Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 6

Air Hawke's Bay – Deletion endorsed :consensus is that this was within discretion – Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Please see User talk:Master of Puppets#close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Hawke's Bay. Closing administrator argues there for the existence of a delete and merge outcome at AfD. The nomination itself was a textbook example from Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, combining WP:JNN and WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Further discussion revealed that the nomination was based on a private theory of notability in which Wikipedia articles will have "extensive" coverage; and also that the contributions of newbies, or the lack thereof, are one of the measures by which Wikipedians define wp:notability. The 2nd contribution, which for the benefit of the encyclopedia could/should have been a speedy close of the AfD, instead provided a WP:JNN !vote. A third contribution followed with a WP:JUSTAVOTE. The final delete !vote IMO misrepresents the concept of "in-depth" coverage as well as fails to consider the applicability of WP:ATD policy. So three of the delete !votes are straight out of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, the fourth delete !vote has not documented any research efforts, and no case has been made that the topic is objectionable. And the case argued that some of the material is objectionable is an editorial concern which is not matched by edits to the article. One of the keep !votes doesn't seem to stand up to review, leaving 2 keep !votes and 1 merge !vote to consider by the closer. Not exactly an overwhelming consensus, but to close this as delete, or delete and merge depending on how you view it, is not policy/guideline based, and in addition does a dis-service to the encyclopedia. I also suspect that a delete and merge violates our licensing requirements, so I hope other editors will clarify this issue. Overturn to keep. Unscintillating (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please let me know where in my closing statement I argue for a delete and merge close. Because I don't. I state the close as a delete, and extend an offer to any editors interested in doing a merge. Please do not misrepresent my statements. m.o.p 22:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have been more careful with my statements than you are giving me credit, what I said in the first two sentences above was that you argued for the existence of a delete and merge on your talk page:

Please see User talk:Master of Puppets#close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Hawke's Bay. Closing administrator argues there for the existence of a delete and merge outcome at AfD.

Is this clear now? And you never deny on your talk page that you are going to allow deleted material to be merged into other articles, right? Unscintillating (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said I didn't see anything wrong with a delete and merge. Equivocating that with me arguing for it is ludicrous. m.o.p 23:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have no idea why you are using intensifiers like "equivocate" and "ludicrous". How about answering my question, "Is this clear now" and resolving your initial point of concern? Unscintillating (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's some sort of disconnect here. Obviously, something's unclear because I disagree with your representation of my closing statement. None of this is relevant. Just get on with the DRV. m.o.p 00:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the disconnect occurred in your first reply to me, at User talk:Master of Puppets#close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Hawke's Bay, where I had stated what should have been a truism and asked if you agreed. The response there avoids agreeing, just as your response above avoids answering a question that would build WP:CONSENSUS. Unscintillating (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before I come up with any words in bold, I just want to confirm something. I presume that when Master of Puppets offered to email the text to any interested editors, he was also volunteering to perform the necessary attribution fix afterwards. Is that right, Master of Puppets?—S Marshall T/C 23:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. m.o.p 00:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an endorse to me.—S Marshall T/C 09:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse outcome, but restore and redirect to Hastings Aerodrome. I partially understand the nominator's irritation with some of the delete !votes: I've seen the anti-flight school bandwagon before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asia Pacific Flight Training. However, I think the nominator is overly dismissive of the delete !votes in this case. For example, AHunt's cursory nomination should be viewed in light of the extensive and persuasive comments he makes elsewhere in the debate. It is pretty much an incontrovertible fact that the keep side could not point to the actual existence -- as opposed to speculation -- of third party sources giving significant coverage to the article's subject. That being the case, it was quite reasonable for the closing admin to find a consensus to delete on a reading of the whole of the debate. In my view, we should restore the article and create a redirect, because (a) it's a viable search term, (b) it will restore the article's history to enable a merger that will solve any attribution problems, and (c) it is consistent with DGG's suggestion which was (quite properly) not challenged by anyone in the debate. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- The close was a reasonable reading of the debate. MOP did right in not giving much weight to keep arguments like "if you delete this you have to delete a million bazillion other things", and "There must be sources out there somewhere, I just know it!" Reyk _YO! 02:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question for the closer m.o.p, on your talk page did I understand that you'd do an undelete and redirect if someone did the merge? If so, I'm curious why you didn't just redirect and let someone do the merge. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 03:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because general consensus was to delete - only one user suggested merging. If that option was pursued, then we'd go from there and work on a merge-able version. m.o.p 03:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that in general if we have a good merge target we should merge. But if you felt the merge target was flawed for some reason, doing what you did is certainly within discretion. Hobit (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

undelete and redirect Looking at the AfD , the only formal merge !vote was my own & i certainly intended nothing like this. The consensus otherwise was keep. I think a merge is within the discretion of the closer nonetheless, considering the extreme weakness of some of the keep arguments, but the delete part of it was not. In my opinion Delete and merge might be considered a valid close if the history is copied over in some other manner, but that is my opinion only, and I think the consensus is clear that we normally interpret our attribution requirements so as not to do it. Delete and redirect is of course a valid close, and would be the usual situation for copyvio etc. , but that is not relevant here. This was a very clear example of not just a supervote, but a supervote against established policy,and not just any established policy, but against consensus on what is our basic copyright policy. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am pointing out that delete and merge is probably a copyright infringement. So the closing administrator could be considered to be encouraging copyright problems. If the close did not suggest a merge then this would not be a problem. However I support a restore and redirect to overcome the attribution requirement of the license granted. Do we need to remind closing admins to read WP:delete and merge? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look up, you'll notice that I very clearly state that I'd do the attribution fix for a merge if one was requested. Thank you for dwelling on the hypothetical, though. m.o.p 17:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close - I nominated the article for deletion because it had no references that established notability and in searching diligently for them I found none. Some editors argued passionately for "keep", with statements like "there is no need to delete the article that I created. If this article is deleted then why not delete 99 per cent of all articles on Wikipedia" and "It is not credible that a government regulated "air operator" with 16 planes founded in 1928 in a place with a newspaper hasn't been noted", but could provide no refs that showed notablity. The closing admin quite rightly weighed the strength of the arguments and saw that none of the "keep" arguments held any water and closed the AFD correctly. - Ahunt (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the existence of this review has been made at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 13:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a merger in the history of Hastings Aerodrome. There can't be an attribution problem if nothing has been copied. Flatscan (talk) 05:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the "attribution fix" and the editing guideline you mentioned, I don't see that the term "attribution fix" appears in WP:Copying within Wikipedia. FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote "attribution problem", but that doesn't appear as an exact phrase either. WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material focuses on the basis of WP:Merge and delete, but the guideline as a whole is relevant. Flatscan (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The question remains, are there any viable delete !votes left after taking down those that are not policy/guideline based? Three of the four delete !votes have been refuted without any attempt to rehabilitate them. One delete !vote is disputed. It appears that the nominator has waited until the deletion review to claim that he/she searched for sources before starting the AfD. A careful reading of the comments of the nominator during the AfD reveals incessant claims that he/she was not satisfied with the sources in the article, but does not document a search on his/her own. wp;notability is not defined by the existence of an article on Wikipedia or the content of any such article. Unscintillating (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:ATD is a policy, policies are "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." IMO, the closer erred in failing to take down delete !votes that did not consider WP:ATD. And just on a common sense basis IMO the closer should have known that ~~an organization~~ a topic flying 16 airplanes; that has attracted enough attention of NZ government authorities to become certificated as an "Air Transport"; that attracts students internationally from India, the United Arab Emirates and Oman; that has been flying since 1928; and is one of the first air schools in the country, could not be deleted following WP:ATD policy. The summary here is that this organization should never have been considered at AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, well within closer discretion. The closing statement is similar to "delete, will restore for merging on request", which is common enough. DGG's merge recommendation was not rebutted, but it failed to explain what would be an "appropriate amount of content" to merge. The closer was correct not to discard the delete recommendations based on WP:ATD. WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect (January–February 2011) established that merge and redirect arguments have roughly the same weight as keep and delete – they're not trumps. Flatscan (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By omission, you seem to be allowing that Delete and Merge are equally acceptable outcomes for an AfD. I don't think so, we are here to build an encyclopedia, not remove material from the encyclopedia. Jclemens comments as such in a current DRV:

Comment Why an attempt to delete this article outright, rather than merge it? Given WP:ATD it's a very steep climb to achieve a policy-based deletion result rather than just a merge into Mein Kampf itself. Jclemens (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Both WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE policies show that material that can be kept or merged should not be deleted. Unscintillating (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the RfC? WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE were mentioned throughout the prompt, so participants should have accounted for them. Option #2 ("a large amount of extra weight") seems to match your position, but it had only a few supporters. Flatscan (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is agreement that one of the three keep !votes should be taken down. My keep vote was partially disputed by one editor here by taking a comment out of context and without comparing with WP:NRVE, but no attempt has been made to refute it. Three of the four delete !votes stand refuted. Two of the four delete !votes have nothing on which to base a rehabilitation. That means at most, and no one has attempted to rehabilitate the second delete !vote, that there are 2 delete !votes, 2 keep !votes, and 1 merge !vote to consider. The alternative viewpoint is that there are 0 delete !votes, 2 keep !votes, and 1 merge !vote. Unscintillating (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that we need to divide Delete outcomes into "Archive" and "Delete", and that an "Archive" is what the administrator was really saying in this closing, the difference being that all editors would have access to Archived articles. Unscintillating (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any user is free to request WP:Userfication or restoration into the WP:Article Incubator. In some AfDs, the closing admin is willing to restore in article space on request, but that isn't the case here. Flatscan (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those alternatives empower individual editors. In both cases it is necessary to contact an administrator just to find out what is in an article. Do we even have a list of titles of deleted articles? Unscintillating (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Death Valley Driver Video Review – Close Endorsed. The nominator should read DGGs advice carefully. A renomination in a couple of weeks with a more closely focused nomination based on solidy policy grounds may well result in a better quality discussion that allows a clearer consensus to emerge. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I did not understand why TParis (talk · contribs) closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death Valley Driver Video Review (5th nomination) as no consensus instead of delete and discussed his closure with him here. He noted that he gave significant weight to the assertion that notability is inherited.

He wrote, "The keep !voters base their rationale on the presumption of notable. The delete !voters argue against the google sources but don't even address that the website has interviewed notable people which leaves the presumption of sources." and "It's not inherited. It's presumed to have it's own notability based on the interviews of notable people."

The assertion that the delete side did not address whether notability is inherited from the website's having interviewed people is incorrect:

Msquared3 (talk · contribs) wrote, "Also, I could be wrong, but I don't think conducting interviews with notable subjects is a criterion used by Wikipedia to determine if a subject is 'notable.'"
Suriel1981 (talk · contribs) wrote, "It's a case of notability not being inherited from celebrities interviewed by the site. After all, famous people do interviews all the time across the range of media."
I noted that the notability guideline WP:NWEB#No inherited notability states that association with notable people does not confer notability upon websites. I wrote, "DVDVR does not inherit notability from notable interviewees. The site itself has not received notice anywhere; thus, DVDVR is not notable."

After a relist, two editors (Neutrality and LibStar) were unswayed by the notability-is-inherited argument and implicitly rejected it by supporting deletion.

I base this DRV nomination on the reasoning that TParis gave too much weight to the assertion of a single editor, Dream Focus (talk · contribs), that notability was inherited from the interviewing of notable subjects.

Three editors explicitly rejected the notability-is-inherited argument, and two others did so implicitly. Had other editors supported Dream Focus' position that notability is inherited, TParis' argument that "there is a persumption of notability [based on inheritance]" might have merit. No one else—not even the other "keep" editors—supported this strand of reasoning. Overturn to delete. Goodvac (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to quote me, quote me right.--v/r - T P 12:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Since I have been asked to comment, I declined a prod on this article as it had earlier survived AFD debates, proving that it was controversial to delete and would need a discussion to resolve this. I did not believe myself that it should be deleted, so I did not start an AFD. I even asked for the article to be retained in the debate. I think that the close as no consensus describes what is the true result of the debate. There is no clear conclusion to delete and neither to keep. Neither of the sides convinced the others that they were right. I still maintain that there are enough independent sources to show GNG satisfaction. WP:stick may apply here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Looking through the discussion, I see both sides making reasonable arguments. Two of the early delete votes were relatively straight !votes without further discussion, one of which seemed to fundamentally misunderstand the notability criteria. There are 3 book sources that were raised by the keep side, and were never directly addressed by the delete supporters. I think net, the deletion side had stronger arguments, but not so much stronger as to overcome the numerical distribution of support. It is a close enough call that I think the discretion of the closer should be respected. I think a new AfD would be reasonable as it may help establish consensus, particularly if the nominator addressed the viability of the book sources when it comes to notability. Monty₈₄₅ 04:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect your assertion that the AfD was deficient; I overlooked the book sources, but I've perused them just now and found that they contain passing mentions.
  In your edit summary, you wrote "Endorse, but without prejudice to starting a new AfD nomination". Would you be willing to support a relist of the AfD so that both sides of the discussion can flesh out their arguments? Goodvac (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It may be a bit overly procedural, but my understanding is that supporting a relist would suggest I thought there was a problem with the close, which I do not. In light of the no-consensus close, and the past history of discussions that resulted in deletion, I think it would be reasonable to renominate the article for deletion without waiting very long. The new AfD should not be predicated on the discussion here, and if that one also ends no consensus, then you should let it be. Monty₈₄₅ 05:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - A relist indicates that the discussion was deficient, not the close, but fair enough—I understand your position. Could you add "without prejudice to starting a new AfD nomination" to your comment and bold it (just to make it clear)?
      I disagreed with TParis' rationale for "no consensus" but now understand per your comment about the book sources why a "no consensus" could be justifiable.
      I would prefer that the closing admin of this DRV relist the AfD. Accusations of WP:STICK would occur if an AfD participant like me renominates it. An uninvolved, neutral relister is needed so the participants can focus on discussing the merits of the article and the sources. Goodvac (talk) 06:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure There were five of us that said keep and 6 said delete. There was clearly no consensus. The guideline pages all say at the top "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Its not an absolute law. WP:BURO and WP:IAR apply here. I think I made a decent case in the AFD for that. The not inherited rule does not apply here, only part of it taken out of context and quoted there. A famous person's website doesn't inherit their notability because its owned by someone famous. That says nothing about it being notable based on having a significant number of notable people being interviewed on it. Dream Focus 04:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

endorse the no-consensus close. I think any other close might have been a better reason for Del Rev--I've rarely seen the point of bring a non-consensus here. . I disagree somewhat with TP's argument as you gave it above: I do not think the interviews necessarily create a presumption of notability, just a good supplemental reason, or a strong indication that it might well be notable——but many arguments for keeping were based on there being sufficient sources, which do indeed create a presumption of notability. Myself, I have no particular opinion on the actual issue. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Dream Focus: IAR can't be applied without good reason, and no reason has been given to exempt DVDVR from the notability guidelines.
With regards to the part of your comment about a famous person's website not inheriting notability, that is just one example from the guideline, which, in full, states:
Web content is not notable merely because a notable person, business, or event was associated with it. If the web content itself did not receive notice, then the web content is not notable. For example, if a notable person has a website, then the website does not "inherit" notability from its owner. In such cases, it is often best to describe the website in the article about the notable person.
Similarly, a website may be notable, but the owners or authors do not "inherit" notability due to the web content they wrote. (my emphasis)
I pointed out in the AfD that DVDVR itself did not receive notice. Goodvac (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to DGG: The sources presented by the keep participants were rebutted as unreliable and non-independent, with the exception of the book sources mentioned by Monty845 above, which were overlooked. Once both sides discuss the book sources, consensus may be reached. Goodvac (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why not try discussing it on the article talk p. If that fails, a non-consensus close lets anyone open a new AfD after a short time. It has the same effect as a relisting, but permits a time for thinking and talking first. DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, reluctantly. I'm not inclined to defer to administrative discretion when, in a contentious debate involving multiple editors and arguments, no rationale is given for the close at the time of the close. I'm further inclined to that approach in this case as it appears the administrator took only three minutes to close the complex debate (he'd closed another three minutes before, in a series of about a dozen AfD closures). Having said that, the same criticisms can be made of many of the delete !voters, who merely trotted out the usual lines. I think a delete close would have been quite bold on the state of the debate. I'd be open to having the debate re-closed, but I fear we'd be back here again: as DGG says, a delete close would have given rise to more reason for a DRV. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see no consensus in that debate, so it seems right to me that the debate was closed as "no consensus".—S Marshall T/C 23:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak overturn to delete- Article was relisted a second time to get consensus, and consensus thereafter was to delete. Why relist anything if even complete unanimity after the relist doesn't count for anything? Reyk _YO! 04:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse, basically along the lines of Mkativerata's comment above. The arguments by both sides were (with a few notable exceptions) relatively weak, and many !voters (again this applies equally to both sides) seemed simply to express their own view without really explaining why they felt it was the case. I have some sympathy with Reyk's view, but the problem is that both users who commented after the relist didn't back up their !votes with any real analysis of why the sources were insufficient. Arguably the final relist was unnecessary and I would have endorsed a no consensus close at that point too, but that's beside the point. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 November 2011[edit]