Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 March 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2014 March 3
2014 March 5 >

4 March 2014[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Frederick A. Aprim (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was a Qworty-initiated AFD, amd I was reminded earlier today about my comments about it. Given Qworty's penchant for targeting potentially notable, but low-profile, writers and academics, I wondered if there was a case for the subject's notability. And there seems to be. Although his work is mostly self-published, Gscholar shows quite a few citations to it [1], and a cursory check quickly turns up discussion of one of his works in a book published by Brill Publishers, a major academic/scholarly publisher. One particularly relevant comment reads "Since then, a number of popular overviews have attempted to fill the gap, but mostly have failed to reach academic standards. The most important are Aprim, 2006, and Aprem, 2003. Whereas the latter work is considerably less influenced by the Assyrian nationalist discourse, and has more on the Indian part of the Church of the East, the first has the advantage of introducing many new data and sources." [2] The book's bibliography makes clear that this is the same Xlibris-published Aprim. That one reference might not be enough to sustain an article, but I'm convinced that Aprim was a writer deliberately targeted by Qworty, not some hapless writer he happened on. The initial AFD was tainted; the discussion rested on false premises, and the article should be restored. (Note: the deleting admin was desysopped and stopped editing, so any notification/request in their direction would be pointless.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why are we here? That the original proposer may have had ulterior motives is meaningless. That the admin who closed the AfD (four years ago!) was ultimately desysopped is also meaningless; the close looks totally legit and given the arguments put forth, I can't imagine any other decision. On the other hand, see my comments about Northwest Airlines Flight 188. They're as valid for this one as they were for that, so to save time, I'll just copy-and-paste them here.
IMHO, there's no reason to overturn the original (almost 2 over four year old) AfD decision. That was clearly done according to the consensus at the time and in-process. But, we don't need to overturn the AfD to recreate the article. Wikipedia:Recreation_of_previously_deleted_pages admits to a few reasons a recreation of a deleted article might be valid; one of them is, Notability status has changed. Has it? I don't know, but it's not so implausible that I would dismiss it out of hand. My suggestion here is WP:IAR, withdraw this review request, save everybody a lot of time arguing about it, let the prior AfD stand, be WP:BOLD and create the new version of the article anyway. If people object, they can always drag it to AfD again, but that seems like more lightweight solution than a deletion review of a two>four-year old AfD.
Keep in mind, however, if you do re-create, and it does get dragged to AfD, the onus will be on you to show what has changed in the past four years to make this guy notable now when he wasn't before. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as correct decision at the time with leave to userfy or draftify. ✄ (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Why are we even discussing four year old AfD? I see nothing wrong with the closure. Do not userfy, it would just get abandoned and might end up to WP:MFD per WP:STALEDRAFT. jni (delete)...just not interested 14:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse rationale based entirely upon assumption of bad faith by nominator... four years ago. Even if we regard this assumption as correct we still have a clear consensus to delete. Regarding any possible re-creation I'd want to see a well-sourced draft or, at a minimum, strong evidence of some sort of leap in notability in the last four years. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per above. I know this happened 4 years ago, but I don't even think it was right to redact that part of the nomination. I think it was advancing just cause for deletion. ThemFromSpace 21:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review (It may help to look not just at the latest version, but earlier ones also) DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Unless there is substantially more than there was then--and I don't think the ref. given above qualifies as substantially more, the decision is very likely to be the same. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 7 March 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.
Northwest Airlines Flight 188 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This previously deleted article has been resubmited to AfC at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Northwest Airlines Flight 188. In its present state at AfC, I believe the article to pass WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:AIRCRASH (which were the reasons cited for deletion) because the incident resulted in changes to procedures and regulations. Is it pertinent to accept the AfC or is an undeletion of the old article required? See also discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#AfC submission Ochiwar (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure why this is on delrev. Well, no, that's not quite true; I can see the sequence of micro-decisions which led to that, each one logical taken in isolation, but I can't help thinking this ended up in the wrong place. IMHO, there's no reason to overturn the original (almost 2 year old) AfD decision. That was clearly done according to the consensus at the time and in-process. But, we don't need to overturn the AfD to recreate the article. Wikipedia:Recreation_of_previously_deleted_pages admits to a few reasons a recreation of a deleted article might be valid; one of them is, Notability status has changed. Has it? I don't know, but it's not so implausible that I would dismiss it out of hand. My suggestion here is WP:IAR, withdraw this review request, save everybody a lot of time arguing about it, let the prior AfD stand, be WP:BOLD and create the new version of the article anyway. If people object, they can always drag it to AfD again, but that seems like more lightweight solution than a deletion review of a two-year old AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved the AFC version to mainspace and have restored the talk page and previous history. It can be discussed in a future AFD if someone wishes to nominate it.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:49, 5 March 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.
2014 Winter Olympics medals per capita and per GDP (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Reassessment required based on error in process, namely, since the correct interpretation of the reason for deletion can only be Wikipedia:Notability, and not the WP:OR as was wrongly stated by Davey2010, who closed the discussion stating WP:OR, the discussion must be closed stating the Wikipedia:Notability and not WP:OR. There's another issue, too. Davey2010 should have waited for this question to be answered by Arnoutf because the WP:Notability criteria state and I quote from the Wikipedia:Notability#Why we have these requirements as criteria that it is required "articles rely primarily on third-party or independent sources so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization", which has been met in the particular case in my opinion. Even if I am wrong on this second issue, the reason stated by Davey2010 is still wrong. --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've struck my name out as we've established I wasn't the closer, I suggest in future DancingPhilosopher should use talkpages first before wrongfully accusing!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(some of which covered multiple, similar, articles), we have already established overwhelming consensus that this topic is some mix of non-notable and OR. I didn't see anything in the discussion to make me believe new events or policy changes had happened in the past 4 years to make that pre-existing consensus not applicable here. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @RoySmith, thank you for clarifying what kind of reasoning was behind the decison you made. My comment is that I don't find it very convincing because - as was explained by kelapstick here "Different years are entirely different subjects (to some degree)", and by Technical 13 here "What is specific to 1996 does not apply to 2014". --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DancingPhilosopher:, please don't misunderstand my comment (and that of Technical 13). That was specifically related to the question of if they would be eligible for G4 speedy deletion. I did point out that using common outcomes is helpful for predicting the way that deletion discussions will go, in this case, they would point to delete. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't doubt that there's an interesting correlation between olympic medals and wealthier countries, but there's a consensus that Wikipedia isn't the place to explore it. Endorse.—S Marshall T/C 18:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @S Marshall As explained above, concensus about previous years does not apply to 2014 because in previous years there were no notable sources reporting about those years, while this year the subject was covered by notable sources, which makes your line of reasoning flawed. --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closer had consensus to delete. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of order Why is this listed under the AfD page rather than the article itself? How do we fix that? Smartyllama (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Stalwart111 23:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- @DancingPhilosopher: Just take your loss and leave it, this is wasting a lot of time (including your own) that can be better used to improve other articles. Arnoutf (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Expressed consensus was quite clear, and this is in the nature of a list article, where the deference to community sentiment is particularly strong. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - closed per consensus. Not liking consensus is a different thing. Stalwart111 23:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- consensus was clear. Reyk YO! 02:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. No substantial error in process by closer. DRV is not AFD round 2. ✄ (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm reminded of a recent, televised statement by President Obama. He was praising an activist and mentioned that the activist "Spoke truth to power". The difference on here is that "the power" is comprised of anonymous parties. Nice guys and truth often lose as the "powers that be" (majority) wrap themselves in "consensus" rules and regs. I'd bet you dollars to donuts that most if not all who voted to delete this article - are Americans. And there, boys and girls is the real story.--Achim Hering (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This does not appear to be true. I just visited the user pages of all the delete voters and, of the four who list their nationality at all, only one was American. You should have checked this yourself before making comments of this kind and, even if you were right, you'd still have to explain why you think it even matters. Reyk YO! 05:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I don't really care either way about the article, but I'd suggest to the closer that it's helpful to include a rationale in any case where the answer isn't absolutely open-and-shut, or where someone is likely to get confused as to why you've taken a certain action. It can stop these things from ending up at DRV. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:43, 10 March 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.
Hummingbird Heartbeat (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The delete/redirect votes from myself, @Gongshow:, @Adabow:, and @Lankiveil: cited WP:NSONGS as for why the track was not notable while two of the "keep" voters argued it was notable based on it being a single and charting (which were actually moot points since not every single is notable, and the chartings were rather low and not notable charts to begin with, the South Korea chart only being a download chart), one of the "keep" voters didn't even provide a reason to keep, and the rest misinterpreted WP:NSONGS. The song has very little coverage from reliable sources that aren't from album reviews, and even those reviews only briefly discussed the track. WP:NSONGS also states that coverage within album reviews doesn't make a track notable, which the keep voters seemed to have misunderstood. I have talked with closing admin RoySmith about this, who mistakenly believed a "keep" consensus had been reached. Gongshow gave a very in-depth analysis on how it is not a notable track per WP:NSONGS. Whether it gets deleted or redirected, the song is not notable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Gongshow did indeed give a very in-depth analysis that the topic does not meet the notability criteria but, even if we accept the analysis, this does not prove that the article should be deleted. WP:Notability (music) (of which NSONGS is a part) says "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion". In these situations the closer has to give weight to policy-based arguments but he also has to avoid making a decision based on his view of what right-minded people would think. This is a difficult position to be in and I accept the rationale the closer gave on his talk page.[3] Thincat (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case of conflict between a specific notability guideline like NSONGS and the GNG, DRV usually decides that the GNG should prevail. That's how we should decide in this case as well, so endorse. A well-reasoned close.—S Marshall T/C 10:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that it doesn't pass WP:GNG either. Also, the delete/redirect votes carried more weight/strength than the "keep" votes, and WP:NOTADEMOCRACY. The strength of arguments matter more than number of votes, and none of the "keep" arguments (correctly) cited policy therefore making them not-as-well-supported as the delete/redirect votes. Regarding deletion the "rule of thumb" bit on meeting criteria, it was actually indicating that merge/redirect is an acceptable alternative to deletion when it fails to meet notability guidelines. We can't ignore the fact that it fails notability. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can't ignore the consensus that it passes notability. Taking the two discussions together (and my view is that the first AfD is recent enough to be taken into consideration as well as the second), and disregarding the struck votes as we should, I think there's a pretty clear consensus there. I realise you think these people are wrong, but DRV is not for cases where you simply disagree with the outcome. It's for cases where there was an error in the close.—S Marshall T/C 03:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • There was in fact an error in the close- no consensus had actually been reached. The WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG policies indicate it fails notability. Also, consensus in the case of AfD is policy-based, not vote-based. The policy-based arguments to not keep definitely outweighed the "keep" votes. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've noticed that every time someone doesn't agree with the majority, they trot out WP:NOTAVOTE. (And every time someone thinks the majority is right, they cling like a limpet to WP:CONSENSUS.) Raul's Law #300.—S Marshall T/C 10:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:CONSENSUS states that "editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense". So again, strength of arguments carry more weight than number of votes. If the debate hadn't been closed so soon, there may have been consensus to redirect rather than delete. Either way, "keep" was not the consensus. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse there's years of precedent toward keeping singles from major notable artists, and it appears this was reflected in the AFD discussion, TWICE! The real question to ask is, "Would the encyclopedia be improved by having articles on every Katy Perry single except this one, and if so why?" I can't think of any reason it would be. There was also some strange IP socking/votestacking going on in the recent AFD that makes this seem like a bad-faith attempt to delete an article for some reason. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether or not it was a single in this case is moot when there is barely any coverage from reliable sources. Besides, I've seen singles from major notable artists that never get articles, and the two singles from her first album Katy Hudson never got articles. Why did they not? Because they lacked significant coverage. Being a single doesn't automatically make a song notable. The notability policies seem to have been misinterpreted and/or overlooked in both AfD's. WP:NSONGS states that an article should only be created if there is in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources that are NOT album reviews. The vast majority of reliable sources that address the song only do so briefly, and are part of album reviews. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Despite a lack of significant coverage, which I'm inclined to favor in song articles, and which is heavily recommended by WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS, the latter guideline does have some flexibility in allowing articles on non-notable songs. NSONGS notes that even if a song is not notable, an article is "appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". So, while my preference is to not have a standalone article when it consists entirely of trivial, non-independent coverage (i.e., sheet music, liner notes, a non-significant chart placement, and single-sentence mentions within the context of album reviews), current consensus supports a different outcome, which is to keep articles on songs that do not meet WP:GNG but satisfy the "reasonably detailed" sentence of WP:NSONGS. During the AfD, I outlined why I believed the song to be non-notable. There were multiple keep rationales that I felt were weak -- "it was a single" and "it was performed on tour" do not satisfy NSONGS, and even "it charted" comes with the qualifier in the guideline: "a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria". But that said, since there is a condition under which this song meets NSONGS ("a reasonably detailed article"), there is no sense in doing anything else but keep.  Gong show 18:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood the part of "reasonably detailed". "Notability aside" doesn't mean that length covers up for lack of notability, it was saying that however notable something might be, the notable thing(s) would require enough in-depth coverage to make something more than a stub. It still fails GNG, though, which can't be ignored. Detailed or not, it fails more NSONGS criteria than it passes. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2014
  • Endorse as a reasonable reading of the community discussion(s). Other discussions have indicated the community is skeptical about NSONGS as an exclusionary criterion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It still fails WP:GNG, though. We can't just disregard WP:GNG. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whether or not it truly fails the GNG is debatable, but even working from the assumption that it does, GNG is a guideline, and like the rest of Wikipedia's practices may be stretched or ignored if doing so is in the interest of improving the encyclopedia. In this case, deleting this article outright would blow an unnecessary hole in a topic where we otherwise have a solid set of articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the contrary, it wouldn't blow holes into anything. It could be better to redirect, though. There is too little information from credible sources available to have an article. The only credible sources that mention it only do so briefly, and it would require in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. If we were to look problems other than lack of significant coverage, it also is widely unheard of throughout the globe. It also did not achieve any notable accomplishments (i.e. popularity, high chartings, or even charting on any notable charts), and had no significance to her career at all. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, especially per Andrew Lenahan's and S Marshall's comments. A detailed and reasonably sourced article about a (modestly charting) single from a bestselling artist; as Andrew says above, how does deleting this improve the encyclopedia? --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we were to take out all the album reviews, it would be a stub at best. As WP:NSONGS indicates, coverage within album reviews does NOT make tracks notable or count as significant coverage, and songs unlikely to grow beyond stubs should not be made into articles. Keeping this doesn't help the encyclopedia at all because it fails notability per WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG, which state that it needs significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. This being a single is irrelevant, and so is its charting. Of all the reliable sources available, they only mention the song briefly and/or are album reviews. Why are people disregarding the notability policies? If not deleted, it should definitely be redirected to Teenage Dream (Katy Perry album). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:20, 9 March 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_March_4&oldid=1141925404"