Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 January 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2014 January 27
2014 January 29 >

28 January 2014[edit]

  • Belarusian nobility – There has been a strong opinion raised in this discussion that we should just close this, because merge or redirect = keep. Indeed, this used to be the DRV position for many years but in early 2010 AFD updated its outcome to include merge and redirect and a series of discussions at WT:DRV agreed that we should review these closes. [1], [2]. The close does fall within our ambit. Essentially, the nominator wants us to undo the redirect because a users prevents them from moving material to the new article and they want to keep the material. This does not strike me as a legitimate purpose for DRV. We can only look at the close and for those who commented on this aspect, there is a clear endorse. What the nominator wants is dispute resolution. I would suggest an RFC to review whether the material should be included. I think we need to rewrite WP:ND3 but the advice is germane, the nom needs to get a better consensus then the AFD to overturn the outcome and an RFC looks like the right place to start – Spartaz Humbug! 06:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Belarusian nobility (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

First of all, in the original discussion the vast majority said "rewrite" or "keep", very few actually voted "delete". Thank you, the article has a lot of very good information, the problem is the referencing, but I believe it's not a reason to delete but to work on the article, which I'll be glad to do if restored. Here is the link to the original discussion: [3]. 79.180.31.23 (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn The clear consensus was to keep the article and not redirect. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note the selected list of individuals informed by the nominator of this DRV at time of listing - [[4]] --86.5.93.42 (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I informed everyone who took part in the discussion, including the administrator who speedy-deleted it (against the vote). The only ones I didn't inform are two people who voted to keep the article, because they are not active on Wikipedia anymore (User:My very best wishes, User:W.V.-S.-). 79.180.31.23 (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:FreeRangeFrog who opined to redirect is very much active and isn't in your list. The original deletion nominator is also active and not included in your list. User:GiW who also opined to redirect was last editing 5 days ago. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Redirect, unless someone can provide a valid counterpoint to the nominator's original rationale. No one did at the AFD, so this is your chance. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of people provided a counterpoint to the original rational. It's a big topic on it's own! I would be pro-merger, except for one problem - User Piotrus keeps on deleting the information from Belarusian nobility whenever someone copies it into Ruthenian nobility, using the false explanation that the Belarusian nobility article was voted to be deleted (never happened). 79.180.31.23 (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural closure  This was a redirect-without-deletion, so there is no deletion to review.  Relatedly, a redirect-without-deletion coming out of an AfD is not binding on the community.  The AfD nominator states, "...I don't dispute the notability of this topic", so there is no dispute regarding notability.  The article had seven sources at the time of nomination and eight more were listed in the AfD.  So what this article appears to need is an editor...one willing to remove any WP:OR, remove unsourceable content, and add inline citations as needed for the remaining content.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the thing though, if that would be the case in practice that would be great, but whenever someone "moves" the information from Belarusian nobility to Ruthenian nobility Piotrus deletes it, because in his interpretation Belarusian nobility was voted to be deleted, not merged (or he fails to see the meaning of merge). 79.180.31.23 (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. There are ultimately two kinds of deletion discussion outcome, being delete and not-delete. There is nothing stopping anyone, after a not-delete closure, from taking editorial actions such as merging, redirecting, or reversing either of the above, and a deletion review is not required for that; it can be done under WP:BB. ✄ (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing, the article WAS deleted, even though the discussion clearly stated keep. 79.180.31.23 (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a DRV issue. The closer carefully redirected without deletion, which is an ordinary editing decision; its reversal should be discussed on the relevant talk page. If consensus is to undo the redirect, no administrative action would be required. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is most people didn't vote for redirect but to keep. Merger means including keeping the information, and it seems like a certain editor (with a specific agenda) deletes the information which was suppose to be merged into the new article. 79.180.31.23 (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not close DRV without an outcome - In reply to @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz:, @Stifle:, @Unscintillating: As was previously pointed out to me, WP:DRV is not so much the review of deletion, but of the deletion process, so keep/redirect/merge AfD closes can be reviewed here even though no actual deletion happened. A redirect-without-deletion AfD outcome should be binding if appropriately supported by consensus, just like every other consensus-backed community decision. The question is: was the AfD close appropriately supported by consensus, and/or is there evidence the community's consensus has changed? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! 79.180.31.23 (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The policy WP:ATD states, "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum."  Unscintillating (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close, after due consideration. I believe this is a content dispute, not an issue with the close of the AFD, as such. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
People voted to keep Belarusian nobility (not merge, keep), yet someone decided to delete the article and say the descussion said "merge", yet as part of that "merge" the old article simple got deleted. 79.180.31.23 (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I disagree with the opinions that this is not an issue for deletion review to consider. People commonly see AFD decisions to redirect or merge as binding (at least until sufficient time has passed that is possible consensus could change, or until new information comes to light). In this case, looking at the history of the currently redirected article, it seems that attempts to undo the redirect were undone specifically because of the AFD consensus. Also, the instructions for this page state that it can be used whenever someone thinks the closer misinterpreted the consensus of a deletion discussion. There is nothing in the instructions that would seem to prohibit using deletion review when you think a decision to redirect/merge should instead have been a decision to keep. Calathan (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fully agree - my perception is that a redirect as outcome of an AFD is binding, and redirects are often fully protected when editors who disagreed with the outcome try to get around the AFD consensus. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The outcome of the discussion is not unreasonable, but a better outcome would be "stubify and start over". We all agree it's notable. And the redirect target isn't exactly reasonable. Time allowing I'll try to start this article over with what sources there are or can be found. Not going to put a lot of effort here, but I want to get it to something we agree is a reasonable (if highly stripped down) article and go from there. This set of actions would seem compatible with the close. Hobit (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the original article was good, the problem is it was unreferenced. The references are easy to find, if someone speaks the right languages. What's written in the article is written in a neutral way (as far as I can see) and looks correct. 79.180.31.23 (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And... I'm having problems even stubbing it. I just can't find general sources in English. Hobit (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's true! The reason is because most sources will be in Russian, Polish and some in Belarusian. Whoever wrote the article based it on good sources and had a lot of skill, yet I think they didn't think they need to point them as well. 79.180.31.23 (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ''comment there has been no clear policy about whether redirect closes are binding, but our practice seems to be changing. Six years ago they were definitely not binding; in the last year they are often treated as if they are. I think this is a very good development: there is no other practical way to enforce a redirect when redirect is the best option. We should normally consider them binding unless the article is improved in a relevant way, just as a delete can be re-created if an improved article is written. To avoid ambiguity, if I close as redirect I will usually say something like "optional" if that's what I mean; otherwise I normally mean "required" , but I think I will start saying explicitly if I interpret the consensus that a redirect is required. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this here? There's no deletion to undo. If the topic can be sourced adequately then it can be restored, as my closing rationale stated. If 79.x.x.x wants to improve the article, then do it in a sandbox and then restore it. You don't do that by simply undoing the redirect and leaving it in the state it was at the AfD, though. Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Agree with the closer's reading of rough concensus. Nomination was sound. The finding of "redirect" in the AfD is binding subject to a consensus, preferable at the target talk page, to reverse the decision. The redirect should not be boldly reverted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn As far as I can make out the article was nominated under wp:TNT - which, having read the article is fair enough although I don't think it was the actual consensus. That said, TNT is a one-shot issue that only speaks to the state of the article as it exists at the time. But only two things are needed to render the entire basis of the TNT irrelevant. The first is someone re-writing the article, and the second is someone who can come up with a clear and sourced distinction between Belarussian nobility and Ruthenian nobility. As such, more so even than most merge votes this should not be treated as binding, although anyone reverting it should put in a re-write. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, Belarusian is a modern term. In the past those people were called Ruthenian (a name used for Belarusians and Ruthenians), and Litvins (a name used primary for Belarusians). Belarusian nobility is basically a modern term for Ruthenian nobility living on the territory of what is now Belarus (and Lithuania).
I would actually agree with "moving" the article to Ruthenian nobility, my problem is that certain users (with a certain political agenda) keep on removing the Belarusian nobility content whenever I try and copy-paste it to the Ruthenian nobility article (which is very poor and has little information). When I say political reasons I mean that certain Polish nationalist's try to remove any trace of information about szlachtas which were not of Polish ethnicity. They basically try to "take over" the history of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and reduce the influence and role other groups played in it (it was a multi-ethnic society).
If Belarusian nobility should be deleted, so should Western Ukrainian nobility, and the content of both articles should be copy-pasted into the Ruthenian nobility article. 79.180.31.23 (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2014 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Yume No Hajima Ring Ring (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I was about to note something regarding the page titled Yume No Hajima Ring Ring which is a upcoming song by Kyary Pamyu Pamyu. Sometime last week I noticed the article is been speedy deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury and labelled it as an A7. I got not idea what happened in the recent days or the one who deleted the article had some argument from the one who made the page a while ago. All I know about the song is that there are now official sources released, especially press releases regarding her upcoming single and her world tour this year. Counted that the article is related to the music artist, it needs to be undeleted and redone by adding reliable sources and information.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Comment I have had no argument of any kind about this article, with its creator or anyone else. It appeared to me to be a non-notable song which has not yet been released, but I will bow to the community decision. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 14:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete A single from a notable artist whose other singles have articles. It has a confirmed release date and unless something truly bizarre happens it will be notable. A7 doesn't apply to songs anyway, so unless this is a hoax (doesn't look like it, a quick search came up with the song, cover art, etc) then it should be restored and expanded. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - A7 clearly doesn't apply to songs, and A9 (which perhaps Anthony Bradbury meant to use) doesn't apply in this case since the song is by a person with a Wikipedia article. The page should be restored since it did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, though if anyone thinks the song is not yet notable, they could send it to AFD. Calathan (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment + Merge - BTW, it also needs to be merged with Yume no Hajime-Ring Ring since it's the single's original name.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - obviously songs aren't eligible for A7, and Kyary Pamyu Pamyu means it ain't eligible for A9 either, as noted. Whether redirection is appropriate is somewhat beyond the scope of this discussion, I think (regardless, since I can't read Japanese, I can't comment on that). WilyD 10:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation, all the while wondering why contributors who have the necessary information and references at their fingertips don't include them in the article first time round. Deb (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy undelete and speedy close DRV. Deleting admin's statement, above, makes clear that this was not an appropriate application of A7, particularly since A7 specifically excludes songs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily oveturn deletion - Subject unambiguously not deleteable under CSD A7, and no other CSD criteria (including A9, which generally covers songs) is applicable. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I could say the decision is already clear by far, the article needs to be improved not speedily deleted. It didn't count as an A7 and A9 so the admin who deleted this before done a big mistake, so its better to close this one.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Songs are not in scope for A7, and songs with notable bluelinked artists are not in scope for A9. "It appeared to me to be a non-notable song which has not yet been released" indicates an admin who should review the criteria before doing more deletions. Non-notability is never a valid speedy deletion reason. DES (talk) 07:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Clearly doesn't qualify under wp:A7 or wp:A9. The article itself is both pointless and a wp:CRYSTAL issue if not released and unsourced. But the actual deletion was unambiguously incorrect. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2014 (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/2014_January_28&oldid=1090392623"