Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 May 19
2009 May 21 >

20 May 2009

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

This article needs to be undeleted because he is a notable player and the page was deleted for no reason. Ice (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and list: wait, an incoming college basketball player with at least three or four reliable sources was deleted under A7. What happened to "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance"? We can debate whether he fits WP:ATHLETE (I'm somewhat doubtful) but I don't think that's a speedy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list: I don't have access to the article, so I can't tell whether there was a credible claim of significance / importance. But if there was, the article should not have been deleted as an A7, regardless of WP:ATHLETE. decltype (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list I can't see the original article, but with a quick search there are dozens of sources that raise this subject over A7. At minimum deserves it's chance at AFD.--Cube lurker (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have been happy to undelete it and list it at AfD on request. Done now. Prodego talk 17:02, 21 May 2009 (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.
Estonia–Luxembourg relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

clearly a delete consensus, only 1 vote for keep. LibStar (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, I think you agree with me that at least two of the points advanced for deletion were contradicted by your assessment for deletion. -- User:Docu
  • I do not agree with you, no one found significant third party coverage (almost all coverage is in multilateral context). my point on non resident embassies stands. LibStar (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two contributors stated that there is no coverage while you even include a link to the coverage in your nomination. -- User:Docu
There is no coverage of actual bilateral relations.. there is trivial coverage in a multilateral sense, that's what my search found. No reliable sources of bilateral relations were found. LibStar (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bilateral" as I understand it, would be between the two countries. The link you provided does provide such sources. -- User:Docu
yes bilateral as opposed to multilateral, almost all coverage relates to events involving several nations in the EU and thus does not provide evidence of bilateral relations ie one country actually speaking to the other. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
my search in the nomination appears to only find 1 article of bilateral relations, a minor tax treaty. Articles in the same search entitled "Ireland recognizes Kosovo's independence", "Serb rioters set fire to US Belgrade embassy over Kosovo" " Turkey refused EU membership" "LUXEMBOURG: EU to go ahead with expansion despite Irish vote rejecting..." etc. and various articles on competing in the same football qualifying rounds do not prove in any way bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - It's pretty clear that consensus favored deletion here. At the very least, a rationale from the closing administrator would have been useful. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse based on strength of arguments; however, a "no consensus" rather than "keep" would probably be a better read of consensus, because while not a vote, we should consider will of community to some extent. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to no-consensus Much as I would like these articles to be kept, this was a close without specifying reasons that did not properly judge consensus. I am normally very reluctant to change keep to a non-consensus because the immediate effect is the same, but this was so inappropriately done that it should be changed in order to establish the record properly for future discussions. I don't think there is consensus about what to do with an article like this: it's above the most minimal level, but there ought to be a good deal more to make a proper article. The current rash of deletions of them without searching & at a time when it's clear we as a group haven't any real consensus what the standards should be, is inappropriate, as was the insertion in the first palace. I think everyone dealing them them is heartily sick of the problem, but we still need to solve it. DGG (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no consensus it should be marked as "no consensus" not keep. that is standard practice. LibStar (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment how can one ill-informed opinion of keep that was quickly and completely rebutted qualify an article for consensus of "keep" against the nomination plus five additional deletes, three of which made very valid arguments plus a redirect? I'm not familiar with the closing editor but unless this was an error made in haste it is wildly inappropriate. Very disturbing indeed. There needs to be some level of trust in those closing these discussions and this undermines that trust. Drawn Some (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Docu, I am just now seeing your comment just above mine. I believe you should refrain from closing these debates in the future due to poor judgement. Drawn Some (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
totally agree with Drawn some. LibStar (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the repeated posts, I am quite disturbed by this. Particularly, your (User:Docu) judgement is poor because there was a clear consensus for deletion but even if there were not it should have been "no consensus" and calling it "keep" is completely rogue and makes a good case to end non-administrator closure of AfDs. Drawn Some (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Docu is actually an admin (but fails to mention this on his/her user page). LibStar (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Drawn Some, are you aware of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Bilateral_relations#Article_copy_and_pasting? -- User:Docu
Yes, I saw that the other day. It's absurd. Copy and paste is a time-saving technique and quite appropriate when essentially the same process was used to create thousands of articles which shouldn't have been created in the first place, which is the elephant in the room that everyone is overlooking. LibStar has gotten nothing but flak when he has put forth a great deal of effort on a needed task. Were it not for him no one would have done anything about all of these crap articles. Drawn Some (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you an administrator as LibStar says? Drawn Some (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Docu has been an admin since December 2003, per [1]. Docu has done lots of helpful Wikignome actions, not so many discussion page posts or blocks. Edison (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it is a signature but with no date and time stamp it is hard to keep track. in addition, when I asked Docu directly if he/she were an admin on their talk page they gave me a very vague response. hardly useful when I was requiring clarification. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: On closer examination, I can all the more see where Docu is coming from. Despite the number of deletes, they seem to have been made indiscriminately across multiple of these discussions and thus present a false consensus. For example, this "Kill it with fire!" hyperbole appeared in near copy and paste across multiple of these discussions: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc. It seems the same half dozen accounts saying to indiscriminately delete all of these bilateral relation articles, which truthfully vary consisderably one from the other in regards to importance of their relationships. After all, if we had an AfD for say Apple in which five accounts who say to delete all fruit related articles say delete as not notable and only one account says otherwise, the admin closer would be totally correct to keep. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, that reasoning might hold up if ALL fruit articles were put up for deletion but LibStar has but a great deal of effort into researching each article and reporting on his findings so the ones put up for deletion were for the most part quite valid. You're discounting his work. Copy & pasting is smart, I use it, and not indiscriminately. Drawn Some (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see more effort in trying to improve the articles first per WP:BEFORE or to merge any cited content per WP:PRESERVE. Besides, isn't there a discussion asking for a hold off on these to see if anything can be merged? Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline, so there's no rush to hurry up and delete these if other options are available. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As indeed we all would. Take these 20,000 articles and divvy them up 5 each to 4,000 editors (or similar) and we'll make short work of them. You're overlooking the fact that LibStar has researched these prior to bringing them for deletion. Drawn Some (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure improving them may take some time, but what is the rush? They are not likely to become less notable over time nor would less sources likely be available. If we hope and expect Wikipedia to stand the test of time, even if it say took us years to improve these, so be it. Wikipedia has no deadline and even good articles can be improved further somehow or other. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above. Canada - United States bilateral relations hasn't been put up for deletion. Drawn Some (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what nonesense. Not only have the vast majority of x-y articles not even been nominated but I even wrote one, Australia-East Timor relations, that has zero chance of ever being deleted, because its sails over the GNG and is very, very well sourced and eminently expandable. Of course, mindless "keep everything, even thousands of stubs compiled by a computer program of no demonstrable notability" is another issue.Bali ultimate (talk) 08:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear A nobody, check the articles I've created log [8], if I want to delete all bilateral articles as you assume, why have I created 11 notable examples in recent weeks? LibStar (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am starting to see some who either not adequately researching these or really do just want them all deleted. In one, someone flat out declared that a country was not a colony of the other half of the relation, when in fact the country was conquered and colonized several times by the other country and in three separate centuries for as long as over ten years at a stretch, but we still get "not even a colony" kind of comments, which are not just not true, but would have been verified easily by any Google search. In that same discussion, you said, "only relations are in a sport context", which again, is false, because relatively easily others turned up that they have signed non-sports related treaties in addition to their colonial relationship over the course of three centuries. Then we get comments like "nothing more to say than where the embassies are", which subsequent improvements showed that more can indeed be said. Or comments like "no third-party indications of notability" when a book devotes a whole section to the actual name of the article as a topic. Finally, we have stuff like "Keeping this article and the others like it creates the precedent for thousands of minor articles for the relations between every single country in the world" when I am not going out of my way to defend all of these; however, some instances such as ones with a colonial legacy and subsequent modern interactions are indeed notable by any stretch of the word. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If people have valid reliable sources for keep then produce them in the AfD. I don't talk for others in terms of their reasoning. It was a bad faith assumption on your part that I always support delete. As for "only relations are in a sport context" I meant that coverage seems to reflect that. There is often minor bilateral agreements like double taxation or something weaker like a memo of understanding, these alone do not signify notable relations. I think the consensus is clear here for this article. Debate the other articles at its AfD. LibStar (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People seem to be producing such sources that others should be able to just as easily find. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
then those voting keep should supply these. not which I've seen at least 20 times "keep it's notable", "keep excellent almanac entry" "keep, and expand". If people don't produce good reasons for keep, in any AfD not just bilateral AfDs, and then complain when article is deleted? LibStar (talk) 04:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those voting to deleting should be doing more to look for sources and improve content as well and yes in all Afds and not just the bilateral relations ones. I usually make edits to improve even articles I say to delete and I pretty much always find sources for those I say to keep. I have seen waaaay more "delete, non-notable" only to have someone assert notability anyway. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. voting keep or delete everyone should give some solid reasons backed with evidence. LibStar (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I voted "overturn" here, but I've closed several dozen bilateral relations AfDs as "keep" in the past. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I do usually find you to be an objective/neutral closer for whom I rarely if ever see any need to contest a close. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- As has been said before, it wasn't the number that carried the day in keeping the article, it was the strength of the argument. And unfortunately for the delete voters, the one Keep vote wasn't refuted in the slightest. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I refuted the one keep vote. The google search by the one keep vote found much the same as me, Estonia and Luxembourg in a multilateral not bilateral context. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/question: LibStar, why are you asking those who typically say to delete in these bilateral discussions to come here: [9] and [10], for example? Are you going to contact Richard Arthur Norton and anyone else who is usually on the keep side, too? I have no issue with notifying editors, just making sure it is a fair notification going on here. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
because they are admins familiar with bilateral AfDs who have both kept and deleted such articles. Richard A Norton consistently votes keep without fail. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - Consensus was for deletion, not sure why closer ignored consensus, with zero rationale. AFD closer seems to not be neutral/independent on this subject, and should refrain from closing AFDs on these topics in the future. Cirt (talk) 08:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you explain how you evaluated the various arguments provided? -- User:Docu
  • Overturn and delete in respect of the consensus at the discussion. Closer clearly substituted his own opinion, which should have been expressed as a !vote, for the consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete. It was the clear consensus at the time and the closer didn't provide a solid reason to elevate the single keep vote over the opinion of the majority. - Mgm|(talk) 10:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There appeared to be consensus at the time. No rationale was given for why the minority viewpoint was taken (which though not necessary is certainly helpful). The closing admin has not been helpful in responding to queries either. Quantpole (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - A poor decision in complete contradiction to the AfD discussion, overturning this should be a no-brainer. That there wasn't even a rationale provided is more worrying though, and a perusal of this admin's talk page shows a rather callous disregard for communication with other users. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Several of the delete arguments noted policy and guideline based reasons, including that WP:N was not satisfied and that it was a directory-type listing, contrary to WP:NOT. Thus there was a clear policy-and-guideline based consensus for deletion. No reason was stated for overturning that consensus. Edison (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Yet another bad close against consensus and policy, by an admin who has clearly made up his mind on the issue and is so resistant to feedback that he can't be arsed to include a simple link to his own talk page in his signature. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete – improper admin closure. Reasons for deletion were policy-based and had established a rough consensus. Per AFD guidelines, deletion should have been the proper closure. MuZemike 01:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - incorrect decision. Agree the lack of a rationale and link to his user page are causes for concern. PhilKnight (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete, odd close to say the least. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 02:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, I'm going to AGF that the admin just hit the wrong button when closing, but even so, this should be overturned posthaste. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. At the top of this page it should say "Admins who disregard consensus will be overturned", preferably in large red letters, because these "creative interpretations of the consensus" are getting all too common nowadays.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
reply to the last group of comments: overturn, yes, but the consensus was not to delete: there was no consensus. DGG (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of your commentary so far here, but a 5-1 in favour of delete, where the sole keep vote was contested without response, seems to be to be a pretty clear "Delete" consensus. On what grounds would you close this as no consensus instead? Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - It seems that, if there was no consensus, but the consensus on DRV is to overturn the admin's decision, it would be most prudent to relist the XfD again and try to redo the process. From there, a more expansive discussion of the article's deletion can take place.--WaltCip (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And give the inclusionists a second bite at the cherry to flood the debate with "keep, clearly notable" and "keep until the centralized discussion is closed? There was a clear consensus; we wouldn't be here if not for Docu's faulty closure. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes I agree with Stifle. the inclusionists will come back and vote "Keep, it's notable/excellent article/an almanac entry." LibStar (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that I would do that--I do not !vote keep on all articles in this category; nobody does. Even the most inclusionist for this topic let many of the AfDs go to deletion without protest if it's clear they can't be improved enough in a reasonable time. The above argument is " I got the result I want, so let's not overturn it." Myself, I do not know what result i want for this one; if I did, I would have !voted at the original AfD. DGG (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to turn discussions into "inclusionist vs. deletionist" WP:BATTLEGROUND. As DGG suggests above, I also argue to keep for only ones that I believe have potential as well and abstain from commenting in actually most of these. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:34, 23 May 2009 (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/2009_May_20&oldid=1086354929"