- Slugslinger (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I feel that the closing administrator, User:Wifione, misread the deletion discussion and threw out several opinions that should have been taken into account. Numerically, the discussion closed at 6-3 in favour of deletion with the majority of the delete opinions referring to the lack of reliable, independent sources as their rationale. On the keep side we had two sources presented to establish notability, but they were examined and found unsuitable by other participants in the discussion.
I also disagree with Wifione's rationale for throwing out several opinions in the discussion. On his talk page he claims that questioning the reliability of sources is just as worthless as a WP:ITSNOTABLE. I think this is wrong; the suitability of the sources has been challenged on pretty good grounds and it is up to those wanting the article kept to defend it. Therefore, agreeing with the challenge is a legitimate opinion but simple denial is not. Based on this, I think Wifione was wrong to ignore the input of Roscelese, Yaksar, Dwanyewest, an IP editor and myself. When they are taken into account, as they should be, consensus to delete the article is clear.
Reyk YO! 22:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to Delete. All three Keep votes were flawed - one claimed notability on the back of this "source", which is merely a listing in a toy guide. Another Keep vote (by Mathewignash) hung on a single source from a book - this quote to be precise - a passing mention in a footnote on Page 276. Since these were not valid reasons to Keep, the third Keep vote (which was basically "per the others") should also have been discarded. The fact that the article still doesn't have any significant independent sources after an AfD should be telling. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What's telling is that when a valid source is presented, you still won't accept it. Transformers are toys and so it is to be expected that they will be covered best in toy guides. Your inability to understand or accept this is the essence of the difference between us which demonstrates the lack of consensus. Naturally, as the nominator, you prefer your opinion but there seems to be no objective or policy-based basis for it. Warden (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing surprising about that AfD. If you'd just told me it was a transformers article, given me a list of the participants, and asked me how each would vote, I would have been able to call every single one of them. What we have here is another skirmish in an ongoing battleground. This is basically a conduct issue, not a content issue, and it's not solvable unless we treat it appropriately. I'm sure it'll be escalated eventually. In the meantime I won't fault the closer for calling "no consensus" on a debate that didn't actually reach a consensus, and I'll remark that a redirect to the appropriate list would have been the correct outcome.
A lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources does not mean "delete". It means "do not have a separate article on this topic". That isn't just WP:BEFORE, it's also WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. The quibbling about WP:BEFORE was a red herring because WP:PRESERVE is part of Wikipedia:Editing policy. Which means that yes, policy does require you to exhaust the alternatives to deletion before nominating for an AfD. The alternatives weren't exhausted so I simply don't see the nomination as appropriate. But, I'm disappointed to say, I don't expect any of the participants to be prepared to change their behaviour on this because it would mean "losing".—S Marshall T/C 09:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You obviously haven't tried "the alternatives to deletion" with Transformers articles. I would actually have been quite happy to see it merged, because it's practically impossible to merge a Transformers article unless you get an AfD verdict anyway (you just keep getting reverted). You're quite right that it's a conduct issue - I just wonder how long we're going to let people get away with this. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's true, I'm not exactly an enthusiastic editor of Transformers articles. :) Like most fictional topics, I really don't care whether Wikipedia covers it or not (although I'll confess that I'm still annoyed that we have an "article" about Sexuality in Star Trek). DRV won't normally enforce a merge outcome, but in the circumstances I'm prepared to disregard that convention and recommend an overturn to merge, if that helps?—S Marshall T/C 10:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse If we bypass the !votes that were not evidence based, we are left with only two !votes, both of which think the article belongs as stand-alone on Wikipedia. Unscintillating (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you like to explain that ridiculous statement? There are no significant sources in this article, which is what most of the Delete votes said. (Edit: oh, wait, I've just looked at yuor contribution history. Very interesting. Who were you previously? And ... oh look ... [1]. Interesting.) Black Kite (t) (c) 14:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, I didn't even see that at the time. A disgusting, transparent smear attempt. "Sabotage"... what a crock. Reyk YO! 21:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, The problem with merges for articles on elements of fiction is that they almost always degenerate into mere one-line entries in lists, and it is very difficult to keep content against persistent and repeated attempts to remove it by small edits. For most of the AfD debates of elements of fiction where I vote !keep, I would !vote merge if I thought there would be an honest and sustainable merge. (To be fair, it can sometimes be equally hard to remove inappropriate content against editors who have taken OWNership of the article, but this is more likely to occur with such things as articles on non-fiction books.) AfDs are at least generally visible, although for some topics (such as most elements of fiction) the result is pretty much a matter of chance based on who has the time and energy to show up. DGG ( talk ) 14:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, DGG, I'd have been quite happy with a merge, it's just that with the appalling WP:OWNership issues with these articles, it's impossible to do so without getting the green light from an AfD, because you get reverted every time. As I said, this article still hasn't got any significant sourcing, so I presume the next step is to merge it. As such, I've placed the tag, for all the use it'll be. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per Black Kite, above. The keep !votes alluded to notability while only presenting one source, which didn't offer much in-depth discussion. (OT: damn those toys from the 80s are expensive!) ThemFromSpace 15:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete. Reviewing the AfD, I agree with Wifione that a number of arguments on both sides were not especially strong, and so could not be given much weight:
- Delete sources of dubious quality.
- Keep Sources found indicate notability.
- Delete- yet another fanblurb with extremely poor sourcing. Attacking the nominator is not a legitimate defence of this article.
- Poorly sourced Transformers article with unreliable information DELETE
- However, I would argue that the "legitimate" keep arguments that Wifione did gave weight to in the no consensus decision are also poor or were refuted:
- Keep I'm no Transformers buff but find it quite easy to find expert and detailed coverage of the topic in detail in sources such as this. The topic is demonstrably notable and just needs work per our editing policy.
- This source was appropriately challenged by
Reyk Yaksar, as it is structured as it is structured as a directory of all toys, rather than a source with significant coverage).
- KEEP Once again Black Kite doesn't bother to do the research. I expanded that first source, as it was from a book that specifically use Slugslinger's biogrpahy, motto and function in a talk about violent toys for boys. This is definitely a viable third party source that isn't "in-fiction".
- This argument consists of 1) Complaining about the nominator, 2) An improper characterization of a source that isn't "specifically about" the subject (it was a mention, as noted by Roscelese), and 3) A focus on in-universe material to a degree that is that is inappropriate for this article.
- Arguments supporting to keep the article were appropriately challenged and refuted but still given weight by the closing admin. Therefore, I think the decision should be overturned to deletion. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you mean Yaksar not Reyk and his badgering in no way refuted the source which was an excellent one, providing significant coverage as defined by WP:SIGCOV. Warden (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the correction. But we will have to agree to disagree that this source constitutes significant coverage. Sorry, but a directory is a directory. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, the sources are valid, and the decision was just. That said I'm not against Black Kite's merge tag. It might need to be merged to Targetmasters or something for the time being, and then brought back if more sources can be found later. Much better then deletion where the text is lost to the common editor. Mathewignash (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete, although as S Marshall points out the best outcome would be to preserve any pertinent content by a merge and redirect. It is normal for AfD participants to disagree on the strength and reliability of sources, and most of the time a closing admin is in no position to favor one over the other, specially if that would be based on their own take on the subject. That is not the case here: the only two sources presented at the discussion were extremely weak, in such a way that claiming that they provided any amount of significant coverage is simply out of proportion — frankie (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I'd say that if at least one deletion argument had been made more politely it would have been harder for me to justify this, but there was no compelling numerical or policy-based superiority in arguments sufficient to make "no consensus" not a valid outcome. Were I to have closed it, I would have enforced the merge, and I think that's probably the best way forward at this point. "No consensus" is not a free ride to keep lousy articles in mainspace--it can indeed be a respite for an appropriate merge. Jclemens (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, the strength of an argument doesn't depend on whether it's sugar-coated or not. Secondly, I think it's bizarre that you criticise delete !voters for being "rude" while ignoring the personal attacks on the nominator by the majority of keep !voters. If this is an attempt to punish Tarc for criticising the ARS (his was the only delete opinion that was harsh on other people, as opposed to articles and sources which cannot be the target of impoliteness because they're not alive or sentient), I would remind you that hijacking a content process to do it is pretty pointy. Reyk YO! 02:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, since civility is a pillar, any closer would have been right to give appropriately less weight to opinions rendered in an impolite manner. In this case, however, the incivility was NOT one sided, as you've observed. Had it been exclusively one-sided, it would not have been reasonable to close this dispute as "no consensus" in my estimation. Both sides were at fault here. Jclemens (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that incivility has a tendency to undermine arguments and that it should be discouraged, but I disagree that it should be weighed directly. A participant allowing his argument to falter in favor of bickering and badgering isn't the same as mere rudeness. Flatscan (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse There was no consensus in the discussion and so the close was quite accurate. Consensus means general agreement and it is very clear that we do not have this for this topic. Warden (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete Arguments built on WP:GNG and WP:N have to carry more weight than those built on what appear to be flimsy sources. Disclaimer: I really don't understand the subject matter here. 121.73.68.51 (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Sorry, I thought I was logged in. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The source I cited was not flimsy - it was quite satisfactory as it addressed the topic directly and in detail. Warden (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL - it couldn't have been less flimsy. It's a toy catalogue. That's like saying that every item in the Littlewoods catalogue is notable because it appears in their own catalogue. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's nothing like a Littlewoods catalogue as it is not a commercial catalogue of items for sale by the publisher. It is instead a guide aimed at collectors and aficionados and so is much the same as a guide to birds, aircraft, stamps and other items which are collected or admired. It was published by a book publisher and the retail price seems to be $72 - a substantial price because this is a substantial work of reference. The author seems to be an expert on the topic and so the content is especially reliable. Your failure to recognise the nature of the work indicates that your opinion is not reliable. Warden (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you taking the piss? (Nothing surprises me any more) It's a collectibles catalogue. It doesn't discuss the toy, it effectively confirms that it exists. And more importantly, it doesn't discuss the character which is what this AFD/DRV is about. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's remarkable that, after all these relentless attacks on Transformers, you still don't seem to understand the first thing about them — that they were primarily toys - models of vehicles which would transform into robots. The Saturday morning cartoons were created to promote sale of the toys and everything since - the comics, novels, movies &c. — are derivative works in what is a now a massive multimedia franchise. This reference work documents this particular toy in some detail giving both physical details — "light grey plastic is prone to yellowing over time" — and backstory — "prefers sneaking up and shooting enemies in the back". This is detailed discussion of both the toy and the character and your contrary claim is quite false. It is naturally impossible to achieve consensus when plain facts are not acknowledged. Warden (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your ability to twist discussions is admirable, if utterly frustrating. If you want to write an article about Transformers toys, then fine, that would indeed be a useful resource. But this isn't an article about a toy, it's an article about the character. The toy part of the article is minor. And as such, that isn't enough of a source. Anyway, this is pointless I think, as general consensus seems to be that whether or not the close of the AfD was wrong, a merge is indicated here. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: having spent far too much time learning about transformers to try and understand this debate, I'm still not seeing how the given references constitute significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject Stuartyeates (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete (don't think I've ever said that before). I basically agree with Jethrobot that there were poor arguments on both sides. Trouble is, all the keep arguments were poor - only Colonel Warden comes close to a reasonable policy-based rationale, and even that's based on a single source. Regardless of its depth of coverage, which is highly dubious, one source still isn't enough to meet WP:GNG. Given that the strength of sourcing was strongly refuted by several delete !voters, I can only see this as a consensus to delete. Ideally I would have supported merging to List of Decepticons, but there certainly isn't consensus for this. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse though I personally think merge was probably a better outcome, that wasn't really discussed so I can't fault the closer for not going that way. Frankly the discussion on both sides was poor and I don't see how any outcome other than NC could come of it. Hint: if you are attacking others in an AfD or DrV you can't really be expecting to be taken seriously by the closer. Also, while more of a AfD thing, I think DGG's comments about merges getting stripped down to one-liners in an important issue here. The "keepers" have a reasonable fear that giving an inch will actually result in a mile being taken... Hobit (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue of merger is quite tangential to the issue of deletion. Merger is just a matter of structural style - whether to have small articles or larger ones with sections. Deletion is much more serious because it has two damaging effects. Firstly, it removes the edit history so that ordinary editors and readers are unable to follow the history of the topic. Secondly, it makes the title (Slugsinger) into a redlink which makes searching and linking harder. As this title is a distinctive one, it seems quite disruptive to propose its deletion. If, as it seems, the deletion nomination was just made as a tactical way of achieving merger then this is deceptive game-playing and the nomination should have been speedily closed per WP:SK: "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion". Warden (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hang on a moment. I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion if it didn't have any reliable sources whatsoever. My comments about the problems of merging TF material, whilst true, only applies to material that is sourced, but would be better as a merged article. It's utterly pointless an un-navigable having 600-odd individual TF character bios, especially when most are unsourced, badly sourced, and/or merely plot summaries. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you clarify? I think I got lost in the negations somewhere. Are you saying it had no reliable sources at all? There appear to be at least primary sources that are reliable and perhaps some others. Are you arguing above that a merge would be a good or bad outcome here? Sorry, I suspect your language is clear, but I'm lost somewhere. Hobit (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The issue of merge results being "...stripped down to one-liners..." may sound like an exaggeration, but here is an example where not a single line remains: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventh Day Christians_-_Norway had agreement to merge to Church of God International (USA), but the merged material stayed in the article for only two days. User:JoVaM has not been seen since. Unscintillating (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there wasn't agreement at your example AfD to merge at all. That was done unilaterally by one editor while the AfD was still ongoing. The discussion closed two weeks later as redirect, not merge, and the content in question was later removed because it was unrelated to the topic of the article. This is an irrelevant example because the circumstances and details are entirely different. Reyk YO! 03:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the issue of merging resulting in much content being "lost" is almost completely irrelevant. If an AFD results in keep then the normal practice doesn't protect that content, it can still be edited stuff removed - even stripped to a stub. It can still be listed for deletion again. If the result is delete it isn't a protected result which means that content can never ever appear in the encyclopaedia, better sources may be found, change in community standards etc. which could make recreation viable. Merging isn't some sort of special protection for a given piece of content not afforded to any other content in the encyclopaedia merely because a small set of editors at one point in time (and quite often a minority of editors in a debate) suggested merging. A decision to merge is an editorial one and normal editing practices and policies come into place, if those decide less content is warranted (or even no content) that's something which can and should be discussed on the article talk page and resolved there. It itsn't DRVs role to dictate that we must forever keep all the content from a merge. Consider the situation where I add content to an article and no other editor thinks it should be there, unhappy with this I create an article containing just that content, the AFD concludes merge, DRV then interferes with the normal editing process and dictates it must then appear in the original article, despite the long standing editorial decision it doesn't belong. Ludicrous. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD shouldn't override the normal editing process, but its outcomes should be given some respect. I agree that your example may be a perverse outcome, but it could be forcing outside input into a WP:Walled garden. One drawback is that AfD tends to be imprecise regarding what should be merged. Participants sometimes recommend "selective merge" or "summarize and merge" to distinguish from a full dump. Flatscan (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some level of respect, but what level and for how long? The key point is that the merge outcome of an AFD isn't a long term protection of content. Much the same way we respect people's content added to articles, and encourage more, but if the content they add is substandard and gets reworked or the article moves in a different direction and the content removed, we don't feel bound by respect that we must keep that original content. My actual view on this is that merge shouldn't be an AFD outcome, merging is editorial any merge opinion is really an opinion to keep and some editorial advice. Unfortunately those giving the advice often don't hang around and actively participate in the editing in that area... Merges are best agreed and determine by those actively editing both the source and destination articles - that affords the "protection" based on the consensus formed as to how the merge should be actioned. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 06:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with your key point. On the other hand, I think that AfD is pretty good at deciding standalone article (keep) versus no standalone article (merge, redirect, delete). In case you haven't seen it, WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect (January–February 2011) affirmed that merge and redirect are valid at AfD, as both recommendations and outcomes. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete Without any opposition to merging content to some umbrella topic, this doesn't need to be a stand-alone article, that's what the lack of sources say and that was the strength of argument was in the AfD. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Endorse close as within discretion of closing admin. Deletion review is not AfD round two. Also agree with Hobit, and the AfD discussion was more jousting than anything else. Let merge discussion continue.--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak overturn to delete. I disagree with discounting the weaker delete recommendations, as the sources (including the catalog) are poor. If Warden had presented an excellent source, the deletes should be discounted, and Dream Focus's keep holds its weight. I Jethrobot's weighting is also reasonable. Targetmaster, suggested above by Mathewignash, seems like a better redirect target than List of Decepticons. Flatscan (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If we give weight to Dream's unreferenced !vote, we give weight to all of the delete !votes at the AfD that were not evidence based. The force of reason says that proof by assertion is a logical fallacy. Warden is the only editor in the entire AfD to document a Google search. Unscintillating (talk) 03:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I consider Dream Focus's recommendation to be somewhat of a WP:PERNOM based on the other keeps from Mathewignash and Warden: its weight depends on their strength. The same goes for those deletes. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as per Milowent. I also suspect many of the delete rationales don't reflect the broader practice/working consensus regarding classes of multimedia fictional characters, or why Transformers should be treated differently than the 1439 characters included in, foe example, Category:Marvel Comics supervillains Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an WP:Other stuff exists argument. Slugslinger was nominated because Black Kite is working through the Transformers articles. When you mentioned Category:Marvel Comics supervillains, I thought of an obscure one-shot villain whose Wikipedia article I had read in the past. It's 100% plot summary with a single external link to a fan site. His article at the Marvel Wikia is pretty sparse too. I don't know if it's representative of the category, but my guess is that many would be deleted at AfD once nominated. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to relist at the very least. If it cannot be expanded and referenced more, then I would recommend merge to list and/or delete. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 11:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
