- Gage Creed (character) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
There was no convincing reason to keep rather than merge/redirect/delete given, yet the article was closed as "no consensus". There were six votes for either merge, redirect or delete and five for keep, four of which simply deferred to the original keep vote. Said vote was made by a user who is a member of the "Article Rescue Squadron" with a clear bias towards keeping, and should have been looked at more carefully. Several users raised issues with his presented "references", which only had passing mentions and not the significant ones required by WP:GNG. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin "No consensus" does not equal "Keep". If you are aware of my personal history with the ARS you would know that I was always strongly opposed to their methods of manipulating AfD, and yes, I am quite aware of Andrew D.'s propensity to do random Google searches and find lots of "sources" even if they're irrelevant or trivial. The problem here is that there wasn't any consensus at all between those who didn't believe it should be kept - whether it should be deleted, merged or redirected. I would suggest revisiting the article in a few months time and re-AfDing it if it hasn't improved. You would then have a far stronger case for refuting any Keep votes based on "sources exist". Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem here is that there wasn't any consensus at all between those who didn't believe it should be kept - whether it should be deleted, merged or redirected. - I still don't think this merits a close of "no consensus". Redirection is a de facto "delete", and five people voted delete or redirect, with only a single vote for merge. I think that it's obvious the redirect voters would easily favor delete over a no consensus or having to redo the AfD, and ditto with the delete voters and redirection.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, these source dumps are typically passing mentions or unrelated topics with similar names. But other editors vote "keep per above", mistakenly trusting that the purported sources are actually relevant. And that's the important thing. I'd say this is a problem that Wikipedia should have rid itself of years ago but the community has absolutely no willpower to deal with the issue. Reyk YO! 12:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Black Kite can you tell us the reason why wasn't this relisted at least once for a shot in gaining a clearer consensus? I would have endorsed had this been the result after 1 relist, but this, not sure. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn I don't agree with the no consensus, but I also understand how we got here and why it might be viable. This is a no consensus as an "Article for Discussion" and a not keep as an "Article for Deletion". Though there's no clear majority on what to do with the article, viewing the non-keeps as "not keeps" there's a 7–5 majority for not having this article remain, and I agree the keep !votes are not as strongly grounded in policy as some of the not-keep votes. That makes "no consensus" a valid choice when viewing the discussion as a "delete/merge/redirect/keep," but invalid as a "not keep/keep." I think the logical answer here would be to redirect the article to Pet Sematary. Per WP:ATD, I don't think deletion is an option where a merge or redirect is available, so this should be overturned to a redirect and, if someone desires, merge (not sure how much content there is to merge.) I don't think the ARS has anything to do with the no consensus here, and while I have similar criticisms as the ones raised above, I don't think that's the issue here. Compounding the problem was the lack of an explanation for the no consensus in the closing. SportingFlyer T·C 03:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- SportingFlyer AfD no consensus defaults to keep
n any XfD (WP:AfD, WP:TfD, etc.), "no consensus" defaults to keep. Keeping an article preserves all options and the possibility of future discussions. . As an experienced editor and regular Ivoter at AfD you know the AfD process. Clearly not a consensus by your own vote counting - so the XfD closer does not need to explain. However if the closer closed as delete...an explanation would definitely be needed. Lightburst (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear, did you even read what I wrote? Those wanting to have the article not exist in mainspace outweighed the number who wanted it kept, as did their citations of policy. SportingFlyer T·C 23:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I read it. You described a no consensus AfD: 7 votes for 3 different outcomes, and 5 for keep. Clear no consensus. Correct XfD close. If we follow your logic-divining the intention of the voters 7-5 is not a consensus anyway. Lightburst (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You should also know that vote-counting isn't how AfDs are decided - the fact more people voted not to keep the article in mainspace, combined with the low quality of the keep !votes, as described above, means a consensus not to keep the article had been found. I'm admittedly baffled by this aside. SportingFlyer T·C 02:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes of course I know...I was equally baffled by your misapplication of policy. You must have noticed that you are the only overturn vote - and that you are applying a formula which requires clairvoyance. I thought you were just trying to be a contrarian and so I came here thinking you would reconsider - however you are in a double down mood. You certainly have participated in enough AfDs to know how they work. Cheers Lightburst (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- How would you think I was being a contrarian? And which policy do you think I'm misapplying? I was the first user to cast my lot in full in this discussion, and my analysis has been agreed to almost exactly by Levivich below, albeit they advocate for a different result with a relist, which I would be fine with. SportingFlyer T·C 10:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A merge ivote is clearly not a delete ivote, and a relist does not get a different result based on the ivotes. The closer's reading of the AfD arrived at the correct close based on WP:POLICY. Lightburst (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No, someone voting merge believes the topic's not notable enough for a standalone article, while still containing information which may be presented or re-used elsewhere. I know we disagree, but I'm still not certain why you're specifically choosing to attack how I've approached this. SportingFlyer T·C 02:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Any other close would require an excellent explanation. The “no consensus” close does demand an explanation, obviously now in hindsight, but it is easily defensible and well within admin discretion. Where to go from here is WP:RENOM. The next nomination should be much better, and this close should have been better to help the next nominator. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Further looks and discussion has convinced me that “redirect” would have been a better close. There is no compelling case to delete anything, “keep” arguments are weak as they ignore content forking, and a merge from the history is something that can be taken up from the target (I think there is no good case to merge). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist/renom. It seems to me that additional discussion with a narrowed scope would have been helpful, and relisting with a comment might have achieved that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I would have closed as keep, as I think sufficient sourcing was shown, but non consensus is an acceptable alternative. So would have been draftify. I do not see how an extended discussion is likely to improve upon a close that admits there is no consensus. Even in the absence of an explanation for the close, it seems to be an obvious way to close it. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We're all over the board here so far in a way which is rarely seen, probably shows a no consensus was proper, but this is very interesting. SportingFlyer T·C 05:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Having gone through the material in multiple articles, I see there is no viable compelling reason for deletion over a redirect (with potential merging) to Pet Sematary. This is not a Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection, and so it does not belong at AfD. It is about reversing an arguably unjustified spinout. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist for one more week per my comment above and the fact Black Kite decided not to (I am hoping it's the case of being unable per WP:AGF but I am not sure at this point) answer me despite being pinged/obviously aware of this discussion ongoing, yet he/she did another edit more than an hour ago later. I don't think a no consensus was a bad closure, but I also think it was too soon to close the discussion. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- To speak against a relist: The AfD discussion was so complicated, people seriously at cross points, that a pause and a bit more thought is a good idea before doing anything next. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agreed in another situation, but 4meter4 WP:PERX argument (which is usually discounted and an argument to avoid) and MrCleanOut's vote being a failure of WP:GHITS as another argument to avoid in AfDs, I feel like the relist is fully warranted. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- relist it isn't as though discussion had fizzled out. Another week could sort out whether to merge or redirect or whatever. Reyk YO! 12:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse I'd have endorsed a relist also (which IMO would have been an easier decision) but not any other call. BK is right IMO, this wasn't going to end in anything other than NC so cutting it off now seems best. Hobit (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Did a single member of the Article Rescue Squadron participate there other than Andrew? I don't recognize any of the names of those who said KEEP other than him. The close was a valid one. Dream Focus 20:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I am an active ARS member however I did not participate in the AfD. It is clear to me that there is no consensus - perhaps leaning keep. When there is no consensus the default is to keep, not delete. Lightburst (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse No consensus is the normal state of affairs as editors commonly disagree about such matters. There doesn't seem to be a significant real-world problem and so further discussion would be unnecessary and unproductive. Andrew D. (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - This appeal is silly, because the appellant doesn't even know what the close should have been. The appellant doesn't know what the close should have been because there was no consensus, and that means that No Consensus is the best close. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist – The way I see it, all the "redirect", "merge" and "delete" !votes should be counted as "delete" !votes because, as some delete !voters pointed out, the redirect already exists (Gage Creed), so everybody !voting for "redirect" or "merge" is voting for the article Gage Creed (character) to be deleted, and Gage Creed to be re-redirected to Pet Sematary. So there are seven !votes to delete Gage Creed (character) essentially based on lack of GNG sources. The five keep !votes were based on there being GNG sources; a number of sources were put forward; a number were discredited; but 2pou pointed to Nightmare on Sesame Street and Frankenstein's Monster, neither of which were really specifically addressed by !voters. So it's 7-5 in favor of delete, with two potential GNG sources put forward. That is right on the line. I think consensus might have developed if the discussion were relisted with a relist comment suggesting editors focus on examining the sources that allegedly met GNG to decide if, for example, they were reliable sources, and their treatment of the character was in depth. If it was still 7-5 after a relist (or two, depending on how the conversation is going), then I'd say close it as no consensus. – Levivich 05:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No, merge is a keep not a delete. That's because the idea is to keep some of the content rather than deleting it all. And because you need to keep the edit history for attribution and reference. See WP:MAD for details. Andrew D. (talk) 09:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's neither keep nor delete. A merge result at AfD means "not notable enough for a standalone article." SportingFlyer T·C 10:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't put your damn words in my mouth. My merge is not a keep. A keep vote is on the article, not just the content. My merge vote was for the article to go, but content could go in the main article. Reywas92Talk 07:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- “Merge” is a flavour of “Keep”. Merge is contrary to “delete”, it says the information belongs, but there is a better way to organise it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not when the actual question of whether an article should exist is involved. An AfD with only Keep or Merge votes is effectively a merge discussion, and I've seen them closed as keep with a stipulation discussion on whether the content should be merged take place on the talk page. An AfD with only Delete or Merge votes effectively means the content does not deserve its own article, the exact issue being presented here. In this sense, a "merge" vote is a cousin of keep only in the sense all or some content on the page can be kept elsewhere, and a cousin of delete in the sense the information fails our guidelines for having a stand-alone article. When looking at whether an article should be kept or deleted, a merge functions as a delete. SportingFlyer T·C 10:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with all that except the last sentence. A merge !vote does not support the delete button. It may be a very weak counter to “delete” !votes, but “merge” speaks to structurism. Here, the character can be fully contained within the article on the novel, a structure issue not a notability issue. “ zero notability independent of the plot of the book” was correct, which is not the same as “zero notability”.
On reading the AfD through again, a call of “redirect” might have been better than “no consensus”. There was not consensus to delete, the “redirect” and “delete” votes together were consistent arguments for redirect, the “merge” was quite weak with no identification of what needed merging, and the “keep” !votes failed to explain why what they pointed too wasn’t good enough covered in the novel article, they failed to count the “redirect” rough consensus. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirection to the page about the novel would be inadequate because much of the coverage is about the character in the movies and there has been more than one and each has a separate page. The role of the character in these various works is different and the actors playing the part have been different too. The character also makes cameo appearances in other works and there's coverage of those too. Andrew D. (talk) 11:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The closer's rationale above makes perfect sense. There was no clear overriding reason for any of the available arguments, and reasonable arguments were presented for each, so that's a textbook no-consensus. Also, the fact that someone is in the "Article Rescue Squadron" should not mean their !votes carry less weight that others. It's true that there are certain people commonly identified as "deletionists", and others who may be considered "inclusionists", but it's the arguments that count not the individuals. — Amakuru (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist firstly I don't see the point of closing as no consensus because opinion was split between deletion, redirecting and merging, because those outcomes all come from the same premise (that we shouldn't have an article on the subject) and because no consensus results in the one thing none of them want. If that was the only situation then I'd suggest closing as Redirect instead. That would keep the redirect supporters happy, the merge supporters could merge if anyone wanted to, and the delete !voters would presumably be happier with a redirect they don't like than an article they don't like. Most of the keep !voters cited Andrew D's source list, which was pretty comprehensively rebutted, so I don't think much weight should be given to them. I would like to see some more discussion of 2pou's comment though. Hut 8.5 20:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The numerous sources which I presented were not rebutted; not even close. What the nay-sayers typically did was refuse to examine them or do their own research, just asserting their position as a matter of faith rather than basing it on the evidence. It was a classic case of poisoning the well. Andrew D. (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hardly, Rorshacma showed convincingly that many if not all of them are trivial mentions and don't represent significant coverage. You responded that they are significant coverage because "they corroborate specific facts", which isn't what WP:GNG asks for at all. Hut 8.5 06:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Rorschacma only looked at 4 of the 12 sources listed. They then misrepresented this sample. For example, they said "this one is nothing but a brief plot summary...". This is false as the coverage appears on multiple pages of that work and is mainly focussed on the in-jokes and cameos of the character in other works. So, that analysis was neither comprehensive nor accurate and so was quite unconvincing. The other nay-sayers were even worse as they didn't even bother to look at the sources. Blatant bias. Andrew D. (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Appearing on multiple pages in no way makes something significant coverage. That book is a guide to the works of Stephen King, it includes entries on a large number of things which appear in his books and films based on them. Gage Creed gets a very short entry, passing mentions in entries about works in which he appears, and an entry in the index. That's it. I don't think this constitutes significant coverage and it certainly isn't unambiguously significant coverage. Dumping a pile of low-quality references doesn't mean you can then say your point wasn't rebutted just because nobody bothered to go through all of them. Hut 8.5 18:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
-
- It's a what, three-sentence, four-sentence blurb? I would say it's hardly close to WP:SIGCOV, but I think it just further proves a relist would be a better choice since we're at DRV. SportingFlyer T·C 13:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin I'd be happy for it to be relisted, although I suspect that the high profile a DRV brings might attract the usual suspects ... Black Kite (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse nothing to see here. A proper closing. Bravo Black Kite. Wm335td (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist There's poor accounting here on how the different types of votes are grouped; there's a majority not to keep a separate article. None of the sources presented remotely establishes that the character is independently notable of the novel and precludes covering this in the main article. Reywas92Talk 07:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist - The "No Consensus" closure was the right interpretation of the votes provided, but I think this AfD would have benefited from a relisting. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 13:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. In general I support Black Kite's idea that we don't need to have relisted something in order to have a finding of no consensus. I was having a discussion today with another editor about this very thing - a well participated deletion discussion doesn't necessarily benefit from a relist (or multiple relists). However, in this case I think a relist in hopes that those who don't think it should be kept could find a consensus on what the right outcome would be should be given a week to do so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist as above Halkett99 —Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC) — Halkett99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
|
