Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2010 April 17
2010 April 19 >

18 April 2010[edit]

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

I know it's been four days since the AfD closed, but i've been debating whether I wanted to make a DRV for this article. When GBataille asked me if I was interested, I decided that, yes, I was. The discussion itself was closed with two Delete and two Keep votes, with the main debate between the two being whether this porn actor should be deleted based on WP:BLP1E or if he had had enough merits from other contributions to warrant him being kept. When the discussion was closed, it ended with there having been no real discussion at all (as the question I asked one of the Delete voters was never answered). The closing admin was User:Shimeru and his closing statement was "The result was delete. I don't find "unique contributions" convincing; there's no source that shows that he had any impact on the genre. Seems like a BLP1E." The statement itself seems very much like an opinion that a voter in a discussion would have, an opinion of which closing admins should not have, as they are supposed to be following or determining consensus. When I discussed this closing with him and mentioned that his reasons seemed rather opinionated, he replied, "Of course. Otherwise I'd lose my "power-mad rogue admin" credentials." I'm pretty sure that he was just making a joke, but his talk page does show a rather large amount of people asking him about the reasons behind other closes, which worries me. I feel that the discussion should have closed as No Consensus, as one clearly had not been made. Can the community please determine if this is right or not and whether the closing admin made his decision based on personal opinion? A userfied copy of the article can be found here. Thank you. SilverserenC 21:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to no consensus. The question in this AFD was really whether the subject was separately notable from the "one event" of his legal difficulties. On that question, there was clearly no consensus. AfDs should be closed on the basis of strength of argument; but that is not to say that the closer essentially acts as an adjudicator and prefers the side of the debate that he or she finds most convincing. The keep arguments were reasoned and policy-based. If a potential closer disagrees with policy-based arguments, the better course of action is to refute them via a delete !vote rather than a delete close. Then another admin can come over the top and close as delete if they find a consensus. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the last 'half'-deletion review on this subject can be found here. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC I don't see any form of consensus there. The admin should have !voted rather than closed in this case. Hobit (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I think this would have benefitted from more discussion and since the closing admin discussed the merits of the article rather then analysed the discussion in their close it is understandable that an outside viewer could think they bypassed the discussion in reaching the outcome. (Not that I have no checked the sources or the deleted article because I am at work). Spartaz Humbug! 07:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly don't agree with Hobit or Mkativerata; the closing statement is an analysis of the arguments brought up at the AfD, and not a statement of the closer's personal preference. Shimeru correctly dismissed the "unique contributions" view, which does not hold water. Unique contributions to gay pornography involving twins, indeed. According to which source, exactly? Shimeru then correctly determined that all the significant coverage in reliable sources arose from the article subject's involvement in a burglary, and correctly decided that BLP1E argument should be given greater weight in the close.

    I agree with Shimeru's analysis, applaud him for a succinct but effective closure summary, and endorse his close.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse per S Marshall, to whose words I can add none. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Whether a subject is notable or not is not a matter of whether an editor believes that such notability is in fact warranted, or is based on what (s)he judges to be a genuine achievement; rather, it is a matter of whether multiple reliable sources attest to it. Thus, S Marshall's ironic comment is not helpful: "Unique contributions to gay pornography involving twins, indeed." Keyontyli Goffney's burglary would never have attracted the attention it has if he had not previously established a significant public visibility (or notability), both in mainstream media and in the subculture of gay pornography. His appearances with his twin brother are part of the attention that he attracted. Would the mainstream media have reported his (in itself) trivial burglary if he had not already become known as the gay model who appeared in erotic scenes with his twin brother? Clearly not. The claims I am making here can be verified by checking the selection of sources quoted in the article. These sources range from television channnels to newspapers and national magazines. GBataille (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per S Marshall. And, as one comment in the initial AFD aptly indicated, "news of the weird"-type coverage typically fails to satisfy the requirements of the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: closing admin correctly weighted the strength of the arguments based on present policy. -Atmoz (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Timeline of the War on Terror – List at AfD. There is no consensus here that Jayjg's action is incorrect—but no consensus that it's correct, either. However, the point of the speedy criterion at issue, CSD G4, is that further discussion is unnecessary because there is an existing consensus w/r/t the article. The lack of consensus in this DRV brings into question whether that consensus exists, and so exercising my discretion as the DRV closer, I'm listing this at AfD for further discussion. – Tim Song (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Timeline of the War on Terror (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Greetings all! Jay and I have kindly been discussing this topic for a while now, but have reached no conclusion. The deletion which I would like to review is the most recent one, where the article was userfied (with the rationale "Not yet ready, per discussions on my Talk: page"). Since talk page discussions have been inconclusive, I thought deletion review to be the best place to continue. Because the version deleted with original research concerns in the deletion discussion contained zero sources, I thought that the article would at least deserve another deletion discussion since the draft version seems better cited. Cheers to you all! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article's name has changed slightly. The original AfD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the War on Terrorism. The discussion in question is at User talk:Jayjg#Timeline of the War on Terrorism. The article was originally deleted because the consensus was that it consisted of WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH. I recommended to Arbitrarily0 that if he wished to overcome those objections, he needed to use sources that were reliable for this topic, and sources that specifically gave timelines of the War on Terror. As I put it to him on my Talk: page:

WP:SYNTH is putting together a bunch of things into a thesis. If random writer A says "x is part of the War on Terror", and random writer B says "y is part of the War on Terror", and then you go and put those two items into a "Timeline of the War on Terror", you are synthesizing material. This is particularly so if the authors themselves aren't experts on the topic, or particularly notable for their views - then it's more of a "Google search for anyone who mentions it, and throw them into a list".

Arbitrarily0 apparently disagreed, arguing that "the sheer number of references that can be found in each correlation helps prevent synthesis". He also had a much broader view of what might be considered a reliable source than me; for example, I objected to Kurtis Wheeler, because he is a high school history teacher, but Arbitrarily0 felt that he was appropriate because he was a "Field Historian, Marine Corps History Division", though neither of us were able to state exactly what the latter meant. Arbitrarily0 did bring what I felt were sources that were reliable timelines of the War on Terror to the article, but did not feel he needed to be restricted to using only them. He also suggested using some sources for timelines (e.g. http://timelines.com/) whose reliability I felt was unclear. Jayjg (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the synopsis Jay. My only further comment is that I am most welcome to any/all dubious sourcing being removed from the article/draft. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without being based on reliable sources of a timeline then it does seem this is going to be little more than a list of things people have referred to as being related to the war on terror. A quick look through it and it doesn't include things I'd have thought would be included, is that because we can't find references as such, or is it because they weren't related etc. How many sources would I need to find making such a link before I could reasonable include it? So I can't see that this has overcome the original reason for deletion, it's still a synthesis of multiple sources to put together a certain viewpoint. On the question about timelines.com, from a brief search I can't see how that could be reliable, it seems to be user generated content (I can go to any event and click to add a topic to it, so could add almost anything to the "War on Terror" timeline. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thought was that the citations under the "references" section (not "notes") contain the reliable sourcing for the events in the timeline. I would imagine that the list is not complete, so feel free to add (and cite reliably through a timeline) any relevant information. Note also that http://timelines.com/ has not been included in the article/draft, for good reason :) Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you miss my point. The references maybe reliable for the individual event but they aren't (necessarily) reliable for constructing a timeline. As it stands it's a list of things some writers have referred to as being related to the war on terror (though others have not), the significance and to if they form a timeline point is in essence a arbitary construction i.e. OR. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose of this discussion, more or less, is to determine whether or not the draft merits a run-through at articles for deletion (on the basis of sources such as the "Encyclopedia of World Terrorism", which contains a fairly comprehensive timeline discriminating events in the War on Terror). The current inline citations are only to reinforce information already found in reliable 'terror war timelines'. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of this discussion is to see if it has overcome the original reasons for deletion, which were based around WP:NOR, at this point my view is that it hasn't. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment The present version of the article is at User:Arbitrarily0/Timeline of the War on Terror DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - As there is currently no policy on userfication such a move is essentially a speedy delete. As this page is not covered by any speedy delete criteria it should be restored as out of process (G4 does not apply as the addition of all the sources means the article is no longer "substantially identical"). Article can then be relisted at AfD if an editor so desires. Dpmuk (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Dpmuk and send to AfD as desired. Not a speedy at the moment. Hobit (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn if a timeline covers sourceable events of obvious significance to the subject it can be a viable article. Move to mainspace . AfD optional. DGG ( talk ) 15:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - Disparate events cobbled together into a timeline do not make a valid article. No reason to bring this back to another AfD to decide the same thing. Tarc (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, WP:SYNTH applies. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
how does SYNTH apply to the concept that things that occur in specific times occur in a chronological sequence? That 2002 is followed by 2004 is not OR. Selecting what events belong in an article is not OR, but the basis of writing every Wikipedia article. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Redirects in Chinese – Snowball overturn all, without prejudice to subsequent RfDs, etc. – Tim Song (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
This DRV includes the numerous redirects deleted out of process by UtherSRG (talk · contribs). These redirects were incorrectly deleted under {{db-housekeeping}} and {{db-a2}} because the deleting admin believes that "English-language wiki article titles should be in Roman characters. This viewpoint is clearly wrong as seen by the existence of templates such as Template:R from alternative language and Category:Templates for redirects involving diacritics or language change. When UtherSRG was asked by Mathpianist93 (talk · contribs) to restore these redirects, UtherSRG responded, "I'm not going to discuss this."

A number of the deleted titles were not redirects but articles written in Chinese which already exist in English. Thus, I ask that DRV overturn the deletion of only the redirects that were improperly deleted. Cunard (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn the G6 deletions and improper A2 deletions. A2 does not cover redirects, and from a handful I looked at they are all redirects, thus they do not fall under the speedy criteria. Additionally, the fact this has been listed here shows it is not non-controversial, thus G6 does also not apply. If they are problematic they should be taken to RfD, some may be deleted again, but they need to go through the correct process here as they don't fit speedy criteria. --Taelus (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Reasonable nomination. Speedies of non-offensive stuff should be readily overturned on request, and listed at an XfD if there is disagreement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn all on the grounds that neither G6 nor A2 applied, but without prejudice to a debate at RFD, RFC, or any other proper place to establish or discuss conventions about redirects from foreign-language character sets.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn all, but list after. In general, we shouldn't have redirects in Chinese. Not every page needs a Chinese-language redirect (for example, from 哈佛 to Harvard). However, when the English name is a transliteration derived from the official or preceding Chinese name, such a redirect should be kept (for example, from 重庆市 to Chongqing). Perhaps we need to codify this.
The specific redirects linked to should be restored until then. I checked a few and they seem to be reasonable. For example 揚子江 -> Yangtze River is completely logical. As the article says, "The name Yangtze River...is derived from [Yangtze Jiang (揚子江)]". To not have the original name that other English names were based off of would be rather strange, and I find it disturbing that these redirects were deleted under the claim that they are uncontroversial. They clearly aren't, and deleting them under CSD was an abuse of procedure. -Frazzydee|✍ 15:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is one problem that hasn't been addressed here. The Chinese characters in the redirects aren't understandable to most admins. They could mean anything, vandalism included, little would we know. Therefore, I understand the problem that admin Uther SRG has with these redirects. The innocuous example of the Yangtze River has been given above, but what if such a redirect goes to a BLP ? This could turn into a major problem. JoJan (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any editor who can read Chinese (and there are approximately 1111 users who have indicated they are native speakers, by categorising their user pages in Category:User zh-N, plus another around 1800 users who are non-native speakers, and an unknowable number of registered and unregistered users who have not so categorised themselves), can flag a redirect or other title as misleading or offensive. I don't see this as a significant problem. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also the article itself will usually mention the original Chinese name (if not part of the infobox, then within the article). -Frazzydee|✍ 16:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And see below for why this a mostly irrelevant issue Nil Einne (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as invalid or out of process. There are at least two sysops I know who speak Chinese and if there are fears that the characters are vandalism, they can be referred on to them. Stifle (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the deletions of the redirects, these do not meet any speedy deletion criteria. I'm also very concerned that an administrator is not willing to discuss their administrative actions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn – it is disconcerting that an admin can say 'I am right and will not discuss this' when their actions appear to be contrary to policy. (Москва redirects to Moscow. Is Uther going to delete this or does the 'Uther-criterion' only apply to Chinese?) Occuli (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Россия redirects to Russia by the way. And overturn the lot... Spartaz Humbug! 19:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn all redirect deletions as out of process. A2 clearly does not apply as it only applies to articles and G6 only applies to uncontroversial deletions. In my mind uncontroversial means they need to be backed by policy which these deletions clearly were not. Once the admin was made aware that someone was contesting them they should have immediately undeleted them as it should have been obvious they were not uncontroversial. Speedy delete criteria are meant to be interpreted narrowly to unsure deletions have the support of the community and this has not happened here. (As an aside my view on whether these redirects should exist pretty much mirrors Frazzydee - if the topic is about something whose native name is in Chinese these redirects make sense, else they should be deleted). Dpmuk (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I'm shaking my head in disbelief that an experienced admin could call this "G6" and continue with the deletions despite protests. This doesn't need to take any more of our time. Uther, how about if you speedy closed this review and undeleted the redirects in question, as a sign of goodwill? — Sebastian 01:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn all per all the reasons already given. These very clearly did not meet any speedy criteria, and the unwillingness of the deleting admin to even listen to the concerns raised is concerning in itself. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn all per Taelus, S Marshall, Dpmuk, Occuli, 日本穣 et al. Incidentally, the idea that Chinese characters pose a unique set of problems re: vandalism is mostly false, as it was when it came up with signatures. If I were to say or vandalise with pukimak or pōkokohua there's a fair chance far fewer admins or editors would recognise it as swearing then 屌你老母. I acknowledge that it's easier for an admin or editor who doesn't read Chinese to learn to recognise pukimak or pōkokohua as a swearing then 屌你老母 but in reality, the big problem is understanding not the ability to recognise a few select swear words since you can invent many swear words and there's no admin class to teach admins the many common swear words in different languages. If it is a common swear word, a simple search would usually reveal that which with modern browsers shouldn't pose much of a problem for Chinese, but the issue is most admins aren't going to search anyway unless they have reason to be suspicious. So either way when it comes to vandalism, there's little difference between Chinese characters and the roman alphabet. (The only possible issue is someone could perhaps claim 屌你老母 means George W. Bush but it'll be harder to get away with saying pukimak or pōkokohua means the same but it's questionable if we'll allow those.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn all as does not qualify for CSD under A2, G6, and fails Noncriteria #16. And were "non-English titles" not acceptable, we have a lot of Eastern European and Icelandic articles that qualify for speedy deletion on that claim. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's getting snowy... Stifle (talk) 08:32, 19 April 2010 (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/2010_April_18&oldid=1142604894"