|
List of fictional governments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))
This is a case where many of the delete arguments cited WP:NOT without explaining how that policy applied to this page. The closer on his talk page, also seemed to think WP:NOT applied but did not explain how, and also said that "sourcing issues" outweight the good-faith keep arguments, but as a list of fictional elements, all of them can be sourced to the work of fiction they appear in (and there was no evidence that any of the fictional governments in listed the article did not indicate a notable work of fiction in which it appeared). An extremely similar list, List of fictional military organizations, was closed as no consensus with nearly the exactly the same delete and keep arguments being made. This should also have been closed as no consensus, as per deletion policy and the deletion guide for administrators, which essentially says not to delete when there is no clear consensus to delete based in policy. DHowell (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus as nom. DHowell (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. Both sides had valid arguments and were equally well represented (I'm discounting a delete vote that called it trivial clutter without explaining why). This should've been discussed longer for proper consensus to form. - Mgm|(talk) 08:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:RELIST countenances extending deletion discussions only when there are two or three contributors. To have relisted the debate with nearly a dozen would have been incorrect. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It also says: "However, if at the end of the initial five day period, an XFD discussion has only one or two commenting editors (including the nominator), and/or if it seems to the closer to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist the discussion, with a goal of obtaining further sufficient discussion in order to determine consensus," which indicates it is proper to relist if sufficient discussion has not occured. Since the keep comment was made especially late, it was not properly taken into account by the majority of the commenters, thus skewing the outcome. If the last comment of a deletion debate for something unverifiable produces 5 sources, we either keep because it's obviously a faulty nomination, or we relist to determine if the sources are any good. To me this seems like a similar situation. - Mgm|(talk) 12:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not similar. I was one of the people who worded that line. We wrote that to avoid a "relisting" in a case like this where some sort of finality would be better, either no consensus or keep or delete. Protonk (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conensus can change, and that is policy. You don't achieve finality by stopping the debate when there is no consensus and making a decision as if there were. DHowell (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By that reasoning we could never have a "No Consensus" closing and some AfDs would continue indefinitely. Not a reasonable solution. And no, it's not policy itself, it's a footnote of the general consensus policy. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 01:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how you get that from my reasoning. A "no consensus" close is not making a decision as if there were consensus. It is explicitly declaring that there is no consensus and making a decision based on the widely accepted deletion policy that says what to do when there is no consensus. A relist is proper if consensus is not clear and further discussion might clarify or lead to a clearer consensus, no matter how much discussion has already taken place. But a "no consensus" close is proper if it is apparent that there is no consensus, and it is not likely that further discussion will lead to a consensus. And some AfD's do seem to continue indefinitely, just look at the history of Daniel Brandt or Encyclopedia Dramatica. This particular AfD might just be a microcosm of the seemingly endless debate going on at WT:FICT. In this case I think a "no consensus" or a "relist" would have been proper, and within administrative discretion. But a "delete" close is not, when there is a majority simply linking to policies and repeating assertions and opinions while a good-faith significant minority has logical, factual arguments that remain unaddressed. And no one as yet has explained how WP:NOT explicitly applied to this article or this article's topic. DHowell (talk) 04:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, correct reading of consensus and the correct result. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin All of the keep comments argue the general point of lists v. categories and state that it should be kept as useful information, the specific issues raised as to sourcing and WP:NOT by the delete comments were not addressed. MBisanz talk 09:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn Deleting in a no-consensus situation is ok when there is a strong policy argument to do so. There was no good policy reason to override in this case. Should have been closed as keep or no-consensus defaulting to keep. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn there is no point in relisting, as we are not all that likely to obtain consensus now. Renominate in a few months, and perhaps we will then. At the moment the criteria for these articles are so uncertain that decisions are essentially random. The only proper course is to admit that we do not agree on these. DGG (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion based on weight of arguments presented. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus - The deletes argued that the list criteria for inclusion was not clear and, given that "Witch's Council - Sabrina, the Teenage Witch" was on the list, it seemed unlikely that a criteria for inclusion could be devised to make clear what a fictional government is. The keeps didn't reply to this delete argument. However, a simple, "I'm sure we could nail down the membership criteria from these sources" probably would have been enough of a response at AfD1. The keeps focused on arguing from Wikipedia:List#Purposes_of_lists, and made some good points, some of which were rebutted by the delete arguments. Mgm said it best above, "Both sides had valid arguments and were equally well represented." If this were relisted immediately, the outcome probably wouldn't change since everyone already argued policy. I'd say give the article a chance to receive a clear criteria for inclusion and time to adhere to that criteria before listing at AfD again. A month or two should be sufficient time. -- Suntag ☼ 10:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse a rough consensus to delete is present in the AfD when both numbers and strength of argument are considered. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn as WP:NOT arguments in deletion debate seem to be based on a misunderstanding of the intention of the relevant section of WP:NOT. The article as it stood did not meet the definition of "indiscriminate collection of information", as the list included clearly defined, sensible, objective criteria for inclusion. Argument that any list including "the Witches Council from Sabrina the Teenage Witch" is indiscriminate seem to be, basically, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Per User:DGG, I don't believe relisting to be sensible at this point in time, especially as one result of the AFD discussion seemed to be a change in consensus of the editors of the article on what should and should not be included. Let's give them time to overhaul the list before considering further action. JulesH (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Keep arguments were basically ILIKEIT & ITSUSEFUL. Whereas the deletion nomination was drawing implicitly from WP:NOT. The deletion arguments were stronger, and editors in favour of deletion more numerous. As a result, the close can in no way be considered out of process Eusebeus (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse What is going one here? When I clicked on the AfD I expected to see some 10 page long back and forth with 40 delete votes and 45 keep votes, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional swords (2nd nomination) or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional swords. Instead I see a poor but reasonable and civil nomination, 5 delete votes, 1 neutral, and 3 keep. One of the keep votes (Dravecky's) was uncompelling, but DHowells and Banjeboi's were both very compelling. They make a strong argument that lists and categories do not server overlapping functions and so deletion and replacement w/ a cat is not zero sum. It might be reasonable to argue that the debate should be listed as no consensus if you weigh their arguments strongly. But it is also reasonable to close the debate as delete given the preponderance of argument and opinion. As such, I can't see overturning this decision on the basis of some failure in the process. Protonk (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is "reasonable to argue that the debate should be listed as no consensus", then that's the way it should have been closed. It is a failure of process if articles are deleted according to "preponderance of argument and opinion" rather than by "rough consensus" as it is defined by our policies and guidelines. DHowell (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is reasonable to argue that it could have been closed either way. And I am unconviced by the opposition of "preponderance of argument and opinion" against the words "rough consensus". Weighing argument and opinion (which is what you asked in the DRV nom, since a head count would lead us to delete the article) is part of getting a rough consensus where unanimity or near-unanimity is unavailable. This close was within the purview of the closing administrator so I see no reason to overturn it in a deletion review. Protonk (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read carefully the guideline on "rough consensus". It says that administrators can disregard arguments made in bad faith, which contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious. It says they can delete when it is "very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy". It does not say that administrators get to "weigh" good faith arguments and personally decide whose is better, or whose opinions have the "preponderance". It says that they must be impartial in judging consensus, and should ignore arguments based solely in opinion. Again, if it is "reasonable to argue that it could have been closed either way", that is most definitely not rough consensus, and it is policy that the article should not be deleted. DHowell (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read it, in fact. And I've read your reiteration of it. In neither place can I find some prohibition that a decision which could fall between "no consensus" and "do some action" must invariable result in "no consensus". Note I didn't say "it would have been reasonable to choose 'keep' or 'delete'". The result of such a dilemma is obviously "no consensus". It is a very different dilemma to choose between "no consensus and "delete". That means the administrator sees a rough consensus to delete but has to consider one possibly valid objection raised by two individuals. That is a marginal case to me. If we cede that margin to "no consensus" what happens when we have one good faith holdout in a deletion debate? Surely we aren't supposed to declare it as "no consensus" simply because a reasonable administrator might hypothetically make such a decision? As for DGFA, what are you trying to show? WP:NOT is policy. The delete votes said the list failed WP:NOT. That's an appeal to policy. SAL is just a content guideline. Should the closing administrator have just counted votes based on what policy the article was alleged to have violated?
- See, here's my problem. The basis for this DRV is that you want this deletion overturned because the majority (again, I understand majority==/==consensus) said the list failed WP:NOT but a vocal and possibly persuasive minority gave a response which you feel demonstrated the article could persist without violating policy. That's fine and good but in order to do that, we have to go back and undo the deletion decision and insert a decision that is based fundamentally on our weighing the individual arguments and discarding those which are insufficiently persuasive. But when I said above that weighing arguments is part of closing these debates I get an earful. If you'd like I can just go back and rewrite my endorse statement to read "Close was within the discretion of the closing administrator, holdouts notwithstanding". I'd prefer to not do that, but if you insist, I will. Protonk (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, if the discussion truly lies in some grey area between "no consensus" and "delete", then a relist is the only reasonable alternative. Further discussion is clearly required to establish the consensus that is required to delete. As for whether a good faith holdout should be able to block a delete, then the answer is emphatically yes, to a point. If the good faith objections to deletion are properly addressed, and further discussion reveals more agreement that the objections are not valid, and those who object to deletion are clearly in a small minority, then I can see deletion as a proper closure. This did not happen here. As far as the delete "votes" are concerned, an "appeal to policy" is not a proper appeal to policy when it is just a link to policy. None of those saying that the article violated WP:NOT could articulate exactly how the article violated that policy, other than to use the word "indiscriminate" which is rightly addressed by Uncle G's essay. SAL may be "just a guideline", but at least I explained how that guideline applied to this list. And how often is notability given as a justification to delete, even though it is "just a guideline"? Guidelines also have consensus though the occasional exception is accepted (but no one in the discussion explained why an exception to that guideline should be made in this case, or why the guideline didn't apply). I want this deletion overturned because the discussion did not in any way establish a consensus to delete, and deletion policy (not guidelines) requires consensus to delete (a "rough consensus" is still a form of consensus). If overturning to no consensus is not reasonable to you, than why not a relist? If further discussion establishes a clear consensus to delete, based truly in policy (and not just "appeals to policy"), then it can be deleted, and I will not object. DHowell (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Like stifle, I'm uncomfortable relisting a debate unless there wasn't participation or something was fundamentally wrong with it. As for the rest of it, I don't want to continue the AfD discussion here. Protonk (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're not willing to further discuss the deletion here, then where should it be discussed? If this DRV is closed as endorsed it still won't change the fact that there was no consensus, and still is no consensus to delete this page. Further discussion is still needed, so where should it occur? DHowell (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse: This is not a 2nd chance at AFD, this is to see if procedure was followed, MBisanz's logic was sound. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedure was not followed in so far as this page was deleted without consensus, which is contrary to policy. If you want to say that the "logic was sound", then please prove it with a logical argument, based in facts, policy, guidelines, and the AfD discussion. DHowell (talk)
- Endorse - 5 deletes, 1 undecided and 3 keeps, which, upon closer inspection, are 4 deletes with proper arguments, 2 keeps with proper arguments, the undecided implicitely leaning on delete due to lack of List of governments as "precedent", so to speak, and 1 vote on each side with no real arguments besides ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT. Spoiling these last 2, consensus seems to be Delete.--Boffob (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is not a vote, but if you're going to count "votes", by what definition of "consensus" is a 4-to-2 vote with one abstention a consensus? Wikipedia's definition of "consensus" explicitly says it is not about counting votes. DHowell (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a vote, but you have to give some sort of weight to every opinion, otherwise it'd just be the whim of the admin. Consensus is not unanimity, and, though I am biased like everyone else, I don't think the "keep" arguments were quite as strong as the "delete" ones.--Boffob (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No you don't have to "to give some sort of weight to every opinion", and in fact the deletion guideline says that arguments "based on opinion rather than fact" can be completely discounted. Admins abitrarily assigning "weights" to opinions rather than objective facts is exactly what leads to closures being at "the whim of the admin". DHowell (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Per WP:Not being addressed, wp:lists, WP:CLN and the draining effects of continually having fictional lists be targeted as such. As DGG points out there remains disagreement in this area. IMHO the delete votes centered on versions of IDON"TLIKEIT. This and related CRUFT and TRIVIA concerns are valid - to a point. Wikipedia, per WP:NOT, hosts multitudes of information that traditional encyclopedias don't or couldn't. We should strive to do it well so even those - like myself - who are completely uninterested in the topic might learn something if they stumble upon the article. It should be well-written and explain the subject - these are editing issues and even our best lists developed over time. -- Banjeboi 23:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion the outcome was pretty clear here I believe, and the closure was sound. JBsupreme (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (from a delete !voter from the AfD; take me with a larger grain of salt than usual) - While most of this semi-rehash has focused on facets of WP:NOT, it seems the closing admin. also put appropriate weight on the list's failure to meet WP:V. The comparison to the AfD for the similarly-focused List of fictional military organizations is in-apt in part because the military one garnered a broader response; if that suggests the debate should be reopened for broader discussion, well, okay then. --EEMIV (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are open to a relist, why not bold that? Also, no one said it didn't meet WP:V (in fact the only one to bring up that policy was me, arguing that it met that policy)—a lack of citations is not the same as being unverifiable. And fictional works are sources for fictional elements (which actually were cited in the article, if I recall), so most, if not all of these, were verifiable. Notability is another issue... DHowell (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the close on the basis of stronger and better arguments in favor of deletion. The close was properly done, and this is not a second chance at arguing the merits of the article. {{WP:NOT]] was properly applied, since this is about .000001% of the "fictional governments" listed in fictional works, arbitrarily selected. A category would identify fictional governments notable enough to actually have articles. Edison (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is not a second chance at arguing the merits of the article, why are you making essentially the same argument you made in the original discussion? No one suggested that this was to be a list of all fictional governments ever created; limiting the list to notable instances is standard practice for lists such as these. DHowell (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- in my opinion consensus was established in favour of deletion both by strength of numbers and, more importantly, strength of argument. This was not am improper close. Reyk YO! 00:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
