Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 March 9
2009 March 11 >

10 March 2009

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

Tagged for speedying by an admin I totally trust, and deleted by another admin I totally trust, I still think there are sufficient claims of notability, or at least enough for an AfD. Here's an interview from Creativity, here's an article from LA Weekly, and here's one from the Boston Herald that was just published today; there are stories about his new project N.A.S.A. on plenty of music blogs, and here's a review in The Guardian and another short one from Rolling Stone (I'm sure I could find plenty more). Now, I know that these refs were not present in the article that was deleted, but I still believe that, even without them, it should've been AfDed. I could simply undelete and send it to AfD myself, but since I heavily contributed to the article (albeit like a year and a half ago), I figured it was best to bring it here first and not simply overrule two other admins. Mike (Kicking222) 22:52, 10 March 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.
Acharya S (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The original submission was for failure of WP:RS. Most everyone agreed that the article was about her theories and her books were a reliable source on her theories. However there was another argument about WP:N. She is rather well known but during the debate the people who wanted to keep the article were unable to provide examples of where she is cited outside of the web. She provided a long list User talk:Jclemens/Acharya_S#Acharya.27s_Response which I think meets WP:N clearly. In addition, since the time of the deletion debate she has been discussed for several pages in a book on view of Jesus (ISBN 0826449166 p 208) and is has an extended interview in another documentary entitled, "God in the Box". I think the original deletion was a mistake. The new evidence however I believe demands reconsideration. I can't view the deleted article but User:Jclemens/Acharya S is a tentative version of what the article will could look like. jbolden1517Talk 05:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commment This has nothing to do with the deletion review but... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya Sita Ram Chaturvedi is listed on her deletion page. These are two entirely different people and articles. Regardless of the outcome this should be corrected. jbolden1517Talk 05:46, 10 March 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.
Dog poop girl (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closing did not reflect the consensus or lack of one in this case. Multiple reliable sources were provided during the afd that disproved the assertions made by the closing editor that this was a 'news' article. --neon white talk 04:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC) neon white talk 04:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse (keep, merge and redirect). Decision firmly rooted in policy. The “incident” was a single event. No amount of news reporting justifies an article. Secondary source material is needed for such things to get their own articles, with none of the sources providing such material. The result of the merge, at Internet vigilantism is sensible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Afds should be closed based on the consensus. As there wasn't one here it reverts to keep, it's not up to an individual closing editor to make a unilateral decision that goes against the wider consensus based solely on their views alone. If this were the case afd disucssion would be pointless. As i pointed out quite clearly, notability beyond a single event was established with multiple reliable sources in the afd including significant coverage in several books (3 or maybe 4 i think written some years after the event[1][2][3][4], this one [5] is published this year, 4 years after the event and it's news related coverage), a media journal, The Sociological Review (DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.2008.00793.x) and a paper written by Michele Knobel and Colin Lankshear present at the NRC Annual Meeting. This clearly demostrating the event has lasting impact and significance within the academic community. nothing in the WP:NOT#NEWS guideline can be applied to this article. --neon white talk 06:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, more than a superficial look is needed here. You are not a newbie complaining about the deletion of your poo article. You have good points. There is a historical perspective here. There are lots of news reports, but they go for far longer than a “short burst”. The subject received many mentions, brief, but not “trivial”. It seems to be used as an example in serious study, but is it really a subject in itself? Can you provide the paper written by Michele Knobel and Colin Lankshear, presented at the NRC Annual Meeting? I want to see what these references say about the subject. Does a source actually say that this story has had lasting impact and significance? I’m still inclined to think that this story should be fleshed out as part of the encompassing subject, Internet vigilantism, but I’ll need to look into it later. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking with original "Endorse (keep, merge and redirect)". Insufficient secondary source coverage of the subject in isolation. Subject should be treated as part of the larger subject only. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the GoogleBooks references you mention above discuss the incident as part of a wider issue - that of Internet vigilantism and related subjects - which is where the article was merged. Also see below. Black Kite 08:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's irrelevant, anything can be part of a wider topic. You think all articles are sourced from books specifically about that subject? Refer to footnote 1 in WP:N policy. These are not trivial mentions within another subject. The detail the event as an example and in fact the major subject of the books is not Internet vigilantism as you wrongly suggest but socialology, internet privacy and internet memes which really suggests to me that you've made no effort to review them at all. --neon white talk 18:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All baseball players are discussed in the context of baseball. Your logic would lead us to merging all of those to one article also, so clearly there is a point where being part of a wider issue doesn't justify merger to that issue. So would you conclude that that all Internet vigilantism should be merged into that one article? If not, what would cause you to do otherwise? And shouldn't that decision rest with the community rather than the closing admin? Hobit (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man. If practically none of the sources discuss the incident except as part of that subject, then you have no independent notability. Baseball players, however, although they are generally only notable for playing baseball, have separate notability guidelines (WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE). Black Kite 14:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was shooting for Reductio ad absurdum rather than a strawman. So you are arguing that only reason we don't merge all baseball players is that we have separate notability guidelines for them? Isn't WP:N the "catch all" guideline and isn't it met? Hobit (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't believe that it is - otherwise I would have closed as Keep. As I said above, practically none of the sources discuss the incident in isolation. The New York Times reference, which some editors claimed were a fantastic reliable source, is in fact a humorous piece on cats and dogs on the Internet! Black Kite 16:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to take a break from WP, but... I'm not seeing anything about a topic needing to be discussed in isolation. Is Hamlet (the character) discussed outside of Hamlet the play? Is the ideal gas law discussed outside of the context of gases? I think you are adding a requirement to WP:N which isn't there. That's not unreasonable in a discussion, but it is in a close (IMO). Hobit (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're talking at cross-purposes. WP:SBST is relevant here. The incident itself falls foul of this guideline, but a mention of it in the wider article is reasonable here, because the sources talk about it in that context. Black Kite 17:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your completely ignoring the points i made. The multiple reliable sources refer to the books, journals and papers not to the news sources, i thought that would be clear by linking to them. I think it has been conlusively proven that this is beyond a news event and has historical notability (if it's still being written about in 2009). Please explain what more can be done to individual establish notability other than provide multiple reliable academic sources? --neon white talk 18:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Find multiple reliable academic sources that talk about the event in its own right, rather than treating it as an example of Internet vigilantism? Black Kite 18:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As i pointed out above and yet again you have ignored 'the major subject of the books is not Internet vigilantism as you wrongly suggest but socialology, internet privacy and internet memes' notability does not required that works are exclusively about the subject this stated on the policy page which i think you need to revisit. --neon white talk 22:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTNEWS does not require academic sources that talk about an event in its own right. Or any sources that talk about it in its own right. That people were discussing the topic in books well after the fact is enough to show it wasn't just a news story and had lasting notability. everything is discussed in some context to require otherwise is, well, basically impossible and certainly an unreasonable hurdle. Even worse, it wasn't something discussed in the AfD so it shouldn't be an issue here. Hobit (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except they weren't discussing the topic of "girl who lets her dog crap on a subway", were they? They were discussing Internet vigilantism and Internet memes and merely mentioned the event in passing. On a more serious point, is an article about a dog crapping on a subway train a suitable subject for a supposedly serious reference work? Or does it merely present Wikipedia's many enemies with an example of how risible this "encyclopedia" has become? I know which way I'd lean. Black Kite 22:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own closure. Few convincing Keep arguments were presented. There are 15 Keep !votes, many of those were variations on WP:ITSNOTABLE and thus given little weight. Of the rest, most tried to claim that because the incident has been discussed in reliable sources, it must stay. Being discussed in the Washington Post or other RS doesn't contradict it being in violation of WP:NOT#NEWS at all - because the Washington Post is after all a newspaper. Furthermore, I didn't go for Delete - though I was tempted - because the content actually sits better in the Internet vigilantism article (and improves that one) than it does on its own. And let's look at those sources in a bit more detail - "Multiple reliable sources" is misleading. The Post article is actually written from an Internet vigilantism angle (as does the Chosun piece), which makes the redirect more relevant than a keep; the New York Times only mentions the issue in passing in a piece about cats and dogs on the Internet, and most of the rest are either blogs or reference them. There is practically no secondary analysis of the incident or its significance, except in a discussion on Internet vigilantism. Thus, the obvious close was to move the content there. Black Kite 07:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to beat a dead horse, but these comments on the sources are original arguments not found in the AfD (as far as I know). Shouldn't your close (and this DrV) be based on arguments in the AfD rather than novel ones? As everyone likes to remind us, this is DrV and not AfD2. Hobit (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can that apply to a decision that wasn't based on consensus but on your evaluation of the strength of the arguments?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That depends whether you evaluate consensus as vote-counting or strength of discussion. Black Kite 16:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to stop flogging this particular dead horse because you've taken more than enough crap from me and I'm not personally investing in this article (though I'm certainly personally invested on the point of principle). I need to take the wider question about sysops ignoring the consensus to RFC, I think.
I'll leave you with this: "evaluating the strength of discussion" is rather hard to distinguish from "closing admin's personal opinion", but "counting the votes" is a transparent and objectively-quantifiable criterion.
And I think the closer's job is to implement the "consensus", which I think is a fudge to allow the admin to discount questionable !votes in a system that's fundamentally closer to democracy than it is to autocracy.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Per consensus, per it is a wise decision, and per it is within discretion and no procedural faults occurred. MBisanz talk 08:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: I would've closed as 'delete,' but you fight the battles you can win here. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. There seemed to be little consensus either way and the policies cited and examples given to keep were a bit more compelling than the converse reasons to remove. That all previous AfDs had also kept seems relevant as well. I would have gone with no consensus. -- Banjeboi 09:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. There was no consensus to delete, so the closing admin was right not to delete the article. In addition, the article covers what amounts to a news story of brief interest in tabloids, so the editor Black Kite was right to merge it into a wider article to frame it in the proper context. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A no consensus afd deafults to keep not redirect. Again, academic coverage has been provided, please read the above comments. Books arent news sources. --neon white talk 18:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG says "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail..." - Practically all of those sources mention the event in passing whilst discussing a larger subject, rather than directly, and the few that do can be covered by WP:SBST. Black Kite 15:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus While arguments on both sides may have been weak, it is inappropriate to merge and redirect the article when it's clearly not supported by the community at large. It does have its downsides. People on AFD often think too much in black and white and rarely consider compromises which is why I would prefer such things to be handled my Wikipedia:Requested mergers with full-fledged AFD-like discussions. - Mgm|(talk) 10:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Why would a "requested merger" attract comments any different from the AfD? Also, it could never be binding; merges are completely allowable under WP:BOLD. Admins cannot be vote-counting machines; otherwise we could set up a script to close all AfDs. Strength of argument has to be taken into account - see also this DRV where I discounted some Delete votes and closed as No Consensus. On this basis the two possible outcomes were redirect or delete - and I'd suggest that the merge/redirect into a more suitable article is the compromise that you mention. Black Kite 10:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • People go into a merge discussion with another mindset. In AFD they're more likely to look for reasons to delete something. As for my reasoning. I found the outcome no consensus best because the delete and keep arguments were both equally bad. Merging and redirecting may be allowable as an individual action, but we're talking about how the discussion should've been closed. A no consensus close wouldn't stop you from merging. As for a merge discussion not being binding, neither is a deletion discussion. The difference is that merge policy is a lot more vague. - Mgm|(talk) 08:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I'd have brought this here too, but NW beat me to the admin's talk page. The close, while not an unreasonable result, had nothing at all to do with the AfD. There was nothing resembling consensous for that action. If the closer felt that was the right outcome he should have commented in the AfD, not closed. I'd say no consensus, perhaps keep.Hobit (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was a major point i was making. As you say it's not an unreasonable decision but it was the opinion of the closing and rendered the whole afd discussion pointless. If this is how afds are going to be closed why don't we just an admin make a quick yes or no decision. I'm not against developing the article at Internet vigilantism until it is enough to spin out which should happen considering the sources but i don't want to instigate an edit war when that happens because the afd said redirect. --neon white talk 18:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you have rather I deleted it, then? Once I'd discarded the weak !votes there was certainly a consensus for that, but I tried to compromise. Black Kite 14:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes in fact. That outcome had significant arguments in in the AfD. It isn't the closer's job to find a compromise novel from the discussion, it is their job to identify consensous. I'd have disagreed with it as I don't think the AfD went that way, but it would have been a better close. If you felt consensous was for delete that's exactly what I think you should have done. Ideally you'd have suggested the redirect/merge as a participant. It isn't an unreasonable outcome, but not one that should be imposed by the closer unless it has consensus in the discussion. Hobit (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now that would be reasonable had not the material already existed at Internet vigilantism. Since it does, and it fits well in that article (indeed, the sources in the article actually fit better in that article than a stand alone one, for the reasons I mentioned above) I would have thought that a redirect is entirely appropriate. Black Kite 16:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I think there was no consensus. Solving by a compromise is always possible, but the objections to the article would not really be met by a merger. I didn't !vote in the AfD, because I couldn't decide about it.
more generally, we have a problem with the use of merge and redirect as closes in Afd. They are basically editing decisions, but they are also frequent AfD compromises. And they are also sometimes used after afd in order to in effect reverse the decision. for example, instead of appealing this, someone could have boldly reverted the merge. The closer would then have needed to defend it as an editing decision at the article talk page, and an admin has no special powers in editing decisions. This would be true in all such closings--if not immediately after, then any time later, possibly using the argument that consensus had changed. We have two alternatives: discuss contested merges and redirects in a public process like XfD--which is what we currently do for some of them, or discuss them at the talk page--which is also what we currently do for some of them. We have two competing processes that can yield contradictory results. DGG (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did consider a bold revert, using the new sources to create a longer more substantial article but considering the strength of some of the objections to the article, it would likely have caused an edit war so I decided to request a review the decision instead, i posted the academic sources quite late in the afd and I believe the outcome would have been an obvious keep if they were presented earlier which is something a closing admin should consider. I think there is more than enough info now for the article to be spun out from it's current place within Internet Vigilantism which makes a merge pointless. --neon white talk 23:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that your new sources have exactly the same problem as the previous ones - they only discuss the "event" in passing. Black Kite 23:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators states that a closing should be based on a rough consensus. There was absolutely no consensus for a redirect, rough or otherwise. I think some people need to review the guidelines on closing afds and WP:CONSENSUS. This discussion is not a further afd but a review of the closing. What you think of the article is not up for discussion. Views need to be expressed based on whether you think the closing was a correct reflection of the afd regardless of what you would have contributed to the afd. --neon white talk 22:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, if you wish, I can withdraw this closure and re-close it as Delete. There was certainly a consensus for that once the strength of argument was considered (in fact, it was mostly unanimous). I only closed it as redirect in an attempt to place the material in a suitable location. Would re-closing it be a better course of action? Black Kite 23:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is also incorrect, there was no consensus and equally strong points for keep and deletion (are we ignoring the 14 or so editors who expressed that this was adequately covered in reliable sources, is that not a valid point rooted in notability policy?), the points for deletion based on the 'news event', that may have been valid when made, were disproven by the presentation of the academic sources. By the finish of the afd there were no longer any valid deletion points. This should haver been considered in the closing and why i believe it was done incorrectly. I admit i have no idea what this continuing denial of those sources is about to quote core policy "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources". Sources like these are what the encyclopedia is based on. --neon white talk 23:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(condense for neatness) Except that there are at least 10 of those 14 Keep votes that are either WP:ITSNOTABLE, give no reason for Keeping at all, or are actually arguing for a merge. Now, I agree that some of the Delete votes were a bit thin as well, but that's how I got to where I am. And let's get this straight - no one is denying those sources exist - but they are not about this subject - they are passing mentions illustrating other issues such as Internet memes or Internet vigilantism. I'm not sure how many times I have to say this. Black Kite 23:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most were saying it's notable because it meets our guidelines and has plenty of RSes. That's not a weak argument, that's a strong one and shouldn't be discounted in any way. Hobit (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, when I see a !vote like "strong keep, discussed in the New York Times" and then I read that source to see that it is a trivial mention of the event in an article about cats and dogs, one does tend to think that people are (a) not actually reading the sources, and (b) assuming that being mentioned in a RS makes something automatically notable. It doesn't. Black Kite 07:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so they said something based on policy and no one challenged it in the discussion. If you felt there was an issue there you should have brought it up in the discussion rather than as the closer. That would have given people the oppertunity to disagree with your reading of the material. Instead you are imposing your interpretation of the source on everyone else without a change to respond to that. See [[6]] specifically "The consensus is that, while the closer made good arguments, they were solely his own, and unsupported by the debate; they belonged within the debate, not as the close of it."Hobit (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not always the case, and has been especially highlighted by BLP deletions recently where even policy-based consensus was to Keep. I can only answer one question - through weighing up the arguments, and looking at the article (and thus its sources), should the article be Kept as a stand-alone, Deleted, or would the information be better placed elsewhere? As I've said, was there not a clear redirect target where the information already existed, then my close would have been Delete on strength of argument and quality of sources per WP:N. Black Kite 15:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To neon white: fine, if you think that "There was absolutely no consensus for a redirect", then my 2nd opinion would be "overturn, and re-close as delete". -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I've said this before on DRV, but I'd like to see a clear guideline on exactly what proportion of well-reasoned arguments from established editors it's reasonable for a closer to ignore. When the process changed from VfD to AfD and sysops were given a certain amount of discretion, how much discretion did the community intend to provide? — I also deplore that it takes a real consensus at DRV to overturn a sysop who ignores the consensus at AfD. That makes the whole AfD process fairly pointless, you might as well refer deletions to a sysop for an arbitrary decision.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 02:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say a sysop has discretion to discount any number of !votes that they feel don't address the issues concerned. However, it's the WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:PERNOM and WP:JUSTAVOTE types which are easiest to discount - and here's my reasoning; if people can't be bothered to write a rationale for their case, why should the closing admin should be bothered to take note of their views? I mean, how long does it take to write "I believe source X,Y and Z are enough to establish notability" or similar? And I'll point out again, there was compromise here. If I'd votecounted after discarding the votes with little rationale, then the result would have been Delete.Black Kite 07:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • I respectfully disagree. I can see only two "keeps" that weren't grounded in policy. Admittedly some votes might not have cited the specific policy in which they were based, but I'm afraid it's reasonable to assume that the closer will know that. — Also, I don't agree at all that "a sysop has discretion to discount any number of !votes" and I challenge that very strongly indeed. I think the closer has discretion to discount any !vote if, and only if, the sysop has a good faith belief that the !voter is a sockpuppet or attempting to disrupt the discussion. I think the closer should otherwise take the !vote fully into account when closing.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that was the case, we might as well just count votes. If people just type in variations on "Keep, notable" or "Delete, not notable" without explaining why, then how is the closer supposed to know why they think that is the case? Similarly "Keep, sourced" or "Delete, unsourced" isn't helpful either - how good or bad or those sources? Have the commenters even read them? We can't tell. Black Kite 09:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that absent a response asking just that question you need to assume the statement they made was informed. If you suspect it wasn't then ask them. Are you really saying that in any discussion AfD discussion one should dive into details about each of the sources? By the same token, would you argue that those "endorse as reasonable close" !votes here should be discounted because it isn't clear that they've read the discussion? If not, could you explain the difference? Hobit (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are closing XfDs correctly, then you have to strength of argument into account. However, when you come to close a long AfD it would simply be ludicrous to attempt to contact dozens of editors to ask them to clarify their comments. All I am saying here is that a "Keep, mentioned in XYZ paper" !vote, when reading that XYZ source shows that it is a throwaway sentence in an irrelevant article (or for that matter, a "Delete, no reliable sources" !vote when reliable sources are clearly shown in the article) is definitely going to be discounted to some extent. Otherwise you are simply vote-counting. Black Kite 15:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly you need to take into account strength of argument. But you are replacing your own judgement about the value of the sources with what was concluded in the discussion. That isn't a closers role. If the closer's role was to evaluate the quality of sources, what would be the point of the AfD discussion? Why should anyone chime in if the closer can reach their own conclusion using arguments not found in the discussion? To me the issue is fundemental: what is the role of the closer vs. the role of those discussing. The admin bit should be used as a mop. Certainly you take strength of argument into account. But you don't discount policy-based arguments because you disagree with them. Otherwise we live in a land where whoever closes the discussion makes the call. And that's going to cause problems. Hobit (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I was hoping you could adress this question "would you argue that those "endorse as reasonable close" !votes here should be discounted because it isn't clear that they've read the discussion?". Thanks! Hobit (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To a certain extent, such an evaluation is required. Here is a hypothetical: You have an AfD, 3 keep !votes on the basis that the sources in the article are reliable per WP:RS, and three !votes for delete on the grounds that there is no coverage that they can find in WP:RS. The sources being referred to are self-published blogs - how do you close it? Do you no consensus it because you mustn't judge the sources and whether they meet the cited policies, or do you make the judgement that the sources don't meet WP:RS and close accordingly? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You close it as no consensus because there wasn't one, simple as that. If the sources were in dispute it needs to be done in the afd not by the closer. There is no hurry to delete an article, we should always look to keep if it is unclear that's why it defaults to that. Otherwise we risk damaging the project. --neon white talk 18:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No - that's exactly what you don't do - you examine the sources. An AfD is not necessarily unclear because some people have voted in different ways. If the sources are good, you close Keep; if the sources are unreliable or otherwise poor, you close Delete; if it isn't clear, then you close No Consensus. Futhermore, keeping articles which should be deleted damages the project as much as deleting ones which shouldn't be.Black Kite 19:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your misunderstnading of Afd closing and consensus that you are demonstrating here is likely the reason why you closed this one wrongly in my opinion. It is not up to the closing editor to change the consensus. Closing is not an afd comment, it's a summary of the discussion, if you want to make a point about the sources it needs to be done in the discussion. Think of it like an admin/secetary taking minutes in a board room meeting, you summarise the discussion and note the decision made but you do not change them based on your own feelings or record a decison that wasnt made. That's get you fired! --neon white talk 19:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So - and this is a hypothetical example - you are saying that a closing admin should weigh a comment which says "Keep - well sourced" equally to one which says "Delete - no reliable sources" even if there aren't any reliable sources quoted? If that's what you're saying, I think the misunderstanding of how AfD works is yours. Black Kite 11:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you needed more sources, we could've found some of the massive coverage in the Korean media about this specific incident. Most people felt there was enough to warrant the article's existance. So, even when most people believe an article is notable, it doesn't matter, because its all about the opinion of the administrator. Everyone else is just wasting their time then. One editor's opinion should never outweight that of all others. If editors can not agree, then the ruling should be no consensus. Dream Focus 12:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) None of the above, that's a false dichotomy. What you do is express your view and let someone else close it later.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ding! exactly. And this is the problem here. If you have something to add to the discussion, add to the discussion, don't add to the discusison in the close. Hobit (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to have to agree with Black Kite here. Wikipedia is neither a democracy or a beurocracy and introducing more rules on the issue is just inviting to wikilawyerism. You want a list of what admins will almost instantly discount? Have a look at WP:AADD, a good overview of weak arguements - in both directions - but an essay, not even a guideline. Introducing a list of arguements/!votes ignored and making that exclusive would just go further towards the whole thing being a vote, which it isn't. If anything, I would prefer if '''Vote''' were the ignored part and ONLY discussion was taken into account. That way, people just posting "It's a notable event" or "sources are invalid" would barely even be noticed. I do however recognize that this is probably unrealistic. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm conscious of the large number of responses I'm making on this DRV, but it does raise issues I feel are important. — I certainly don't feel we need a "rule". I do think that if the "discussion" were the only deciding factor that would give undue emphasis to those who posted last in the debate. So the !vote count has to be one of the elements that informs the closer's assessment of the consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I do think that in the absence of socking or other attempts to disrupt/abuse the system, the consensus really does override sysop discretion. Because that's all that sysop discretion is for: it's a fudge of the original "Votes for Deletion" process to overcome disruption or abuse, not a license for the sysop to disregard the consensus.
This use of sysop discretion is very far from what the founders intended.——S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Wikipedia has changed since it was founded in many significiant ways and admins using their discretion in closing difficult or close AFDs is enshrined in our deletion policy. This looks like a good close by an experienced and clueful admin who made the best choice available. Reemember the consensus is judged by strenght of argument not headcount and the closer took account of BLP issues as well as the need to retain sourced content. You should given them a barnstar not berate them. Spartaz Humbug! 22:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said I'd stopped replying to this, because it's not personal to Black Kite; it's symptomatic of the authoritarian approach to adminship which is the thing I'm disparaging. But I have to come back out of my shell to reply to this. Spartaz: I'll be the judge of what I should be doing. Clear?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, within admin discretion. The redirect outcome and target were not novel – they were suggested during the AfD. I am wary of what appears to be a trend of "compromise" closes coming to DRV, but this close is based on a reasonable interpretation of consensus rather than a naive average. Flatscan (talk) 04:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as nominator - I would have preferred deletion, clearly, but this close is consistent with the discussion that took place. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, valid close given the discussion and within reasonable discretion of the closing admin. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The editor did not have the right to go against consensus. Don't vote to endorse simply because you don't like the article. That isn't what this is about. The point of the AFD process is to form a consensus before taking any action, not for an administrator to ignore everything said, and do whatever he feels like it. Dream Focus 10:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn First off I think the inherit bias against these types of article is extreme which is an issue that needs to be address in wiki policy. Repeated nominations for AfD is not good and is in fact done mainly based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, not with the intention of improving an article. This event has had a profound impact Koeran culture and has had effects on Internet vigilantism which is well documented in the Washington Post and Cho Sun, both of which are reliable. The nomination also did not take into consideration the previous nominations. What I'm see here isn't a change in consensus but a change in editors and the hope that an admin would be more bias against the article. That is all this nomination achieve in doing. Valoem talk 16:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, if you look at my comment within the AfD, you'll see that I did take it into account. I am dismayed at your lack of good faith in this matter - had you read the AfD fully, you would realise that I was most certainly not trying to mix it up and get the article deleted through participation bias. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment My lack of good faith? How could you even accuse me of this? Where did I attack you? I raised the concern that this article was nominated on WP:IDONTLIKEIT not that your nomination was done on bad faith. Just so you know I read the entire debate and my argument is legitmate in all ways. You have not brought any new information or consensus that was not covered in the previous AfD. Your reason for deletion was Contested PROD. Non-notable, single event internet meme., the previous reason was Per WP:ONEEVENT I believe this should be erased from Wikipedia, this was a small interest story for a short while in the internet community but beyond the dog poop incident she is without question not notable. Nothing new here. Finally the main point is that this DRV is contesting the improper merge. The debate clear showed no consensus or keep therefore this should be overturned regardless. Valoem talk 16:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The AFD nom was on notability grounds, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Black Kite 16:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Those grounds were already addressed in the previous debate. I believe there was more of a consensus in this debate to move to Dog poop incident than there was for a merge. Valoem talk 17:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c)I was the nominator - you presumed a great deal of negativity on my part. That I hadn't looked at previous nominations, that I simply "don't like" the article, and that I was, in essence, forum-shopping to get a result that I desperately wanted. Such assertions do not appear to assume a great deal of good faith on my part, especially as I explain within the AfD (I didn't only comment in the nom) why I had renominated it. Have you read the AfD in full? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the nomination was in good faith, there should be no dispute about that. It had a valid point when made, however the afd provided sources that were not previously available that revealed the event was more than a single news event but the subject of academic writings some time after the event. I think these issues with afds and deletion reviews (considering some of the ill informed responses to this which i have no doubt are based on a certain amount of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and other negative views of the article) being poorly excuted are bigger than this single case and probably required discussion elsewhere. --neon white talk 19:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was not the subject of any academic papers; in all of them it was mentioned in passing as an example of an Internet meme, vigilantism or Internet privacy. You are not helping by misrepresenting this, and your opinion that AfDs and DRVs are being "poorly executed" are only your opinion, not fact. Black Kite 19:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that there is any "misrepresentation" is merely your opinion, not a fact. That's the whole problem with this is that you are claiming as "fact" something that the discussion didn't agree with. Hobit (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? He is claiming that the event is the subject of those papers. It clearly isn't. You only have to look at their titles ("The future of reputation", "Momentum - A new and empowering way of looking at and organizing social change", "New Literacies", "Global Privacy Protection", and "Memes and Affinities") to see that. Also, those papers weren't even discussed at the AFD - because the first mention of them is in this DRV. Black Kite 22:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to any consensus for a redirect. Have you even looked at the afd? --neon white talk 19:17, 11 March 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.
Faith in Place (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It appears to me that this closure was a misreading of the AfD discussion. Although some editors changed their !votes after an infusion of dubiously relevant refs into the article, little opportunity was afforded them to rechange their opinions after those refs were called into question. Requesting either a reopening and relisting at AfD, or a reversal to a "delete" closure. Deor (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can see that this is going nowhere. Nomination withdrawn; please close. Deor (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin WP:RELIST discourages relisting such debates where many comments have been made. That several users changed their comments from delete to keep and that several established users disagreed on keeping or deleting even after relisting is what pushed this to an NC. MBisanz talk 01:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse or weak overturn to keep I think 6 to 6 on delete !votes (if you count the nom and don't count the double vote). Objections to the references were made on the 8th, this was closed on the 10th. Given that many of the delete !votes came before improvement, keep would have been a slightly better close. Hobit (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus as original nominator. This one appeared to be muddled enough to make a "no consensus" closure appropriate. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep or endorse as no consensus. I voted on March 2 to delete. After work done on the 7th and 8th I voted to keep. I am note sure all discussants were aware of the late revisions. I think many deletes would change their votes upon review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep The article has been significantly improved since it was put up for AfD and it meets WP:RS and WP:ORG standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse there is nothing to prevent renomination after a suitable period, but an appeal of a non-consensus close always seems to me to border a little on the stubborn.DGG (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A relisting wouldn't have been a bad idea but I see no other problem with the closure.--Sloane (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- I see nothing wrong with a no-consensus outcome for that AFD. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse “no consensus”, meaning keep for now. The debate had already attracted sufficient participation. There was a mix of opinions. The ground moved during the debate, with continued editing of the article. The close was definitely appropriate. Leave it at least a month or two, and if the article stabilises in an unsatisfactory form, feel free to renominate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse “no consensus”, hard to see the discussion as a clear keep or delete. I'll also look to adding the google news refs and books but it will have to wait a day or two while I catch up on rl work and other wp duties. -- Banjeboi 05:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, couldn't have been closed any other way. Relisting is only permitted where no more than one or two editors have contributed, or where the contributions were lacking in policy-based arguments, and it's this way exactly because relisting articles over and over in the forlorn hope that the debate might swing one way rarely accomplishes anything. Anyone can feel free to renominate after a reasonable time if the article hasn't improved. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 10 March 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_March_10&oldid=1138435886"