Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 October 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2013 October 16
2013 October 18 >

17 October 2013[edit]

  • Nathaniel Raymond – I'm closing this early as the nominator has been blocked for socking in the AFD in question. On that basis arguments about good faith editors disagreeing go out the window and beyond that the outcome is crystal clear. – Spartaz Humbug! 15:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Nathaniel Raymond (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This Nathaniel Raymond page was put up for deletion recently. The discussion was closed after a day, possibly two days, as a "Snow Keep." I'm sure that administrators will generally agree that an uninformed vote (such as one made when it's clear the editor in question has not read the sources in question), or one from an editor who demonstrates that he/she does not understand notability, or one from an editor who states he/she is voting as such out of spite and not due to the actual topic, should be invalid. Bearing that in mind, the votes look like this:

Blander Remove; says references weak
DavidinNJ Keep; notes which references establish notability; explains why.
Quadell Keep; does not mention sources
Colonell Henry - Keep; notes which references establish notability; explains why.
Green Cardamom - Keep; does not mention sources
NinjaRobotPirate - Keep; does not mention sources, says that his vote is influenced by dislike of my posts (not the sources)
Khazar - Keep; does not mention sources
Randykitty - keep; notes which references establish notability; explains why.
Juan - Remove; references weak

So they add up:
Remove 2 (note references are weak)
Keep 3 (note which references establish notability; explain why)
Keep 2 (explain nothing; I requested clarification from both, none was provided)
Keep 1 (explains nothing and says he/she is voting "keep" due to spite)

Interpreting these votes as a "Snow Keep" is (I apologize in advance for this mixed metaphor...) a slippery slope. This deletion discussion should still be open--and, unless there is a drastic change, a consensus should not be taken until the customary seven days have passed. 0Juan234 (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note from closing admin: I closed the discussion early as a strong consensus as to the subject's notability seemed to have developed. It seemed pointless to allow it to run longer since there wasn't a snowball's chance of it concluding as anything other than Keep. I also take issue with 0Juan234's summary of the debate, as User:Quadell, User:NinjaRobotPirate, and User:Khazar2 did explicitly mention the depth of sourcing in their !votes. As 0Juan234 and Blander2 are apparently roommates, I've only considered their input as one !vote per their apparent meatpuppetry. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"as User:Quadell, User:NinjaRobotPirate, and User:Khazar2 did explicitly mention the depth of sourcing in their !votes." Does the phrase "I think the Bible is a great book" demonstrate that someone read the Bible with "depth?" No. Nor do these nonsense comments demonstrate that the editors actually read the sources before voting. Nor did they respond to my inquires to indicate which sources they feel indicate notability and to explain why:

"this person is prima facie notable, and is subject of significant, independent secondary coverage. – Quadell"
"Ample secondary sources establish notability, and the page is being substantially improved beyond the original mess created by a sockpuppet. Spurious accusations of censorship and further sockpuppetry (against widely known and respected editors) don't do anything but push me even further into the "keep" camp. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)"
Someone should note here that the sockpuppets here have been supporting the existence of the page.
"Per DavidinNJ--significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I'd also like to note the unusual situation that two of the accounts driving the call for deletion here are new accounts with less than 50 edits apiece; since this is a very low-traffic article, it would be remarkable for two such new users to converge here, and suggests to me that some form of offline shenanigans may be happening here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)"

Ditto as above.
"As 0Juan234 and Blander2 are apparently roommates, I've only considered their input as one !vote per their apparent meatpuppetry. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)"[reply]
We'll just add this to the list of reasons why this administrator/editor's sense of consensus is invalid. 0Juan234 (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I have a lot of sympathy with Mark Arsten's view, this page is constrained by WP:DRVPURPOSE. We're here to see that the deletion process is correctly followed, and a snow close is by its very nature a decision to disregard the process. As far as I can see there's no harm that would be caused by allowing the discussion to run its normal course. I won't add a word in bold quite yet, but my initial reaction is that this should be relisted for a full 168-hour AfD.—S Marshall T/C 21:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. Perhaps it would not have hurt to keep open for a day or two longer, but really the likelihood of this AFD yielding a Delete conclusion were and are nil. Given the increasingly strident rhetoric from the nominator, plus apparent meatpuppetry, it was much more likely (and indeed was well on its way) to degenerate into a shouting match. Therefore a valid exercise of administrator discretion to close it early. Pace S Marshall, but why reopen for bureaucracy's sake, with a foregone conclusion, with likely additional acrimony? Martinp (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - to give the rest of the community a chance to !vote "keep" too. We're bureaucratically enforcing the rules to allow an editor to retain his death-grip on a WP:STICK. But if that's what he wants, I can't see the closing admin protesting too loudly - the SNOW close was merciful. Endorsement would be the sensible approach here, but sensibility went out the window a while ago on this one. Stalwart111 02:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Consensus is not just a vote count. It's also based on the strength of the arguments presented. Overwhelming evidence was presented that Nathaniel Raymond was notable. Simply look at the article's 21 references, and you'll find significant coverage of the subject in the Boston Globe, Guardian, Nature, Newsweek, and the International Business Times, and limited coverage in the New York Times, New Yorker, Associated Press, Asian Tribune, Global Post, and National Public Radio. Raymond has made significant contributions to human rights, having been the lead investigator into the Dasht-i-Leili massacre, and now being at the forefront of using satellite technology to detect human rights violations. Mark's decision to close the discussion early was correct not just because of the number of votes in favor of keeping of the article, but the arguments in favor of deleting the article had been fully refuted. DavidinNJ (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Responding to MartinP, earlier): I feel the force of what you're saying but the thing is that shutting off a discussion before everyone's had their say doesn't bring the drama to an end. It just brings it here. Or onto one of the drama boards, or onto user talk pages. I totally agree that the outcome is a foregone conclusion, but then in my view it's a foregone conclusion for more than 90% of AfDs. We still give everyone concerned the time and space to make their best arguments and close it after due course, because that's what enables the close to bring some actual closure.—S Marshall T/C 08:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The result is clear, and the nom's determination to disrupt the process is no reason to extend it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse a responsible and sensible close on multiple levels. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist "The result is clear, and the nom's determination to disrupt the process is no reason to extend it" (Hullaballoo). That's right: the 3-2 vote is the reason to extend it. At any rate, listing your "vote" here as being based on an assertion that someone is "disrupting" the process nullifies your vote; the decision here, as on the other page, should be based on the strength of the sources on the Raymond page. "A responsible and sensible close on multiple levels" (Green Cardamom). Yawn. And, in order for this comment to make any sense, precisely what makes this "responsible and sensible" must be explained. Congrats, Nathaniel Raymond--ahem--I mean DavidinNJ, for explaining your case. (Actually it makes no difference if you are Raymond or not.) It's too bad, however, that only one source (the Globe) you listed concerns Raymond. The others are quotefarm agriculture. But, your vote counts, here and on the other page.0Juan234 (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some more interesting things happening here: DavidinNJ apparently accidentally made a post [1] from an IP in New Jersey, which he/she corrected [[2]]. A few months ago two editors recommended deletion of this silly page (here [[3]] and here [[4]]). Then, mysteriously, an IP located ten miles from where DavidinNJ accidentally posted today, set the archive to remove "old" text (i.e. the discussion of Raymond's lack of notability) to ten days [[5]], which effectively hid the posts from sight until someone happened to review them last week and reposted them to the talk page. Then -poof!- in just a few days the delete-this-page discussion was coincidentally archived yet again (bear in mind that the non-deletion text had been sitting there for nine months). Maybe my novice wiki mind has misread this, though I am sure it can't be Nathaniel Raymond, ahem, DavidinNJ playing games. It's just some strange coincidence.0Juan234 (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More fishyness: There are several people with New Jersey ties who have been blocked and apparently have been advocating the existence of the Raymond vanity page. One is here [[6]] and here [[7]]. There's this text, concerning topics all through DavidinNJ's contribution history, "Although there are a few articles which both HHIAdm and I editted, there are a number of articles which I regularly edit that HHIAdm has nothing to do with -- Drew University, Alcohol laws of New Jersey, St. Padre Pio Shrine, We Can't Wait" here [[8]]. This Dwair123 is the user who created this Raymond vanity page to begin [[9]]. I am sure all of the above and all the hostility and strange posting patterns (five or six editors posting the same thing within twenty minutes) that lead to the "snow keep" as noted here [[10]] are coincidences.0Juan234 (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I agree with S. Marshall--an early close of an AfD disputed in good faith (or even possible good faith) often does lead here,and the AfD itself is the better place for the discussion on the merits. Even if I agree with others that the article will be kept, the place to say it is at the AfD. If the article is not NPOV, though the article talk page is the best place for the discussion, the AfD can properly discuss whether a NPOV article is possible. Possible socking is best discussed elsewhere altogether. The merits of the article needs to be discussed in its own right. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist for full seven days. A reasoned complaint indicates that in hindsight it was a bad application of WP:SNOW. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, there is no good reason that I can see not to do this one by the book since it has been requested. It will almost certainly still end as "Keep", but that way the process would have been done in full and there should be no reason to dispute the result. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn and relist but with a limit of one comment from 0Juan234 and no replies to other people's !votes. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will post wherever and whenever I please. If you'd like to limit other people's expression, you might consider enrolling in some online initiative that promotes fascism and despotic values. 0Juan234 (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to speedy close without result. I now perceive that this user isn't going to be someone we can work with.—S Marshall T/C 18:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If "working with" means a control on someone's expression then, yes, you'd better try another avenue. 0Juan234 (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy keep After some degree of research on AfD policy, I'm modifying my stance slightly. I think that speedy keep would be more appropriate than snow keep. Although both have the same net effect, WP:SNOW is a bit vague and self-contradictory, whereas clause 2B of WP:SK provides for a speedy keep for "nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption." DavidinNJ (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse SNOW keep as checkuser. I've reviewed the contributions in the AfD and the relevant logs, and find no evidence that any editor other than the nominator had supported the AfD, making the consensus even more overwhelming than that seen by the original closing administrator. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy keep correct close, there was and there still is no chance the article will be deleted. Cavarrone 07:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Consensus to keep was strong, and given the only vocal opposition was by a sockpuppeter, acknowledging the snow was appropriate. Tarc (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Dan Bongino (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Protected redirect linking to an election that is long over. The individual continues to get coverage for example [11], [12] and recently received an endorsement from an Allen West affiliated group. He is a candidate in the upcoming election making the redirect to a previous election problematic. Candleabracadabra (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unprotect. Things have moved on, there's new evidence that the previous discussion did not consider, and a good faith user wants to write an article in that space. It's not for us to stand in the way.—S Marshall T/C 21:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, is there a draft in userspace or some indication of what the new article would look like with the new sources? I'm not sure how reliable redstate.com and legainsurrection.com are considered to be with regards to WP:RS. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I would like to work from the existing article that has been redirected. Those and other sources establish that he is still generating interest and coverage from conservatives. He was became the Republican nominee in the 2012 election (something some of the commenters in the previous discussion seemed to be confused about) AFTER the previous AfD concluded as redirect and he is campaigning again for the 2014 election. If I can work on the article in userspace and then move it back into userspace once I'm ready I have no objection, but the redirect will still need to be unprotected. If someone wants to take the subject to an AfD again they are welcome to do so. I don't think a redirect to a 2012 campaign is appropriate for someone who is campaiging in the current election cycle. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are additional sources covering Allen West endorsement, an upcoming talk he is giving, a recently published editorial, Italian media coverage, and West endorses Bongino's bid additional coverage of a recent endorsement for his current campaign. He has also appeared on news programs subsequent to the previous AfD. He is running against U.S. Rep. John Delaney D-Md. in the next election. And frankly I think it's very weird for a major party nominee for U.S. Senate to have their article deleted anyway. There are articles on third party candidates. But since he is running again and getting newer coverage at the very least an update and a new AfD consensus (if one is sought) should be determined. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see now that the pervious AfD occured before he became the Republican nominee for US Senate in the 2012 election. So the article should have been restored once the primary election concluded and additional coverage took place during that general election. At any rate, for all of the reasons I've stated above as well as the substantial coverage in reliable sources, please allow the redirect to be unprotected so the article can be restored and worked on. Thank you. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • permit restoration There is certainly enough reason to restore and have another AfD if challenged. This is not the place to discuss the merits, or the actual notability , It's enough that there be some reasonable chance. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unprotect, with a view to restoring, per DGG. Things have obviously changed and on that basis there has been a reasonable request to restore and reassess notability. As DGG says, that reassessment is not really DRV's role and if someone wants to take it to AFD, that's another matter. Stalwart111 13:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unprotect and eventually send to AfD per above additional coverage. Cavarrone 07:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:1 eurocent malta.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

This file has been deleted as not in accordance with WP:CSD#F7. However, I think that I had tagged it for deletion wrongly, because WP:NFCC#1 states "Where possible, non-free content is replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available." [emphasis by me]. There is no freer alternative of acceptable quality currently available. I've discussed the issue at the deleting administrator's talk page.[13] He has stated that it has been deleted routinely in accordance with the {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}, because there was no significant objection. Eleassar my talk 09:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • this discussion appears relevent to the deletion. As the image has been deleteted for reasons to do with licensing I have decided not to undelete the image for the purposes of this discussion. Another admin is welcome to disagree if they so wish. Spartaz Humbug! 09:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was this image significantly different from any of the other 1,021 images in Category:Non-free images of currency?—S Marshall T/C 19:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so (although photos and renders of 3D objects - i.e. coins - should be treated differently than photos and renders of 2D objects - banknotes) and the deletion is still against the rule that states "replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available", therefore (as no freer alternative is currently available) in my opinion it should be undeleted (or the policy changed). This image should be deleted only when we get a free photo of the coin, which per the discussion does count as a freer alternative. --Eleassar my talk 07:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I don't like it, the availability has to do with whether a free image could be reasonably obtained. Unless the coin is an exceptionally rare specimen which is locked away in a vault at the European Central Bank, it is plausible that one could obtain one of these coins and photograph it. Compare to the norm of keeping unfree images of dead people vs. deleting unfree images of living people. Once somebody dies it is not plausible to obtain a free image of them any more. If they are alive it is, in most cases, possible (but still might take some work). IronGargoyle (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to RfC. My gut instinct says that an image of a commonplace item such as a coin is fundamentally different from a picture of something more unique, and that the image is appropriate and should be on the encyclopaedia, but I also think that we need to treat all 1,021 images in the same way and at the moment, DRV is not sufficiently well-attended to make a decision of that magnitude, particularly when there's an apparent conflict with the relevant policy.—S Marshall T/C 07:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The copyright inherent in the coin design is not replaceable, but I don't think that's what is at issue here. The issue is that a free photo of an unfree coin would be preferable. I've always felt that it was silly to consider coins to be a sufficiently 3-dimensional object for photos to have their own copyright, but that seems to be the consensus around here. As far as the process of deletion was concerned, this all seems to be reasonably within process. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_October_17&oldid=1082508496"