- North Carolina Stop Torture Now (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
There were only three contributors to the AfD of the 15th; the nominator and one other voted to delete, I voted to keep. The article was relisted at 0:40 on the 22nd by User:Juliancolton. Twelve hours and thirty four minutes later, with an admittedly impressive, if officially irrelevant six to two total to delete (the decision to delete being based solely on the merits of the arguments for and against, supposedly), the AfD was closed by User:Stifle.
I ask that the AfD be reopened; as of the end of the 21st, there was no consensus, and 13 hours is a laughable amount of time. Such a short span of time is extremely vulnerable to statistical anomalies and even more so to out-of-wiki-space canvassing. I take it from a discussion below, that closing the AfD as soon as a consensus forms is not considered, by one user at least, unusual, but it is incomprehensible to me that this should be so. It is like rolling a dice and waiting until you have a majority of sixes rolled, and then stating, the most common roll of a die is a six.
From the AfD: ..."The mission statement is standard...(for pages of groups such as NOW)..." I reworked the header. The notability is instantly apparent upon following the links already provided. A quick followup revealed the group's involvement in the South Carolina state legislature's proposition of HB 1682...Anarchangel (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)"
HB 1682 was the response of the SC legislature to the success of the books Ghost Plane and Torture Taxi: On the Trail of the CIA's Rendition Flights, to be sure. However, the grassroots activism by SCSTN against the Aero base in NC, and other Carolina businesses connected with the post-2002 version of extraordinary rendition, not only gave additional impetus to this legislation, and public support, but gains additional notability by being part of these reactions to this most notable of events.
Contributions Anarchangel (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those of you who are having a hard time, as I initially did, linking the above to actual edits will find the deleted article at North Carolina Stop Torture Now, and its "13 hours" AFD discussion, which actually lasted for seven and a quarter days, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Carolina Stop Torture Now.
I see nothing presented by Anarchangel above and in the AFD discussion to counter the strong policy-based arguments, put forward by the nominator and five editors, three of whom indicated that they had checked for themselves, that in-depth coverage in multiple sources independent of the subject does not exist, and nothing to indicate that the right answer, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, was not reached here. Uncle G (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, the title has been fixed. It now accurately reads North rather than South Carolina. I am going to check HB 1682 again, which is either the source of the confusion or is also inaccurately portrayed as a S.C. resolution. Aero is a NC company.
The media coverage was not restricted to either state; both HB 1682 and the org themselves were mentioned. Should this be relisted, we can hopefully see some attention paid to the facts and thus a counter to the proof by assertion that has dominated this discussion, and in fact seems to dominate the majority of discussions at WP. Anarchangel (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:RELIST, relisted AFDs may be closed once consensus can be determined, without necessarily waiting another seven days. Endorse own deletion as per the consensus. Stifle (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Stifle's comment above is almost a literal reproduction of the wording in RELIST. However, I believe that policy is in grave error, and I will show an example to illustrate why. If you roll a dice until you have a majority of one number rolled, and then declare that that number is the most likely of outcomes when rolling a dice, you have made just such an error; your sampling is skewed toward statistical anomalies. Thirteen hours is ridiculous. There is always some randomness when asking for comments in an AfD; the seven day time period allows for a -less anomalous- although still not error-free result.
Additionally, four people who prefer to ignore the citations in the article, or parrot others saying that there are no citations, all show up in thirteen hours, is even less of a significant result, for our purposes, than a number showing up several times when rolling dice. That is because the substance of arguments is to be considered over the number of arguments. WP:N always requires some value judgement; the citations are solid evidence and there to be seen. Note that I had considered and will continue to consider the previous AfD period of the 15th, contrary to Uncle G's assertion; however, its results were inconclusive, and Juliancolton was quite right to relist the AfD.
...I would request that consideration be given to the additional citations and material involving a second bill that should be added to the article:
Since no other assertions were made other than Notability and Verification by sources, I propose that the above evidence is proof that the AfD was not only, voted on by a majority of people employing only their PoV to assess the article, not only wrongfully closed, but that it was wrongfully opened, and that the article should be restored.
Anarchangel (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you feel that WP:RELIST should be changed, please feel free to gather a consensus to support that at WT:DPR. It's rather unreasonable to criticize someone for following the defined process. Stifle (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do, and I shall do my best. Your thirteen hours is most fortuitous in that regard, it will make an excellent test case. It is reasonable to assume what happens when good men do nothing, let alone cut the shortest corners they can within the confines of the rules. Anarchangel (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The consensus is not at issue. I concede that Stifle is capable of counting. Just unwilling to count up to seven days, it seems. Anarchangel (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing to say relists should be 7 days. This page is to review whether the close was correct, which it was. If you have further sources that you wish to be considered then how about asking for the page to be userfied so you can build them into the article. Quantpole (talk) 10:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your suggestion. It is too early in the proceedings for that, however. This page is for many things. You yourself have named one. Among my responses to the assertions brought here: I have already conceded that the rules state that relists can be less than 7 days. My arguments themselves are entirely unchanged and so far, unchallenged. The AfD and closure has not been absolved of my other challenges because the rules are deficient at preventing Stifle's misdeed. If/when my assertions are answered, the discussion can proceed. Anarchangel (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll find the answers at the top of this page, under WP:DRV. Nobody's going to type them out again for you.
The primary purpose of this page is to decide whether the deleting admin followed the rules. He did, so this deletion review will fail, and that's the end of the line for the review process. Your point is somewhat different, if I understand it correctly. You feel that the rules were followed but the rules are wrong — in which case, you need to challenge the rules themselves, and this page can't do that because first, it's not what DRV is for, and second, because you could not build a consensus of sufficient magnitude to change policy here. Not enough people take part in DRV for that. The correct venue is the talk page for the policy or guideline that you wish to challenge. If you're successful in effecting a change of policy, bring it back here. DRV will almost always enforce the policy that currently prevails.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. Closing admin correctly determined consensus and applied Wikipedia guidelines as currently written. — Satori Son 13:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion Consensus was clearly to delete and Wikipedia policies were correctly interpreted. - 2 ... says you, says me 17:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 15:34, 5 October 2008: Stifle writes into RELIST the rule enabling him to close relists before five days Now, I will grant you, that policy makers acting according to policy is an inevitable circumstance. Of more concern is the discussion that prompted that change. The problem is its length and substantiveness, and as per its length, it is no problem whatsoever to include it here in its entirety:
| “
|
Hmmm. In general I like it, but what about a case in which a 3 or 4 AfD is relisted, and then you immediately get 5 policy-driven keep votes. In such a case, assuming a clear consensus has formed after the relist, a nonadmin would be acting perfectly reasonably to close as a keep. I think this is true even if it happens an hour after a relist - the only time period that matters under the rules is the initial five days. I admit, a clueful person will probably wait to ensure that all voices are heard, but it depends on the article. Anyway, I would favor language like this:
- The AfD process is an attempt to determine consensus. In cases in which only one editor (or no editors) have commented on a nomination, it is appropriate to relist the AfD in order to obtain sufficient comments to determine consensus.
- Relisting a debate is not a substitute for a no-consensus closure. If substantive debate or good faith and policy based opinions have been expressed, a no-consensus close is preferable. (Stole your language here :) )
- Infrequently, however, the discussion that has occurred in cases with more than 1 or 2 during the initial five day period will be lacking arguments based on policy. It may be appropriate to relist such a discussion, understanding that it is subject to being closed as soon as consensus can be determined.
- The decision to relist a discussion with more than one or two comments requires good judgment and discretion, and generally should be left to administrators and editors experienced in dealing with the deletion process.
Too much ? Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that is worded more clearly. I like it. Protonk (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
|
”
|
There are many comments I could, and most likely will, make about this exchange. For now, suffice it to say that there has never been a substantive debate on any time period preceeding the closure of relisted AfDs, and yet everyone here, including the person who entered it into mainspace, is acting as though it were the Holy Words of Moses handed down from on high.
Immediately affecting my petition here, I retract my statement "Juliancolton was quite right to relist the AfD", except for as it pertains to the inconclusiveness of the debate at the end of seven days after the initial AfD of the 15th. The existing rule, as this discussion page listing indicates (they are for the substance of my argument identical) states that AfDs should not be relisted if more than one editor has commented with substantive policy based arguments. The inconclusiveness of the debate goes to the argument that the AfD was improperly relisted. The AfD should have been closed, per WP:RELIST, for reasons of 'no consensus'.
Anarchangel (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, you haven't got anywhere with your first argument, so you'll try a different one. Quantpole (talk) 11:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or maybe no one got anywhere against my arguments, so I thought I would let them have a go at a different one. Still no luck, tho, alas. Anytime you want to start taking things seriously, like AGF, or anything really, feel free. Anarchangel (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I always find it amusing when people shout AGF when they are failing to do the same. Quantpole (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I hadn't read RELIST when I made the DRV. I made my argument against 'waiting for a consensus to form', which still stand. I read RELIST, and it became obvious that there was another infraction of the rules that had been made. To follow your hypothetical, which assumes much and insinuates more: motivations cannot be regulated, only actions. That is partly why we AGF; what people think cannot be proven, only what they do.
- Endorse As has been stated by others, a relist does not guarantee another 7 days of discussion, but until a consensus can be determine from topics that have little to no previous discussion by a number of editors. The closing admin followed Wikipedia's deletion policies and the closing was not inappropriate or contrary to the comments given in the allotted time. Whether the discussion would have benefited if more time was allowed is debatable. But unlike the first listing which requires 7 days, there is no minimum time for a discussion to remain open after a relisting. Whether there should be one is a matter for discussion at the appropriate deletion policy page. But that discussion is outside the purview of DRV. --Farix (Talk) 13:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These waffles are great. Pass the syrup. Anarchangel (talk)
- Please show evidence of attacks. My assertions remain unchallenged (WP:EQ), therefore I have no cause to concede any. I have challenged all points made; it is for other contributors to concede their points or address my challenges. The discussion is not continuing because other contributors are not discussing. Early closure is counterindicated. It would only exacerbate the problem, by lowering the chance that someone who knows what discussion is, might enter it. Anarchangel (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
