- Template:Seconds From Disaster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|TfD)
Nominated by an SPA that hasn't been investigated or even mentioned by the closer, other sock votes are present, the main deletion votes were quoting the opinions of an essay, and what other templates might be created if this one stays - both invalid reasons for deletion per the deletion policy, also the backlog skewed the vote, had it been closed at the proper 7 day point it was a clear keep. MickMacNee (talk) 09:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if the deletion was to be overturned, is the matter moot now given the fact that the template has been substed everywhere? Stifle (talk) 10:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not with you, we can't overturn the deletion because it's already been deleted? MickMacNee (talk) 10:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean to say that if the template is undeleted, how will we know where it was transcluded before it had been deleted? Stifle (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The transclusions are all the articles in the template. (It has been retained on the main article.) MickMacNee (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - The primary argument for deletion is that the template only really applies to a single article. There really was no counter to this argument presented. The template was subst-ed to the proper article, which means it's no longer necessary to keep. The fact that the debate ran longer than normal is irrelevant; XfD debates often run long, and sometimes that can change the outcome. It's not a deciding factor for overriding the decision though, unlike a debate which is closed too soon. Being nominated by an SPA is also not a valid reason to overturn. -- Kesh (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument against that position was made, being that it is perfectly obvious what the link was, being the feature topic of the the show's episodes (aside from the fact some voters didn't have a clue what Sfd was even about, even though it was a highly notable show, referenced in many articles already). The argument that they need to be linked in some tangible way over and above having been analysed in Sfd episodes is an argument put forward in an essay, and thus is not policy, and thus not a valid reason for deletion. The SPA is relevant, has a checkuser been run on any of the voters? Did any of the late arriving deleters go canvassing? The initial delete voter has a history with me, and I with him, so I have trouble extending good faith in this instance. Why was one deleter on his 11th edit? Even after double the amount of time, the vote was hardly over-whelming on numbers. You'd see how someone might think the process could have been skewed here. Anyway, that is all irrelevant to the major point, an essay position cannot be used as a valid reason for deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As others have pointed out, using an essay to emphasis deletion reasons is considered valid. It cannot be the primary reason (all by itself), but it can factor into the deletion reasons. I'm afraid consensus is against you here. There really was no valid "counter" to the fact the template is only relevant to a single article, and the events it links to are only related by the show itself. They have nothing else in common, which means there's no reason to link them together with this template. And again, whether you AGF or not on the nominator is irrelevant to the final decision. -- Kesh (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument that they are linked by the show is the argument for the template. How can I phrase this any clearer? The essay says the opposite, and as an essay and not a policy, this means the arguments are at best equal, therefore the amount of keep votes registered dictates this was a default 'keep' as no clear majority emerged (discounting the socks and SPA), when you discount the other invalid argument 'if you keep this then x,y,z, will be created' which also has never been a valid deletion rationale. As you point out, an essay supports, well in this case, what policy was it supporting? Nothing but the POV that the program is not enough of a notable link. No policy, no valid deletion, just an equal argument to 'this does not violate any policy'. To illustrate, there are essays on all sorts of opinions, most conflicting. This is why they are essays and not policies. Or do I seriously have to create an essay 'Using templates to link the related subjects of an analytical television documentary series is a good thing' before you see this basic fact? Essays are opinions, as are other votes. There are clear reasons for a deletion to be made, this did not pass that burden. It is frankly a POV opinion to say the relation documented in the template is not a reason to link the articles. Or are you also going to object if a See Also to the series is added? Which achieves the same objective, in the same amount of space, but is basically worse than what has been deleted for no good reason than a weak POV. If things were deletable on such weak merits eventually there won't be much left on wikipedia. And the motivation of the nominator is highly relevant, unless you are advocating a free for all of SPA nominations. The fact is, if I were to call for a check-user of the nominator with all the deleters, there would be an outcry, so how else do you suggest that SPA nominations are to be prevented if they aren't speedy removed, as I have seen happen before many times. MickMacNee (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument that they are linked by the show is the argument for the template. And as I stated, that's not a valid argument to keep it. One show covering numerous topics does not mean that a template is necessary on articles about those topics. Anyway, we're going in circles here, so I have nothing further to say. -- Kesh (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Who says? Do you even know what the common theme of the show is? Or are you like some of these ignorant delete voters who were not even aware of the show? Like I said and keep saying, give me a single policy or guideline that says that being on the same series is not a valid reason to keep, when you actually understand what the show is about. If all you have is an essay, then you are basically coming to the party late. You need to turn the essay into a guideline and you might have a fighting chance, turn it into a policy and its a lock, but you cannot use it as a binding POV in a deletion discussion, when it does not meet any accepted standard for a reason for deletion. In most sensible discussions, the case is supposed to be err on the side of keep in such weak circumstances (and it should be especially so in this case where there is a clear self interest from someone to try and turn such a weak position into a delete, for reasons only they know); in the spirit of maximum benefit for all readers over pointless destruction based on a few POV opinions in the dark recesses of Tfd. MickMacNee (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is long-standing precedent that a navbox is only used for articles which are closely related. Being part of the same television series does not fit this criterion. How much more plainly can that be stated? RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 04:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At least now you actually admit you have no policy or guideline reason, so now we're left with you stating you can use essays on precedent, with others stating essays can become policy on precedent, so which is it? If this is a precedent, why isn't a guideline? /policy. This is a very handy hypocritical loophole if you ask me. And yet again you show your ignorance by merely stating this is just another tv series, as if there is no possible reason why anyone might be interest in the links. Are you aware of the Titanic theory? Of the method of analysis of the show and how it relates to information in the articles? Or even of the common aspects between the episodes? This isn't just a weak relationship you're removing here, this is a documentary analysing the causes and effects of disasters in a common way, with common themes. Who are you to assume these aren't related beyond a title? You haven't given any factual reason for this belief beyond a freely ignored essay on weak grounds, presumable more concerned about clutter than relevance, which is a joke as I have stated a hundred times this takes up one line of space, no more than a See Also list entry to Sfd. I'm frankly thinking this is more about the ignorance of the deleters about the show rather than any concern over the relevance of information in the pedia. And what about the precedent that people don't usualy create things that don't add to the encyclopoedia? Or the precedent that SPA nominations are usually speedy withdrawn as against AGF. This is a totally selective viewpoint, and doesn't recognise the keep votes, or the comments following its creation from editors who appreciated the creation. MickMacNee (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin statement. XfD - especially TfD, due to usual low participation is not a vote. The number or type of accounts which participated in a debate is completely irrelevant to the final outcome. This was not a proper use for a template. Seconds from disaster uses extremely well known events in its episodes, and having a huge unwieldy navbox on articles such as Titanic is not an appropriate use of the template namespace. How many television specials have done episodes on the Titanic? Do those all need navboxes? What about September 11, 2001 attacks? (That wasn't an article from which the template was removed, but is given as an example) Should there be a template at the bottom of every article about whom the History Channel has done an in-house biographic special? Of course not, because the navbox would be huge and unwieldy and the fact that the History Channel has probably both done in-house specials about Isaac Newton and Harry Truman doesn't mean the two are now any more inextricably related. This TV show, and template, are no different. When it comes down to it, this is a DRV for the sake of DRV. The arguments to keep the template on all of those separate articles had no merit and the procedural grounds on which this DRV are based hold no water. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 16:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This was a deletion for the sake of a deletion, you have given no policy reason for the removal of this template. What might happen in the future to articles is completely irrelevant. The comparison with History Channel bios are irrelevant, the nature of those biography shows bear no resemblane to the science of analysing causes of disasters, and was a common fallacy made in most of the deletes, complete strawmen arguments along the lines of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. And at the sake of repeating myself so much is getting ridiculous, this template takes up one line of space, no bigger than a See Also list entry. The continued references to Titanic also completely ignore the many smaller articles this template was on. And you have singularly failed to give any other example of these what you and others assert are hundreds of TV shows exactly like Sfd dealing with different articles in this way, bar the fallacies such as History bios or laughingly, films by James Cameron. I'm not even sure how you justify a deletion decision by giving your own arguments for deletion, rather than pointing out on what policy grounds the delete votes made outweighed the keep votes. You have singularly ignored the keep votes by the way, this was not a small vote with few votes as you suggest where you eeded to make your own interpretation, and if it was, socks and SPAs are highly relevant. MickMacNee (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Et tu quoque, WP:USEFUL.--WaltCip (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not quite sure what this comment is supposed to mean. MickMacNee (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He's saying that while blaming people for using WP:IDONTLIKEIT you have yourself gone against WP:USEFUL. Stifle (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made no arguments along the lines of WP:USEFULL. If anything, several delete voters with their spurious references to biography programs go against the nutshell text of that essay - always use solid arguments in deletion discussions . They are upholding pure irrelevances about what might happen if this template isn't purged based on completely different cases. MickMacNee (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Actually I was about to close it just about the same way (but I think the closing admin should have explained his reasoning there). Essays are perfectly valid to use as arguments, they are shorthands of the editor's opinion, there was no much point in copy/pasting them instead. I think some keeps are very weak - saying "The episodes aren't notable, but the insidents are" is actually a reason to delete the template (the episodes aren't notable) and keep the incidents (but that is not the discussion subject); two other keeps were not about the template but the nominator's intentions - while most (all?) deletes refered to the template itself. - Nabla (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I say again, an essay, which does not quote a single valid policy to be used in a nomination for deletion, is not a valid reason for deletion. And on the point of notability, I can't believe how many people have clearly never even seen this program and have no clue about what is in the episodes, and how they relate to the articles in question. On the grounds of notability, the latest credible theory of the sinking of Titanic was revealed on the relevant Sfd episode. The episodes are routinely referenced in other articles. The arguments for deletion have been basically IDONTLIKEIT essay reasons and relatively unimportant style concerns dressed up as important policy violating content issues, and like I said, have given an obvious suspicious SPa his desired conclusion, and not a single admin is even suspicious. Removing this template adds nothing to the encyclopoedia, but doesn't protect it from anything either, not even the nonsense examples given as the theoretical thin end of the wedge it would apparently encourage, basically an ill-thought out argument. There was no valid policy argument for the deletion nomination of this template, and therefore this deletion is invalid. I can't put it any plainer than that. If someone gives me a policy reason, fair enough, but they haven't because they can't. The template has not violated any policy or even guideline, hence why a freely ignored essay has been quoted as if it was one. I am frankly pissed off at having to take an enormous amount of time to defend a valid template that even two editors thought was a good creation even before this vote, at the whim of a poxy SPA who obviously has something to hide, but knows that there are plenty of people willing to do his destructive work, even sock voters it seems. Why should anyone seeing this deletion ever bother to create anything for wikipedia? If anything admins should be discouraging this behaviour, not enabling it, for the bad faith example it sets to other contributors. Everyone whines on about NPOV and BLP, but these sorts of deletions are the real dirty secret of wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to neutral. Note that this as little to nothing to do with your reasoning. You try to make a case strictly based in policy, while you ignore it yourself. There is no ploicy, that I am aware, backing you. There is none against SPA nominating to delete. None against votes after any set date. None against quoting essays. So, by what looks like your standards, your DRV should be speedily closed as not based on policy. Well... I'm not that strict, I think we should do what's best for an encyclopedia. Period. That's *the* policy. I'm changing because I remembered why haven't I closed it, althoug I was leaning to close as delete: because I thought it could be useful to let it go for a while (relisting is rare at TfD... maybe I should have done it...) as the decission was not absolutely clear.- Nabla (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. As Ryan said, this is not a vote. It's a discussion to gather a consensus. And I hate to disagree with people above, but you don't need to give a policy reason to delete an article. If an admin feels like a consensus has been reached to delete something, then it should be deleted. Consensus trumps all other things. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And you think it was overwhelming consenss to delete? I disagree. The fact is, had there been no backlog, it was a clear keep. MickMacNee (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. The DRV nom appears to have no clear procedural violations to point to. If a policy reason is not given in a !vote, the closing admin may use discretion in weighting such arguments, but if consensus is clear the admin should have a good reason to go against it. As Nabla says, in the end the main rule is doing what's best for the project. This is clearly in violation of WP:NAVBOX, which is an essay to be sure, but there's no reason editors can't cite it. (Essays can become guidelines if enough people support them, after all, and how else to reach that new consensus except by testing it?) --Dhartung | Talk 07:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Violations - variously referring to policies and essays interchangeably, referring in deletion reasons to 'what might happen', delete voter never having seen the show, not recognising it is 50/50 at best when SPAs and socks are eliminated, not recognising that removal of the template brings nothiing to the encyclopoedia, yet does the work of an obvious bad faith nominator. MickMacNee (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. Closer accurately judged "keep" and "delete" opinions' relative cogency and accordance with WP practices and precedents. Deor (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion Essays are a collection of arguments that you can refer to instead of having to write them again every time. Keep votes did not address why their template should not comply with the arguments listed at WP:NAVBOX, or how their keep votes were nothing but what is described at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and the admin correctly valued so instead of making a head count. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Enough of the crap, OTSE was never an argument made by keep voters, if anything OTHERSTUFF-MIGHT-EXIST was a large argument made by deleters. As for the essay, if we actually have to consider it a valid argument for deletion as opposed to solid reasons like VER and NOT, then let's address the essay's requirements:
- Navigational templates provide navigation
- Navigational templates provide navigation between existing articles
- Navigational templates provide navigation between related articles
- It depends if you consider them related, the fact some deleters do not even know what is on the show should invalidate their views, the unwillingness of others to address this issue beyond false and frankly laughable comparisons with random shows on the biography channel for crying out loud should eliminate the rest. I am not going to re-iterate why the methods and findings of this show in relation to each and every article is important, if you haven't got it by now, you clearly never will, but sure as hell a delete opinion doesn't help anyone who actually does see the relevance, because through deleter's ignorance, supported by SPA's and socks, they will never have the opportunity to realise the fact.
- Navigational templates are not arbitrarily decorative
MickMacNee (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop making blanket accusations that all/most that voted delete are sockpuppets, instead report them at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. So far none of them is tagged as such and most (but one, I think) are long established editors, so hardly sock puppets.
- The delete reason was precisely that these incidents are not related themselves, except that they share a common (possible) source, and that such connection is faint and not enough to warrant a template. Those are valid opinions.
- Nabla (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The vote is 60:40 at best given the over long vote due to the backlog, with SPA and sock/s, so of course it is relevant. And with your other comments, you're only reinforcing my opinon that you have never seen this show, and as such cannot and never will appreciate the link served by this template, as now you apparently think the link is because all disasters had a common source. This is a simple case of ignorance of a subject. It is not a simple filmography, but if you haven't seen the show you seriously just wouldn't know what the connection was. Im still amazed at the fixation with the Titanic article, when there are articles such as the Hyatt Regency collapse as well. The point is others will, and do, appreciate the significance, irrespective of what a few people only interested in Tfd /DRV think. MickMacNee (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You simply refuse to reply to any question, instead keep on making accusations without anything backing them. I asked what policy backs you... no reply, who are the sock puppets... no reply. No point in discussing any further. Oh! Yes, I've seen a few episodes, quite good most of them. - Nabla (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mick, the articles are *not* related just because they appear on different chapters of the same TV series. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I refer you to the above comment, this ignorant view seems to be born from never having seen the show in question, rather treating it as the same as subjects appearing on the Biography Channel. Absolute rubbish. MickMacNee (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at Seconds_From_Disaster, it looks like a very well done series of documentals, but you need a convincing reason of why the documentals are important for the disaster articles. In particular, finding sources that use those documentals as basis to explain the disaster, or similar notable stuff that relates the documental to the disasters. I don't think at all that watching the documentals would change my mind. To be honest, I think you were just wowed by well done and spectacular documentals. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How about breaking the latest Titanic theory, or is that just irrelevant spectacularism? I have seen this very program used as a source in wikipedia. Do you not know what the National Geographic is? At least my suspicions are confirmed, you have no clue about the series, like most other voters. Anyone would think we were discussing A-Team episodes being linked on a political template. MickMacNee (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, I don't oppose using those documentaries as sources, and I don't think that they are not notable on themselves. However, a template to link all disasters talked about on the series is unnecessary and brings nothing to the articles. If, for example, the documentary dismounts one of the theories of Titanic's sinking, then you can just use it as a source on Titanic article. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question/comment: as I understand, the template was appearing on the articles about the disasters themselves, rather than only on articles about the episodes? If my understanding is correct, then I would endorse deletion, per WP:IAR and the rationale of the deleting administrator. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion per the MMN's A-Team analogy above. That's exactly what this is like. Not at all a good idea. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - There's nothing wrong with linking to an essay, as long as the link is accompanied with a reasoned argument. (Ultimately, the quality of the argument matters more than the place where it is expressed.) Since most of what I could say has already been written above, I will repeat my comment from the TfD (with one modification): "There is no need for a template to connect one article about a real-world disaster with another article about a completely unrelated disaster. That the Chernobyl disaster, for instance, was profiled for the Seconds From Disaster series is ultimately an extremely minor detail in the context of the Chernobyl disaster. [That the sinking of the Titanic was also profiled for the Seconds From Disaster series is completely irrelevant in the context of the Chernobyl disaster, and should not be mentioned in that article, which is exactly what this template did.] At most, this template ought to appear only in Seconds From Disaster, where it is redundant to the episode list." Black Falcon (Talk) 17:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
