decision without a new consensus, so I would say that procedurally, in the event of a fresh nomination from an unimpeachably good faith user, the discussion should probably go on for the full seven days. But I also think such a discussion would be pointless, since it seems highly unlikely to end with a "delete" outcome.—S Marshall T/C 19:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should allow a user in good standing to Reopen the article. While the last nomination was a bit odd (for reasons stated above), I see no reason why a member of the community with good faith doubts about Authur Rubin's notability should be barred from re-nominating it. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that I have been proven incontrovertibly to be completely unafiliated with (and heretofore unaware of) this other user, aren't I considered to be in good standing? I raise this for two reasons: 1. for the purpose of this discussion but 2. because more than that, I am concerned about ongoing prejudice over my account and choice of username. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if you felt insulted by my comment. I had seen that editors had raised suspicions about you and considered you to be of questionable standing for that reason. I haven't looked into their accusations in depth though, and am unfamiliar with the history of the person they suspected you to be. To answer your question though, yes, I shall consider you an editor in good standing from now on. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopen The disruption came not from the Afd, but from the subject of the article posting on ANI and a lack of good faith regarding the nominator. If the article is notable, it can withstand a 7 day Afd. Nobody Ent 22:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    When I wrote that, the AfD was broken; for some reason, it was pointing to the first AfD rather than to the new nomination. I didn't say that the nomination wasn't in good faith, although I suspected that the the editor was one of the other nominators. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This debate is developing some rather nasty features. Some editors have claimed the nomination of the AfD (incidentally a subject that I have never had anything to do with before) was made in bad faith and was disruptive and that the nominator is a troll. From the nominator's history and behavior here I can see no evidence of this and none has been produced. Intemperate and uncivil language of this sort is unexpected at a venue frequented by the brightest and best of Wikipedia's editors. I note that one other editor has also had misgivings about this. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse The speedy keep was justified in the circumstances. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite the Wikipedia policy that leads you to this view? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Reopen. I have no opinion about either the article or the editor; this board is only for the discussion of procedural matters. The "speedy keep" does not invoke or appear to meet any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Speedy keep. The closure was therefore premature, especially as it appears that all other discussions since 2008 were also speedily closed and consensus may have changed since then.  Sandstein  23:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein hits the nail on the head. I wish I had expressed the matter as clearly myself. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2012 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
East Turkistan Government in Exile (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

About two weeks ago, the page for the East Turkistan Government in Exile (ETGIE) was proposed for deletion under the premise that this government organization had to establish its notability. As a result of the discussion for deletion, it was concluded that the page be redirected to Anwar Yusuf Turani, who is the founder and Prime Minister of the government. At the time of the proposed deletion, the page was undoubtedly in a novice state with around 10 to 12 sources. However, I have worked on improving this article on my user page, at User:Tewpiq/East Turkistan Government in Exile. I have added multiple sources and additional sections in attempt to establish that ETGIE is in fact a legitimate government organization in exile with the purpose of gaining the independence of East Turkistan from the People’s Republic of China. Among the sources, there are also several second sources in English, Turkish, and Uyghur that analyze the establishment of the government and the Chinese rejection towards its formation in the United States. Therefore, due to the fact that it is actually a legitimate government in exile based in Washington D.C. and is backed with numerous credible sources, I believe that the East Turkistan Government in Exile should have its own page and not be redirected. Tewpiq (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the admin who closed the AfD, I have no opinion about the notability of the new version of the article, but I have concerns that the new version that is now being proposed is an exercise in advocacy rather than a neutral description of this movement. For instance, it contains this unsourced map which is apparently meant to represent the real boundaries of real countries. Given that there seems to be no editor at the moment who is interested in or capable of developing this article in WP:NPOV form, it might be better to keep it redirected to the leader of this movement.  Sandstein  19:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I realized the issue of the map. Since this page is about a government organization, I decided to delete the map and link the words East Turkistan to the Wiki page, where several sourced maps can be found. And yes, it would be great if there were other editors knowledgeable in the matter of ETGIE to "neutralize" the article, however the majority of people who are informed of or associated with ETGIE are predominantly Turks and Uyghurs who do not speak the English language. ETGIE directs almost all of its activity towards the Turkic community. Tewpiq (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the draft article clearly shows notability, so the result of the AfD has been superseded. Producing this sort of result is an ideal conclusion to AfD, and I think the new version could have been restored by any admin without needing to come here. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting DRV to get more discussion to develop a consensus.--v/r - TP 13:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse protected redirect. Preposterous, pretentious, promotional, activism, advocacy. There is no reasonable claim for this group to be called a "government", and I think the title is unacceptable. This is an external separatist group, and shoul dbe described as no more. If there is any real connection to the people or history of East Turkestan, some mention should first be established at East Turkestan. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that your argument here amounts to a content dispute over what the article should be, and this is not the place for it. Wikipedia does not make judgments about which governments or separatist movements are politically legitimate. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. However, the AfD demonstrates a concensus against a stand alone article, and the subject has no mention in existing articles. Before re-creation, mention of this group should be made in related articles, and even then this title I can't support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The East Turkistan Government in Exile is in fact mentioned in other Wikipedia pages including the page for government in exile and the East Turkestan Independence Movement.Tewpiq (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From East Turkestan Independence Movement:
Pro-independence organizations overseas include the East Turkistan National Freedom Center, the East Turkistan Government in Exile, and the East Turkestan Liberation Organization (Transnational Hizb ut-Tahrir).[16] The most noticeable event towards the East Turkistan Independence Movement was the establishment of the East Turkistan Government in Exile by a group of East Turkistani immigrants lead by Anwar Yusuf Turani in Washington D.C. on September 14, 2004.[17] The target audience of these organizations is generally the Western governments and public, as almost none of the websites are in Chinese or Uyghur, and most Uyghurs in China and Central Asia have never heard of them.[18]
Well described as one of three "Pro-independence organizations overseas", targeting "Western governments and public".
This is not a government in exile. It is absurd for this group to claim to be their country's legitimate government. They did not previously hold power, or any role, in East Turkestan. What they have is a website - http://en.eastturkistan-gov.org/government/ and it read it as advocacy (we do not allow advocacy no matter how worthy the cause). No one else recognises or describes them as a government in exile, and so Wikipedia should not describe them so. Deny re-creation under this title. Allow expansion at East Turkestan Independence Movement, and should this group prove independently notable, allow a spin-out at an NPOV title, perhaps Anwar Yusuf Turani's East Turkistan separatist group. I don't think the groups is notable. All sources are connected or belong to a rash of news reports following their dramatic declaration of Government in Exile. I don't see independent direct secondary source coverage of the group or so-called government. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2012 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
DJ Many (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Unlock For Creation Review New References And Discography DJ Many56 (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note from your name that you appear to have a close connection to the subject. Could you provide some references here, as examples, to show that you have references which are both from what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources and which are independent of the subject which would show that the subject meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia? PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Actually, having looked at the deleted article, the repeated re-recreation (including recently as DJ many, which appears to be identical to the AFD'd version, and which is now also SALTed), I see nothing to indicate that this should be recreated. I reiterate that some sources should be presented here - and they can't be the ones used in the deleted articles, as they have already been decided by the community to be insufficient. I am open to being persuaded to change to 'allow recreation', but at the moment I do not see this as a suitable result here. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You Should Allow Creation For Me To Point The New Sources And Info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Many56 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need for that. Just tell us what the new sources are here so we can review them. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 08:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, because I'm a beastly admin, I've just SOAblocked DJ Many56. Do you know how many times he has re-created this article about his non-notable DJ self. I've also WP:SALTed the article title. Sometimes enough really is enough - we all have better things to do. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2012 (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/2012_January_22&oldid=1179943432"