Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 29

29 May 2009

Masalipit – endorsed – Aervanath (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Masalipit (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) There is no consensus to redirect sourced articles about settlements to higher order administrative units removing sourced information from the encyclopedia. I have discussed this with the closer who acknowledges that there is a debate whether all inhabited settlements are inherently notable, if they can be verified. This concept, while not policy has obtained a level of support and is reflected in the essays WP:INHERENT and WP:OUTCOMES, which should give pause to someone thinking of deleting a settlement that there is a significant body of editors who would find that against policy. I am of the opinion that settlements are inherently notable: if Wikipedians are also of that mind or at least have no consensus that they are not, then redirecting or deleting settlements is against consensus or at a minimum there is no consensus to do so - which, contrary to what the closer suggested in our discussion, is not limited to who shows up for the debate. Even if you think that settlements are not inherently notable, this one is, and verification of basic facts was added after some of the participants in the debate had !voted, which apparently was overlooked at the close. Many barangays in the Philippines are small villages but are tracked by the Philippine national census, much like the US CDP's (and, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica were the "basic unit of local administration in the islands", [1] also not brought up at AFD when other editors contered that they were a few blocks of houses - without sourcing - which skewed the debate) - articles for which were created en masse by bot approved by the community based on the recognition that regardless of whether settlements are notable inherently or not, those for which national census data are available and maintained most certainly are. While this argument may run afoul of another essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - cited by the closer while dismissing the other essays - it also is fundamental to confront Wikipedia's WP:BIAS, which has reflected a particular need to confront it in geography - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Geography. While nearly any dot on an American map will likely have readily available information on the internet or at a library that many Wikipedians can draw from, those abroad may not. That doesn't make them less notable - nor is it call for deletion or redirect either. It calls for keeping the article and allowing it to grow organically as Wikipedians in that geography (or elsewhere) can add to it, with sources they have more ready access to. Here, the effect of the non-consensus close to redirect was to eliminate some sourced material - and some unsourced, which could have been redacted or tagged with {{fact}} as we do everywhere else - to point to an article to the next order administrative district that merely lists the place, without the sourced data, without any sources to verify the existence of the place. That is surely not the right result and should be Overturned here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC) This is a challenging one to reason through. On the one hand, I sympathise with Carlossuarez. We're often told what Wikipedia is not. But Wikipedia:Five pillars says very clearly that one of the things that Wikipedia is is a gazetteer, and this content does belong in a gazetteer. But on the other hand, it's hard to censure Fritzpoll for his well-reasoned close. I'm convinced that was a valid reading of the consensus he was supposed to be evaluating. Fortunately, I think in this case it's possible to satisfy everyone, because a redirect is technically a "keep" outcome. What the AfD in fact decided was, this article should be a bluelink on Wikipedia. And the content of the bluelink is an editorial decision, not an administrative one. Any editor can now take the discussion to the article's talk page and seek consensus to create an encyclopaedic article there. No reply would be such a consensus per WP:SILENCE. Therefore my answer is that this redirect probably should be an article, but my reply in DRV terms is endorse closure as a valid reading of the consensus and wrong venue for the request to re-create.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Endorse closure. Given the reasoning of various parties, both for and against, at the AfD, I think Fritzpoll's closure as redirect and his reasoning was perfectly in line. Now let's address some of the arguments of the DRV nominator: Regarding the argument of WP:BIAS: people seem to think that if there are thousands of articles about U.S. places and there are a few in other countries means that we should create hundreds, if not thousands, of articles of those other countries. This is a fallacy. Countering the bias could also mean that we could also reduce the articles on the U.S. places (consolidating them into groups) or target some middle ground. Regarding the notion that "deleting" sourced material harms Wikipedia. Deletion of source material per se does not harm Wikipedia. WP:NOT (which is a policy) even guides us to delete material even if they are sourced. In addition, Non-keep AfD closures does not equate to deleting material. A redirect/merge close essentially means that the community would like to keep the material but that a separate article to house that material is not necessary. The sourced material that was in Masalipit can be included in San Miguel, Bulacan or even fleshed out in a List of barangays of San Miguel, Bulacan sub-article. The argument that whenever a government tracks something, it automatically makes them notable is also not true. The Securities and Exchange Commission of the Philippines, by mandate, tracks all legally incorporated companies and organizations in the country but that does not mean that we should have articles on all of those companies and organizations. If the Philippines implements the long-discussed National ID system, then that would be essentially a way of tracking its individual citizens (and that's why privacy advocates are against the ID system), but that doesn't mean that we should have articles on every individual citizen. So the argument that the national government tracks these barangays through census and local administration also does not mean that we should have articles on all of these barangays. --seav (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Endorse closure. I can add little to S Marshall and Seav above. We have not lost encyclopedic material as it can be merged up. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Endorse closure per Seav and S Marshall. While I want to have more Philippine articles (That's why I joined in the first place), I don't want empty unsourced ones since Wikipedia is not a directory. My challenge to the nominator is that rather than argue using essays, why don't they back up the article with multiple reliable sources?--Lenticel (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC) There were two reliable sources when the article was deleted - surely multiple reliable sources, so your argument is based on factually incorrect assumption - perhaps had you read it, you'd have realized it - now my challenge to you is change your !vote based on the facts to prove that your argument has any valid basis. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC) One was a page load error the other was a populuation cite which can be merged to the parent municipality's list of baranggays. The rs that I want are economic, political or any decent data that actually have content in it.--Lenticel (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Comment from closing admin: I did think reasonably hard about the close, and have talked about this on my talk page. What I can say is that in instances where we have an AfD of geographic units (be they towns, wards, etc.) an admin is going to have trouble closing when the keep arguments are essentially this weird concept of "inherent notability". I have witnessed several discussions on this concept in my work on Wikipedia, none of which amounted to a consensus, and none of which have codification in our guidelines or policies. Whilst my personal opinion is that this omission cannot be left unanswered in the long term, the lack of notability indicated by the discussion can only be assessed by the GNG, and the consensus at the AfD was (validly) that the article didn't meet the requirements. Absent a convincing keep argument grounded in policy, there was little to avoid an alternative conclusion. However, since a merge was proposed within the discussion, the imperative to preserve information allowed me to use redirection as a tool in this instance. I am, as ever, happy to be overturned for any egregious error I have made here, but I think the long-term problem is the supposed security blanket of "inherent notability" that has been used in the past for this kind of article - but that is a topic beyond the scope of DRV or AfD Fritzpoll (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Endorse closure Per conservative close. MBisanz talk 12:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Endorse I might personally be prepared to extend the concept of the inherent notability of populated settlements to neighborhoods as a matter of course, but I don;'t think there is consensus here to do that-- and I think this is essentially the nature of most baranggays. But, using the GNG for these is going to become increasingly irrelevant as time goes on. Most such places worldwide will in a few years have internet accessible reasonably reliable sources discussing them in a reasonably substantial way, and the only way to continue the GNG will be to define "reliabl"e and "significant" in increasingly restrictive ways.DGG (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC) On what basis do you conclude that this is a neighborhood rather than a village? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC) All barangays are subdivisions of incorporated municipalities, which I believe is how neighborhood is commonly thought of in the U.S. --Polaron | Talk 11:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, the US-centricity of WP as I mentioned above. Most villages in Europe are subdivisions of municipalities and they are fine at WP - because they are first world. If Philippine geographic articles for population centers were limited to municipalites only 1631 articles could exist on them: 1521 municipalities and 120 classified as "cities" from List of municipalities in the Philippines. For a country of 90 million people spread out on 7000 islands, this is a bizzarre conclusion, as some municipalities spread over multiple spreadout islands it is somewhat odd how each becomes a neighborhood more than a village. but that's a WP fiction. Just for comparison, the Republic of Ireland is essentially most of one island with 4 million people has 1266 village and town articles, and lots of redlinks suggesting an incompleteness that will in time surpass 1631. I guess WP considers Ireland more important than the Philippines. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC) So why do you think en.wiki editors from the Philippines themselves disagree with you about the significance of barangays. The municipality is the civic identity in the Philippines. I doubt you'd find anyone from the Philippines saying the barangay name when asking them what locality they're from. Majority of the islands of the Philippines are actually uninhabited and it is not unusual for these uninhabited islands to be grouped together in a single barangay. Barangays are essentially census tracts or Wards and you're ascribing more significance to it than locals do. --Polaron | Talk 17:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC) I'm aware these are not precisely identical to US neighborhoods in the generic sense, because they are formally recognized; they perhaps might more closely correspond to a US ward or a Citizen's Board, which are the old and new fashions for elected minor officials in local areas of US cities. The have very limited responsibilities and are not self governing nor do they control major community facilities. DGG (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC) This barangay is classified by the Philippine government as rural, which suggests the proper analogy is the village as a subdivision of a municipality in the typical Continental European models or unincorproated communities in the US one, not a "neighborhood" in any city/urban sense (a few blocks without much to say about it). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC) It is discussions like these that reaffirm to me the need to establish community-wide standards for geographical inclusion, which are presently lacking, although the problem is likely to be that one side of the debate will settle for nothing less than absolute inclusion, and the other will resist any implied weakening of the GNG. Still, that debate is not for here: rearguing the AfD is not the purpose of DRV - if there is a procedural or policy error in my close, then that should be discussed. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Plot of Les Misérables – no consensus to overturn. Editors wishing to recreate this article should so in a way which substantially alters it from its pre-Afd state, making it ineligible for WP:CSD#G4. – Aervanath (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Plot of Les Misérables (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) First of all, the recent Deletion discussion was non-admin closed, but does not come under any of the requirements for an non-admin closure, and is thus unambiguously invalid, particularly as it was a speedy closure. Secondly, the first deletion was an overrule one based on WP:PLOT, however, per recent discussion, that is not a deletion criteria. I think we should keep the article, and improve it by adding extensive literary criticism. The deleted article is well-referenced, and an excellent introduction to an in-depth discussion of one of the most important works of French literature. Seriously, we have an article on almost every chapter of the Bible; Les Misèrables may not have quite that impact, but having a sub article to discuss its plot in detail, allowing deep analys is of Hugo's work, is hardly a problem. WP:PLOT is an improvement criterion, not a deletion one. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC) I'm not even sure this is the right place to be. Having an AfD closed as a non-admin speedy redirect after 1 day when the last deletion was 2 years ago seems like something anyone could undo. Thoughts on process? Is this the right place for the discussion? I'd think AfD would be. So reopen AfD and let run 7 days is my thought. Hobit (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Keep as redirect; Wikipedia is not for plot summaries. Stifle (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Have you actually read WP:PLOT since the RfC reached a conclusion? I think that this would be an excellent article for a test of what encyclopedic subarticles dealing with plot should look like. It's going to take some time to do this, though, and it's not going to happen at all if we act as if WP:NOT was insta-delete, not, as it clearly says now, an improvement criterion. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC) That's for plot summaries in articles, not plot summaries as articles. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Could you explain how you read the policy to get that result? Of a certainty reactions to the plot could provide the needed real-world context. Hobit (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Indeed, and those would be appropriate to a section of the main article. Stifle (talk) 09:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Trying again, could you explain how you read the current policy to get a result that this article could be deleted? Hobit (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I don't see how I can answer that. It's my reading of the policy. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC) As the current policy recommends improvement over deletion, I'm not sure how you can get that result. That's what I'm trying to figure out. Hobit (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC) re-open the afd and allow to run for a full 7 days. A redirect is all well and good if there's consensus, but the fact that we're here is a decent indicator that there was no such consensus reached (at least not yet). If a consensus to redirect is reached at the end of the debate, so be it, but a redirect without enough time for a full discussion is not the way to go here. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC) I'm confused as to the target of this DRV. Is it contesting the AfD and DRV of July 2007 or the recent AFD and its closure as WP:CSD#G4? As to the former, endorse both decisions. WP:NOT and it's inclusive WP:PLOT element were and are policy and still applicable to those two-year-old decisions. As to the latter, this edit is the very definition of the G4 criterion for deletion (or, redirection in this case) and a determination I endorse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by pd THOR (talk • contribs) 19:58, 29 May 2009 Invalid arguement. This is what WP:PLOT says (after the recent lengthy RFC reached a consensus on this issue) Plot-only description of fictional works: Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not solely be a plot summary, but instead should include the real world context of the work (such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis) alongside a reasonably concise description of the work's plot, characters and setting. Articles on fictional works containing little more than a plot summary should be improved to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context. For more information on writing about fiction, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).}} It is certainly not meant to force deletion of an article someone wants to improve. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Why are we ignoring the subject of the redirect Les Misérables which contains the plot summary. As far as I can see your argument seems to be I want to improve the plot article to be the main article. Why not just enhance the main article if it's lacking in the suitable level of plot information? I certainly don't believe the intent of the recent discussion was to allow lengthy standalone plot articles split from the main article if you include some of the main article material in it. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC) You verily misunderstood me. DRV is for reviewing the closures of AfDs for impropriety. Therefore, are you contesting (a) the July 2007 AfD decision, or (b) the more recent AfD's closure? I endorse the former's as proper in its time, and the latter as you recreated the exact same article that was decided upon previously, which is a valid application of the CSD#G4. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Overturn for an admin to close. Non_admin closure is only for non-controversial closures. The act of raising this DRV shows that the closure was controversial, and therefore the NAC is automatically invalidated. I'm of the view that any editor in good standing can, on reasonable grounds, simply revert a non-admin closure of an AfD. I must say that Les Misérables is an extremely notable work of fiction and its article is already well over the recommended 32kb length. Therefore per the manual of style, it would be appropriate to divide it into sub-articles. Whether one of those sub-articles should be Plot of Les Misérables is a different question, but it's one that should be addressed at AfD rather than DRV.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Ugh BE BOLD. If you want to make an article that isn't just a wikipedian giving a play-by-play of the work, do so. Go make this article. Make us proud. If you are asking us to overturn "formally" this decision at DRV two years later I say no. I endorse this decision "at the moment of decision" and I will oppose any attempt to simply force this article back into existence at the point of a knife. Protonk (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC) So, you're saying I should work on an article, but with no promise it won't be deleted at any moment, because I haven't gotten the deletion overturned. And that's the solution? Bullshit. If you wat me to work on an article, I want enough time to build it, and bring in others. I don't want to be told that all myhard work may be flushed away at any moment, because of a no-longer-policy deletion two years ago. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC) That's exactly what I'm saying. Sorry that isn't to your liking. Protonk (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I'll ask the same question I asked Deor. Let's pretend that we have an article that was deleted and then policy changed so that the basis of the deletion was no longer valid. What is the procedure for restoration? If there is a disagreement, where should that discussion be held? DrV? AfD? The discussion page for that policy? Hobit (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC) What's the point? how is this different from my response below. This may sound rude, but I don't think it is worth our time to keep repeating this stuff. If you guys want to make this an article, make a post on the talk page or just be bold. If you don't want to be bold out of fear that someone will come along and redirect it again or G4 it, that isn't our problem. When I recreated Dragon kill points I didn't come here and ask permission, I just made it. Little discussion should be necessary. Protonk (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC) If the policy that was cited as a deletion reason goes away (or in this case, significantly changed) then an actual review of if the article meets policy/guidelines now is in order. There is no need to change it in order to request that discussion. Just waving a wand of "be bold" and asking for changes isn't helpful as that's not the issue being raised. To repeat (which I agree isn't helpful, but appears needed for some reason) the question is if the article, as written, meets our current policies and guidelines. Hobit (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I think that you and SH appear to be the folks most concerned about that question. You don't need to keep repeating the question. I'm not misunderstanding you, I'm just insisting that the question itself is unimportant and unrelated to the deletion at the moment of decision. Beyond that, pushing at PLOT for changes then coming over here for validation of those very changes seems a titch bizzare. I'm not waiving a magic wand, either. Precisely the opposite. Being bold in making or remaking this article is not waving a magic wand. It is asking an editor to step forward, use judgment and begin editing an article. It is hard work. Work that I'm not inclined to do because I don't particularly care if this is an article or a redirect. If there is someone who does, I really don't see the problem with them creating/recreating the article. If not, I don't see the problem with it remaining a redirect. Protonk (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC) The underlieing reason for the DrV is to figure out what to do with this article. Does it meet the current policies and guidelines? If yes we should have it. If no, we should not. I'd argue that's the core question. What do _you_ think the core question is here wrt this DrV? Hobit (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I would argue, and have argued, that there isn't a core question to this DRV. It is a totally superfluous, almost aimless discussion that belongs neither here, nor at the talk page nor at PLOT. We aren't going to "establish a precedent" with regards to articles previously deleted in whole or in part to past wording of PLOT. We aren't really discussing the applicability of the policy (and even if we were, announcing that PLOT is no longer a deletion criteria has no bearing on a 2 year old AfD). And you clearly want a discussion that is outside the scope of the talk page for the main article. You guys seem to think that this review was compelled by actions outside our control, that some incipient issue has arisen demanding that we hash out an answer. In response to repeated claims that no such incipient crisis or problem exists, you have stayed the course. The core question of "a DRV" is to assess the validity of the deletion decision. We have made it something of a habit (not one I agree with, but there you go) of not only reviewing deletion decisions but reviewing recreated articles here. In the sense that this is a recreated article, you might think that we are reviewing a deletion of sorts. I disagree, partly because of the age of the deletion debate and partially because this doesn't need the tools for a solution. You could, if you want, disagree with Sceptre about the redirect and re-establish the article. You could insist (with some support from me) that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables (2nd nomination) should be reviewed as a NAC and the AfD simply relisted (rather than insist that some procedural question need be answered). Protonk (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I just want the article recreated and to have a chance to improve. I'm annoyed at the process thus far as we seem to be stuck debating process rather than resolving what to do with the article. I'd be fine with just removing the redirect, but given it is currently at DrV, I'm not sure that is a reasonable action. I guess that's what I'll do once the DrV closes. I think SH probably handled this poorly (no real fault of his, it wasn't clear what to do) and somehow it has resulted in a very weird situation. As far as precedent goes, I'm not overly worried about that. Exactly how to handle situations like this is in discussion elsewhere. I'd just like to see this article get a fair discussion on the merits. Hobit (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Keep as redirect per the result of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 14. (I'm assuming that some of this content was in fact merged to Les Misérables, so that the history needs to be retained. If that is not so, my opinion is overturn the recent "G4 redirection" and delete per the same DRV result.) This DRV's nominator has claimed that he wants this plot summary restored so that he can "expand this with literary criticism"; the place to cover literary criticism of the novel is Les Misérables, not this former article. Given the nom's previous comments at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not, such as this and particularly this, I suspect that he's trying to make some sort of obscure point here. Deor (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC) So if something is deleted or redirected on the basis of a policy that no longer supports that action, G4 still applies in your opinion? How should one go about (if at all) making the argument that something that was deleted should be restored because policy changes would allow it to exist if it were created from scratch? Hobit (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Well, the forum we're discussing this in is titled "Deletion review", and the box at the top of the main DRV page says that DRV "is to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article"; so I'd recommend starting a discussion here rather than just re-creating the article. I have to say, though, that I don't think a separate article on the plot of any fictional work stands much of a chance in any discussion not dominated by ARS fanatics, since any non-plot information that might be added to it would belong rather in an article about the work itself than in one about its plot. Deor (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Please remember WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and avoid such phrasing as "ARS fanatics." We are discussing articles, not editors. Thank you. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC) So you would prefer that once this DrV is closed, anyone wishing to restore the article based on policy changes should come to DrV? I suspect that would get tossed out on it's ear. Suggestions? Hobit (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC) You asked not what should be done with the article in question here but, generally, "how should one go about (if at all) making the argument that something that was deleted should be restored," and I gave you my reading of the relevant procedure. If it had been followed, we'd still be here, but we'd be having the discussion you apparently want to have rather than this discussion, which is supposed be about the validity of the recent AfD closure rather than the merits of the article. Don't worry, though; somehow I foresee a rash of DRV discussions involving old deletions in which WP:NOT#PLOT happens to have been mentioned. Deor (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC) So because an editor handled the "paperwork" incorrectly, we just won't have a process for restoring this article? That seem, well, wrong and perhaps the definition of bureaucratic . Hobit (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Endorse: it's a textbook G4: recreation of material deleted at AfD. And said content was stagnant for four weeks. SH should know by now to either sandbox in userspace before recreating, or, alternately, recreate material and then immediately work on it. SH did neither. Sceptre (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC) So we should delete (or in this case, redirect) independent of changes in policy that have occurred in the meantime? If we'd removed WP:PLOT would you still be in favor of hitting this with G4? Hobit (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Also, did you expect this to be non-controversial? Given that it's 2 years old, NOT#PLOT has changed significantly and an editor in good standing did this, I'd have thought it pretty obviously would not be, but I'd like to hear your reasoning there for the non-admin close of an AfD in less than a day. Hobit (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC) ...We should make an article if we think that an article is worth making. If we think that the article prior to the redirect is a reasonable article, we should do so. what we shouldn't do is sift through old deletion decisions and have them overturned at DRV because times have changed. As for the 1 day NAC, I don't care. Honestly it seems pretty damn reasonable to me given that it took 2 years for us to consider overturning it. This whole DRV is largely irrelevant. If someone wants to make that into an article, they should. If someone speedies that (I doubt that they will), that can be discussed at DRV. Protonk (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC) It still fails the new NOT#PLOT. Sceptre (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Which is, very explicitly, an improvement criterion, not a deletion one. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Besides, the restoration did nothing to combat the problems the article was deleted/redirected for. Thus, G4able. Sceptre (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC) And so the betst thing is to prevent ANYONE from working on these. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I know you're smarter than this, so why did you think recreating this wouldn't kick up a fuss? Sceptre (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I think an equally valid question is why you closed this early when it pretty clearly wasn't going to be non-controversial. I feel like WP:POINT is coming from both directions here. Hobit (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Thing is, I thought it would be non-controversial. This is a textbook G4 case. Sceptre (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC) You don't think that the fact that the policy used for deletion being entirely rewritten might make it less than a textbook G4? Would it have mattered if that policy were instead removed? Hobit (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC) The sentiment of the policy still remains more-or-less the same, though. And yes, it would still be a G4 candidate even if NOT#PLOT were removed. Sceptre (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Could you explain why the removal of the policy that was the basis for deletion wouldn't invalidate a G4 speedy? If the article, as it stands, were recreated from scratch (and NOT#PLOT were removed) we'd keep it, yet because it was deleted under defunct policy you'd say we couldn't recreate it? Am I misunderstanding you? Hobit (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Keep article per lack of consensus behind WP:PLOT as evidence by recent RfC. The plot of this notable book, film, musical, etc. is indeed something covered in numerous secondary sources as well as despite the title of the article, can easily contain some out of universe commentary as well. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Endorse decision per WP:IAR and close as moot. This should have been discussed at Talk:Les Misérables in the first place in regards to recreating the article. The first AFD had a consensus for deletion, with a history restoration in a DRV following that; in essence, this became a redirect which was confirmed as such here. With history and everything else still intact, spinning the plot article back out is a content issue which is to be hashed out either at Talk:Les Misérables or via dispute resolution. A second AFD, nor consequently this DRV, are not necessary and are only serving to further inflame and polarize many Wikipedians, let alone the two sides in this whole plot summary debate. MuZemike 23:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Addendum – I am not judging as to whether or not this should be spun back out per guidelines and policies, but rather how this situation was handled and approached. MuZemike 00:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Keep as redirect per WP:PLOT: "Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not solely be a plot summary, but instead should include the real world context of the work (such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis) alongside a reasonably concise description of the work's plot, characters and setting." (emphasis added) In other words, an article should not consist solely of plot description, which is precisely what the restored article contained. The mere two sentences that provided real-world context, about reception and printed guides like Cliff's Notes, could easily (and should) be mentioned in the main article. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 06:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC) You've rather selectively quoted that. Literary analysis is encouraged, and that's best done in a spin-off. It's also an improvement policy, not a deletion one. In any case, the original non-admin closure was inappropriate, so it should be overturned, and sent back to AfD to decide. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I don't see how my quote is in any way selective since it constitutes the whole of the first sentence of WP:PLOT. Also, while a neutral review of extant literary analysis (by the way, "literary analysis" ≠ "plot summary") is encouraged, literary analysis itself is most definitely not encouraged (Wikipedia:No original research). And, furthermore, I see no reason why a review of literary analysis of a work of fiction should be done in a spin-off article rather than directly in the main article. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 00:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Because you left out the part saying such articles should be improved (not deleted). Also,the original article is quite long. That's why this and the analysis is best spun off. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Thank you for clarifying that point. The part of WP:PLOT that emphasis improvement rather than deletion is, in full: "Articles on works of fiction containing little more than a plot summary should be improved to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context." However, this is not an article on a work of fiction, but rather an article on the plot of a work of fiction. That said, if there is adequate coverage in reliable, secondary sources of the plot of Les Misérables specifically (i.e. literary analysis)—and not just Les Misérables in general—such that including all of the literary analysis in the main article would negatively impact its readability, then I would support having an article about the plot. At this time, however, I have seen little to indicate that such is the case, and believe that any sourced literary analysis could be covered in the main article. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 17:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Overturn redirect. Let's underline the all-important word: "Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not solely be a plot summary, but instead should include the real world context of the work (such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis) alongside a reasonably concise description of the work's plot, characters and setting." (emphasis added) This is about our coverage of a particular work, not about individual articles. Our coverage of Les Misérables certainly does contain more than a plot summary, to the extent that the article Les Misérables is too large to stand on its own without being split up into summary style sub-articles. It is perfectly reasonable for the plot section to be one of those spun out in this way, particularly as this is a work with a very convoluted plot, necessitating more content than can reasonably go into the main article. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I would like to second this (yes I !voted above) and further note that unlike the traditional "spinout" argument, no one is arguing that this article, as written has any problems with WP:N. The article itself is reasonably sourced. It is solely a question of NOT#PLOT. Hobit (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Doesn't that ignore the previous phrase of the given policy which states "Wikipedia articles should not be:... Plot-only description of fictional works". Guest9999 (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Could you please provide a link for that wording? I can't see it anywhere in WP:NOT. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC) I uploaded an image highlighting the relevent sections: File:NOT-PLOT highlight.jpg. Guest9999 (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Comment a stand alone plot summary in mainspace is not going to grow into a novel kind of spin out article - within the relevant policies and guidelines - through normal Wikipedia editing. If someone wants to show how such an article can exist in a way that it is not simply a plot summary or redundant to the main article they should write it. Any information I can think of that would be relevant to the real world context of the plot summary would all belong in the main article of the work. Also I endorse the original AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables) as - two years later - I believe the closing rationale still applies and will apply until such a time until someone can show how a plot summary can be the subject of an independent encyclopaedia article. WP:NOT#PLOT makes clear that articles should not be plot only descriptions (Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not solely be a plot summary), until someone shows otherwise an article starting "Plot of..." would seem to be inherently a plot only description with no chance of improvement. At this time covering the content in the main article seems like a reasonable interpretation of policy. Additionally I don't see this as being a great "test case" to start with as I've seen more critical commentary in Articles about Simpsons episodes than in the main Les Misérables article, surely it makes more sense to work on improving the main article before worrying about spin outs the purpose of which is to elaborate on that article? Guest9999 (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Sigh... Reopen AfD largely per DGG, this clearly needs further discussion and deletion review is not the place place for it, frankly I don't think an AfD is either but it would be a start. Guest9999 (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Relist Improper NAC as pointed out by Shoemaker's Holiday. These shouldn't be encouraged. ThemFromSpace 18:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Relist -- as for the immediate issue, which is not whether or not the article should be redirected or whether such articles are justified, or anything at all related to WP:N or to fiction in general, and something I would say about even an article where I think redirection clearly indicated, the close first No non admin should ever make an non-obvious contested close--there is a reason for screening admins, and not giving everybody such powers as soon as they start editing-- that is because they can be trusted to have some judgment about how to apply policy, as shown by this very discussion. I think we need a firm rule against non-admin closures of contested AfDs, when contested in good faith. The first comment above is right, that this should not have come here: any editor at all in good standing has equal authority to the one closing the afd, and could revert the edit, and i would encourage any editor who disagrees with a non-admin closure in any direction to do just that. Whether the close be right or wrong, they should not have made it. To avoid doubt, we should prohibit it flat-out as a matter of policy. As for making an early close, not even ad admin should do that in a discussion disputed in good faith. The reason we have AfD in the first place and do not do everything by speedy is so we can have discussion, not decide by whoever is willing to take the fastest action. The proof that an early close is contested and need a full discussion of the intact article is a good-faith request for restoration from an established editor, which should granted by any admin who has closed SNOW as a matter of course, and if denied, reverted by any other admin as a routine matter of course without need for consultation. SNOW like IAR is automatically and inherently invalid if there is bona fide disagreement. Thjis is already policy, but, again, we need a firm flat-out rule to avoid doubt. We also need a rule against redirecting without essentially unanimous consensus among those discussing it in good faith during an AfD. It confuses discussion and leads to situations like this which could be resolved better at the original afd. As for the secondary issue of what to do about the article, as we will discuss further whern the AfD reopens, if there are multiple secondary sources discussing the plot of a work, and they are cited and discussed in the the article, then it will no longer be a mere plot summary. This should be possible for every major work of classic fiction, and also a great many minor ones by well-studied authors-- and increasingly for contemporary forms also. Those who doubt it are apparently unfamiliar with the way both academic and non-academic criticism takes place: they discuss plot and characters and settings in great detail, and are therefore suitable sources. The problem is only with those works not yet the subject of substantial discussion, where I think everyone agrees that a bare plot summary by a Wikipedia editor is not a substitute for a stand alone article. This is in conformity with even the rather confusing revised version of NOT PLOT--an article where there is sourced discussion of plot is not just a plot summary; it will always be justified in there are sources--the people most opposed to plot articles all conceded that much; they may have thought it rare, but they will soon see how widespread such discussion is; I expect , AGF, that they will be glad to see such an abundance of sourced articles. And in this particular case, where the work in question has multiple manifestations in multiple forms, the discussion of plot cannot be dealt with by the main article on the novel since an extensive amount of comparisons are needed. In summary, we make the rules ourselves, and can decide how to apply them. Even if one doubts plot articles in general, the ones on the major famous works of world fiction can stand on its own by any reasonable application of any rules, past or present. DGG (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Keep as redirect per CSD G4, if anybody wants to work on this in userspace and convert it into a viable article (which is a very distant prospect) they can try to do so. However, simply reverting to a version of the article that was previously deleted is absurd. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Even if the policy that the deletion occurred under has seen significant change? Hobit (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC) I think the policy change may have been forced through without enjoying widespread approval. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

JoomlaLMS – overturn speedy deletion and list at AFD for discussion. – Aervanath (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
JoomlaLMS (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Dear Administrators, 1.JoomlaLMS article was deleted very fast after Dank (talk) has placed the speedy deletion tag. People had no chance to discuss this at all. 2. The tag placed - section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion - was incorrect as "This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software and so on." JoomlaLMS is software, NOT a company. 3. The tag placed on 8 February 2009 by Slakr(talk)(Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G11 was removed long time ago as the article has been completely changed after February 2009 and the tag became outdated. 4. The JoomlaLMS is a highly notable software and used by THOUSANDS of people and is the most popular Learning Management System for Joomla and very well known among Joomla users what was written in the article as well. Please consider recovering article and discussing it if required. I'd like to put "hangon" tag and provide additional reference and notability to prove that* the article has a right to exists in open Encyclopedia. Thank you. Interkrok (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Note: I've moved this here from the AfD log page for this date, where it was mistakenly posted. No opinion on the speedied article. Deor (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC) list at AfD as it does appear to be an invalid speedy. I don't think it will survive AfD, but perhaps someone will find sources... Hobit (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC) As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Since found discussion at User talk:Dank/May. Overturn per Black Falcon, as software is not currently a topic covered under CSD:A7, with liberty to list at AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC) It was actually User:Spaceman7Spiff who placed the speedy deletion tag, and then I deleted the article. I have no problem at all with restoring the article and taking it to WP:Articles for deletion for a discussion, and I won't make an argument there one way or the other. - Dank (push to talk) 14:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC) *Comment I'd tagged for CSD A-7 because it looked like a company and the website gave the impression that the product/company were the same, and I couldn't find any references either, except launch notes and the like. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Restore article and optionally list at AfD. Since JoomlaLMS is a software program (a learning management system), the article was not eligible for speedy deletion under criterion A7. I would guess that the confusion arose due to the presence of {{Infobox Company}} in the article. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 06:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Overturn, per WP:CSD#A7. decltype (talk) 08:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I don't see the point of overturning. If it can't be deleted by A7, G11 is a solid alternative. If it is restored, it should end up at AFD immediately. - Mgm|(talk) 09:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Overturn G7 not even relevant in the slightest, G11 not correct, because the article is mainly descriptive and not promotional. Whether the article will stand will be determined by the sourcing, but that is for afd. All admins, certainly including myself, make occasional errors, though I am a bit puzzled that it wasn't simply restored and afd'd when complained about, saving us all some trouble. DGG (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Ack, I forgot to watchlist that page when I created it, and started relying on my talkpage rather than that subpage ... note I have no edits to the page after May 14. Sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 16:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.