- List of Other Backward Classes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The closer describes this as "Bit of an odd close...". That's because the supposed consensus which was recorded was scarcely mentioned in the discussion and no editor had this as their !vote. The close is therefore a supervote contrary to WP:DGFA, "Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants." Warden (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC) Warden (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's possible that the closer applied the concepts in Wikipedia:Delete or merge as linked from the Deletion policy WP:ATD-M. Cyclopia mentioned merge at the end of the Sitush, Orlady, Cyclopia discussion. I don't yet have an opinion on whether the closer of the deletion discussion, Black Kite, interpreted the consensus incorrectly, but I think that Black Kite did try to use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants. Did you discussed the matter with Black Kite first? -- Jreferee (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I posted on his talk page but that section has been archived now. He did not reply directly to my query, only to the comments of another editor. I did not get the impression that he was interested in pursuing the matter. Warden (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that's because you didn't make it clear what you wanted me to reconsider. Posting on an admin's talk page saying "I think you got it wrong" isn't exactly helpful unless you explain what you think is the problem. And I think Sitush got the issue spot on in that discussion anyway.Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The quotation given by Black Kite is not accurate. I actually raised two points: "...merger hardly got any support in the discussion and the page is so large that merger would be technically problematic." Black Kite's support for Sitush's position and refusal to acknowledge the Keep position seems to indicate that they were not impartial. Warden (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I hardly think I can be accused of being partial on a page I've never even seen before (although I am not surprised that you have done). In that csse - no, none of the Keep votes addressed the issue brought up from the previous splitting of the article, and two of them were merely ITSNOTABLE. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no previous splitting - the page was a fresh start. The nomination talks of a proposal to split which was made on the talk page on account of the list's great size. The previous AFD nomination was because the page was, at that time, quite small, being started from scratch. The result of that AFD was a Keep in the expectation that the page would be expanded. The expansion was done and then the page was attacked for being too large. There's no pleasing some people. Anyway, as Black Kite does not seem to understand the history of the matter, it seems inappropriate for them to have been making novel and challenging suggestions as if they had consensus. Warden (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Although my !vote in the AfD discussion was "Delete or move to user space," my comments there did in fact support merger as an option. My comments stated: "Wikipedia can describe aspects of the topic of OBCs in the article Other Backward Classes and related articles, and those articles can describe the national list and the lists for individual states..." --Orlady (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC) I should clarify that my support was for selective merger as an option. --Orlady (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse or Overturn to Delete. Unfortunately the previous discussino on my talkpage got archived whilst I was temporarily inactive. As I said, the close was, as far as I could see, the only alternative to Delete. I cannot see any other option. Black Kite (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm leaning toward overturn because I'm not seeing a policy-based reason for deletion anywhere and the discussion seems to be split. The most common argument is that the list is just too hard to maintain, which isn't normally a reason to delete (and lacks consensus). There is also some waving in the general direction of WP:NOT (I think) but no one really spelled it out. Given the folks involved, I'm guessing I'm missing something (I know nearly nothing about castes in India, so maybe that's it). Help? Hobit (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When there is a split keep/delete discussion, I'm often rather pleased when an admin can winkle out a merge or redirect result. I'm not at all sure of the validity of deleting long or awkward-to-maintain articles but, unfortunately, I don't see how merge can be a solution if the article indeed has this problem. Thincat (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with both sides here. I agree with Warden to the extent that don't think there was a consensus to merge into that debate. But I also agree with Black Kite's conclusion, that a merge is the least bad of the available outcomes. I think the best way forward would be to understand this close in two parts. First, there was the administrative assessment of the inconclusive discussion (outcome: "no consensus"), and then, as a separate and subsequent action, there was the rather well-judged editorial decision to merge.
Strictly speaking, we should probably overturn to no consensus and then endorse the editorial decision to merge. This is a longwinded and bureaucratic procedure. Although I don't think it's necessary for DRV to do all that, I'm also not confident that it's appropriate to use the word "endorse" when the final outcome wasn't recommended by any of the debate participants. I think the short form for what I'm saying is keep merged.—S Marshall T/C 12:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not convinced a merge (if by that we mean to incorporate the whole list) is editorially wise, but that is irrelevant here. If we had had a close of "no consensus" it was then open to anyone to go and do a merge anyway although it could not have claimed any AFD or admin authority. As things stand there is some type of claim for an authority to merge though basis for the claim is pretty shaky. At present no one has seemed willing (or able!) to do any sort of merge. Thincat (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As it happens, I tried to implement the merger. I edited Other Backward Class shortly after the AFD closed to incorporate the content from this list article that I deemed to be suitable for inclusion there: diff. I didn't change the list article, as I didn't want to interfere with others who might disagree with my choices. --Orlady (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What's this "admin authority" you mention? I'm aware of no such concept. On Wikipedia, authority comes from consensus, except on the rare occasions when the WMF stick their oar in. But I don't believe any reasonable person could look at that debate and find a consensus to merge. BK isn't trying to pretend there was any such consensus. The merge was a decision rather than a consensus, and therefore it was an editorial action rather than an administrative one.—S Marshall T/C 20:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Apart from BK's close statement, he placed a large official-looking template at the top of the article stating boldly "The debate was closed on 08 September 2013 with a consensus to merge the content into the article Other Backward Class." The edit summary for this was "(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Other Backward Classes (2nd nomination) closed as merge to Other Backward Class)". These seem to be clear assertions of consensus and administrative authority. Warden (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I expect that's attributable to the use of automated tools for AfD closing rather than any intended misrepresentation by Black Kite.—S Marshall T/C 07:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am happy with a merge and did suggest a possible way forward on that after Colonel Warden posted a note on Black Kite's talk page. Honestly, folks, the list was going nowhere in its form as at AfD and it really is irretrievable. There are times when IAR does apply and this is one of them. Black Kite managed to find a sensible result for a messy situation. The reason that I didn't merge it was because I was waiting for this DRV - there has been a pattern relating to similar lists and I suspected it was inevitable that someone from ARS would challenge the decision. - Sitush (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But your vision of merger is not to actually retain any of the content is it? The article is currently about 400K. Please tell us what percentage of this content your "merger" would preserve and whether this would be functionally different from deletion? Warden (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just look at the diff of my edit if you want to see what I found appropriate for inclusion in the OBC article. --Orlady (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh. It didn't look at all like a merge to me. I suppose this is the diff. It doesn't seem to have followed the procedures in WP:MERGE and, process apart, it hasn't come close to implementing the spirit of merging the list article because the list has gone completely. I am not objecting from an editorial point of view but I feel the edits seem to have little to do with AFD consensus. If the closer had thought the consensus was to do something like this then it was essential that the closing rationale should say so. Thincat (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep There was no numeric consensus to delete this and more so, there was no valid deletion argument advanced at any point. And no one, including the closer has advanced such an argument in this DRV. There isn't even a case for merging (what exactly does the closer think should be merged?) The claimed problem with the base article is that it is too long and unmanageable. I don't see how merging helps that. And I don't see how the discussion could possibly lead to a merge outcome. Hobit (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Hobit (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The arguments are much deeper than merely wrt its size. Since you asked for some help, I've just begun a draft essay noting some of the problems at User:Sitush/obcdraft and I've had a bit of a rant at User_talk:Sitush#Backward classes. - Sitush (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your deletion argument is basically "WP:IAR". And that's a fine argument (I use it all the time), but IAR only applies if there is consensus. And there was none here. Hobit (talk) 02:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn I really do think everyone was acting with the best of intentions but, possibly with hindsight, the AFD nomination, discussion and close were all unsatisfactory for the reasons given above. Editorial matters like this are best dealt with using talk page discussion, not AFD. Thincat (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you seen how much discussion has gone on at this and the related articles, including ANI reports, topic bans etc? Warden is a classic example of someone who doesn't understand the topic area and is applying dogmatic principles when a pragmatic approach involving IAR and COMMONSENSE are needed. Hence they requested userfication of this list of castes last year when it was deleted and haven't worked on it since. Keeping a list for the hell of it is just plain silly. I do hope that every person who is favouring that approach is going to start contributing to the subject area - I can't see many (if any) above who do. If this thing is overturned and kept then I am stubbing it and I will keep on stubbing it, consensus or no consensus. So everyone can start drafting their ANI reports right now. - Sitush (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - While this does not go to whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly, I can't help but wonder whether this page merely is a Wikipedia mirror list of the central list maintained by the National Commission for Backward Classes? Is the only difference of note between Wikipedia's list and the National Commission list[1] functional since Wikipedia's list allows sorting to be done by various criteria? If that is the case, the difference needs to be encyclopedic, not functional. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All our work is supposed to reflect the content of external sources. The fact that this is based upon an external list is a reason to keep it, not delete it, because this is the main test of list notability — see WP:LISTN. We add value to the information and make it more accessible by integrating it with the rest of our content. You can see this at the equivalent US list — List of federally recognized tribes — which is based upon official lists published in the Federal Register. Notice that all the entries in that list are now blue links. This helps the reader by providing convenient links to our coverage of those tribes. It also helps us editorially because the process of linking highlights where we have gaps in our coverage - the name of the tribe would appear as a red link. By tying our coverage to such a list, we validate it and ensure its completeness.
- As an example, I started this process of linking for the OBC list during the AFD. The first entry in the list is the Karen. These people originally came from Burma. Sitush opposed direct linkage for some reason so I created an article for the separate group in India — Karen of the Andamans — and that's now the first blue link. They are a small but distinctive tribe in the Andaman Islands and my work established that they are notable. This activity shows the value of the list as a driver for Wikipedia development — encouraging us to develop our content within a well-recognised official structure, rather than as hundreds of independent articles.
- Warden (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Warden, you know exactly why I and others with experience of the subject have objected to the linking. Indeed, your very poor attempt to link and then create a new Karen article proved the point: you really had not got a clue, however good your intentions may have been. We do not need lists to create articles and there are very specific reasons why it would be inappropriate to drive creation from this list. I do not understand your continued obtuse attitude given that it has all been explained to you on several occasions.
There are 4,600+ officially identified caste groups in India, most of which have 20 or 30 gotras and many of which exist in more than one state. Few of these are documented outside of primary sources. The scope for ambiguity is enormous and is recognised by the very primary sources that the list is based on, which also implicitly acknowledges that they are incomplete. Just about the only people who seem consistently not to recognise the issues are yourself and the topic-banned User:Doncram. Our extant coverage of caste is poor: adding more half-cocked articles is not going to improve it. Links in Other Backward Classes to the primary source OBC lists published by the NCBC should be sufficient to drive anyone who really does want to improve the encyclopaedia rather than merely make a point. Those links would constitute the merger, since there is nothing in List of Other Backward Classes that cannot be found within those externally-hosted documents. Our list merely duplicates the externally-hosted information and is highly unlikely to remain in sync with it. Keeping the detailed list does no-one any favours. - Sitush (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
