- Constant Motion (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|XfD2|restore)
Hello, I'm kinda new in this stuff of deletion of articles, so I hope you'd be patient with me. Also, I'm from Mexico, and maybe my English is somewhat bad, so please excuse me if it's so. Thanks in advance.
I was hoping that a reconsideration for the Constant Motion article could be made. It has been deleted recently, and I would like to say that I do not agree. If you could consider to undo this and keep the article, I would help to expand it and give it its due maintenance. --Sirius 128 (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why isn't that a redirect to perpetual motion?—S Marshall T/C 19:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's a Dream Theater song from their ninth studio album Systematic Chaos (2007). --Sirius 128 (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, not one hit on the first three pages of Google results refers to perpetual motion, so this would appear to be the primary usage (although a hatnote for perpetual motion might be a good idea). Alzarian16 (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell from the uses,, the phrase constant motion is used for continuing unaccelerated motion, not perpetual motion--it would be erroneous as a redirect or a hatnote,. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Let's start by clarifying that while we're supposedly being asked to review a deletion from September 2009 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constant Motion), User:Sirius 128 is presumably asking us to review Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/In_the_Presence_of_Enemies, a just-concluded deletion which included Constant Motion (song), a recreate of the previously-deleted (and thus speedy-able, see WP:SPEEDY G4) Constant Motion. I endorse both the 2009 AfD and the just-concluded 2011 AfD. And I have two broad points to make.
- First, because threshold/procedural issues should always be dealt with first, and pace WP:BITE (Sirus' account is only a few weeks old), review is inappropriate. The request is a bare assertion that Sirius doesn't agree with the result ("[i]t has been deleted recently, and I would like to say that I do not agree"), which is explicitly excluded as a basis for review in DRV: "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate." The request for review amounts to a post facto WP:ILIKEIT argument.
- Second, even if review is appropriate, the result should be endorsed. It took a lot of work in 2009 to purge the proliferation of needless fancruft articles on individual Dream Theater songs, and it was frustrating to have to go through the process all over again this year for a handful more. WP:NSONGS is crystal clear that individual songs do not get their own article unless something about them warrants a reasonably detailed article that satisfies the usual inclusion criteria. They are to be treated in the appropriate parent article (either for the artist or the album), with redirects as necessary for plausible search terms. That's what we achieved in 2009; it's what we underlined this morning; and we should stick with it. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per Simon Dodd's exceptionally clear reasoning. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, I concur with Simon Dodd's second point and with the outcome. I'd question his first point because I think the "threshold" for DRV is set very low. There's jurisdiction and standing. In terms of jurisdiction the questions are:
a) Has a deletion been performed; or b) Has a deletion discussion been closed. Provided either of these two limbs are satisfied then DRV has jurisdiction. In terms of standing the question is, does a good faith user want a deletion review to take place? If the answer is yes then that user has standing. Access to DRV is not otherwise restricted.—S Marshall T/C 09:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My understanding is that deletion review is limited to cases where there has been an unreasonable decision or process hasn't been followed. We don't allow a DRV just because you disagree with a deletion. tfeilS (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty much as tfeilS said; at the threshold, DRV requires something more than bare disagreement with the outcome, but the petitioner relies on nothing more than that, advancing an argument that could have been made (although it wouldn't have been accepted) during the normal run of the AfD. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the custom and practice is that deletion reviews can be, and have been, opened when the petitioner agreed with the outcome and had no quarrel with the deleting admin whatsoever. (Petitioner might be seeking unprotection of a page, for example.) DRV is usually adversarial in character but not necessarily so.—S Marshall T/C 16:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP deletion process requires the deletions to be in accord with WP policies and guidelines, and to take account of the arguments submitted and the consensus, and to use good judgment. Therefore any closure that fails to do any of these is a mistake in following WP Deletion process. For all practical purposes, this opens up everything. As a principle, there needs to be a way of correcting mistakes, even if the community has made them, and in many cases, this is the only place available. The ultimate guiding policy is NOT BUREAUCRACY. DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:DRV says, in as many words, "[t]his process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate." We should either adhere to that or delete it, and I think we should adhere to it. As to WP:BURO: Generally, see WP:PIMP, and let's look more closely at BURO while we're at it. "While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies." What principle is served by letting every nomination be refought here? "If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." That obviously doesn't doesn't apply here: making it harder to purge fancruft makes the encyclopedia worse, not better. And while it's true to some extent that "[d]isagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures," the fact is that without rules and procedures for moving from proposal to execution by way of consensus, the search for consensus telescopes into infinity (which is why MERGE is such a total disaster). BURO is not the ultimate touchstone; WP:5P is. We are trying to build an encyclopedia. To the extent bureaucracy and rules hinder that goal, they're bad, which is all BURO and WP:IAR say. But in the mine run of cases, process helps build the encyclopedia.
- None of this matters in this case, of course, because even if review of this result is appropriate (and I say it isn't), the result should still be endorsed, because the closing admin correctly interpreted the result of the nomination and correctly applied WP policy.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion continues on WT:DRV.—S Marshall T/C 22:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
