Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 August 20

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

20 August 2009

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

Article was unfairly deleted at an AFD. The Consensus was to keep, not delete. keystoneridin! (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if it matters at this point, but Cptono will have copies of newspapers articles at his disposal to back-up reliable sources on the article and he will cite sources and enhance notabilty. If it works, great. If not, whatever. As a newbie editor, I tried my best to add filmmaker/author Mr. Jennings to this site. That's all I can do. Timemachine1967 (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It does matter because I see no reason to wait 7 days for this to close if we can fix and restore the article before that. By the same token it would be a shame to delay fixing it while we navel gaze here. Spartaz Humbug! 17:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I had been closing, I might have waited another week and notified (or re-notified ) appropriate workgroups to get additional opinions, but I think Spartaz' closing was a reasonable option also. But clearly fixing the article is the best course, then move to mainspace, and then renominate unless the additional material shows him so clearly notable nobody wants to nom. for deletion. If we need to have another AfD, it should be on the improved article. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (EC) Due to the fact that it looks like there's already productive dialogue in process about this article on Spartaz talk page I'd suggest the best thing to do would be to close this without predjudice. Let's let the discussion have a chance to work, and if there's still a dispute after, then it can be brought to DRV.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, proper closure. Stifle (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I'd endorse that too. The only thing I'd take issue with is discarding a keep !vote based on WP:ATA. ATA is an essay that users are perfectly free to disregard; in fact, it's basically a list of arguments that someone else thinks shouldn't count, and the reasoning is often pretty questionable. I think that !vote should have been given full weight.

    But it didn't affect the outcome, so I'll join the endorse chorus here.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse It looks to me that the closing admin made a correct decision based on the arguments that most reflected policy. An admin citing an essay in AfD closure isn't a problem to me, an essay is just a shorthand way of saying a common sentiment that doesn't carry any weight above the user typing the same thing in manually. Closing decision weighted arguments in light of policy, and was proper. Gigs (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is being fixed. A bunch of newspaper articles and interviews have been e-mailed to cptnono. He will now look them over, edit the article, add what needs to be added, (along with the acceptable on-line refs) as well as, clarify the sourcing and summarise what's there. This will give an indication of the depth of coverage so the article can hopefully be restored very soon. Thank you. Timemachine1967 (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no hurry. Gigs (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confident after cptono reworks the article with the verifiable sources I've sent him, it'll make a difference in the final decison. Timemachine1967 (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, it was obviously a tongue-in-cheek joke. It'll be interesting to see how much of a chance you give Cptono when he adds the new info. Timemachine1967 (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I didn't come across as tongue in cheek to me. Text is a poor medium for humour so unless you use smilies your intent will frequently be misread to your detriment. And as for the chance? It will be exactly the chance I give everyone else that raises similar issues. If I wasn't going to be open I would have just told you to go to DRV from the outset. And that's another assumption of bad faith on your part or was that another badly flagged joke? We discourage that kind of thing round here because it poisons the atmosphere and makes collaborative editing harder. Spartaz Humbug! 07:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm a little concerned over the way this was brought to deletion review even though I understand the proposal. Several editors have fully crossed the line in regards to theWP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, WP:DONTBITE, and WP:CIVIL guidelines. This goes for people working on the article, the original deletion discussion, talk pages, etc. I did it to when I first saw the article so can't be blameless and won't name any other names in the assumption that it won't help a thing.
In my opinion, this article could have met the basic criteria requirements of BIO since he has been the "subject of published secondary source material which...". His work has also won "critical attention" as laid out in the creative professionals guideline. The guidelines for including unlinked information were also followed to some extent. However, significant coverage and verifiability was a concern. Spartaz was willing to rereview it once some info was presented so lets relax and see if we can improve Wikipeida with an improved article. I'm working under the impression that this article can be improved and I hope anyone who has become stressed can just chill and see if it works.Cptnono (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BITE is not an excuse to jump up and down like a 5-year-old girl upon her parents taking her candy away. That's the impression I get in that AFD, at least. Even the newest users should have the most basic understanding of how to behave in a colloborative, collegial environment. MuZemike 20:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I didn't mention any names ;) Cptnono (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz has been away for a couple days so thought I would update info here. The sources look to meet the requirements and the article is in my userspace getting cleaned up. The info can all be found at the first Jay Jennings discussion on Spartaz's talk page. Take a look if you get a chance and let us know if guidelines are met. User talk:Spartaz#Jay Jennings Cptnono (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and find time to review this later today but I have a very bust schedule this morning so it won't happen for a couple of hours. Spartaz Humbug! 05:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Thanks for getting back.Cptnono (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that i reviewed the sources this evening. Findings per souce below. Note that i am judging the sourcing per request following userfication.

1. ^ a b c Davidson, Ben (1999-09-10). "BH Resident's New Film Unearths Seedy Life of Loan Shark". The Beverly Hills Courier: pp.

  • I can't access this source so need to understand what it actually says about the Jennings rather then the film. As a local freesheet i don't know how far we would go to accept this as a reliable source.

2. ^ Bertoldo, Brian. (1999-09-06). "Loanshark Movie Review at FilmThreat.com". http://filmthreat.com/index.php?section=reviews&Id=579/. Retrieved 2009-08-07.

  • Doesn't discuss jennings at all. Its a website with user submitted reviews. i wouldnt accept this as a reliable source.

3. ^ a b Bernard, Ethan (2000-03-02). "A Life in the Movies: Beverly Hills director Jay Jennings shares secrets of his trade". Beverly Hills Weekly: pp. 8.

  • Again i can't see the article so I can't judge the source. Not clear that alocal free paper is a reliable source.

4. ^ Amiran, Eyal (2001-01-03). "Guerrilla Filmmaking". Los Angeles Independent: pp. 1.

  • Ditto about not being able to see the source.

5. ^ "Best Bet". Los Angeles Times: pp. pg 5 sec around the westside. 1999-08-03.

  • Ditto. Is there an on-line link to this anywhere?

6. ^ Amiran, Eyal (2000-09-20). "The Silver Screen comes to Silver Lake". Los Angeles Independent: pp. 2-3.

  • I can't see the source to judge it.

7. ^ Royale, Pinky. (2004-11-05). "Loanshark Movie Review at Exploitation Retrospect". http://www.dantenet.com/er/ERchives/reviews/l_reviews/loanshark.html. Retrieved 2009-08-10.

  • appears to be an online fanzine so i can't see really see that this is a reliable source. Review is pseudonoymous. No mention of jennings as a person.

8. ^ Engle, Marc. (2001-08). "Loanshark Movie Review at CULTCUTS.COM". http://web.archive.org/web/20011101093028/www.icehouse.net/cultcuts/loanshark.htm. Retrieved 2009-08-11.

  • Was this a personal website? Clearly not a reliable source and doesn't mention Jennings

9. ^ "Silver Lake Film Festival". (2002-09-16). http://web.archive.org/web/20040825103224/www.silverlakefilmfestival.org/archives/2002/shor.html. Retrieved 2009-08-12.

  • The film was shown but doesnt tell us antything about jennings

10. ^ "TromaDance Film Festival". (2005-01-27). http://news.tromadance.com/archives/2005/01/11/2005-official-selections/. Retrieved 2009-08-12.

  • ditto

11. ^ Weil, Marty. (2008-03-14). "Interview with Jay Jennings: Knott's Berry Farm Collector". http://ephemera.typepad.com/ephemera/2008/02/knotts-berry-fa.html. Retrieved 2009-08-07.

  • Blogs are not reliable sources.

12. ^ Berlin, Loreen (2009-08-07). "Knott’s Berry Farm: The Early Years", Buena Park Independent (pg 5). Retrieved on 2009-08-12.

  • Can't see the article to assess the sources but its a local weekly with no web presence. Can't really assess as reliable source as it stands.

13. ^ "Real Orange". Hosts: Maria Hall-Brown and Ed Arnold . Real Orange. PBS. KOCE-TV, Huntington Beach, CA. 2009-06-24.

  • Can't see to knwo what its about what it says about Jennings or what kind of programme it is.

Bottom line is that the new sources need to be verified, you can email to me at my username @gmail dot com but I'm not seeing sufficient evidence of individual notability through reliable sourcing here. Spartaz Humbug! 19:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I woke up this morning hoping for good news, Spartaz! I'll send them over via email in the next few minutes.Cptnono (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: Email has been sent. Please let me know if you don't see it. Body of the message:
"I barely glanced at the user submitted websites. That is probably a good next step.
Attached are some of the copies Timemachine forwarded over to me. The concern I see is that it is coverage from lesser known free or local newspapers. The LA Times is a big name but it is just a featured listing. The PBS interview is linked. Real Orange looks to be their news show from looking at the official website and Wikipedia.
In regards to the coverage being about the movies and not him, the creative professional guidelines require work by the subject to receive significant critical attention. Significance is questioned but coverage on his films does assert some level of notability.
I still believe the minimum requirements for inclusion have been met. I hate to have to rely on barely reaching the benchmark but for now it looks like the sources are OK."Cptnono (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono...You've done a great job sourcing the article, which can be seen here: User:Cptnono/Jay Jennings. For some reason, Spartaz seems to dismiss everything you've presented to him when it comes to this article, no matter how many times you show him reliable sources. He dismissed the consensus to keep; He dismissed verifiable resource links; He dismissed reputable newspapers that interviewed Mr. Jennings; He dismissed reputable newspapers that cited Mr. Jennings' films. He keeps arrogantly dismissing all your proof of notability. As an example, the Beverly Hills Courier is a well respected newspaper of major circulation that interviewed Mr. Jennings about his film career, yet Spartaz dismissed it. Real Orange is a well-respected PBS news show on KOCE-TV that only interviews "notable" people, and they interviewed Mr. Jennings this past June about being an author and writing a book about Knott's Berry Farm, which Spartaz, once again dismissed. Another of Spartaz' disregard of facts is when he erroneously called the "Interview with Jay Jennings: Knott's Berry Farm Collector" at: [1] a blog. It's a legitimate website where serious memorabilia collectors are interviewed. For Spartaz to dismiss it as a blog is absurd. Cptnono, you did an astounding job, much better than I, in establishing notability. Spartaz, as well as others, have chosen to ignore WP:reliable sources, WP:BIO, WP:CITE WP:N, and WP:V even though Mr. Jennings' multiple sources of notability keeps staring them in the face. This is getting old. You've done your best. Timemachine1967 (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, minimum requirements seem to be met. Content wise it is more than a stub. Please base the decision on that and not the discussion pages. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I must concur with Spartaz. The coverage that is there is weak and is mostly about the films rather than of Jennings. But it would be weak sourcing to establish notability even for an article about the films. This article is not yet ready to be in the mainspace. Jennings needs to get more serious coverage first. Gigs (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Jennings does have serious coverage, but they are blatanly being ignored even though they meet Wiki guidleines. It's truly astonishing how you Wiki vets don't even follow your own rules, completely ignoring notable sources when they're presented to you, even when the hard copy articles were e-mailed to Spartaz. Gigs, I thought your quest was to rescue articles, not join the bandwagon of ignoring sources of notability. It seems to me that this site is not, by any stretch, "new editor friendly" at all. BTW, these sources below are all about Mr. Jennings (all hard copies, plus others were sent to Spartaz) but just keep convincing yourselves they're not there. All the editors and administrators involved in this particular issue should just stop jerking around and either keep or delete the article. Spartaz has most of the actual articles, so after he's done with them, let him weigh in and you can all do your thing. Watching you people trying to show muscle and pull here is not what I expected when I signed up as a new editor. Mr. Jennings is well known in the Hollywood film community and is a published author. Cptnono and myself were simply trying to add him to Wiki. If he is, great. If not, life goes on. It's just the blatant disregard of his notability here, day after day is both laughable and sad.

1. Davidson, Ben (1999-09-10). "BH Resident's New Film Unearths Seedy Life of Loan Shark". The Beverly Hills Courier: pp.

3. Bernard, Ethan (2000-03-02). "A Life in the Movies: Beverly Hills director Jay Jennings shares secrets of his trade". Beverly Hills Weekly: pp. 8.

4. Amiran, Eyal (2001-01-03). "Guerrilla Filmmaking". Los Angeles Independent: pp. 1.

9. Berlin, Loreen (2009-08-07). "Knott’s Berry Farm: The Early Years", Buena Park Independent (pg 5). Retrieved on 2009-08-12.

10. "Real Orange: Book author segment". Hosts: Maria Hall-Brown and Ed Arnold . Real Orange. PBS. KOCE-TV, Huntington Beach, CA. 2009-06-24.

11. Weil, Marty. (2008-03-14). "Interview with Jay Jennings: Knott's Berry Farm Collector". http://ephemera.typepad.com/ephemera/2008/02/knotts-berry-fa.html. Retrieved 2009-08-07.

Timemachine1967 (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article rescue is about rescuing article that are in bad shape, but that are about subjects that meet our inclusion criteria otherwise. Here we have a well written article about a subject that doesn't meet our notability requirements. And, no, we aren't friendly to people who refuse to get it, new or old. Gigs (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of consensus Gigs, plenty of editors thought this article should have been kept and someone even brought it to this review regardless of the ongoing attempt to meet the Spartaz's requests. Seen other articles kept since consensus was not met in the deletion discussion. This isn't a democracy and otherstuff sucks but I thought that was kind of funny : ).
The coverage is slightly more than trivial and the sources have now been verified by two editors. This goes far beyond the "or directly quoting the material on the talk page, briefly and in context" mentioned at WP:CITE. Does someone need to go to the UCLA library and see if they scanned it into the archives? The article has some content and isn't overly promotional. I would love to see more sources. I'll keep an eye out but an article that needs to be improved is better in this case than no article at all.Cptnono (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is more than just the consensus at the deletion discussion, which is a local and very limited consensus (usually not more than 5 people). The community-wide consensus basis of our inclusion policies generally overrides any local consensus, which is why admins weigh deletion arguments in light of how supported they are by policy, not just based on the sheer number of people advancing them, or how persistently they are advanced. There are several uninvolved editors at this DRV who took a look at this for the first time here, and concurred with the closing admin. We are judging whether the decision was in line with the larger community consensus reflected by our policies as much as we are judging whether the local consensus was followed. And the conclusion seems to be that this closure was in line with consensus and proper. Gigs (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gigs, did you just make a blanket statement, inferring that you and the entire Wiki community of editors and administrators, make a conscious decision to be unfriendly to people when they simply state their case on an issue? That looks like a blatant disregard for WP:DONTBITE and WP:Civility. You're a perfect example of the snobbish arrogance that perpetuates this site. Even Spartaz didn't go that far. Your response spoke volumes. I'm sure your fellow Wiki comrades are real proud of your statement. Thank you. Timemachine1967 (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are pissed Timemachine, but your comments have not fostered any warm and fuzzy feelings. Since this is a user contributed project you have to expect to work with others to reach goals (inclusion in this case) or at least not get knee-jerk reactions (at least some part of the deletion could be based on that). I was looking for a "don't poo where you eat" essay to Wikilink but could not find one.Cptnono (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono...You're on your own, my friend. These people only care about showing off their status and how many deletes they've made, Some of them even admit a disdain for newbies. What a negative atmosphere to be a part of. Best of luck to you. Timemachine1967 (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray! I just found a blurb from the the oldest film publication in the United States mentioning the IFC channel. It isn't that special but it is something to follow-up on so maybe it will lead to something. In regards to the deletion that this discussion is reviewing, I disagree with the deletion to some extent since ripping out all of the poor sources and verifying the decent ones was all that was needed. That being said, requesting a review of the the deletion was premature on Keystoneridin's part since it was being worked on. I don't care if admins are mad at Timemachine's discussion page etiquette, if the review of the deletion shows that deletion was OK, if it looked like a fan page before, or anything else. If the article is up to par now it should be included. If the article is made better over the course of the next couple days then I hope it is considered on those merits and nothing else at that time. Apologies for the long winded back and forth. Hopefully this can get closed out soon. I think the article meets the requirements (Spartaz will have some input on that when he gets the chance) or will soon be OK. We do not need a review of the deletion since it the article has been altered after all the feedback.Cptnono (talk) 00:03, 28 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.
Traditional marriage movement ‎ (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Wikipedia doesn't run on simple majority voting. The admin's deletion guidelines confirm that "[c]onsensus is not determined by counting heads," and while a closing admin may "disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith, ... contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious," they are supposed to call AfDs based on their best judgment of the Rough consensus, i.e. the "sense of the group" or the "dominant view." Deletion requires affirmative consensus to delete; without it, the result defaults to a no consensus close.

That is not what happened when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional marriage movement was closed. Eighteen people !voted (i.e. made or joined arguments on either side). Ten supported the nomination, eight opposed. If we went by majority vote, the ayes had it, 55% to 45% - but we don't work by majority vote. We work by consensus, and there wasn't one favoring deletion. The closing admin's contrary conclusion was error (an incorrect interpretation of the debate in WP:DRV's argot), and it should be overturned here.

"An option preferred by 51% of people is generally not enough for consensus" (WP:WHATISCONSENSUS), and that "[i]f the discussion failed to reach consensus, then the article is kept by default" as a no consensus keep (WP:DPR#AFD). If 51% is not consensus to delete, how can it follow that 55% is consensus to delete? It does not. And other nominations confirm that the closing admin here found consensus where it is not commonly found. Here, the ratio of delete:keep was 5:4, which is typically well within the range where no consensus closes are the appropriate result. See, e.g. [2] (3:1); [3][4][5][6] (3:2); [7] (approx. 2:1); [8] (also 9:8); [9][10][11] (1:1). DRV has overturned mistaken delete closes with even more lopsided margins than 5:4, too; for instance, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Zealand – Pakistan relations, the tally was 2:1 to delete, and the closing admin closed as delete. But that was overturned on review and amended to a no consensus close, see [12][13]. From the other side of the looking glass, a 4:5 tally that was closed as delete was recently overturned to no consensus.[14][15]

Although the vote tally is not conclusive, it can be a proxy for rough consensus. (Indeed, it is impossible to decide which view is dominant without considering how many support or reject it.) If there are good arguments on both sides and the !vote tally is close, no consensus is usually the right answer. That was the case here, and a no consensus close was the correct outcome. To make the close yet more egregious, the closing admin made no effort to explain his/her disposition, offering only the perfunctory observation that "The result was delete." The closing admin made no effort to explain how they had reached that conclusion in the face of the deep (and roughly even) division over both the article's fate and the relative strengths of the arguments on either side among the editors who weighed in. To their credit, after being courteously invited to take a second look as DRV's rules require, the closing admin expanded their rationale, but still failed to overturn or (in my own view) adequately justify cutting a consensus from whole cloth rather than calling the existing consensus (or rather, lack thereof).

Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly. Regardless of which side had the better of this debate in abstracto, and regardless of which side the closing admin would have found more persuasive had s/he decided to participate, their task was to neutrally asses the consensus of the group, not to cast the deciding vote. That decision interpreted the debate incorrectly, and should be overturned to a no consensus close, the actual result. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I voted on the deletion page but I kept my argument short, because I did not see any clear consensus until Spartaz declared one. I stated there is no article that better treats this information. "Traditional Marriage MOvement" is not a neologism, it was meant as a cover all phrase for the issues we were debating on the deletion page. Edit wars forced editors to find citations using that exact phrase, enabling other editors to frame the argument that the article represented a neologism rather than an attempt to document an american political movement. Alternative titles that were suppressed by editting included "Traditional marriage", and POV titles such as "opponents of same-sex marriage". I prefer "Supporters of traditional marriage" which gets a universe of google hits, mostly relevant to the political movement [[16]]. Again. there is a very real political movement in the United states regarding traditional marriage and the issue was and should have been in the deletion argument what to call it, not whether to delete it. Spartaz acted without considering this information.Mrdthree (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The DRV nominator appears to underestimate the discount applied to !votes that are based on rhetoric rather than policy, despite citing the instruction to discount. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the "keep" !voters were wrong, and I personally feel this content does not belong on Wikipedia.

    Nevertheless, in response to the previous two arguments, I would reply that Wikipedia is all about consensus. It is consensus that establishes policy in the first place, consensus can revise policy, and it is perfectly permissible for a local (talk-page or AfD) consensus to decide to suspend a global consensus in the case of one particular page. That's why we have a discussion-based process, and it's a good reason not to discount good-faith !votes in deletion discussions.

    As a further consideration, there is a WP:BITE issue here. I think it is vital that we show new users and potential content contributors that we do not delete content without a consensus-based mandate to do so. Wikipedian processes exist to service them, and not the other way around. Our closes should show this.

    I therefore feel that Simon Dodd raises very good points in this instance, and I would recommend an outcome of overturn to no consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • How can there be a local consensus to overrule basic guildelines when so many users said that the content was irredemibly flawed? Admittedly I concentrated on the notability aspects in my close as the secondary issues were not a clear consensus to delete otherwise but no way was there a consensus to overrule site guidelines. Usually when that happens you get comments like, "yeah fails WP:foo but keep anyway because.." comments.... Spartaz Humbug! 15:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have this completely bass-ackwards, Spartaz. The burden is on those who want to delete the article to form a consensus to delete. If the discussion shows no consensus to delete, the status quo prevails by default. That is the very essence of a no consensus close. Your argument above, however, seems to be that the burden was on the keep votes to form a consensus to keep lest the article be deleted. In point of fact, neither side developed a consensus for their position. That is why your ancillary argument that "many users" argued that the content was fatally flawed misses the mark: just as many users said that it wasn't fatally flawed. The arguments made for keeping were at least as strong as those for deleting, and only fractionally less people signed on to them than signed on to the arguments to delete. When there isn't consensus to delete, the correct result is a no consensus close, and since your close was at variance with that, DRV must overturn it.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my own close Has anyone produced the requested non-trivial secondary sourcing discussing this movement? Please see the discussion on my talk page [17], my closing rationale and consider that despite all the assertions of notability, there were no google news hits for "Traditional Marriage Movement", nor was there anything in google scholar and the 3 or was it 4 books references appeared to be about something else. Compare that to the Civil Right Movement and we had 115,000 scholar citations and 40,000 amazon hits. There is no evidence provided that the Traditional Marriage Movement exists so basic notability of the concept for an article has not been demonstrated. Spartaz Humbug! 15:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is essentially a concession that you became a late participant in the debate and filed an unfairly weighty delete vote, rather than closing the AfD in accordance with the consensus of the discussion. Instead of taking the temperature of the debate, as WP:Rough consensus required you to do, you did your own research, formed your own conclusions, and superimposed your own delete vote on the discussion rather than accepting the consensus vel non that had developed.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I assessed the consensus carefully discarding the weak arguments or assertions of notability without evidence and giving promience to arguments based on policy and guidelines. If you are suggesting that I have am or have become partisan because of my responses on my talk page, may I respectfully ask how I am supposed to answer well meaning but non-policy based assertions of notability without highlighting the disparity in readily available sources for one movement compared to the paucity of sources for the movement you want to keep. If the movement exists how about providing sources instead of wikilawyering about what my prejudices are or are not, because, unless you actually are me, you don't actually know that and failure to address the core issue of notability is becoming very wearying. Certainly, I would not willingly void what I consider to be a reasonable close without doing due diligence that valid sources actually exist.... Spartaz Humbug! 16:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing that indicates that you "assessed the consensus" at all. Indeed, the very phrasing of the point (specifically, the definite article) reveals the problem: if you thought there was a "the consensus," you misinterpreted the debate. There was no consensus.
Similarly revealing is the question of how you are "supposed to answer well meaning but non-policy based assertions of notability." The answer is simple: the closing admin isn't supposed to answer them at all. If you want to answer those assertions, you can answer them any way you like by participating - but once you participate, you waive your right to close the debate. If you are conceding that you sought to answer some of the arguments made, as you seem to be, then you are conceding that you intended to participate in the debate. And that, in turn, concedes impropriety in your having closed the debate at all. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too; in effect, you have articulated a second and independent basis for overturning your close.
Lastly, your repeated demand that we show more sources tells me that you don't understand the function of WP:DRV. DRV is to identify whether the closing admin misinterpreted the debate incorrectly. Your demands that we find additional evidence and make additional arguments, however, are pertinent only to continuing the debate, not to determining what the consensus was at the time of closing. Unless you propose to reverse time, nothing we say here is going to change what was and wasn't consensus at the AfD at the instant you closed it, which is the relevant inquiry here.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    • I'll respectfully disagree with your comments about suspending global consensus. While that might conceivably be possible in the case of minor guidelines (although still the start of a very slippery slope), I don't believe AfD is a place to allow ourselves to ignore the requirement of notability. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Was that aimed at me or S.Marhsall? Spartaz Humbug! 15:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I should think it was aimed at me. I'll reply to each of the points in turn:

          1) The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.

          2) Notability is one of the guidelines you mention. It is not, and will never be, policy. It is widely-recognised that there are times when notability should be disregarded (as, for example, in the case of geographical locations).

          This is not to say that I think the content in question belongs on Wikipedia; I've been quite clear that I do not think it does. But I think a local consensus can decide to suspend the notability guideline. I also think that in theory, a local consensus could decide to suspend a policy, though I think that would require a consensus of extraordinary magnitude and very strong reasoning.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly right, and it highlights an important point. DRV is not a relisting. It is not a venue to rehash which arguments were better and which side one might have supported had one chosen to weigh in. Our task here is to decide what the AfD discussion actually decided and whether the closing admin called it right or wrong. The issue here is not whether the article should be deleted, but rather, whether there was consensus to delete at AfD to delete. Unless there was, the close decision must be overturned. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was indeed directed to S Marshall. Simon Dodd's interspersing of comments, plus my own slow typing, made this thread chronologically confusing.
Slippery slope - I don't say a dreadful thing will happen, only that confusion becomes more likely.
We cannot allow any random AfD to suspend whichever guidelines are inconvenient to the immediate participants' desired outcome.
And as for Simon Dodd's latest (16.27), how can one review the presence or absence of consensus without reviewing the arguments? !votes that are not grounded in policy or guidelines should be discounted. This isn't a popularity contest. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd respond to those three arguments as follows:

    1) Slippery slope and confusion—this is actually one of the big strengths of the Wiki model: decisions do not have precedential force. In other words, the fact that one selected group of editors on Wikipedia talk:Notability have come up with a general guideline does not prohibit another selected group of editors at the AfD from contradicting them. I understand the desire to drive a superhighway through the winding paths and lanes of collegial discussion between interested users, but I think it is a temptation to be avoided.

    2) We can and do allow local talk-page consensus to alter policies and guidelines. Indeed, policies and guidelines document the usual practice; they follow. They should not lead, because the consensus that alters a policy or guideline is often small or underattended. Besides, rules can evolve because consensus can change, and it is vital that we do not constrain this natural tendency.

    3) !votes that are not grounded in policy or guidelines should not automatically be discounted. The role of sysop in debate closure is to discount !votes made in bad faith, and then to determine what the consensus is. If the consensus is going in the "wrong" direction, then the sysop's role is to coach and guide users so that they reach the correct conclusion. It is certainly not to disregard the consensus in closing, nor to decide there was a consensus when in fact, there was none.

    I agree with Spartaz' reasoning, but I feel in the circumstances he should correctly have !voted rather than closing.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Article was a coatrack and a POV fork. There were 8 Keep comments, of which all but two (Simon Dodd's and Schrandit's) were various takes on WP:ITSNOTABLE. Schrandit's comment was reasonable but unfortunately based on WP:OSE, whilst Simon tried to debunk the NPOV argument but doesn't address the main problematic issues. There may well be an article to be written about this, perhaps - as pointed out in the AfD - under the title Opposition to same-sex marriage in the United States - but there was nothing wrong with this close. Also, AfD law #416 says that anything that User:DGG !votes "Delete" on is irretrievable. Black Kite 17:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you should keep track better. I'm moving from 20% delete !votes to 40%, if you don't count the merges as being either of them. DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually kept an article once that DGG voted to delete. I can't remember what article it was or why but I remember doing it. Spartaz Humbug! 18:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that happening too. Didn't it end up at DRV?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An AfD that DGG closed as delete came here a few months ago. Flatscan (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I voted on the page, I left my argument brief because there was no apparent consensus. The notability of the political movement is well documented whether you want to title it "supporters of traditional marriage" http://www.google.com/search?q=%22supporters+of+traditional+marriage or "opponents of same sex marriage" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22opponents+of+same-sex+marriage%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi= the title "traditional marriage movement" was a consensus title (or at least thats the consensus that was made with me), not an attempt to make a neologism. Once it became a consenus title, the edit warring began about whether it was a neologism. The editor that brought the deletion framed it as a neologism. Mrdthree (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine your consternation were this DRV to be closed right now with the words "consensus to overturn, because closing admin looked at the strength of the arguments not the vote count." Do you feel your argument is fatuous, AniMate, or do you feel it's a pretty good argument? You must think it's pretty good, or you presumably wouldn't have advanced it. If your argument was brusquely dismissed, no matter that several folks agreed with you, you'd feel that the closing admin was having an off day. The difference here is that right now consensus favors your position, a situation one hopes will be redeemed in coming days, while at the AfD, consensus didn't favor either position. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The closing administrator explained why the arguments in favor of retention were less persuasive than the arguments for deletion. You seem to think that having more bad arguments is a reason for keeping an article, but that's not the way it works. AniMatedraw 21:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse reasonable consensus. The sourcing issue cited in the first paragraph of the closing rationale was introduced in the nomination by Nat Gertler – Spartaz's examination of the sources was merely confirmation, not independent investigation. Flatscan (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Black Kite said it best... especially the part about DGG. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 10:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was no clear consensus on the page until Spartaz declared one. If Spartaz saw a clear consensus, he should have warned the editors taking part so that might elaborate their arguments. I left mine brief since there was a 50-50 split and I had never before seen a consensus determined from a 50-50 split. The article should not have been deleted, at most it should have been retitled. There is a very real political movement in support of traditional marriage in the United States http://www.google.com/search?q=%22supporters+of+traditional+marriage and the current title was not initially meant as a neologism but was a consensus title that was edit warred into a literal title. Past attempts to deal with this issue included "Traditional marriage", and POV titles such as "opponents of same-sex marriage". I would like to see this page recovered and retitled. Mrdthree (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • regretful endorse I certainly think we should have an article on this topic, and I think the NPOV stuff is really bogus as we should allow groups to define the term used to refer to them as long as it is descriptive, and I think traditional marriage is. The problem is that no one I saw provided any reasonable sources about the movement under this name. I certainly believe that there are such sources, but I saw none in the AfD and I don't think the closer could do anything other than close as delete due to WP:N and WP:NNN. I would support userfication and a rewrite once sources are found. Hobit (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The deleting admin is allowed to hold an opinion about policy. Protonk (talk) 06:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Userified to User:Schrandit/Traditional marriage movement at the moment. If the mainspace article is restored, please just move it from that userspace. Protonk (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Looking at the debate, it largely centered on NPOV issues: whether the title is appropriate or implies a POV, et cetera. There was no consensus about those issues. Spartaz is right that the larger, more important issue is whether there really is such a "movement" as demonstrated by substantial coverage in reliable sources. And this was raised as a deletion issue and not responded to properly by proponents; moreover, I would believe a reconsideration of the issue would be in order if such sources were brought forward, but this hasn't happened either. Mangojuicetalk 17:30, 25 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.
File:Ambar Siar.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Reopening previous DRV, as current situation does not satisfy conditions of that DRV:

Attempts at compromise have been done several times. Starting on the Talk page. Then went to Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests (I believe the conversation ended here, but the archive confounds me somewhat). After File:Malik Amb.jpg was uploaded, File:Ambar Siar.jpg went to DRV at the uploaders request. At the DRV I attempted to explain the copyright problem of a uncited black and white image, being colourized by an unknown person then being published in a broadsheet without any Citations. DRV fizzeled out as original uploader assured they would scan a new image from a book (the book would be able to stand as the Citation for the image). Now a de-coloured version shows up File:ShaikhChandScan.jpg. I contend is the exact same picture (simply with the copyright fooled with even more again by unknown persons). Examination of the Metadata shows Date and time of data generation 20:49, April 13, 2009 for both images.

I no longer consider this an edit dispute, I will not restrain myself to conform to WP:3R as I have so far, it is covered by exception (Clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy.) At this point it is even getting hard for me to assume good faith, as statements like The administrator who removed the picture admitted that it was a mistake & The Administrator claims it was not him who removed the picture are outright false, and careless editors like you shows no assumption of good faith in the first place. Now we find Images are being Altered in attempts to skirt Copyrights, and copies of files are being uploaded even before their deleted versions are DRV'd. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 02:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what action is wanted here. DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I think WP:FFD might be a better choice. lifebaka++ 02:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an additional note, I've deleted File:Malik Amb.jpg as clearly still a copyvio. To clarify, my suggestion is that you take File:ShaikhChandScan.jpg to FFD or WP:PUF. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Punt it wherever you may feel. But it would be on my behalf. This Gnome is on WikiBreak. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 04:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, outside of DRV's purview. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The picture is clearly more than 100 years old and has the necessary license. One can check the original source in Sheikh Chand's book 'Malik Ambar'. This is where the picture comes from. Nominating this picture for speedy deletion won't be appropriate according to me. The guy who nominated the picture for speedy deletion is not even the editor for the article 'Malik Ambar'. So how can one start questioning about the authenticity of the image when he himself does not have the picture of Malik Ambar. I come from the very town that Malik Ambar erected and I am well aware of the authenticity part. Thanks Nefirious (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue, as has been explained to you before, is that the photo you are referring to was taken in black and white. The color version is an artist's rendition, and as such is not public domain. Uploading a scan or some such of the original black and white photo would be fine, but File:ShaikhChandScan.jpg instead appears to just be the same colored image put through a black and white digital filter, and therefore would still not be a free image. Again, if you can upload the original image, instead of some variation on this artist's rendition, that would be acceptable. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the original image and a number of images on Wikipedia are an artist's imagination and they are never nominated for speedy deletion. The image I uploaded can still be seen on Sheikh Chand's book 'Malik Ambar'. The picture I uploaded File:ShaikhChandScan.jpg, is from the book. A renowned paper like Times of India too used the color picture of the same version. SO there is no doubt about its authenticity. I propose that the picture remain as it is, undisturbed for representational purpose. If you still do not believe, please have a look at the source mentioned, i'll be grateful. Nefirious (talk) 14:56, 20 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_20&oldid=1142499253"