Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2010 May 7
2010 May 9 >

8 May 2010

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

This article was most recently deleted in January after its fifth AfD, which was closed by kurykh (talk · contribs) as delete and salt on grounds of non-notability. To be clear, I'm not arguing that the closure should be overturned - I agree with it completely - but I think the title should be created as a redirect to Questions of Truth (the book whose co-authorship is Beale's main claim to fame) since it's a very likely search title and pointing readers to the book will tell them everything noteworthy about the man. It's my understanding that an AfD closed as delete does not by default preclude creation of a redirect over the title. Indeed in this case several editors argued for a redirect and none argued against one, so I don't believe that creating one would be against the spirit of the AfD's result. Kurykh seems to disagree (I asked them first here, where kurykh didn't reply but SlimVirgin did, and subsequently here) and I don't want to wheel-war by creating a SALTed page, so I brought it to DRV to get a consensus. I agree that SALTing was a good idea to prevent the page's continued recreation, so if we do create a redirect it should remain protected, which achieves the same result. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow Redirect I don't think creating a fully-protected redirect is against the spirit of the discussion. It's basically the same but with a useful change for those who search for this term. Since no one in the AFD specifically argued against a redirect and there was no consensus against one, there is no reason to no create one. Regards SoWhy 21:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. A search for Nicholas Beale brings up Questions of Truth as the very first result, so it's only one click more for people to find it. Why is this change necessary, other than for the vanity and puffery of a known COI editor? rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted Though common sense might argue for a protected redirect, I am wary of future disputes over the protection. Note that if you type 'Nicholas Beale' into the Wikipedia search box and hit 'Go', you will see Questions of Truth listed as the first search hit. So the practical need for a redirect may not be there. The person who has been attempting to create Beale's article in the past has shown amazing stamina, and we should be prepared to show him that 'enough is enough.' (See protection log). I speculate that the subject is behind the numerous re-creations of the article. Based on the log, it appears that someone tried to re-create the article at least seven times in 2009. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concede that it's not the end of the world to make people go via a search results page, but I definitely think it's less user-friendly. Since it's clearly the page people typing that search will want to read, we should send them there automatically unless there's a good reason not to - and I still can't see any such reason. A protected redirect and a protected redlink both prevent recreation of the article, so I don't really understand the argument that we need to show 'enough is enough'. Are you worried that Beale will see the redirect and start campaigning to have it unprotected so he can recreate the article? If so why is he more likely to do that than campaign against the salting, which has stood for four months? Olaf Davis (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted A redirect is, as noted by Rjanag and EdJohnston, unnecessary because a search for "Nicholas Beale" easily leads readers to Questions of Truth.

    Furthermore, creating this as a redirect is misleading because the Questions of Truth article mentions Beale only in passing; thus a redirect would create the illusion that the article has nontrivial discussion of Beale.

    Because of the long history of disruption (per EdJohnston: someone tried to re-create the article at least seven times in 2009), this should remain a protected red link to prevent further abuse of Wikipedia. The article has been created and salted numerous times, and one salting was circumvented when a user asked the closing admin to userfy the article. Cunard (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow protected redirect. The salting was only to prevent recreation, not because of any offensive in the title. The alternative is that internet searching lead to these: User:Jmt007/Nicholas Beale; Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 2 (#Beale); and User:NBeale. "No index" tags are not well respected. We should allow the redirect and let searchers find the best thing that they would be looking for. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google results depend on your past google activity, and those who live near you, and those who do searches similar to you. Yes, the internal wikipedia search brings up Questions of Truth third, but it should be first. The redirect is useful, and usefulness is sufficient for a redirect. Redirects are cheap. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it does, my mistake. I must have been looking at the google search[1]. I think the redirect will help google send people to the better page. (Or is Bouvier Nicholas's father?) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect, while it might help Google refine its search results, will not help readers. Readers who want to learn about Nicholas Beale will be disappointed that Questions of Truth barely discusses Beale. If people using Google search are searching for biographical details about Beale, it would be more worthwhile for them to try another website. Cunard (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2010 (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.
Template:Expand (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Coren (talk · contribs) closed the TfD discussion for this template as "delete" several days ago. I am requesting that this decision be reviewed because I feel we are losing a very valuable template that was very useful in certain situations (and not only in situations where certain sections need expansion) and I feel that there was clearly no consensus to delete the template. Therefore, I request that the deletion of this template be reviewed. Immunize (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse; (as closer). As I've stated in the close rationale, consensus was unclear by a simple headcount but the keep arguments were mostly in favor of its section version (which is redundant with the {{expand section}} template) or what seemed to be to be a flawed argument that it was simply harmless; given the strength of the arguments about its lack of usefulness, and that a gradual phase out is a reasonable way to proceed, it seemed to be (and still is) the proper way to close that discussion. — Coren (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus The expand template discussion was, while very long and with many editors, filled with limited discussion. Although the arguments mentioned were limited, or as the closer states, "flawed", the community did not come to agreement (Not even close). Editors voting 'keep' rejected the notion of stub-classing articles, in favour of keep the template for a variate of reasons, most of them ligit. There was no reason to close anything other than no consensus. Outback the koala (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Coren gave a good rationale by looking at the discussion and not simply by a headcount. Garion96 (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Coren's closing rationale was well thought out. I have read the discussion myself and agree with the closing. Note that we still have a myriad of "stub" templates, and "expand section". Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This does not address articles with no sections or that need expanding throughout. To litter every section, or almost every section with a tag seems to be committing the very act that the the deleters are against. Moreover the figures given on usage are wildly wrong, there are less 30% of the number used as article labels than are claimed. A simple code change made the explicit section usages work like {expand section}. This is not a template run wild, as the argument maintained, but one that is used on less than 1/2 percent of articles. Moreover the arguments were very weak - "all articles need expanding" is simply not true, some need shortening, many need minor improvements or polishing. The claim that it "does not benefit readers", while worthy of argument, is not a reason for deletion. The template can be made invisible, thereby serving its other purposes of categorisation and tracking. And of course, fundamental to DRV this is not an indictment of the closing admin's action, let alone rationale, it is simply a statement that an editor believes that the page should not be deleted, even after seeing the discussion and closing, and ideally discussing with the closing admin. Rich Farmbrough, 22:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    Okay, I can see the logic behind your last statement, and I agree that the merits of deletion should be reconsidered. However, I do agree that this particular template could be used in a more targeted manner, rather than simply filling up a category which will never be cleared. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think most of us are in agreement about this but that can be solved without deleting the page since its not strictly a problem with the page itself. Regards SoWhy 16:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus While Coren obviously put some thought into his rationale, he seems to have failed to addressed some reasons cited in favor of keeping the template, e.g. that it can be helpful to have the template if multiple sections have to be expanded (or even the whole article is in dire need of expansion to be useful) as a way to avoid using {{expand-section}} multiple times or when there are no sections yet. If one takes those reasons into account, I don't think one can say that the discussion has resulted in anything that can be considered consensus about what to do with this template. Regards SoWhy 21:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The idea that the template should be kept because it is useful was debated to death in the Tfd, and Coren's closure gives no reason to believe he did not assess this aspect of the debate. The nominator presents zero evidence that the consensus was "clearly" keep, let alone how Coren made an error in judging it. MickMacNee (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was not "clearly" a keep, however it was not clearly the reverse either. Outback the koala (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. As someone who did not participate in that debate, I'm afraid I think Coren was simply wrong. "Redundant" is not a reason to delete at TfD. "Redundant to a better-designed template" is a reason to delete, and Coren seems to have confused that with "Redundant to a more specific template" (i.e. {{expand section}}). But "more specific" is not the same as "better-designed". By analogy, {{who}} is more specific than {{clarify}}, but we wouldn't delete {{clarify}} because of that, would we?

    Rjanag made this point rather clearly in the debate, and he was not refuted. MuZemike's remark further down is also highly apposite.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to no consensus Coren gave a thought-out rationale, but the result of the discussion seems to be a no consensus. I did a quick count and found that roughly six users stated that the template should be kept due to its usefulness in sections. I certainly wouldn't say that this counts for most of the keep votes, which was part of the rationale for closing. In addition, there seems to have been a failure in addressing the valid reasons given for keeping the template, both in the rationale and in the discussion itself. Other than to point out invalid reasoning, there was little back-and-forth discussion among users, meaning that neither valid keep nor delete votes were suitably discussed out, which makes it a weak community consensus. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. Don't normally participate in this kind of review, but was surprised to see user closing discussion by looking past and effectively dismissing clear emboldened statements such number of strong keeps as if those users meant something other that what they said or somehow made a mistake and were not being reasonable or reasoning properly?! There clearly was NOT a consensus and closing discussion in that manner can not be seen to constitute Consensus decision-making the way it is normally understood. Bruceanthro (talk) 10:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Extended wrangling
  • Who, if anybody, gave a plausible evidence backed argument to keep the template, let alone one that was "strong" enough to outweigh the huge amount of delete opinions given? Consensus does not mean every discussion has to be unanimous, not in the least. MickMacNee (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's the right question to ask, actually. The number of "delete" opinions is as irrelevant as the number of "keep" ones. The right question is, were all the "keep" arguments fully refuted in the discussion?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I of course was not talking about vote counting. Coren was already pretty clear that he did not simply vote count before making his closure. For all the people claiming he didn't take account of this keep argument or that keep argument, they need to show the reverse too. If it matters, I hereby change my vote to "stong" delete, as I saw nobody refute my objections to the template. Infact, I got told to shut up! Pretty strange then that people want to overturn the closure for lack of evidence of back and forth discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    When you say, "For all the people claiming he didn't take account of this keep argument or that keep argument, they need to show the reverse too", I don't agree. Our deletion policy says (in bold, no less!) "when in doubt, don't delete". A well-reasoned objection to deletion raises, or ought to raise, a doubt that has to be overcome before deletion may proceed. There are some things that can overcome that doubt, such as a copyright violation or other core policy issue, but no such policy issue applied here.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The main thing that can overcome that doubt, are counter arguments which go ultimately unrefuted. The delete positions exist and are numerous, they are not discountable just because keepers raise doubts simply by voting, without ultimately following their arguments through. To believe that really would mean that deletion discussions are just votes. They aren't. MickMacNee (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that unrefuted counterarguments would overcome the doubt, but I do not see that Rjanag's argument was countered at all. Also, when you say "To believe that really would mean that deletion discussions are just votes. They aren't", I really don't think that follows.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Rjanag merely stated it has some genuine uses, but is often abused or misued, thereby already weakening his case. His only example of a genuine use, was to show how it can be used in the exact same way as {section-expand}, without saying why this redundancy is of use to anybody. I don't see anywhere else where he expanded on his keep rational that it has genuine uses, and I see plenty of rebuttals to it, both before and after. As far as I can make out, all he really argued for there in terms of action, was rolling {expand-section} into {expand}, which nobody else suggested, quite the opposite infact. Muzemike, like many others, merely suggested this template was useful, again by simple assertion, without adderessing the numerous counter-arguments made that it's use in the way he described (to highlight incomplete non-stubs) was redundant to other more appropriate and better supported systems. I will say again, I see no evidence Coren didn't weigh these opinions as given. MickMacNee (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your very first sentence doesn't follow. The fact that a template might be abused or misused does not "weaken" the case that it has genuine uses. Your last sentence also doesn't follow. You cannot expect to "see evidence" of how Coren weighed the arguments.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can request evidence that Coren didn't weigh those arguments, which is what I actually asked. And fine, if you think pointing out how a template is abused isn't weakening the case for keeping it, I'll let you have that. I don't believe it, but it is hardly relevant to the main issue - as said, he didn't back up his actual argument for keeping, plenty of people disputed it, and Coren has given a good explanation as to how he weighed these arguments. MickMacNee (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that concession. Are you really asking me to provide "evidence" concerning Coren's thought processes?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, just evidence that the thought processes he used came to a flawed conclusion, just like any old routine deletion review. MickMacNee (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I provided that evidence in this diff. Specifically, I showed: (1) That I perceive an error in the reasoning in the close; (2) The reasons why I felt there was an error; and (3) That Rjanag had raised this precise point during the discussion, which means that the closer ought to have taken this reasoning into account during the close.

    You responded by asserting that "I see plenty of rebuttals", but you have not shown who rebutted it or where this alleged rebuttal took place.

    Incidentally, I'm hatting this long back-and-forth since it occupies more than half the DRV so far.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I try to avoid snark, but by your argument if I said strong close that would have somehow made my argument more important and you couldn't bring it to DRV? I'm sorry, but when you evaluate consensus, it's the strength of the argument that counts and not how strongly it's expressed. — Coren (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The words strong or weak might just sometimes usefully serve to communicate particular users level of conviction to their argument, and this can not be seen to be irrelevant to genuine effort to inclusively, persuasively, and respectfully bring users to a consensus. Sometimes it may just simply be that NO consensus has yet been reached (as in this instance) no matter how strongly we may wish to bring discussions to a positive close (potentially finding 'false' consensus where there is in fact none) Bruceanthro (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. I have a strong feeling this template is useless but I didn't stated strong delete instead of delete. One can argue about the closure (although I agree with it) but whether editors voted strong or not is totally irrelevant. Garion96 (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, which is the accurate result of the discussion. S Marshall is right about which way the burden of proof lies. DGG ( talk ) 14:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you prove the template is pointless? You can't really. What you can prove is that it isn't, and despite about a hundred requests, nobody gave any evidence to support the keep arguments that it isn't. Apart from I suppose, people slap it on articles, sometimes appropriately, sometimes not. Which isn't proving anything really, because the template has a purpose beyond decoration. MickMacNee (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no actual problem cited with close. You don't get to fight your lost battles over again here. Tarc (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the arguments relied on in the close were faulty - the faults had been illustrated in the discussion, and data given to support the deletion was wrong. I brought this up on the closing admins page per process. Rich Farmbrough, 21:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    I saw your comments there. It did not take into account all the usages of this template through Template:Multiple issues though. Garion96 (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus I only found my way to this page because I was trying unsuccessfully to use the expand template on an article that I felt needed expansion in a number of different senses, including adding new sections, such the that {{expand section}} template wouldn't be useful. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 03:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to "no consensus". This template has applications that even the Expand-section template does not appropriately cover. If there is any doubt by editors whether or not to delete, and there seems to be much doubt, then as per policy, the Expand template probably should not be deleted. Coren made a good call based upon the closing rationale, however it is obvious that by revisiting the deletion issue, we have found the need to rethink the decision to delete this template.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  04:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, the bureaucrats who inhabit the deep reaches of this encyclopedia need to stop making people's lives harder. The very fact that the template is widely used means it should not be deleted. There was NEVER ANY CONSENSUS. Wikidea 19:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment For the less visited processes, the decision there will often not be representative, and, for fairness, Deletion review must sometimes serve the role of a second xfd. There is no practical way otherwise to recreate the template as there is for an article, by improving the article to meet the objections, and reinserting it. This normally is either accepted, or brings a second AfD, but I cannot see how one could do this for a template. I think it very unwise to delete a widely used general template without an extended discussion, and we probably need a rule to that effect. I have asked at a minimum that we have a rule that that the talk p. of everyone who has used the template be automatically notified, but this was rejected--that was two years ago and perhaps we are a little more careful about paying respect to the general community now, when WP is a little less subject to cliques. As for the merits, there is no other general way to say that this is an article which much needs to be generally improved by expanding the material. Labeling them as start class is much less effective. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus In reviewing the TfD, I really can't see how it could be closed as anything other than no consensus. I wasn't even aware that the template had been nominated for TfD so I wasn't able to participate in it. This template is intended for an article that is past the stub threshold but still in need of expansion. To quote Template:Expand/doc: "{{Expand}} should not be used on articles concurrently with stub templates - a stub template is an explicit request for expansion. {{Expand}} should only be used on articles that are beyond stub length, in place of a stub template." The way in which the TfD unfolded reminds me of what happened with {{R from other capitalisation}} [2] [3] [4] and I find myself very much in agreement with DGG in that there really should be additional notification for deletion discussions of such widely used templates. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen another TfD discussion that concluded in a delete decision for a widely used vandalism template. I was unaware of the TfD nomination, and had I been aware of it I would have put in a keep opinion,which might have altered the outcome of the TfD. Immunize (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that we should have a system where, when nominating a widely-used template for deletion, everyone who has ever used the template should be automatically (with Twinkle) notified. Any thoughts? Immunize (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a discussion for the WP:VP but I would object to such a notification. High-use templates (like {{expand}}) have tens of thousand of people who might have used it once - there is no way that notifying all of them would be in the project's interest. I'd rather suggest WP:CENT for advertising such a discussion. Regards SoWhy 14:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should we be mass-notifying users of this deletion review? Immunize (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I advise against it. It could fall under inappropriate canvassing, unless it is done oh-so-carefully to avoid bias. If you were to notify everyone who has ever used the template (which would be ridiculous in my view, considering the number), it could be considered bias, as anyone using the template would probably be in favor of keeping it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:27, 14 May 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_May_8&oldid=1139987678"