- African admixture in Europe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
An article was recently deleted. Soon after, someone recreated it. I nominated that one for deletion the regular way. I now realize that I should have nominated it for speedy deletion G4, which is in fact the action that Administrator RoySmith ended up taking on his own. But then he was forced to relist it due to a procedural error on my part. Inexplicably, the ensuing deletion discussion resulted in a decision to keep the article (though just barely). All of the people who voted "keep" completely ignored the fact that it's a recreation of a recently deleted article, even though I made that perfectly clear. And one voter looked suspiciously like a sock. So this article has been spared on a technicality (my stupid mistakes that other people went along with), which I don't think is a valid reason. The fact remains that it meets WP:CSD G4 and should be deleted. I tried convincing the Administrator who closed the discussion, but he told me to request a deletion review. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. This is absurd. DRV is for fixing procedural errors, not just a second chance to overturn a decision you didn't like. This is a content dispute between a small group of editors (possibly two?). They have been unable to resolve their differences and have taken the argument to AfD and now (twice) to DRV instead of working with each other to reach consensus. What makes this so absurd is that we're not even talking about deleting a topic; the entire debate is whether the topic should be covered as a distinct article or a section of a larger one. It doesn't matter. I'm starting to think the best solution here is to just slap a long block on both parties for being disruptive. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. No procedural problems. The numbers are not close (I count 6-3 in favor of keep), so IMO you need a very strong showing that the closer committed a clear error in weighing the arguments. I can't even say that there was error, much less clear error. No opinion on the block suggestion; DRV is not the proper venue for that. Tim Song (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from closing admin - my only comment is that I can't countenance the idea that a speedy deletion can override an AfD consensus (with the standard exceptions like copyright, BLP, etc.), which is why I did not accept Small Victory's request to overturn to deletion. I believe I am correct in maintaining this assertion, though I'm willing to be told I'm wrong. No other comments to make regarding the correctness of the close. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I endorse this accurate close. Fritzpoll could not have closed it in any other way. Also, I'm heartily sick of seeing this article at DRV.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- Odd situation, one I admit to never having seen before, but I can't find fault with the way it was closed. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The point of G4 is only to weed out recreations that are not worth considering. If the article is improved enough that there is a consensus that it is good enough, that consensus holds. It's absurd to think we can never reconsider a decision to delete, but can reconsider a decision to keep as often as necessary. DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with you people? This is a clear-cut case of an article that should have been deleted immediately. And in fact it was, until a silly procedural error brought it back from the dead. The deletion discussion you're all talking about is beside the point because it should never have taken place. This is the discussion that counts, where it was decided (9-1) that the material should be removed and merged into a preexisting article, which is what happened. The new article, which is nothing but a poorly disguised clone of the old one, was created two weeks later in direct violation of that consensus. None of the "keep" voters the second time around paid any attention whatsoever to these facts, and now neither are any of you. This is beyond ridiculous. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus can change. As DGG explained quite clearly, G4 is designed to avoid repetitive discussions that serve little purpose. Since the discussion has already happened anyway, and resulted in a different consensus, the new discussion is the one that controls now. Besides, WP:CSD says that admins may, "at their discretion", bypass discussion and delete the article if it fits a CSD. It's within the admin's discretion to decline a G4 and bring a case to AfD even if it were a recreation (I haven't seen the original, so I can't tell). And, even if the article were deleted by G4, it probably would have been brought to DRV and restored/listed for AfD, if the !votes in this discussion are any indication, so at most, any error was harmless. This is at least wikilawyering that wastes everyone's time. Tim Song (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, if you guys can't even get something as straightforward as this right, then the deletion review process is officially worthless. Looks like I'll just have to nominate the article for deletion again until the "consensus changes" to the right decision. Nice work everybody. ---- Small Victory (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. It's not good for Wikipedia, and it's not good for you, either. Tim Song (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not trying to "make a point". I'm trying to get rid of an article that doesn't belong. And after a reasonable amount of time passes, I have every right to renominate the article for deletion, which is exactly what I plan on doing. The user who recreated it is the one being disruptive, and the Administration's inability to recognize this and take the correct action is mind-boggling. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Disillusion yourself of the notion that there is an all-powerful "administration" that can make these decisions. We read and enact community consensus - unless you can show that I misread the consensus at the AfD, there isn't anything we can do. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think that User:Small Victory has overlooked a key point; if the topic of an article is legit, the article will be kept even if the article is biased or riddled with errors. In this case, nobody can deny that there has been continuous African gene flow into Europe. An article on Australian Aboriginal admixture into Africa would be deleted. If the article is full of errors, fix it. Abductive (reasoning) 04:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's been gene flow from Africa to everywhere in the world, so there's nothing notable about the gene flow to Europe. Furthermore, that's not the same thing as "African admixture". The field of population genetics is now at a point where admixture can be accurately quantified, and the studies doing so have found no more than a drop of African admixture in Europeans. Certainly not enough to justify a whole article on the subject, which is in large part why the previous article was deleted and merged (in shorter form) into Genetic history of Europe. It seems you've already come around to this way of thinking. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Andrew Lancaster, in a effort to resolve the edit war between Small Victory and others has moved content to the page in question from Genetic History of Europe. I think this improves the Genetic History of Europe. Therefore the reasons for keeping the page is greater than ever, Andrew is currently working on improving the page, and when I get some time I will help this process along.
- As for small victory's Claim - The timeline for initial spread from Africa is currently between 70 and 135kya (Considering recent datings from Skhul cave, Israel), in this context there is notable contribution in the more recent time from (since human occupation Europe extends from 40kya in eastern Europe to 32 kya in western Europe) the introduction of genetic markers from North and Northwestern Africa is evident into the post settlement population, and not just from other areas of asia and information supporting that is presented on the page. Ergo, Small Victory is trying to engage in information suppression effort. The reason I voted for the deletion of the Sub-saharan admixture in Europe and for the African admixture page is that there is no strong evidence in support of the former page (other than what is known in the historic period), however there is strong evidence for support of the currently named page from the prehistoric period. While this may be a technical distinction, because historic documents suggest a displacement of negroid Africans from NW Africa prior to the 12th century, therefore by our standard of what is Subsaharan there may have been genetic contribution from the region, however technically once a person is born in North Africa, then any contribution to elsewhere would be consequence of North African ancestry.PB666 yap
- As for Small Victory there has been both alert and incident reports filed against by two different individuals. I think if you read this and his talk page, you have more than enough information to make a decision.PB666 yap
- My opinion here is that Small Victory's constant edit warring and deleting of material is highly disruptive, particular with regard to the genetic history of Europe page. I desire that this page should be improved and the editing climate of that page needs to improve for this to happen, this will not occur if the two sections that were on the page remain, since no matter how much effort was made, we cannot draw Small Victory into a consensus. The problem has been that people have been doing full revert jumps to edits that basic reverse several peoples edits, causeing other edits to the page to be lost. If this warring will end effort will be made to clean-up unnecessary material on the page, and there may actually be a mature and concensus oriented discussion of what material should be on the page. As I said in previous WP boards, I fell sorry for you guys, you will eventually block SV just as you have blocked SOPHIAN, however don't be surprised at all if sockpuppets appear.PB666 yap 15:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
