- Jimbo Matison (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This AfD was nominated by someone who was wikistalking me and nominating pages for deletion (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eataly). It was on AfD for over 2 weeks with no interest at all. I decided to ask the Article Rescue Squadron if the page could be improved any - and they contributed even more sources. Immediately after this, two people came out of nowhere and voted Delete, with (in my opinion) weak reasoning. (It has been suggested that these people may have noticed this AfD only because I posted on the AfR board - would this count as reverse CANVASsing?). The day after these delete votes were posted, and in the midst of discussing the merits of the reasoning, the AfD was closed as DELETE. I don't believe any consensus was reached in the less than two days of active discussion. During this time one of the delete voters also AfD'ed another article I created, without even notifying me, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Menage a Twang. I'm not sure what's going on here, but regardless of all this strange activity, I don't believe consensus was reached.
- comment I forgot to mention that I did discuss this with the closing admin, and others, here[1] Tduk (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article in question has been incubated. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse there is nothing in the purported sources that amounts to anything even approaching the standard for article inclusion. Essentially primary, unreliable or extremely tangential sourcing. The AFD was right to discount the sourcing provided so the close was correct. Spartaz Humbug! 20:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the incubated article is ready for the mainspace quite yet. Needs more reliable sources.—S Marshall T/C 20:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, this is not AFD round 2. Corvus cornixtalk 22:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What? What indication is there that consensus was reached? Tduk (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The close by the administrator who made the decision. Corvus cornixtalk 22:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please be a little more helpful? I'm trying to understand why there is a beilef that consensus was reached, when there was really less than 48 hours of activity on the AfD, there was still discussion going on as well as changes to the article, and there were only 3 votes. Tduk (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was relisted twice, there is absolutely no way you can claim there was only 48 hours of activity. Corvus cornixtalk 23:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I can, there was only one keep vote for two weeks, with no discussion, and then, after the second relisting, and subsequent request at the rescue squadron, there were two delete votes that occurred on the same day. The AfD was closed the day after those delete votes were placed, in the midst of ongoing discussion. The reason it was relisted twice was precisely because there was no activity until that point. Tduk (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Not really any other way this could've been closed. I see it's been incubated; that's the place to work on it. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, based on a "holistic" view of the discussion, "no consensus" would have been a valid exercise of admin's discretion. I would endorse either close and I'm endorsing this one. Once the article graduates from the incubator we can revisit the issue. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I will agree that the nomination in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eataly was pretty pathetic. Its a shame when an editor gets bummed like this seeing his contributions challenged in close succession, and the collaborative nature of the project breaks down. I am glad the article was userified in good faith. Tduk has made good contributions and I hope he continues to do so. If I was closing the AfD at issue here, I would know I could have closed in my discretion either as no consensus without prejudice to renomination in the near future, or as delete, so I can't recommend that Cirt be overturned in this case.--Milowent • talkblp-r 00:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the onus of keep voters is to find independent reliable sources. There was inadequate demonstration of this so delete is correct result. LibStar (talk) 10:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Its everyone's responsibility to look for sources when notability is at issue. Most importantly, when relevant, is that it is the onus of the nominator to look for sources before nominating, and the nominator here has failed to do that sometimes in the past with the same article creator's articles, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eataly. Its very disappointing when nominations like that occur, especially to the article creator, and it damages the collaborative work ethic of the project. This article creator is upset because of hasty nominations of his work, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Menage a Twang. So, even though I say this close should be endorsed, you can see why he has gotten upset.--Milowent • talkblp-r 12:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Milowent - although I have to correct you. I'm not upset, I'm disappointed. Anyway, you are absolutely right that, 9. Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist... In fact, much of WP:BEFORE seems to have been ignored in this case (and many other cases I've seen), particularly points 9 and 10 - and then, after nomination, the nominators argue their favorite parts of policy as reasons for deletion, while ignoring the fact that they did not strictly or literally follow the suggestions here... and then, there seems to be no recourse for this. Yes, I think disappointed is the word to use. Tduk (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ... If it's not notable, that's one thing, but to not even allow this deletion discussion to complete - to close it the day after the first vote came in - seems to _not_ indicate consensus. It may be that the article is not worthy of keeping around, it may be that the sources there are currently no good, but I still don't see how any consensus was reached. Tduk (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as the AfD consensus was read correctly, you don't get to fight your battle again at DRV. Take the advice given; work on the article in userspace or wherever and see what happens from there. Tarc (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm not arguing that there weren't more delete votes than keeps (by one). It does seem troubling though that the AfD was not closed until immediately after someone voted delete - and before the responded to my points about it. If this AfD had been allowed to run the full additional week - or at least to get a week's worth of discussion - then I would not have contested it... but leaving it open for over 2 weeks, then immediately closing it after someone votes delete does not seem to indicate any consensus. It's even implied by the nominator here[2] that the guy is notable, just the sources suck. In cases like this, aren't articles supposed to be improved rather than deleted? I have no vested interest in this particular article, but I am looking at this as an example for how wikipedia functions. Tduk (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you actually have any decent sources? Without them this is essentially a total waste of your time as the sources at the time of deletion are nowhere near those required. Spartaz Humbug! 20:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't wikipedia supposed to be a collaborative effort? WP:BEFORE states that If the article was recently created, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.... Why do people keep asking me if I have sources? I've just seen him on TV. I'm not a researcher. That's the nature of the collaboration here - or I thought it was. Tduk (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is no-one has come up with any sources so the evidence is that the subject doesn't meet the inclusion standard. Existing is not the same as sources and the onus is on those asserting notability to demonstrate sources to prove them. You can be assured that users voting delete in the discussion will have reviewed the sources and had a locck themselves (well some of them anyway). Sorry, but collaboration and AGF are not an excuse to ignore our standards. Time to drop the stick. The horse already got beat to death. Spartaz Humbug! 15:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please understand, I am trying to understand the process here, NOT to get this article undeleted if it should have been deleted. If what you are saying is that the entry was not suitable for inclusion, and that this is the reason it was deleted, then why did it have to wait until two delete votes came in? Ron Ritzman could easily have looked at the article - and either voted himself, or deleted it, if the article was deleted based on sources. The implication is that those delete votes were important - so the implication there is that two delete votes vs one keep vote is consensus. What I am asking is, was it deleted because of consensus, or because it is unsuitable? People have said both. Tduk (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tduk, it's time to WP:LETGO, and take Tarc's excellent advice. you're wasting time here when you could be improving articles. LibStar (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By nominating them for deletion? Tduk (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, you had more than a fortnight to come up with sources, and WP:RELIST is clear that a relisted debate may be closed once there is consensus, without any necessity that the debate have taken a whole number of weeks. Nominator is counselled to read WP:BLUDGEON before replying further. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was deleted the day following my request for exactly what you are talking about - assistance finding sources. The article was being worked on by the rescue squadron. It sat there for 2 weeks on AfD, and no one said anything - so why would I be looking for sources on this article? Never mind that I am simply someone who is contributing to the encyclopedia, NOT someone with a vested interest in this article one way or the other. This just seems like the process failed at this point - and if it did not, someone should explain to me how. People are saying "consensus was reached", but that is not much of an explanation given the circumstances. Please don't be snarky with me - as if I am not feeling bludgeoned by the wikistalking I've described above. Tduk (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I withdraw this? It's going nowhere and wasting everyone's time. Tduk (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
