- Kresimir Chris Kunej (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Deletion was without regard to keep argument. Turqoise127 (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Fixed link to AfD in the nomination. Please could someone confirm whether google's cache is accurate?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google's snapshot was indeed taken in the hour between the last edit to the article and its subsequent deletion. Uncle G (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and Keep, WP:N,GNG are met. Article subject has received significant coverage for the Republic of Croatia (there are only 2 major newspapers and 5 TV stations, both newspapers had coverage and there was TV coverage; all clearly and verifiably sourced).
In addition, WP:PROF criteria 1,4 and 7 are met, and any one would constitute notability. (#1:For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases one can also look at how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries when evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. I have provided sources of subject's works held in various national and academic libraries in Croatia. Please keep in mind this is Eastern Europe. #4: Person's work affected academic institutions in Croatia and in Germany, introduction of new university major, required reading of his paper at seminar and textbook used at Faculty of Civil Engineering(the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education). #7 Substantial impact outside academia; subject's initiative caused new profession regulations and changed public perception) There exists a Wiki Project:Croatia encouraging articles from the region. This article was part of that. From WP:PROF Caveats; Academics live in the public areana, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable. This one was successful. In addition, the respected administrator who decided to delete stated; "The author's discourses are much too long to usefully consider in their entirety", and on their talk page in response to my inquiry stated something along the lines of "administrators should not be expected to read lengthy comments because they (administrators) are unpaid". I believe some people are quite proud to be an administrator and many strive to be one.Turqoise127 (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist A close on the basis of the comments being too long is incorrect and against policy. The closer cannot consider the strength of the case for the defense if he does not read it carefully. But was the admin asked to reconsider the close before bringing it here--he might have realized it himself is asked? But I would advise the author to summarize the case in the relisting--it is true that people here are unwilling to read more than one or at the most two brief paragraphs at an AfD discussion, & will not join the discuss if that seems necessary. I am not necessarily saying I would support the article. (btw, the copy in the cache is correct) DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did follow policy and asked the admin to reconsider on the Talk page. S/he advised me to take the matter here.Turqoise127 (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno, DGG. I agree that closing admins don't get to say "TLDR"; I think if they can't be bothered to read the arguments, they certainly shouldn't be closing the debate, and that in itself is very strong grounds for an overturn. But where I agree with Sandstein is that Drmies' summary of the sources is excellent. I've tracked each one down and I can't fault Drmies' discussion at all.
So while we could force an overturn here, I don't see the benefit, because the article would go back to AfD and (quite properly) be deleted. My proposed remedy is that an uninvolved admin should re-close the debate on the basis of actually having read it, because we can't possibly endorse a deletion where the closer hasn't done that, but I'm quite confident the re-closure would be as "delete". So, I recommend keep deleted with a cold-blooded aquatic vertebrate for Sandstein and a remark that DRV would not wish to see future closes of this nature.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your input, S Marshall. I do not know enough to follow Drmies vague summary of the sources now that article is deleted, but I believe we did establish now that the cache is correct, so that alone would disqualify that part of his summary and change things. I also questioned the professional organizations source qualification. Your suggestion is a slap on the hand for this admin, but I still claim my sources arguments are not being considered... No one took the time to say why WP:PROF criteria is not met? I was hoping this was an escalated forum for other admins to review the wider notability WP:Potential of the article, the currently established notability, and existing verifiable sources which ARE significant for a small Eastern European state.Turqoise127 (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OMG I just looked at your profile, Sir, you are a translator! Boy, I would have hoped you would have had some more insighful perspective that a simple cold blooded "keep deleted"... I am willing to keep finding sources and work on this. Would finding a recording of TV coverage and putting it on You Tube help here since screenshots seem to not be sufficient?Turqoise127 (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A willingness to find sources is laudable, and it's the key to getting the article reinstated in future. DRV may consider it appropriate to "userfy" the page (which means to put a copy of the page in your own userspace, such that it is not "published" in the encyclopaedia's main space, but is available for you to work on it).
"Deletion" on Wikipedia does not mean the content has disappeared forever. What it means is that the material has been hidden from non-admins, and it can be restored later. In order to achieve this, you would need come back to DRV when you have finished revising the article and present a copy of it to us here. What's vitally important, when you come back, is to cite at least two reliable sources that discuss the article's subject in depth. These do not have to be in English; Croatian will do fine, but I doubt if brief television interviews are sufficient, since being interviewed on television is not all that meaningful in terms of notability.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (To S Marshall:) Sorry, my closing commentary was ill-phrased. I did read all arguments advanced, of course. What I meant by being unable to usefully consider them (as I said on my talk) was that I was not able to give them the sort of thorough evaluation required by WP:DGFA, which means that I may have failed to give any strong "keep" arguments buried in these walls of text their proper weight. Sandstein 20:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even so, Sandstein, I respectfully suggest that if you were unable to evaluate the arguments thoroughly because of their length, it would have been much better to let someone else close. I'm afraid I think DRV will take a dim view of that.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are probably right about that (the first part; we'll see about the second). Sandstein 21:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your honesty, respected administrator Sandstein. I believe the statement here alone warrants for overturn and keep, admin stated "I may have failed to give any strong "keep" arguments buried in these walls of text their proper weight". Also, other editors who voted likewise may not have considered valid arguments. I did point this out in the AfD discussion. Is this a problem on Wiki, editors not reading articles?! It seems like an oxymoron but may be true...(see AfD for Hedi Enghelberg, an editor voting states the subject is female). There are enough problems on Wiki with block votes and notability guideline inconsistancies to also have editors who do not read content.Turqoise127 (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear S Marshall, you seem to have a predetermined decision on this issue (I wonder if being a translator yourself constitutes a COI for you to participate here since the subject is in theory competition who had meaningful academic publishing?) You are so confident to state "when you come back," as if the decision is already made... Are you the sole responsible party with authority to decide this? I am not a child, I do not want "userfied" pages or sandbox. My argument is that per WP:PROF guidelines this article is notable enough as it stands. I have yet to see the burden of proof that is on nominators and/or delete sayers satisfied and WP:PROF claims disputed....Also, "when you come back, is to cite at least two reliable sources that discuss the article's subject in depth" I have already cited 4 (four) reliable sources (2 TV show coverages and 2 newpaper articles) Why is this continually ignored?Turqoise127 (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn (no consensus). I see no consensus. More thrashing may discover a consensus, but the debate wasn't there yet. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure. I agree that the closing editor's comment was ill-considered, but in fact, a huge amount of Turqoise127's commentary was not relevant to the deletion decision at all. Hence, the comment that "the author's discourses are much too long to usefully consider in their entirety" does not imply that the author's arguments in opposition to closure were not taken into account. Bongomatic 22:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, respected editor Bongomatic, you MUST read stuff in order to be taken seriously and for your discussion and votes to be considered. If you take a look just a few entries above here, you will see the respected admin in question state (and this is a direct quote):"...which means that I may have failed to give any strong "keep" arguments buried in these walls of text their proper weight." This does not imply the author's arguments in opposition to closure were not taken into account, it directly establishes it is so. I feel like I am in the twilight zone here. Please, if I am totally misunderstanding, someone correct me if I am wrong... Also, I believe not reading arguments or comments from the article itself, to AfD, to DELREV really diminishes the credibility of an editor to vote and makes a strong statement on vote motivations...Turqoise127 (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Indeed, maybe an ill-considered remark, but I agree with the closer, and here, on this forum, with Bongo. Much of the extensive commentary by Turqoise was not directly relevant to the topic, and it was difficult and tiresome to separate the wheat from the chaff. For instance, there is nothing to the WP:PROF claim--the guy isn't a prof, and those proposed guidelines for translators do not significantly contribute to the content of a discipline--if translation is an academic discipline in the first place. Having a paper used in a seminar does not make for instant professorial notability. But I did separate the wheat from the chaff, I think, and I have no reason to believe that Sandstein did otherwise.
I might add that Turquoise started by commenting on the supposed bad faith of the nomination, confusing BongoMatic and myself, and throughout the discussion invoked an extraordinary amount of policy, often incorrectly applied, to detract from the validity of our comments. Suggesting, as they do here, that S Marshall has a conflict of interest because S is also a translator takes the cake and, finally, this talk of "vote motivations" I find repulsive. You don't know me or my motivations, or those of other editors, and please do not refer to me as a "respected" anything. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Sir (Drmies), my reference to editors as "respected" is nothing but an honest courtesy. I am sorry you felt otherwise.Turqoise127 (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The extensive commentary you refer to WAS relevant to topic, because I feel bad faith nomination took place. Hence the subtle comments of "vote motivations". I am sorry that this "confused" Bongomatic and yourself.(Huh?)I did not go into that here, because it is a "no drama zone", or so I thought. You are right, I do not know you or your motivations except by conduct you display and than I believe I am allowed to arrive at some conclusions. Read this very carefully, so you understand (not condesending): It is suspicious that you nominate for AfD at the very moment when Bongomatic's notability tag is removed after disagreements, even more so when your talk pages are full of playful comments to each other. It smells like block vote. The comment by ChildofMidnight on AfD (Let's speedy delete this just to be jerks) further indicates a level of comradery. Yet even more significant is that Bongomatic removed this comment. Also, I have shown directly that some comments Bongomatic made reflected his not reading text carefully. This indicates that criteria other than concern for WP are being used for his deletion wishes. I just call it like I see it.Turqoise127 (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article subject IS a professor. In Croatia, prior to the Bologna process ([1]), the title earned by student of languages after 4 years was "Professor of English Language and Literature". Even if that was not so, the field of humanities and translation is very much an academic discipline (I must say that it is very inappropriate and disrespectful to translators of you to question this). The proposed guidelines DO contribute to the content of the discipline, his paper included numerous examples of bad translation. Regulations would improve quality, i.e. content. So, finally you touched upon some of my "keep" argument and discussed my "extraordinary amount of policy, often incorrectly applied". Well one needs to know something on the subject before one so confidently makes comments. So my WP:PROF policies ARE correctly applied.Turqoise127 (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If editor S Marshall is a translator but majored in scandinavian literature (for example), then he would not much like the ideology of strict regulations for translators that the article subject proposed in his papers. S Marshall states on his user page he does translations of eng-french and german-french, I believe (correct me if I am wrong). If subjects ideas were adopted, only those who major in a particular language would be able to be translators. And that would exclude scandinavian literature.Turqoise127 (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PROF was not written with the Bologna process in mind. "Professor" means Professor. Four years of college do not a professor make, and I do not know of any universities that have a "professor of translation." Your chain of reasoning in regards to S Marshall's conflict of interest is so ridiculous it does not merit discussion. And don't give me that nonsense about "insult to translators"--I am a translator, among other things, and I'm going to add a Croatian translation userbox to my userpage so you won't accuse me of being on the take. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for providing that link of meaning of professor, it strengthens my argument. Did you read the very first paragraph? It states; "The meaning of the word professor .... varies. ....In some countries, e.g. Austria, Brazil, Democratic Republic of the Congo, France, Romania, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Poland, Spain and Italy, the term is an honorific applied also to secondary level teachers. There is no "professor of translation", translators and interpreters are usually professors of the language in question. Article subject is a Professor of English Language and Literature.Turqoise127 (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're so welcome! However, no. Translators are not automatically professors--perhaps you should read up on your scholarship, because the two really have nothing to do with each other (just look at the opening sentence of Allen Mandelbaum, and in the interest of full disclosure, let me add that I have all his translations but he is not paying me). "Professor" as applied to a grade school or high school teacher in some cultures is obviously not what WP:PROF is addressing--that ought to be plain to everyone. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The more you indicate your disagreements with what a translator is and point to you and others as translators, the more it seems you disagree with article subject's ideology and not the arguments to keep or not. That is what seems plain to me. The subject is a professor by title, if you do not agree with Croatia's education system, write them a letter. The 4 year degree there prior to Bologna process was so comprehensive that it warranted ptrofessor title, there was no taking general courses first 2 years and then picking a major. All 4 years was language major, hard core. The subject is involved in the profession, has published academic publishing. For a million other reasons, subject is in field of academia and WP:PROF applies, article showed this.Again, let us not contribute to systematic bias against all that is not US and UK, and what we are not familiar with. It is not fair. Wikipedia belongs to humanity.Turqoise127 (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestion. Perhaps the closing editor could take the time to review all of the comments of the article's primary author and determine if there are any "keep" arguments whose proper weight was not given, and report back. Bongomatic 02:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, although I believe with all the circumstances involving this article, and looking in summary at the AfD and here, I think that it is pretty clear we have a no consensus here. Relisting the article would be against WP:Beating a dead horse (just made that up, sorry, I could not resist).Turqoise127 (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong endorse Turqoise arguments were too long. That's disruptive to the process and unfair to people evaluating the situation. But the key factor is that, as analyzed and discussed, notability was not sufficient to meet guidelines. I suggest userfying the article and if substantial coverage in reliable independent sources can be found in the future then the deletion can be reviewed. But as it is there just isn't enough to put together anything that meets our standards. Also, I think everyone has been quite patient with the single purpose account (who
seems to has an acknowledged refactoring courtesy of Bongomatic 16:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC) have a conflict of interest in regard to the subject of the article) and their arguments and attacks, but they should be encouraged to focus on the article and its sourcing rather than other editors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the third member of the party that I discussed, completing in my opinion the vote block. What is funny is, I have a high opinion of all three's contrubutions... I saw no valid arguments that showed notability insufficient. Editor Drmies made an attempt of disqualifying sources at AfD that I addressed, and attempted to debunk the WP:PROF met criteria here; in my opinion unsuccessfully. In fact, he helped me with his link to definition of professor(it explicitly listed Croatia!). Like I stated many times before I have no COI. Where did I acknowledge that? This is not a single purpose account. I participated in numerous AfD discussions. I am learning here and wish to contribute more, but I am being bitten upon arrival.Turqoise127 (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed a trout is appropriate for any admin that closes any XfD discussion without taking the time to evaluate the arguments made. TL;DR is a reason to not close, not a reason to fail to properly evaluate the arguments. The best next step is for the closer to either 1) remove the close and let someone else close it or 2) go do a proper job evaluating the arguments and give us a new closing statement. I think it would be courteous of me to refrain from opining on the merits until the closer has had that chance. GRBerry 18:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your input, editor GRBerry, but you are being a tad lineant, like some others. I for one think there is no crying in baseball and should not be any second chances when you are an admin. If an admin closes an AfD in a manner not pursuant to regulation, that decision really should be overturned. With that act s/he has influenced the outcome of any possible relist or new discussion. End of story. I do hope this act bears no harsh consequence on this admin otherwise, because I believe their contributions are numerous and quality.Turqoise127 (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The closing admin's point that some of the statements were far too long to be useful is spot on. And they noted specifically their reasoning and that the close was based on weighing the strength of the arguments. Let's not go overboard on the imperfect phrasing. I suppose if they had just said "the result was delete" there would be much less to complain about, but instead they gave some explanation and now you're picking it over with a fine tooth comb. I'd give you a trouting, but I'm partial to fish, especially smoked. There just isn't much in the way of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. No amount of aspersions or argumentation can change that. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What's it to ya bub? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse now that I have time to review the AfD and the article. Invoking TLDR is obviously improper, but, having reviewed the whole debate myself, including all the lengthy comments by the nom, I'm convinced that the error was immaterial to the outcome. No opinion on S Marshall's suggestion w/r/t the side dish. Tim Song (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as a reasonable decision; also endorse S Marshall's motion to send the closing admin fishing for a bit. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Closers cannot refuse to read/consider arguments in AFDs because they are too long. Consensus requires all arguments to be balanced against policy and you cannot do this if you don't read them. Happy with either a reclose by another admin or relisting Spartaz Humbug! 15:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The original AfD nominator is a translator, he stated so explicitly. There is an obvious conflict of interest and this -considered along with other bad faith indicators listed previously- was a bad faith nomination (Because article subject is also a translator who proposes strict standards for translators, and nominator who did not major in languages could be out of a job if the world caught wind of these ideas). This, in addition to administrator deleting due to “arguments being too long” and stating so himself, is grounds for overturn and keep. The sources are solid, reliable, verifiable and easy to discern even for an English speaker only. They are significant sources for a small country. Not one editor stated clear, convincing arguments otherwise. This is grounds for overturn and keep. Also, article subject is a professor by official title in Croatia. professor explicitly lists Croatia as one country where this is so. We do not have the right to insist definition of professor should be as is in the US. Thus, WP:PROF applies, and no one was able to disprove PROF criteria that was met. This is grounds for overturn and keep. Although more editors combined voted delete and/or endorse, there is no clear consensus. This is grounds for overturn and keep.Turqoise127 (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Dear Diary,
- So I thought I would give Wikipedia editing a whirl. I created an article that was well written and solidly sourced, per guidelines. Yes, subject it is of marginal notability, but criteria are met. One person did not like my article from almost the very beginning, so despite my working hard and improving the article he tagged it for notability and later one of his talk page conversing buddies nominated for AfD. Timing and circumstances were fishy, and I felt it was a bad faith nomination, which I discussed in the AfD. To make matters worse, the nominator, turns out, is a translator, like the article subject but with conflicting ideology. Nobody saw that as a conflict of interest though! So, I provided much discussion why the article should be kept. Some agreed with me, more did not. Consensus was not obvious. Three editors (nominator and his crew) really tried hard to delete the article and were very convincing, with strength in numbers. Do other editors understand how dangerous this is? In theory, these three could create and keep or delete almost anything they want to. It is a form of censorship and discrimination. My opposition did not offer much reason to delete. Few other delete voters simply stated “delete” without real arguments. But delete my article they did. And the reason given was that my keep discourse was too long! At this appeal forum, the three editors who opposed me returned, and again kept influencing the outcome. Again, some voted overturn and some voted endorse, with no clear consensus. I clarified my arguments further and no one really proved otherwise. Editors seemed more interested in sending each other pictures of fish. So now I am waiting to see what they decide. Oh, dear diary, I do hope that when I grow up to be an experienced editor I am not like this…Turqoise127 (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm almost inclined to invoke WP:TLDR myself. Instead, I'll direct you to the first paragraph of WP:PROF and the accompanying footnote. Read it. Carefully. Tim Song (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for this (Tim Song), first instance of solid disagreement with pointing to guidelines. That is all I asked for. I argued WP:GNG that was not addressed and also WP:PROF several points. Now, the guideline you indicate DOES say; "School teachers at the secondary education level,... also called professors, are not presumed to be academics". Thank you. However, the footnote also says: "...academics, ... may also work outside academia ... and their primary job does not have to be academic in nature if they are known for their academic achievements". The article subject is known for his academic achievement (academic publishing, universities using his work, research within published papers, etc, etc...Turqoise127 (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (TLDR on)
- Having failed to convince a majority of editors of your article's basis for not being deleted on the merits, this is your attempt to win the hearts of editors opining here? You deride the process and editors here, disdaining what may be a silly way to convey a serious message with a sarcastic comment about "pictures of fish", advance truly bizarre conspiracy theories (of course those opining at an AfD are going to be those who show up at DRV!), impute phantom conflicts of interest, and imply bad faith on the part of almost everyone with whom you disagree.
- You also egregiously mis-characterize process here, speculating on the "dangerous"ness of the AfD process. If you actually bothered to look at the actual outcomes of deletion discussions (or the summary at WP:OUTCOMES), you would see that inclusion is favored to deletion for marginal cases. And if you reviewed the discussions in which I participated (I can't speak to AfDs in which other editors have participated), you would see that I'm frequently unable to persuade editors of my opinion, and even my "crew" often disagree with me.
- If you find the Wikipedia process to be useless, why do you aspire to growing up to be an experienced editor here? If that is your objective, the operative words are "grow up", as in learn the policies and guidelines, take a look at how they are interpreted, followed, and enforced, and stop taking things personally and sparring with phantoms. Bongomatic 01:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (TLDR off)
- New sources/content information. I have just now discovered I can view the article as was before deletion on here under "cache". In this, I saw that my source for the subject's paper being required reading at the University of Tubingen was no longer good (I saw this previously, but included link to University's cache, now that is gone as well). I have uploaded an image of the screenshot for the University of Tubingen Seminar in 2007-2008.[[2]] Subject's name is visible on the list. I believe it is enough to establish subject being known for academic achievements and WP:PROF being applicable (This is one of Germany's most distinguished Universities). I also noted I cited the 2 newspaper sources poorly. Although that is irrelevant since WP:PROF is applicable, I could probably improve those...Turqoise127 (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fun Facts! Including this comment, this DRV discussion contains approximately 4,725 words (excluding signatures and dates). Of those, about 2,688 were provided by Turquoise127—1.32 words from Turquoise127 for every single word from someone else! Bongomatic 22:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am happy to entertain you. I was shooting for 3,000. Maybe you should contribute constructively instead of doing word counts. And I don't appreciate you telling people on your talk page that this is an example of how not to contribute to AfD's.Turqoise127 (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
