Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 April 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2021 April 29
2021 May 1 >

30 April 2021

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The Legitimate Wise Guy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Non Admin Closure after only one vote for draftifying, not sufficient for consensus — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommanderWaterford (talk • contribs)

  • Do you have any actual objection to the draftification? WP:NFF says that we shouldn't have articles on films which haven't started principal photography, and there wasn't any evidence this film had. Unless someone can show otherwise the article will need to be deleted, draftified, or merged/redirected somewhere else. Hut 8.5 17:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, endorse. This is an uncontroversial, obvious close and nobody has offered any argument against it, even now. Relisting it would be bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. Anybody who thinks we should have an article on the subject is welcome to improve the draft. The fact the closer is a blocked sock does not affect that. Hut 8.5 07:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment from closer: While I closed it without following the exact procedure, I believe this would have been clearly a delete or draftify. I have got a good advice from Barkeep49 regarding what exacly wrong happened from my side. I should have relisted this rather than proceeding with my own personal view since only one person voted there. Anyway, this article is surely a case of WP:TOOSOON as the production is not notable. But since the correct procedure were not followed, I am happy to leave it upto others. Regards. Kichu🐘 Need any help?
  • Endorse The nom suggested draftify, the one participant agreed. Seems like a perfectly non-controversial NAC, and a reasonable outcome: the article is placed where anyone can work on it and anyone can suggest it be moved back into mainspace when they think it's ready. Really, a far better and more encyclopedia-building outcome than actually deleting it only to have it restored later. Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse If there was some sort of argument made that the draftification was improper somehow, it's not made - there's nothing specifically wrong with this close and as JClemens says it's a non-controversial NAC. It could have been relisted but draftifying is almost harmless (yes I know it could get deleted after a few months, but it's easier to source the draft and move it back to mainspace than go to DRV.) SportingFlyer T·C 00:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the article is at Draft:The Legitimate Wise Guy, so it can be seen there. Thus, no temp undelete. WilyD 11:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the draftification. It was a valid non-admin close for various reasons including that a non-admin New Page reviewer could have draftified it also. Submit to AFC when film is released. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per, if nothing else, WP:IAR. Since the article can be moved back to mainspace any time, there's no use arguing over technicalities. A relist probably would have been preferable, but at this point it would just be procedure for the sake of procedure, which I can't support. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really sorry, all, but this close can't stand. The closer is a blocked sock, and consensus exists that any editor in good standing may revert anything they did, even if it appears to be productive. CommanderWaterford lacks the technical permissions to revert them but he does have the authority, because sockpuppets don't have standing to close discussions, so it falls to us to revert the close at his request. If we agree that this content shouldn't be in mainspace then I'm afraid someone else will just have to re-close it as "draftify".—S Marshall T/C 00:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the light of Hut 8.5's comment above, I propose that we regularize this by re-closing the discussion in exactly the same terms with Hut 8.5's signature on it rather than the sock's. The community feels strongly about sockpuppetry and has worked to de-legitimize it, and I feel that this isn't to be dismissed as mere petty bureaucracy. The community has decided that socks don't get to close discussions, and it matters that we implement that consensus.—S Marshall T/C 10:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Void close. Out of deference to DRV, I'm not going to G5 the close, but I really should. Socking is bad enough. Having socks closing AfD discussions, especially when they admit they were biased (I should have relisted this rather than proceeding with my own personal view, above) is intollerable. Note: I was WP:INVOLVED in the SPI -- RoySmith (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2021 (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.
The Book of Chad (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Quick Non Admin Closure by "Article Rescue" Member based on sources which are only interviews and/or promotional, needed to be relisted instead CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from closer: I am not a member of the Article Rescue Squadron and have explicitly said I disagree with many tendencies of the group. I examined all of the sources given by @HumanxAnthro and found that they supported the consensus that had formed for inclusion. I note this was made within minutes of me commenting elsewhere about some non-AfD conduct CommanderWaterford was criticised for by a significant number of users. Vaticidalprophet 15:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Vaticidalprophet, I'm sorry but I'm afraid that's not how it's done. The closer doesn't examine the sources and make a decision. That's what the !voters do. The closer summarizes the arguments made, weighs them against policy, and then evaluates the rough consensus. Like you, I would have closed that as "keep", but I would have got there by a very different route.—S Marshall T/C 15:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I misworded my statement, because I'm stressed by the obvious timing of CW's actions here. Forgive me for quick-circuiting my words when I find myself dragged to DRV by someone whose sole interactions with me for several months have been the endless and persistent assumption of bad faith. I was attempting to make it clear that his claim I was making an ill-informed and idiotic decision in the name of some ideological claim was false. Vaticidalprophet 16:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Screw this, I don't care enough about some random dude's album to argue with someone who's been spending weeks apparently dedicated to following me around AfD over it. Let it be extremely clear just how offended I am by CommanderWaterford's utterly baseless and bad-faith claim that I am a member of a group I have explicitly stated I disagree with, and by the timing of this behaviour. Vaticidalprophet 16:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to get involved in fights between users, so I'll stay out of that. I do, however, want to state that I only voted Weak Keep with the sources I found. Even though I found a lot of Google results that were independent sources, only one was a major review and another was a feature of the making of the album, with the rest being WP:ONEVENT announcement articles. Although I strongly contest the notion that has been going around of interviews being "promotion", I wouldn't mind the sources I provided being examined again properly. Plus, they're all Southern African sources which their reliability hasn't been examined by mostly Western users on this English-language encyclopedia, so there's that to consider. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Vaticidalprophet has backed out their own close, I've re-closed this myself, once again with a "keep" outcome. The deletion review should therefore continue.—S Marshall T/C 16:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any thoughts on my explanation of my wording? Vaticidalprophet 16:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do, yes, but I'd rather not express them here and now because this page should be focused on the outcome of the AfD. Is it OK if I post them on your talk page after a couple of days' thought?—S Marshall T/C 16:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely fair. I am, for various reasons, much less concerned about the object discussion than the meta one here, but I recognize these reasons don't apply to the rest of the people on the site (let alone the participants in an AfD that happened to get swept up into something else) and that the object discussion is the one worth having here -- particularly as you've decided to take responsibility for the close. Vaticidalprophet 16:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the debate has to be closed on the basis of that discussion then Keep is a fair result, because the rationale for deletion was lack of sources and that became obsolete once sources were found. Nobody tried to argue that the sources aren't evidence of notability. However the debate wasn't relisted and the OP has raised a new argument, so I suggest that the best thing to do would be to relist it to see if that argument makes any difference to the outcome. Hut 8.5 17:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Hut 8.5, a relist is more appropriate here than a second non-admin close, even though I wouldn't be surprised to see S Marshall ultimately get the mop at some point. SportingFlyer T·C 21:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are good reasons why deletion debates have a duration, and can be closed after that duration. I think that it's important that we don't create an incentive for nominators to drip-feed novel arguments at DRV after the deletion debate has been closed, because that would lead to abuses of process. I think it's clear that the nominator in this case was aware of the discussion and its duration, and had the opportunity to challenge the sources provided during that time.—S Marshall T/C 23:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep. Why? Let's go over the five contributions: 1) nom, sourcing issue. 2) D, can't find sources, 3) WK, here are some sources, 4/5) K, sources look adequate. That's a perfect consensus, because after sources were introduced, not one editor opined anything other than that the sources were adequate. I'd say it looks perfect for a NAC, because there's not a back-and-forth over the sources (which, for the record, I have not examined myself) just a complete absence of deletion sentiment once any sources are found. Relisting would have been inappropriate, as participation was adequate and consensus was clear. Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a further comment, I find S Marshall's closing statement functionally equivalent to the original closer's, which wasn't problematic either. I think a good helping of WP:AGF is called for, and a discussion on a more optimum wording would have been far more productive than taking these to DRV. Jclemens (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the closing statement that was the issue, but rather the explanation of how it was closed above.—S Marshall T/C 01:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not in panic mode anymore, so allow me to give an explanation for something that was launched on me with absolutely none at all. I was noting to CommanderWaterford (as opposed to anyone else) that I performed a basic sanity check of HxA's links to make sure they didn't go to, say, Facebook or something. I wouldn't expect HxA to do that, I've worked with him at AfD and elsewhere and have more positive feelings than not, but I consider it a basic function of closing any discussion that I sanity-check the background to make sure there isn't something weird going on that demands relisting or participation instead of closing. I do it at RM when I'm page-mover-closing lower-participation RMs, and I very much hope admins doing AfD soft deletions do it. I was clarifying to CW that I had performed a basic level of diligence in my role of serving as judge of consensus in response to his baseless accusations of partisanship and over-hastiness. Vaticidalprophet 01:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the current closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is a rule on this Deletion Review noticeboard that, if you don't know if you have enough experience to make a non-admin closure at DRV, you don't. That should also apply to AFD. It is less problematic to leave dozens of AFDs waiting for a closer for days or a week than for one AFD to come to DRV because the non-admin closer made a two-part error in judgment, both in how they closed the AFD, and in the fact that they closed it. If you think that you have enough experience to make an AFD closure, you likely don't. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - S Marshall's closure is clearly valid, so I'll express no opinion on the previous closure except to urge adherence to both WP:AGF and WP:AAGF. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse current closure per S Marshall/Jclemens. Original closure in isolation is fine as well (closer, seeing consensus to keep based on sources provided, checks them to make sure they're not being wildly misinterpreted or something and mentions that in the close), but seems suboptimal if there was prior conflict between the closer and the nom. A relist would have been fine as well to allow more time for evaluation, but with the original closer also endorsing the provided sources, I don't think another outcome would be reached.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:01, 4 May 2021 (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.
Board of Student Advisers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page has repeatedly been deleted without a justifiable reason. This is one of the most significant groups at Harvard Law School. Over it's 100+ years, many highly influential and prominent individuals were members of the group, including justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. If you look at think link [1] you would see other prominent alumni who have referenced the organization on their webpage. I am struggling to understand why there would be copyright violation because the organization and its members were responsible for the creation of the page (the same individuals wo maintain the organization's website). It's been noted that the page is "the copyright-infringement makes the content irredeemable. There's no prejudice against you (or anyone else) creating a new article on this topic itself." First, organization has tried to recreate this page and it has been deleted. Is it possible that the page can be reestablished and to the extent there is information that needs to be changed / removed, we can do that on the live page rather than going through the process again. The administrators previously involved have not responded after outreach. David42419 (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Firstly, we're an international encyclopaedia. It's rather unlikely that someone who searches Wikipedia for "Board of Student Advisers" is looking for something to do with a US law school. Board of Student Advisers should be a disambiguation page. The proper page title for the content you wish to create would be Harvard Law School Board of Student Advisers. Secondly, it's our policy to delete material that's a direct copy or a close paraphrase of someone else's copyrighted webpage. Wikipedia likes copyleft. To release the material for Wikipedia's use, you could release the text into the public domain or under a free licence. Thirdly, it's not clear to me why we would want to give the HLS Board of Student Advisers a separate page, rather than covering it in a section of Harvard Law School.—S Marshall T/C 15:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, are we discussing speedy deletions from ~5 years ago? Jclemens (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. Why wouldn't we?—S Marshall T/C 01:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A7 seems rather dubious but it was promotional and it was at least in large part a copyright violation from the organisation's website. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and our articles cannot promote the subject of the article. This one was doing that. We strongly advise that people from an organisation don't write about that organisation on Wikipedia, in large part because it tends to lead to promotional content. I don't see any evidence that the article creators claimed to have permission to use the copyrighted text, and even if they did we would expect to see evidence of that claim. But there's no point in providing evidence because the advertising rationale would still apply. There's nothing stopping the OP or anyone else from writing a better article and submitting it for review, but it needs to be neutrally written and it shouldn't contain content copied from the organisation's website. Hut 8.5 10:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Downgrade Protection to ECP to allow a draft to be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the G11, expressing no opinion on the others. (They're probably correct, but there's no need to reach out and decide them.) I'd also support downgrading protection to ECP per Robert; full protection is unnecessary for a situation like this one. The petitioner is advised to go through the articles for creation process to prevent further incidents. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting/Protecting admin here. The claim that the admins involved did not respond is false. I responded within 30 hours of the first email explaining WP:G11, WP:G12 and copyright owners donating material, and what sources to use to pass WP:NORG, but was ignored. A week later, I also replied within the hour to a second email which did not reference my first reply at all. I know Wikipedia's email function works on my end, so hopefully this was a misunderstanding caused by something on David's end. Obviously, I endorse deletion, because a large part of the article was either lifted entirely or very closely paraphrased from copyrighted webpages and much of the remainder was fluff about how important the BSA was and how it was stepping up to do things even law school professors couldn't. What was left was essentially the claim that it's an old Harvard Law organization, which is at best borderline on A7. I also support downgrading to ECP to allow recreation through the Articles for Creation process as others have noted. I'll note that at the time of the protection (December 2016), ECP was only recently expanded to areas outside of Israel/Palestine, arbitration enforcement, and topics with community consensus and was still being mostly used for those areas. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:49, 4 May 2021 (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/2021_April_30&oldid=1022578230"