Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 August 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 August 13
2009 August 15 >

14 August 2009[edit]

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

In the previous AFD over a year ago the article failed notability policies, it still fails now. All but one keep in this AFD was canvassed from an outside fan website. I saw no reasonable arguments that were put forward to suggest why this article passes our notability guidelines. So it should have been closed as delete. Relevant guidelines that the article fails: Wikipedia:Notability+Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers. After discussing with the closing admin, they didn't believe either arguments in the afd were airtight. Otterathome (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Statement of Closing Admin The first AfD on this topic closed with overwhelming consensus for Keep; the statement that it "failed notability policies" is strictly the opinion of the editor bringing this discussion. I closed this AfD as No Consensus, with a specific request for the article's supporters to improve the text. DRV is not AfD do-over and I can understand Otterathome's disappointment at not seeing the AfD closed in the manner that s/he wanted. However, I have already recommended that those in favor of deletion revisit the article in the near-future. Thank you and be well. Pastor Theo (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not my opinion, it is fact. The only non-trivial source on the subject that was found was from a local newspaper. And unless you consider two webseries' from the same company as two separate "multiple commercially produced or significant films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." then it also fails the actor criteria.--Otterathome (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's very hard to fault Pastor Theo for closing that as "no consensus", you know.

    Just wait six weeks and re-nominate it.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • endorse close Looks like a proper reading. Seems like a no consensus. If the closer had closed as delete I'd probably see that as within closer discretion but there's no compelling argument made for overturning a no consensus close (such as say, a serious BLP problem). We can always nominate this for deletion in a 2 months (at which point, if the article has not changed much I am likely to argue for deletion or redirection). JoshuaZ (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Perhaps the discussion could have been relisted, but this is a perfectly reasonable close. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete Consensus is supposed to be measured against policy and the delete side were makinga rguments based on policy while the keep side basicically argued by assertion. Spartaz Humbug! 08:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question submitter's motives/endorse I have taken part in the deletion discussion about the page LG15: The Last (result: keep), which was also initiated by Otterathome. In the discussion, he was one of only two discussing people arguing for deletion, ignored all factual arguments, refused to even acknowledge the possibility of a merge or reorganization, and, when it became apparent that us others would agree on a merge even without his consent, he stopped taking part in the discussion and tried to discredit individual participants in order to make it look like keep/merge had less proponents. (Going as far as lying that one of the participants was part of the production staff and therefore ineligible to take part.)

    I actually asked in the discussion whether there was any place to report him for his behavior, but the AfD was closed before anyone could reply.
    This move now to overturn a perfectly reasonable admin decision to try to kill yet another LG15 article, despite the fact that everything went according to process, underlines the pattern already apparent in both deletion discussions: Otterathome has a personal vendetta against LG15 content on Wikipedia. He has no interest in improving Wikipedia, he's just trying to kill LG15 on it.

    If you go look at Otterathome's LG15-related AfD's, you'll find the same pattern again and again: Him all over the discussion, fanatically arguing against anyone who votes keep, accepting no other solution but delete.
    This man should be barred from editing/handling all LG15 content based on WP:COI and WP:NPOV concerns.

    Therefore, I not only endorse the decision to keep the page, as there was no problem with the process and Otterathome is simply unhappy he failed to kill the page, but I also strongly suggest to reject this review request based on questionable motives on the submitter's part, and to investigate Otterathome's behavior on LG15-related matters on Wikipedia.
~ Renegade - 213.39.203.11 (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those who run around attacking pages they personally do not like on Wikipedia would do well to read this article:

And then, take a good looks at them self in the mirror. Wikipedia should not be a personal vendetta. Enough is enough. You know who you are. Let's get back to building a pedia that we all can enjoy and contribute to. OK?--Modelmotion (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith, this is especially important in deletion discussion and review where personal opinions and policy interpretation often varies. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 00:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same kind of responses I've been getting at the AFDs. They can't prove notability so criticise and question Wikipedia and its users.--Otterathome (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Says the one who went for the "You're either for deletion or you're not allowed to discuss."-approach.
Of course, claiming ad hominem attacks after you cheaply tried to get rid of milowent by inventing affiliations to the production is the pinnacle of hypocrisy, but hey *shrugs* - not expecting anything better from you by now.
But since you're having an audience now, how about you explain to all of us why merging, reorganization, improvement, etc. are not an option for LG15-related pages, and all them of must be deleted no matter what?
~ Renegade - 213.39.211.141 (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking about me again instead of the notability issues of this article.--Otterathome (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. All but one of the keep !votes basically said "it wasn't deleted last time, so it shouldn't be deleted now". But consensus can change. Stifle (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse there are 3 RSes in the article (including the NYT) one of which is fairly in depth, the other two are passing mentions. It's a reasonable keep and within the closer's discretion. Hobit (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So? WP:N requires more than 1 piece of significant coverage not half or 1 sentence mentions.--Otterathome (talk) 13:57, 21 August 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.
Wah Ming Estate (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Non admin closed prior to full seven days, few enough comments that a relist might have happpened, keep arguments were of the ILIKEIT variety. Abductive (reasoning) 04:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse keep:
  1. There was a unanimous consensus to retain the article.
  2. While, technically, the AFD should have run for 7 days, I closed it after 6 days, 20 hours, and 35 minutes. Per WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, this de minimis violation of AFD procedure does not, by itself, establish a basis for reversal: there is simply no compelling reason to believe that the discussion would have been in a substantially different state 3 hours and 25 minutes later.
  3. Abductive himself offered sources in the discussion which I believe to support the contention that the housing complex meets WP:GNG, and stated that "I think the first source is actually about the Wah Ming Estate, and so I would not have nominated this one for deletion. The ones that I did nominate do not have any such sources." [1]. Erik9 (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the closer doesn't address the fact that there were very few comments.
Saying "I would not have nominated it for deletion" because it had one lousy source (in Chinese, saying prices in it and several other complexes were up 14%) was my way of countering a keep argument that claimed sources would be hard to find, and we should therefore keep this article because it can't be verified. Abductive (reasoning) 04:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG's comment, to which you responded, never claimed that "we should therefore keep this article because it can't be verified." -- please don't misrepresent it. The comment, in full:

*keep as with many other articles on Wikipedia in all cities. Large housing developments on this scale are always be notable--and there will always be references if they are looked for. The Googles are not appropriate for this sort of subject. Printed newspapers are. There is always enough steps in the planning to get articles in the appropriate general and specialized news sources. DGG (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[2]

Erik9 (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To address your claim that "there were very few comments", a review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wah Ming Estate clearly shows sufficient participation for a consensus to be inferred. Erik9 (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't be verified by Google searching, then. Four keeps, one by DGG based on a claim of notability for all apartment buildings in the world, one by the article creator, one saying until a discussion on WP Hong Kong wraps up (a discussion that no member of that Wikiproject deigned to comment in besides the not votors in this AfD), and one by the user who set up said discussion. So a closing admin might have thought a relist was in order, or a delete even. Abductive (reasoning) 04:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG's comment was "Large housing developments on this scale are always be notable", which is certainly not "a claim of notability for all apartment buildings in the world", but only for "Large housing developments on this scale" (emphasis added). Please don't continue your misrepresentations of fact. Erik9 (talk) 04:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG's argument is teleological. The metric for notability is reliable sources, not potential sources in offline newspapers, (which Hong Kong doesn't have) and the one source I talk about above was the best the place has. An experienced admin might have come to a different conclusion than keep, such as relist. Abductive (reasoning) 05:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AFD policy isn't "find WP:RS, sufficient to meet WP:GNG, in 7 days, or the article must be deleted" - in the absence of proof of notability, we use heuristics to determine whether sufficient sources to establish notability are likely to exist. You seem to be arguing against non-administrative closures of any AFD in which impeccable sources irrefutably proving notability haven't been offered, no matter how clear and unequivocal the consensus in favor of retention, which isn't consistent with policy or practice. Erik9 (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A relist would be more appropriate. Abductive (reasoning) 07:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't do this, either: endlessly relisting until impeccable sources irrefutably proving notability have been found would cause AFD to overflow with an excessive quantity of discussions. Erik9 (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hong Kong doesn't have offline newspapers? Then what are all those newspapers in List of newspapers in Hong Kong? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for an admin to close, because non-admin closure is for uncontroversial matters, and the act of raising this DRV shows that the closure was controversial, which I think would automatically invalidate the closure. So I think procedurally, we can't possibly endorse the closure.

    I would, however, add that I would find it very hard to endorse an admin who closed this debate as "delete".—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversy" is a quality of the AFD discussion itself, not any subsequent fuss raised over it at deletion review. Erik9 (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think so? I think if it's controversial, it's controversial; I'm on record as saying (repeatedly) that I think non-admin closes at AfD can be reverted.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a stretch of imagination that someone will disagree with every NAC (i.e. the nom of the AfD) but Erik9 could not possibly have known before he closed the discussion that it would go to DRV. A policy of automatic overturn of all NACs that someone objects to would all but invalidate NAC, increasing the strain on admins working to maintain DT. That said, see my comments below. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 01:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a pattern of earlier than 7 day closes to me. Abductive (reasoning) 06:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC) —I wikilinked the list for convenience. Flatscan (talk) 05:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Are there actually any problems with these closes? Non admins actuallyc an't close to anything other then keep so the fact they they wereall kept is as expected. Spartaz Humbug! 09:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just thought it was something people needed to know about; out of the last 14 closures, 8 were early, some by more than just a few hours. I don't think any of them were wrong decisions, but people were jumping down my throat like I was wrong for daring to complain about a single incident. Abductive (reasoning) 09:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll agree that this should be discouraged. These AfDs really should be getting closed "after seven days" rather than "on the seventh day". Every now and again is fine, but I'd strongly suggest Erik9 stop regularly closing things too early. ~ mazca talk 09:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. One of the arguments in favor of the article in the AfD was "sources are readily available online about this estate.... I would not have nominated this one for deletion". That's a good, non-ILIKEIT argument in favor of keeping the article, which is what happened. And that argument was made by Abductive -- the editor who is now requesting deletion review. I don't believe it's useful to request a deletion review when an editor gets the result they implied that they wanted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure Abductive will correct me if I'm wrong but perhaps he felt it would be a stronger close if the discussion ran the full 168 hours and was closed by a mopster. I've seen one AFD that was first snow closed by a non admin and re-opened by one of the "keep" !voters for a similar reason. However, I don't think that applies here. A unanimous "keep" consensus closed after 165 hours by a non-admin is just as "strong" as one closed closed after 168 hours by an admin, especially if endorsed by a deletion review as this one appears likely to be. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. While there is a pattern of early closes which should be strongly discouraged, I don't think it materially affected the result here. Stifle (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And also, this would never have been a relist; WP:RELIST precludes doing do after more than two or three !votes. Stifle (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've relisted some with 4 divided !votes. Any more then that then I would follow up with a relisting comment saying why I relisted it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. The last comment in this discussion was posted on the 10th of August so 3 hours was unlikely to make a difference. The only 2 choices a closer would have had at 03:26 GMT or 06:51 GMT would have been "keep" or "relist" and there were too many comments to justify a relist IMHO. If the AFD were a close discussion with divided !votes and comments still being posted when closed then we could discuss the 3 hours. We really don't need to in this case. If the nominator wishes to challenge the common practice of closing between day 6 and day 7 then the proper venue for that discussion would be WT:DELPRO or WT:AFD. Note that previous discussions on this issue have not lead to a consensus. Last one here and a more recent one at WP:AN here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Explaining: I think the correct time to close is after 168 hours, and people should not close earlier, unless the situation is clear enough for an explicitly snow or speedy. But that does not mean I would upset a clear decision that was in violation by only a few hours, where it is very unlikely that further comments would have changed the course of things. Of course, one of the reasons to wait the full time is to avoid this sort of challenge. Erik would have done better to wait, and it would have prevented this needless discussion. It is not over-legalistic to challenge such a closing & I support Abductive in raising the issue. But whether to actually overturn the close is a matter of judgment about whether it would have made the least difference. In this case, I think the judgement is that it would not have. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse simply because this was how the AfD was going to end. That said, I don't like the creeping tendency towards earlier closures. NACs will not (or at least should not) be considered a badge, and certainly not a road to adminship. Obviously help is appreciated with closures but if the only way to "catch a close" is to close early, then maybe help isn't needed right now. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 01:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a "creeping tendency", it's been this way for the past couple of years. I took a quick look at the AFD log for the 9th and the first 3 closes (all by admins) were closed before 168 hours have passed. I can't speak for other closers but I start going through the 7 day old log at 00:00GMT to see what needs relisting. When I do that it only makes sense to also close any obvious keeps. I'm not trying to "catch a close" or race anybody, it's just that I'm already there. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:32, 17 August 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_August_14&oldid=1142605130"