- 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
Article was speedy kept by a non-admin before seven days (within an hour of nomination); in addition, a majority of votes came from new users (not to sound bitey or anything, but some of these votes are WP:ATA &c, and few are supported by policy. For example:
- "I agree with the relevance of the article. It has good sources and it is well written with the information provided so far. --Meluuu (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)" - relevance =/= notability, and you could find reliable sources for many non-notable topics.
- "There's always time to delete later. Be bold." - no, just no...
- "[A]re you people nuts?! Of course there should be an article on these people being held captive all that time. It's very notable." - well, logically there are so many unsolved cases out there that it would be inevitable there would be ones like this...
- "Just because something is a current event does not merit an automatic deletion just because it's all new and shiny" - that's not what the NOTNEWS argument was about.
- Very, very, few arguments were actually supported by policy; this was mainly a splash of new users resulting in an 18-2 – it would have probably been, otherwise, excluding the votes that were not supported by policy, an essentially 3 to 0 vote. I would have commented myself if I had had the time to get in a comment before the closure...
- All in all, I feel the closure was premature, are that the deletion discussion should be relisted. Thanks. 68.84.47.109 (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You realize, of course, that this discussion probably will be open for a full week and this will all probably be entirely moot by then? This feels like process for process' sake. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The close was made based on a false assertion: that there were no !votes for deletion other than the proposer: [1]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Endorse. I would snow close this as well. 90 per cent of the !votes were keep. And it had already attracted 20 -- well beyond the norm for an AfD. No reason to gratuitously mar the heading of a wikipedia page, where the result is so clear. Even recognizing that Andy was one of the 10 per cent minority, and that the IP (with few contributions as such) has a different view, I think a snow is appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Endorse. The closed noted that one commenter in addition to the nominator recommended deletion, so AndyTheGrump's comment above is misleading. That deletion argument was from AndyTheGrump and was "Delete, per NOTNEWS. There's always time to add later. Be bolder..." which doesn't even attempt to refute those commenters who evaluated the article with reference to NOTNEWS and recommended keeping the article (Edison, Legacypac, TJRC, AgnosticAphid and myself all did so explicitly or implicitly). The main thrust of the deletion nomination itself was that it would be a magnet for OR and POV, which is not a reason to delete anything. The other part of the nomination is a false dichotomy - just because something should have an entry at Wikinews does not mean it should not have one here. Closure by an admin would have been preferable (to avoid this pointless bureaucracy) but his was never going to end in anything other than a snow keep. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We just went through this discussion. SNOW KEEP. I thought the last deletion attempt was the dumbest ever, but now I see this one which trumps the first. The final comments by the originator of this thread above discounting the "new users" and 3 to 0 vote is complete BS on every level. No other way to describe them. Legacypac (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. As nominator, I made a point of noting that the early flurry of keep votes were a direct result of me notifying all of the contributors to the page (some of whom only write about fast-breaking-events), and did not reflect the consensus of the larger community. I also asked the quite reasonable question, "For those who are using the "It's in the news, therefor it must be notable" argument, do any of you have any evidence that it has enduring notability? Notability is not temporary", which was never answered. By closing the debate 36 minutes(!) after it was included in the lists of Crime-related, Ohio-related, Events-related, and News-related deletion discussions, the closer (who also mostly edits articles about fast-breaking events) made it so that only those early responders had any say. What's the hurry? Normally AfDs last long enough for it to become evident whether there is lasting notability before a decision is made. Assuming, of course, that nobody jumps the gun and forces an early close. Because of WP:CIVIL I am not going to even comment on the call above to prematurely snow close this deletion review. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Guy -- as I also requested at your nomination at AfD, please don't -- in addition to making your nomination -- then enter a !vote supporting your nomination. That's not normal practice, as it confusingly makes it appear that you are !voting twice. Please change your comment title from "Overturn" to "Comment," and it will be clear that that is not your intent. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This DRV was filed by an IP editor 68.84.47.109, not Guy Macon. Tarc (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Tarc. I was confused, and apologize for that. -- Mr. IP, you seem very experienced for an editor who has had such few edits, and interestingly found yourself here ... might it be possible to share whether you are editing unintentionally as a logged-out editor, who also edits under a different user name? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As to Guy's question -- "What's the hurry?" ... the reason that we snow keep in situations such as this one is: a) the result is clear; and b) keeping the AfD or deletion review open only serves to 1 -- mar the top of the article with a completely needless AfD or deletion review banner (as it is attracting, in cases like this, thousands of viewers) ... as the first thing they see; and 2 - wastes the time of the editor community, as editors comment here while they might otherwise be doing productive tasks ... on a deletion review where the outcome is completely clear.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure about that normal practice? I haven't done a comprehensive survey, but I seem to remember seeing a lot of "As nom" votes in various places. Is there a policy on his? (not trying to give you a hard time, just trying to understand current policy). --Guy Macon (talk)
- Guy, I suggest that you actually READ what others say in AFD and not just ignore their posts and issue ad hominem attacks.Edison (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - There was no chance at all that the article would wind up deleted, not with that many calls to keep, so a snow invocation was appropriate even one done by a non-admin. The article is crap; an encyclopedia should not be rushing to cover breaking news stories, but our little crowd-sourcers like to run around and pretend that they're actual journalists. There's not much that can be done about that at this stage. We're just here at DRV to review the merits of the close, and it was sound. Tarc (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This closed SNOW because it looks like SNOW. Having a big ugly "this article is being considered for deletion" at the top of any article about a breaking event is, unfortunately, a Wikipedia tradition, and not one of our better ones. I agree with the nominator (of this DRV) that the proprieties were not observed...but I think observing them fully here is just bureaucracy, which we are "NOT". I guess a DRV is a reasonable level of beauracracy, but reopening an AfD that's doomed to keep is pointless. Endorse. -- stillnotelf is invisible 18:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- From the comments on this DRV it is already SNOW KEEP. Legacypac (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - The AFD and this DRV are pretty obviously a waste of time. In many regards, Wikipedia is whatever the community chooses to make it. It has been Wikipedia practice for a very long time that a few breaking news stories are developed into articles in realtime by a very enthusiastic editor community, and such articles are almost never deleted (though a few eventually get merged). Love it or hate it, that's the way things are. I understand that Guy and Andy might prefer that things were otherwise, for example, wishing such content lived on Wikinews [2]. However, I think they are being naive in expecting an AFD for an article like this to end with anything other than an overwhelming keep, especially while this remains front-page news worldwide. Keep was the only plausible outcome for this and the SNOW close was appropriate. Dragons flight (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse snow keep I agree this DRV is a waste of time. Consensus was overwhelming keep in the AFD. Dream Focus 19:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse it was very appropriate for a snow close and, it wouldn't surprise me if it would soon also meet the grounds of a speedy keep as this is worthy of news section on the main page IMHO. - Nbpolitico (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (with no prejudice against later renomination), legitimate use of SNOW. I'm normally against almost any AFD being closed within 24 hours, but this one was one of the rare exceptional cases where it was justified: the nomination clearly arose from a misunderstanding of policy, there was no realistic prospect of the discussion resulting in anything other than 'keep', and leaving the AFD notice on such a prominent, high-traffic article makes Wikipedia look bad. Major breaking news stories receiving significant international coverage always deserve articles, at least temporarily, and AFDs like this one should always be SNOW-closed. I'm not opposed to the article being reconsidered for deletion at a later date; but within hours of creation, while the story is still 'hot', is the worst possible time to do it. Robofish (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keeeeep Is this closed or not? This is quite notable, front page news nationally and covered internationally, the likely subject of very long term interest. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion discussion was closed and the article kept. This discussion is about whether that closure was correct, not whether the article should be kept or deleted. !votes here commonly take the form "endorse" (i.e. the closure was correct) or "overturn" (i.e. the closure was incorrect), "keep" and "delete" comments referncing the article's merits are not relevant here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. The deletion discussion tag at the article is confusing, it makes the discussion look live. I am obviously opposed to reverting the decision, and am going to remove the tag from the article. That can be reverted if it's wrong, but I don't think so. μηδείς (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OH, never mind, I see it says "review" μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the speedy keep - but we should re-review the article in a week or so. As others have pointed out, it is a local story that happened on an otherwise slow news days so made international headlines. As notability requires enduring coverage - and even for Cleveland locals the fact these women were missing was gone from the public collective until yesterday - there's a good chance this won't have such enduring coverage. But now as the story develops is not the time do that. I do, however, wish editors remember that we have NOTNEWS and Wikinews for just this reason - unless you are certain the story is notable (eg Boston marathon bombings), news stories should be developed at Wikinews and brough into en.wiki only once they have shown enduring coverage. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Discussions about how soon news should turn into an article aside, I believe the initial SNOW keep was appropriate. The article can always be AfDed again if it does not have lasting notability for some reason. For now, extremely widespread coverage of a rather unusual event makes this notable. I hope the DRV can be SNOW endorsed as well (but obviously not as quickly as the initial AfD), since deletion tags on high-traffic articles look rather silly. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 20:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, but only because it's pointless to revisit it right now. I don't agree with the idea that a certain number of "keeps" should become a SNOW close. The deciding factor should be the merits of the arguments, not the number of the arguments. One well-reasoned, policy-based statement should outweigh a dozen people saying "I like it" and "other stuff exists", and editors should be given the chance to make that statement, rather than having the door closed after only a day. Otherwise, you may as well leave off the cutesy exclamation points because it really is just a vote. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 21:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure. There wasn't a snowball's chance in Hell of a "Delete" outcome given the many "Keep" positions with commentary that articulated sound reasons for their positions. The only issue here is whether it would be kept based on a consensus of "Keep" (likely) or whether it would be kept based on "No consensus" (less likely, but possible). There's no point to continuing the process for that academic exercise. TJRC (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse its snowing everywhere. I don't really buy the NOTNEWS arguments. While in theory thats the policy in practice we have rapidly changing articles for every major news event which often rather good comprehensive article. Wikinews does not work because no-one goes there, their coverage of the topic is woeful[3]. Why stop an example of wikis working well?--Salix (talk): 22:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Complete waste of everyone's time to keep this open. Are we trying to set a new record, of number of support !votes in a row?Epeefleche (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A waste of time, yes. However, it is best not be too hasty to snow close a review of a snow close. It will waste a lot more time if this ends up at AN/I or similar. Thryduulf (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not so sure. Sysops commenting here appear to be unanimous. We could expect similar treatment at AN/I to the many comments here, and at the AfD itself. Which would result at AN/I as well, I expect, in summary closure. This gets more ridiculous as time goes on, not less. And anyway -- who would possibly be so non-consensus in their understanding that they would bring this to AN/I, after the overwhelming reaction at AfD and here, from a large number of editors -- sysops included?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Can we just close this incredibly silly attempt to over turn a SNOW close? If the one or two or three proponents of closing the article want to build one at Wikinews [4], go have fun. It's a ghost town over there. Legacypac (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Or maybe we could do the right thing: overturn the discussion, re-open the AfD, consider creating a CSD category to deal with horrible violations of our mission, and provide clear directions to Wikinews. This has no business on WIkipedia, keeping it up almost guarantees BLP violations (one could possibly argue that it's very existence is a BLP violation), this will certainly be deleted eventually anyway....We've been through this before: news story captures people's attention nationally (and by that, I mean in the US). It will likely involve a heroic drama, and may well play into either current social trends or fears. It will seem like the biggest thing ever. Once the 24-hour news channels find something else to talk about, a week or two later, it will completely disappear from public view (possibly resurfacing at a trial, though at that point the topic of the article likely needs to change). Someone then eventually pops the 3rd or 4th AfD, and finally enough people realize "Oh, yeah, this didn't change the world" and the article is redirected, deleted, or massively changed in focus. Why do we requires this tragic process to play out when it consumes so much time to police and argue about? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Or perhaps we could agree to let consensus deterimne whether articles like this violate the mission to produce a free content general purpose encyclopedia? As far as I read these discussions consensus is firmly that encyclopedic articles about topics that happen to be a top news story are still encyclopaedia articles. I really don't buy this whole BLP-magnet thing - every article about a living person is a potential BLP violation and we have the tools to protect articles from them and block editors who make them. BLP is not an end run around consensus or other policies, and BLP does not prohibit a neutral reporting of what reliable sources have said about living people. The repeated nominations for deletion until you get the result you want are not something to be proud of - it's simply tendentious gaming of the system in an attempt to win by fatigue (I'm sure we have a policy page on this, but I can't find it). Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the snow closure. Deletion based on a dislike of breaking news coverage is a distinctly minority view among the WP community. This sort of article is always created very early in the news cycle; it is always hauled to AfD by somebody feeling creation is premature; it is always kept there after debate. Carrite (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong endorse for the snow close, which was right on the money. No matter how long that AfD would've remained open, the keeps would have been close to 100%. Although I'm sure the nominator meant well, I must say that it was among the most inappropriate AfD nominations I've ever seen, which was supported solely by an inapplicable policy. Perhaps the nominator was unaware of the magnitude of the story and, therefore, its clear notability. As of now, WP:SNOW also applies to this discussion. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There was a comment that there must be a policy - we cited all kinds of policy, but here is an instructive essay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Overzealous_deletion Legacypac (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The overwhelming majority of editors argued for keeping the article, and most cited convincing policy and guideline-based reasons. unlike the AFD nominator. As I asked in the AFD, are there other cases where multiple victims were held captive and the case was not found to be notable? The conjunction of a decade of captivity and multiple victims, along with worldwide coverage, are a reasonable basis for editors to conclude that these crimes are a basis for an encyclopedic article, and that multiple reliable and independent sources are likely to have continuing significant coverage through and after the conclusion of the inevitable trials. The nomination was flawed because it was claimed the article should be deleted because it was receiving inappropriate edits, but no such edits were identified, and if there had been such the article could have been protected. The nomination was not based on any valid policy or guideline. Most notable events start with news coverage, and it is an embarrassment to Wikipedia when every such article is slapped with a silly "AFD" banner, as a matter of course, when there is not the slightest likelihood of the article being deleted. Edison (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
