Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 February 13

13 February 2022

Croatia–Philippines relations (closed)

Croatia–Philippines relations – Endorse. Despite some concerns, it seems like we have a consensus to endorse the closure here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Croatia–Philippines relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) No reason for the decision was given by the closer, and I don't see how it reflects policy-based consensus because there isn't a single argument of the keep !voters that was not refuted with policy-based reasoning and in more detail than those !votes themselves. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC) Endorse Completely understand the frustration about this article - there aren't really any relations apart from the 1993 recognition, including a lack of embassies, and would agree that it's WP:SYNTH, but looking at whether the closer made a mistake, the discussion isn't one that I think can be easily overturned. I would carefully update the article (though how are you supposed to get a source saying there are no embassies?) and try again at AfD in six months or so. SportingFlyer T·C 20:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC) I don't see how the zero-info close matches WP:DETCON. If one set of arguments basically ignore the relevant policies and mostly don't explain themselves when questioned, how do they ever factor into the decision? Surely we could at the very least give them time to come up with something with a re-listing? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC) Endorse - The close was the correct summary of the deletion discussion. I do not have an opinion on whether the result of the AFD was correct, but DRV is not intended to relitigate the AFD. The nominator and appellant bludgeoned the AFD. Please do not also bludgeon this DRV. We know what your opinion is. Sometimes you are in the minority. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC) Statements like that are making this process so frustrating. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC) Endorse (was keep in the discussion) - I offered a rebuttal to SYNTH and NOTNEWS and other arguments raised throughout the discussion, which I found were as a whole a foundation for a larger notability argument - so most votes were in my view correct in addressing notability, especially given that they are the most prominent part of the nomination. We don't have guidelines on whether embassies or no embassies determine the notability of the subject, although it can certainly be an indicator. Disagree with the above comments regarding the lack of relations - both countries have negotiated several agreements, and defense agreements in particular are not mundane. The fact that such an odd relationship caught the eye of The Diplomat is telling. Pilaz (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC) I have already told you explicitly that notability was not a part of the nomination. If we're going to have apparent mob rule, it's one thing, but please don't add insult to injury with these kinds of glaring untruths. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC) Endorse. Consensus was to keep, same as the time before See WP:RENOM, maybe test again in another eight years. Foreign relations of the Philippines and Foreign relations of Croatia and Croatia–Philippines relations having redundancy and little content is not a serious problem requiring fixing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC) Reluctant endorse. I believe the keep !votes were misinformed and wrong, and that there is no policy basis for them, and that the article profoundly fails WP:SYNTH, but the consensus was clear, even if I profoundly disagree with it. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC) Well, I don't endorse it. With very simple discussions, you can just state the result, but this wasn't that simple. I've seen quite a few of Superastig's closes at DRV in the past few weeks and I've noticed that he generally gets the results right but he doesn't summarize what was said or give any kind of method statement for his closes, so they don't give any actual closure. Joy's overinvestment in the debate was quite extreme--he correctly wrote I feel like I'm badgering the discussion here and then added several further replies afterwards. When anyone displays that level of passion a closer's job involves tact and an ability to let them down lightly that Superastig didn't display. So my view is, OK, the result was right, but it needed a summary and an explanation as well as a hat on it.—S Marshall T/C 17:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC) Endorse given the state of the article I completely sympathise with the OP's position, but there wasn't any way that could have been closed as Delete. Hut 8.5 19:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC) Endorse. I disagree with the nominator's understanding of WP:SYNTH. If I am writing an article about the Styles and themes of Jane Austen I may draw on sources discussing individual examples of these aspects of her writing without the sources actually saying explicitly that they are writing about her styles and themes. I may combine these sources but what I may not do is put forward any claim that is not to be found in any individual source. The sources must relate to the topic, of course. In the case of the article currently under discussion, the situation was complicated by the argument that some (many, all?) sources were individually slight and so a notability issue arises. So, overall, there was a legitimate discussion to be had and the closer was right in not overriding the contributing editors' views. Thincat (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC) With regard to the example, sure, but somewhere out there in the real world there's probably at least some reliable sources that can be realistically described to have focused on describing styles and themes of Jane Austin, hence they did the original research on the matter and we don't have to synthesize everything - you can draw from these sources and then add maybe some worse sources (like news articles) to complement some aspects perhaps. In this case, nobody could present anything of the first sort whatsoever, and all we have is churnalism. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Endorse per above arguments. Really nothing wrong with the closure. The nom's rebuttals are just sheer bludgeoning. SBKSPP (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.