- Ashton Kutcher on Twitter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
I think this debate is pretty closely related to User:Jimbo Wales' statements made in his 2012 "State of the Wiki" address which WP:POST to "cover all topics, even if they are pure pop culture, because if the Wikimedia movement does not cover it, the people will go somewhere else" as stated in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-07-16/Wikimania. Given that the Big Kahuna has spoken on the issue, I would like to consider the propriety of this close on two grounds. First, why was this relisted when it was 10 keep and 4 delete? Why was it again relisted when 14 more votes came in to make this 17 keep and 11 delete? Then a bunch of comments came in to make it about 33 delete and 23 keep. More importantly, since Scottywong (talk · contribs) closing rationale which states that WP:INDISCRIMINATE dominates WP:GNG flies in the face of Jimbo's "State of the Wiki" address, we should reconsider whether we want to discard the GNG-based notability of this pop culture topic. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn the enormous, blatant supervote. Correct outcome was no consensus.—S Marshall T/C 07:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Good case made. You can see the article [1] and see it clearly has references to major news sources commenting on how popular the twitter account in itself was, and its accomplishments. Dream Focus 08:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep, (with the always available option to start merger discussions) -- Consensus, as the close states, was meets the GNG. Also, there were 11 sources -- including two textbooks -- cited in the discussion showing e.g.., marketing, advertising, and mass media significance of the topic, in addition to other cites in the article and which maybe found. The policy rationale stated in the close was unfortunately a supervote, not dictated by policy text, nor based in evidence and reason (as noted by the second extensive relisting comments during the discussion, which were in fact substantive comments on every purported delete vote under the cited policy, and which therefore cannot be credited). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse: this DRV is essentially giving Jimbo a supervote, and I, for one, don't believe we should trade quality for eyeballs pbp 13:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Eyeball being people using Wikipedia, if I understand correctly? Darryl from Mars (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- People viewing it, yes pbp 15:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the vast majority of the Keep comments argued that the article met the GNG. This is a good counter to arguments that the subject is not notable, but the fact that a topic is notable does not mean that we should have an article on it. We can and do delete pages on notable topics for other reasons. Many Delete comments however raised the issue of WP:NOT, and few people attempted to rebut this argument. It's not a case of a policy overruling a guideline, as the closing statement says, because meeting our notability guideline doesn't mean that a page should be included. Hut 8.5 13:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it does; that is what "presumed" means. The GNG accords the keep presumption, and it is not rebutted for the closer by differing opinions about NOT. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If we take the view that articles about notable topics should be kept, then it would become impossible, even in principle, to delete something for being a violation of WP:NOT, WP:POVFORK, WP:BLP, etc. Notability is only one reason for deleting something. Hut 8.5 09:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at it from that direction, on what basis would you conclude that WP:NOT isn't a reason to delete something; since, by the same token, any article we have already could be deleted if it ran afoul of WP:NOT? Darryl from Mars (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't strike me as very relevant. Enforcement of all our policies depends, to some degree, on editorial judgement. The prospect of editors deciding that any article should be deleted under WP:NOT isn't any more realistic as the prospect of editors deciding that any article should be deleted under WP:N or any of our other reasons to delete something. Hut 8.5 13:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, sorry, maybe I wasn't clear; or I don't understand. Are you saying that, deciding when WP:NOT is a reason to delete is based on editorial judgement, e.g, when people say it's a reason to delete? Darryl from Mars (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an element of editorial judgement, yes, just like every other policy. Hut 8.5 18:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What I was trying to ask you was, since you suggest that few attempts were made to rebut the WP:NOT arguements, and also that arguing its notability doesn't rebut WP:NOT arguements, What would be a rebuttal to them? To use a less troublesome example, you can suppose I accused 'Naval Battles of WW1' or 'Zeppelins' of being indiscriminate. Darryl from Mars (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is getting a bit off topic. The point about WP:NOT is that there are topics which are verifiable or notable which do not belong here because we are writing an encyclopedia and our sources usually aren't. In the case of celebrities this principle is especially important because the media frequently give extensive coverage to almost all aspects of a celebrity's life, no matter how trivial or unencyclopedic. For obvious reasons the mere existence of sources do not counter these concerns. To rebut a concern based on WP:NOT you have to provide some sort of argument that the topic of the article is the kind of thing that could be included in an encyclopedia. For the two examples you cite this is easy - if nothing else you could just cite the fact that actual encyclopedias cover these topics. Hut 8.5 19:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather, it may have finally gotten to the point; if the rebuttal is simply making the argument that it is suitable for inclusion, those arguments were made in spades; and certainly (before anyone accuses them of being bare assertions instead of arguments) to more depth than the 'this is unencyclopedic'/'WP:NOT' arguments they were addressed to. You weren't the closing admin, of course, so he may have a different idea of a rebuttal in mind, but if that's what you're basing your judgement of 'few attempted to rebut' on, it's worth taking another look. Darryl from Mars (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's more subtle than "suitable for inclusion". For an article to be suitable for inclusion, it must satisfy a number of policies. Amongst them, the topic must be notable and the topic music be encyclopedic. (WP:NOT relates specifically to the latter.) Notability and encyclopedicity are not the same thing: there are encyclopedic topics that are not notable, and notable topics that are not encyclopedic. A rebuttal to the NOT concerns would have to demonstrate the encyclopedicity of the topic, not the notability. Hut 8.5 20:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I say, such arguements were made. For reference, encyclopedic. I can understand now though how they'd fall short if you expect them to prove something isn't a member of a list that's explicitly not exhaustive. Darryl from Mars (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not listening to me. Encyclopedicity is not synonymous with being suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, nor does it have anything to do with notability. Arguing that WP:NOT is inherently flawed or unenforceable isn't going to get you very far since the community doesn't agree with you. Hut 8.5 10:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hut, We take the view that Notability accords the presumption because that is what it says and with good reason, it is based in evidence of reliable sources. As with any article, the article is also subject to content consensus, such as is detailed in policy, but content consensus by reference to policy was not reached, so the presumption holds and the delete closer acts on the presumption, with content addressed in due course and by other processes. It is not impossible, but it is subject to evidence, presumption, standards, and consensus arising from those things. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A topic is presumed to merit an article if it passes the GNG. This means that an article about such a topic will be kept unless someone can demonstrate some other reason why it should be deleted (such as WP:NOT). That does not mean that the GNG says the topic should be kept, nor does it have any bearing on the question of whether WP:NOT says the page should be deleted. It only specifies what happens if WP:NOT doesn't say the page should be deleted. Hut 8.5 15:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The presumption is given and it is not rebutted by a lack of consensus over NOT, especially bad arguments that NOT applies to anything one doesn't like. As Darryl's questions make clear, your view of sources and NOT is unworkable and ultimately irrational. It amounts to putting fingers in our ears and saying 'no source can tell us this should be written about, we don't care about sources, and whether they have treated this as a business, marketing and mass communication, etc. topic.' (And by the by, NOT is a content rule -- it is only tangentially an organizational aid.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really understand what you are trying to say here. It seems you're trying to argue that WP:NOT only affects the content of articles and isn't a valid basis for deleting them. If that's the case, then the community (and policy) doesn't agree with you. If you want to argue that the deletion should be overturned on the grounds that there was no consensus that WP:NOT means the page should be deleted, then that's a legitimate view, but it doesn't have anything to do with notability or the GNG. Hut 8.5 19:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My argument is rather the later, and not the former (I am not "trying to argue" that). (The NOT observation is an aside, although it goes to understanding RS and their relationship to NOT. NOT generally approaches things from content up (not topic down), by looking at content supported by RS and saying this content does not fit or does not fit in this manner; it does not say ignore the RS, it says look at them, and be guided by their content, article content, and by the categories explicated in NOT -- it does not list 'forbidden topics,' because there are none for an Enlightenment project, but some content is unsuitable and a whole article therefore may have unsuitable content, and some very specific types of articles listed at NOT are likely to have all unsuitable content. In a complementary way WP:N also says be guided by the sources - they are both based in evidence of RS.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy does not say anything like your description. Deletion is appropriate if an article violates policy and it is not possible to fix the problem through normal editing. Here the concerns relate to the topic of the article, rather than its content, and any potential rewrite would suffer from the same problems. Hut 8.5 20:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Your position is, it is a matter of evidence free assertion, without regard to RS, or text of the article, or specific policy; and that is why there would be no consensus, nor even a real discussion, because consensus cannot occur around evidence free assertion, so the presumption holds and the closer does not get to choose among evidence free assertions. I, however, disagree that it is a matter of evidence free assertion, and the keep side brought the better evidence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: Your position "Many Delete comments however raised the issue of WP:NOT". WP:NOT specifically requires that the article be a certain thing that Wikipedia is not. WP:NOT provides four categories 1. Style and format, 2. Content, 3. Community, and 4. And finally ... with 18 different certain things. The close, those participating in the AfD, and those endorsing the close in this DRV failed to establish the certain NOT thing around which rough consensus developed as the basis for deleting the article. Your DRV endorsement of the close avoids specifically addressing the close's centering on WP:INDISCRIMINATE (and to some degree WP:NOTDIARY) as the NOT basis to delete is because you know there was not rough consensus to delete under either of these certain NOT things. There were only two AfD participants who mentioned "INDISCRIMINATE" in their delete !vote and zero participants mentioned NOTDIARY in their delete !vote. Contrary to the AfD close, rough consensus did not developed around INDISCRIMINATE or NOTDIARY as the basis for deleting the article avoiding addressing INDISCRIMINATE or NOTDIARY in your AfD close endorsement merely highlights this. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Counting the number of people who linked to INDISCRIMINATE or NOTDIARY does not provide an accurate picture of the discussion. (FWIW I think you miscounted: four delete !voters mentioned INDISCRIMINATE at some point, and although NOTDIARY wasn't mentioned, NOTNEWS was - NOTDIARY is a subsection of NOTNEWS.) Plenty of other delete !voters either referred to WP:NOT in their comments or were clearly invoking WP:NOT or the principles behind it. Discounting their opinions because they didn't link to the right policy section is pure wikilawyering. Hut 8.5 20:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Break 1
- Endorse If Jimbo wants to change the way we apply policy then he is welcome to raise an RFC and seek community consensus but the close is clearly a balancing of competing policies and guidelines and I strongly believe that an argument based on a guideline should have less weight than an argument based on a policy. That is precisely what the closing admin did so this looks well within their closing discretion. Arguments to overturn based on the GNG is really missing the point of DRV. Spartaz Humbug! 13:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The close was a correct reading of WP:NOT, a valuable policy for maintaining an encyclopedia of our breadth. ThemFromSpace 16:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It was closed by citing WP:NOTDIARY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE
(both link to the same place) which only concerns Summary-only descriptions of works, Lyrics databases, and Excessive listings of statistics. The closing administrator should actually read the policy they are referencing in their closing rational. Dream Focus 16:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not restricted to those three areas. These are specific examples of the application of the policy where particular guidance is needed. And WP:NOTDIARY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE do not link to the same place. Hut 8.5 16:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The way it loads up it looked the same place, my mistake. Diary says "Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is notable enough to be included in the biography of a person." Not relevant here, since the article featured coverage about it, and why the twitter account was notable. And WP:INDISCRIMINATE says "Wikipedia articles should not be:" and list three examples only, it not mentioning anything else. Dream Focus 16:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- INDISCRIMINATE does not only say what you describe, it also says that merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The policy does not set any limits on the application of this principle and it applies everywhere. Policies which are intended to be exhaustive lists, such as WP:CSD, explicitly say so. NOTDIARY does contain the word "notability", but it is used in its normal English sense of "worthy of notice", rather than as a reference to Wikipedia:Notability. (Note that the policy is talking about something being "notable" enough for inclusion in a wider article, which is explicitly not what WP:N is about.) Hut 8.5 16:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. INDISCRIMINATE is absolutely correct. AK's use of Twitter may, in a sense, pass GNG if considered in isolation from common sense but, quite probably, so would his toilet habits. Formerip (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply so WP:GNG must be followed. Obsene out of policy supervote. CallawayRox (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain how WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply. The policy states that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" and that fits perfectly here. The discussion shows that there was a consensus of 'x on Twitter' pages being inappropriate on Wikipedia. Till 13:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That statement applies to all possible information, whether suitable or not, certainly -that- applies. However, to argue that there was a consensus that this article actually was not suitable per the spirit of WP:IINFO that actually excludes thing is...a stretch. Darryl from Mars (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As this debate progresses, I think it will be enlightening to compare how editors are voting here (whether or not to overturn an article deletion) vs. the "Obama on twitter" DRV (whether or not to overturn a kept article). It will call into question whether some are honestly examining the XfD and looking at the admin's actions, or if they are just casting a Round 2 vote. Tarc (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. It wasn't an easy one to close, and I don't envy Scotty in doing it, but in the end, it was his read of consensus and I think his faith was good and none of his actions were improper, thus I can't find a reason to overturn. Hut 8.5 sums it up nicely as well, and I agree with his sentiments here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn IINFO does not apply to twitter feeds, closing rationale was based on the assumption that it does, and thus a fatally-flawed supervote. Topic meets GNG, does not run afoul of anything in WP:NOT, close should be vacated as not policy-based. Jclemens-public (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "IINFO does not apply to twitter feeds" How did you determine that? I reject the notion that IINFO only applies to summaries, lyrics databases, and statistics. The top of WP:NOT makes it clear that "The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive." -Scottywong| babble _ 02:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That much is true; it could apply, but did you really feel that the view that it did apply reflected some kind of consensus? Darryl from Mars (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought that the argument was made repeatedly by different people, and was never convincingly refuted by anyone, so yes. -Scottywong| gossip _ 15:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, far be it from me to say what should convince you, but if the arguments that there was value to the article or that is was suitable for inclusion don't count as refutations; I'm especially curious to know what -would- qualify. Darryl from Mars (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn supervote to no consensus. One man's stupid article is another man's useful information, no consensus that WP:GNG is trumped by stupidity here.--Milowent • hasspoken 00:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's a step in Scottywong's reasoning I didn't get to see; he affirms the basic premise of WP:NOT "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia", which was stated, talks about other articles that aren't necessarily suitable, which were mentioned, then at some point concluded this article isn't suitable. He can't have reached that conclusion from what he said alone (All it states is that P does not imply Q), so I'd want to know what consideration lead him to conclude 'not Q' was representative of the discussion before voting here. Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- close appears to me to be a sensible reading of the discussion. The delete !votes were clearly better argued. Closing a long, contentious discussion with a detailed rationale should be encouraged rather than shouted down with "I disagree with the close therefore supervote". Reyk YO! 05:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn The practise of relisting until a desired result is obtained seems to be an abuse of the process, contrary to WP:GAME. The second relisting seems especially egregious. The admin at that point says "there seems scant regard for actually building a compelling case for deletion" and the !keep voters were ahead at that point. So why was the discussion relisted? This seems to be the process, lampooned by Brecht, of dissolving the people and electing another, when they fail to conform to the wishes of the nomenklatura. Warden (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - The "supervote" argument is generally the last gasp of the ARS-minded to try to get their article back at any cost. There's nothing wrong with how the admin judged the arguments and weighed consensus. Tarc (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ARS-minded? ;-)—S Marshall T/C 14:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On the bright side, I didn't say ARSE-minded at least. ;-) Tarc (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I am not ARS minded. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. There is some irony in complaining about the closing admin exercising a supervote while trying to invoke Jimbo's name as if he himself is a trumping supervote. Jimbo's opinions are his opinions, and not policy. As such, that argument is irrelevent to DRV. Given the size of the discussion on these foo on Twitter articles at the village pump, I also think it was logical to ensure the discussion had sufficient participation ot guage a true community reaction to these articles, rather than simply hoping that the right people !vote at the right time. Something tells me that if the delete !voters held the numerical advantage on the relists, Tony would not have complained about the AfD being left open. Also, Tony should be reminded that vote counting is not how these discussions are weighed. Even at a 10K 4D breakdown, if each side has presented arguments of similar weight, then we have not yet reached a consensus. Relisting would be appropriate in such a circumstance, especially given the size of the community discussion I mentioned previously. Ultimately, we are left with the "but but but it meets GNG!" argument. I am in agreement with Scottywong that the WP:NOT policy trumps the WP:GNG guideline here. Certainly Ashton Kutcher's Twitter presence is worthy of inclusion, but at his main article. There is no need to cover such a trivial thing in such tedious detail. Resolute 15:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Effectively there is no question whether WP:NOT trumps WP:GNG, as WP:N spells: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not." That is: per WP:N passing WP:GNG and WP:NOT is required. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Plainly within admin discretion. T. Canens (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's my question. When two sides evenly divide on if a given policy applies in a given situation and it isn't a black-and-white issue, does the admin get to make that call? Evaluating strength of argument is all well-and-good, but at some point isn't it "agrees with me"? Hobit (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD isn't a vote count, and a 50:50 divide of votes is irrelevant. Your argument amounts to "noone can objectively weigh up consensus", which is a non-argument since it happens all the time. Admins are expected to weigh up the arguments and assign weight to them based on how they reflect policies and guidelines (i.e common practice on wikipedia). The best example of how vote counting is irrelevant is with an AfD where all vote keep and one individual points out it's a copyvio: that one vote trumps all the rest. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, in clear-cut cases a single !vote can be enough to override a hundred votes. The argument here is if this case is clear cut. I (and I think most of us arguing overturn) believe that the key issue is if this is indiscriminate information. I don't see a way, other than finding consensus on the issue, to determine that. And I don't see consensus in that discussion. I'm guessing Tim (whose views I greatly respect) does see consensus (or something close to it), and I'm asking him to explain why he sees that in a situation where I don't see it at all. Hobit (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I probably should have commented in less absolute terms. Personally I'd probably have closed this one as NC as well, but I do have a view w/r/t these "on Twitter" articles so take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt. I'm usually pretty reluctant to overturn AfD closures; this is not because the closing admin is somehow in a better position to assess the debate, like the relationship between trial and appellate courts, where the trial court is the only one that actually hears live testimony and has significant personal interaction with the lawyers, and so is in a better position to find facts. Rather, it's because it's essential to have finality at some point. This is especially important for divisive and difficult AfDs. It's already a very difficult task to close the debate; I do not want admins be even more discouraged because they are going to be second-guessed by DRV. When the AfD is as divisive and difficult as this one, as long as the admin provides a facially reasonable rationale in light of the debate, I'm not inclined to overturn it. That said, there may be some cases where the close, despite being facially plausible, is nonetheless so obviously wrong that I'd want to overturn it; all I can say, to quote Justice Stewart, is that I know it when I see it, and the close in the case before us is not it.
In the end, an article about some guy's Twitter account is surely on the lower end of the importance spectrum of our four million articles; the harm caused by the article being wrongly deleted - if it is indeed wrong to delete it - for a year or two is, in my judgment, substantially less than the waste of time and effort being spent to decide if it is indeed wrongly deleted right now. Let it settle for a while, and we can revisit this in the future when the consensus may have become clearer. T. Canens (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears you may mistake the harm of wrongful deletion. The harm of wrongful deletion falls heavily on content creators (and readers), and their discouragement in creating (and reading) well sourced articles is of worse harm to the pedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - Exactly as Reso said above. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the closing administrator did a good job in closing the AfD, it was closed within his discretion and that is how he interpreted the debate. Till 13:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn Clear example of supervoting over consensus. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn S Marshall said it best. Statυs (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn (no consensus). There was not a consensus, even rough. The closer's GNG vs NOT / INDISCRIMINATE is unimpressive and not supported by the discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - Only two AfD participants mentioned "INDISCRIMINATE" in their delete !vote and zero participants mentioned NOTDIARY in their delete !vote. Rough consensus did not developed around INDISCRIMINATE or NOTDIARY as the basis for deleting the article. The AfD close centering on INDISCRIMINATE and NOTDIARY as the basis for deleting was, as noted by S Marshall, an enormous, blatant supervote. Correct outcome was no consensus. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Might want to take another look then. I count about a half dozen who mention INDISCRIMINATE, two who discuss the diary aspect, and another large collection of voters who discuss WP:NOT (which, of course, contains WP:INDISCRIMINATE). This appears to be an enormous, blatant, misleading DRV vote. -Scottywong| verbalize _ 02:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The original posters rationale amounts to wanting a supervote from Jimbo. Also policy does trump guidelines, not the other way around. As I mentioned below WP:NOTSTUPID discourages anticipating bad ideas and expecting a line specifically addressing articles of this type doesn't make a lot of sense either, we shouldn't reject decisions based on technicalities from a literal reading of policy. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I have to say IRWolfie pretty much sums it up here. The original poster seems to want a supervote from Jimbo and I find that extremely ironic. Clearly this page does not belong as a separate topic. It should be mentioned briefly on his page and that is about it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Break 2
- overturn to NC As this topic isn't specifically noted in WP:NOT as being unacceptable, we need some reasonable consensus that it does apply, and that consensus simply wasn't there. The RfC, once closed, might well provide that consensus. But we aren't there yet. In any case, at the least this should be a redirect (as the article as been around and there is an obvious place to redirect to...) Hobit (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an interesting argument. I take it then that I can create an article like Derek Jeter at Yankee Stadium, fill it with reams of trivial details over every play, hit, home run and out, Jeter has made at that stadium then claim it cannot be deleted because WP:NOT does not specifically mention that articles on baseball players' performances at specific stadia is bad? Man, I'm impressed! Which school did you get your wikilaw degree from? Resolute 15:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to think an editor as senior as yourself could manage to make a point without a personal attack, perhaps you'd care to refactor that? In any case, there are two relevant points here. #1 Such a thing is specifically covered under WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. #2 If 20 good-faith editors felt that some specific topic not covered under WP:NOT shouldn't be covered by WP:NOT while 20 did feel it should be covered, I'd hope you'd agree there was no consensus one way or the other. This is very much a matter of opinion, nothing else. And we clearly see opinion is evenly split. Hobit (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh, adding flavour to a comment on how you are trying to wikilawyer the WP:NOT argument isn't a personal attack, sorry. Also, to my theoretical article NOTSTATSBOOK would not apply, as I would not be creating a list of statistics. Rather, I would be writing, in prose, a tediously detailed account of the player's history at that one stadium. Where both my theoretical article, and this formerly-real article does fall down is at WP:NOTDIARY. As it, using both sportspeople and celebrities as examples, notes both that not everything written about [them] is notable and that over-detailed articles full of trivia are a bad thing. And giant articles about a celebrity's Twitter presence is very much an example of this. Resolute 13:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So just to be clear, you didn't just wiki-lawyer out of NOT:STATSBOOK? I guess since you haven't actually written it it'd be silly to challenge that though. Anyways, things like 'tedious' 'giant' 'trivia' 'over-detailed', the bases of that argument, are exactly the things for which there was no convincing consensus. Darryl from Mars (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that Hobit makes a quite reasonable and logical argument. Nothing at WP:NOT applies directly. WP:NOT exclusions are usually taken to be very specific, and that is consistent with the large number of specific exclusions. Participants in the debate did not go into depth as to how any part of WP:NOT applied (juts making vague references). WP:INDISCRIMINATED most certainly doesn't doesn't clealy apply. While some did specifically mention WP:NOT, or its elements, there was no clear (or not clear enough) debate contrasting WP:NOT with the evidence that others have written about the topic. The discussion was therefore not concluded, and with so may particiapnts speaking past each other, it should have been closed as "no consensus". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Arguing that it's not specifically mentioned is arguing on the grounds of a technicality, WP:NOTSTUPID discourages anticipating bad ideas. WP:IAR also points out that it is not the specific wording that matters. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That it's not specifically mentioned is simply a fact. The argument right here is that, therefore, it can't be assumed to apply, there should be a clear consensus/justification. Darryl from Mars (talk) 10:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While it is true that WP:NOT doesn't specifically say "There should be no Wikipedia articles on the Twitter activities of celebrities" nor does WP:INDISCRIMINATE list Twitter activity as an example, you might want to take a look at the top of WP:NOT, where it says "The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive." The fact that the subject of celebrity Twitter use doesn't specifically appear in WP:NOT is most certainly not evidence that the policy doesn't apply to that subject. It would be quite ridiculous to expect or require a policy to exhaustively list every last example of specific subjects to which it applies. -Scottywong| confabulate _ 17:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, clearly it is possible that it applies. But I wouldn't assume it applies here the same way I wouldn't assume it applies to zeppelins. I would expect evidence or argument that it does apply to be the standard. You have to accept, as well, that there are things which WP:NOT doesn't mention, which are suitable for inclusion? Right? There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding when I mention this, there are three classes of things: listed in NOT and thus unsuitable, not listed in NOT but still unsuitable, not listed in NOT and suitable. This case was obviously not listed in NOT, the disagreement consisted primarily of whether or not it was suitable. What I ask you is, by what metric, or what arguements, did you surmise that the 'unsuitable' arguments were the stronger? Darryl from Mars (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me echo Darryl here. Folks are saying "it's clearly indiscriminate", but there doesn't appear to be actual consensus that it is indiscriminate. Some cases are specifically listed out at WP:NOT, some aren't. Those that are clearly have consensus. But if it's not there then it needs to be shown that it has consensus. You can (and probably should) argue common sense. And that's what WP:IAR is for. But using IAR generally requires consensus.
"Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche.
Rule ignorers must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. Actually, everyone should be
able to do that at all times. In cases of conflict, what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus.
- Endorse this was simply the right call, the topic is not notable independent of the subject which is Ashton Kutcher, the citations were all about Kucther not @aplusk and therefore since Notability is not inherited and every FART of his that is reported in the press does not merit an article since that essentially is giving it UNDUE WEIGHT this was the right call to delete, a section in the BIO of Mr. Kutcher would suffice but a DIARY was not necessary.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The twitter account was notable for its achievements, and references did mention how popular it was, etc. That was mentioned in the AFD. Dream Focus 20:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- References that mention how popular Kutcher is on Twitter can easily be summarized in a few sentences on Kutcher's article. Resolute 13:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse: there is no proof that Aston Kutcher on Twitter is not Ashton Kutcher, the topic lacks subject and thus is excluded per WP:NOT. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears your argument is "contentfork," a rationale not mentioned as a reason for delete close consensus. And about which there would substantial disagreement, as the article is about a particular use of a written mass medium. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You may take it for snowy endorse. WP:UNDUE would also exclude this topic as a separate article of this size. That said, I agree that the topic is excluded per WP:NOT and particularly WP:NOTDIARY. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Without a more direct reply, Overturn to No Consensus. Lots of people said '~Q'. Lots of people said 'Q'. Lots of people said 'P'. People said 'P does not imply Q'. None of the statements of '~Q' were argued well, or argued from any relevant or realistic premise at all for the most part. How then, those statements could be considered generally stronger than the contradictory statements (irrespective of their caliber of argument) without the use of preconceived and unargued premises continues to mystify me. Darryl from Mars (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Q = suitable for inclusion, P = notable; more or less. [reply]
- Endorse. Administrator discretion--and well-argued, too--and weak keep arguments means a deletion. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Break 3
- Weak endorse or weak overturn - Seriously, we're discussing the merits of arguments on some article about some celebrity's Twitter use that has very little impact whatsoever. I say "weak" because, well, I have compelled myself into condensing or deleting Twitter stuff used by high-profile people. Recently, we have turned "Barack Obama on Twitter" into Barack Obama on social media because... it must not be solely about Twitter use any longer. If anybody wants to create Ashton Kutcher on social media, that would be fine by me, as long as it is NOT solely about his Twitter use. --George Ho (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would note, that this isn't random AfD of random "X on Twitter" article: this deletion discussion (and DRV for that matter) will set the bar on the whole "Xon Twitter" thing, which is worth any amount of time spent, regarding the cumulative effect on Wikipedia future content development directions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is rather doubtful there would be that many, that make it. And we already have twitter feed articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
