Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 February 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2014 February 17
2014 February 19 >

18 February 2014[edit]

  • Shamar Stephen – I'm going to just delete this and that should be the end of the matter. Bottom line, this shouldn't have been closed by a non-admin – Spartaz Humbug! 22:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Shamar Stephen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I believe a "no-consenus" closure is incorrect. An unopposed and supported deletion nomination should be treated similar to a WP:PROD and the article should be deleted. Paul McDonald (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment I briefly discussed the issue at the closing editor's talk page. I don't see any reason to think this is a "bad faith" closure at this time, I just merely believe it is an incorrect one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There have certainly been cases where unopposed deletion nominations have been treated as PRODs in the past. I'm not aware of any discussion or consensus that indicates this should always be the case, and I would be very averse to establishing this as a general rule; the fact that someone's nominated material for deletion certainly doesn't always mean it should be deleted, even when nobody has shown up to disagree. As Wikipedia's number of active editors continues to decline, we'll find cases like this, where there's been very little discussion, becoming increasingly common. Our present practice seems to be to relist the deletion discussion until some more people weigh in. The result of this is that our XfD pages are clogged up with discussions in which nobody is interested. It's a problem that needs wiser heads than mine to solve.

    However, this specific case is easy. The only thing about the nomination that I'm disagreeing with is the blanket statement that "An unopposed and supported deletion nomination should be treated similar to a PROD". The actual discussion, although brief, does indicate that the sources were carefully examined and did lead to a unanimous consensus to delete, and this should have been the close. Overturn to delete.—S Marshall T/C 16:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to delete. In a thinly-attended AfD the option of WP:SOFTDELETE is certainly available to the closer, but I don't think we should lay down rules about when to use it, and I agree with SM that in this case delete is the correct outcome. I see from the closer's talk page that a number of his no-consensus NACs like this have been challenged, and he has agreed to stop making them. JohnCD (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per others. This is a straight-up deletion. Tarc (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closer: Hi guys, I made the 'no consensus' close per the essay at Non admin closures and the guideline here:
  • "AfDs with little or no discussion may be relisted if they're relatively new [which it was], or closed as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination." (emphasis added) And:
  • "If a nomination has received no comments from any editor besides the nominator (or few in the case of AfDs), the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment. Common options include, but are not limited to:" (emphasis added).

With only one endorser, it is clear that there is little discussion. Also note that the no quorum guideline also provides some leniency; it allows a close endorsing the original proposal, which was to delete. While closing as 'no consensus' may not have been the best choice of action, it certainly wasn't incorrect. Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 19:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, your close was incorrect, the sensible options were to either relist or delete. PhilKnight (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It had already been relisted. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 22:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A third option would have been to comment on the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete - re-listing or commenting would have been preferable options here, not non-admin closing as no-consensus. Live and learn. Stalwart111 01:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter I would have closed as delete, adding my own judgment that this is a very clear-cut example of not meeting the requirements for athletes. But it could simply go to AfD2 immediately. We are having increasing numbers of uncommented AfDs, probably because of the many other things needing attention, and not all of them are as obvious as this one, so I wouldn't want a precedent that such a nonconsensus close in a situation like this actually wrong. . DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete. Should have been at least WP:SOFTDELETEd as if it were a WP:PROD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete An AfD debate with two well-reasoned arguments to delete and none to keep should not be closed by a non-admin as "no consensus" which defaults to keep. This is inherently controversial, and non-admins should not be making controversial closes. Stalwart111's recommendation to re-list or comment presents excellent alternatives. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:51, 19 February 2014 (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.
Talk:JUSTIN DREW BIEBER (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Was G8'd, although it's the talk page of a redirect that exists. Deleting admin insists they'd make up some reason or another to delete it. (And that they'd delete the redirect if they thought the creator was inexperienced enough that they could get away with using their admin tools to enforce their personal preference as to content. WilyD 10:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, the closing admin has just deleted JUSTIN DREW BIEBER in retaliation for opening this DRV. :( WilyD 12:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to delete it earlier, but got off-line between edits and deletions. Any "retaliation" is your imagination and assuming bad faith. jni (delete)...just not interested 12:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That claim is inconsistent with what you've written at User_talk:Jni#Talk:JUSTIN_DREW_BIEBER, where you identify this DRV/my original questioning of your out of process deletion as the reason you chose to delete the redirect out of process as well. WilyD 12:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So now you are complaining in DRV, that I did not delete something earlier, but deleted it later? Or that I did not delete it because of reason X? You are not my boss, so I don't have to delete things in exactly the order that suits you. And the WP:DRV is not usually used for arguing why someone did not delete something. jni (delete)...just not interested 13:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm? No, I'm only noting that the redirect was also deleted out of process, and should be restored by this DRV as well. Requiring a second DRV for a related deletion would be unnecessarily bureaucratic. WilyD 14:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say in WP:R3 that the criteria in question does not apply to recently created UPPER CASE redirects? Nowhere in the text of the CSD criteria itself. It is you who created this WP:POINTty DRV case in first place, in order to argue technicalities and to get a single and largely irrelevant talk page comment by some random IP-user restored. Now you are complaining about unnecessary bureaucrazy. Go figure. jni (delete)...just not interested 14:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC
The place where R3 only applies to implausible redirects and we live on a planet where Keyboards almost invariable have a CAPSLOCK key, for starters. The planet where every Canadian teenage girl I know pronounces his name JUSTIN BIEBER or JUSTIN DREW BIEBER or ♥♥♥♥♥♥JUSTIN DREW BIEBER♥♥♥♥♥ for seconds. Etc. There's no coherent argument to be made R3 applies, at all. WilyD 09:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as a reasonable contest of a speedy and list at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the speedy deletion of the mainspace redirect and list at RfD. There is some embarrassingly unseemly admin behaviour at play. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deletion is for obvious cases where there is no reasonable likelihood of objection. Here, you were already aware that another respected editor apparently supported the redirect. CSD R3 does not mandate deletion on the basis of allcaps. You knew going in that the deletion would be contentious. You have therefore used the admins tools in a dispute. If there is any scope for discussion, the deletion should proceed through an XfD. These deletions should be overturned and listed at XfD, and you should be trouted for knowing using CSD in a dispute. Is there a history of discord between you and WilyD, or do you have a habit of aggressive speedy deletion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was one admin who created hundreds of redirects that I deleted per CSD R3 rule. I have speedy deleted stuff by other admins before, and will do so in future if needed. Nothing out of ordinary here. There is no admin tools usage during dispute here. I did not block anyone nor deleted anything out-of-process. Speedy deletions are contested all the time, usually with silly arguments that have no merit, this case is no different than thousands of others. WilyD does not WP:OWN the redirect in question, and admins should not create speedily deletable content, obviously. WilyD has still not explained, why he wants to restore garbage edits like i love JUSTIN BIEBER from talk page history. WilyD has also himself deleted this same talk page in question before, with exact same rationale I used - it containing just inane test edits. When editor deleted a page, then raises a case in DRV when someone else deletes the same page again with similar reasoning, that actually triggers my troll detector! I don't think I have to anticipate bizarre behavior like this. These days Wikipedia is edited by some many utterly confused people that "reasonable likelihood of objection" is an unobtainable standard. WP is also not a byrocracy, so going through the XfD - especially MfD for the talk page - would be just waste of time. jni (delete)...just not interested 07:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reasonable likelihood of objection". Agreed, a bit low. How about "likelihood of reasonable objection". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. While a hint of objection or controversy should be enough to conservatively choose to send to XfD instead of speedying, the nominator's case is not as strong as the deleting admin's explanations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. It is the deleting admin here. The deleted revisions don't contain any content worth saving, just a single speedy deletion contestation by some IP-address. I'm not "making up some reasons or another to delete it". I deleted this as G6 cleanup or G8 as talk page of R3-deletable redirect. Application of these policies is not a personal preference to content, we simply don't need nonsensical typo redirects like this, nor their contentless talk pages and existing policy allows speedy deletion of both the redirect and its talk page in this case. Wily has deleted this himself in past! This nomination to DRV is just to make a WP:POINT for some reason. What exactly there is in the talk page that should be salvaged? jni (delete)...just not interested 12:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to choose to believe we're reviewing the speedy deletion of JUSTIN DREW BIEBER as well as the talk page. The reason cited was "nonsense", and we do have a speedy deletion criterion for patent nonsense, so we'll need a temporary restore before we can decide whether that criterion did legitimately obtain. I can see that emotions are running high over this vitally important issue, but I do hope this discussion will be conducted with more dignity and less passion from now on.—S Marshall T/C 14:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be my earlier deletion, not the R3 redirect case WilyD is talking about. It seems I managed to fumble the deletion log entry in the earlier one:
      (del/undel) 07:29, 17 February 2014 Jni (talk | contribs | block) deleted page JUSTIN DREW BIEBER (nonsense) (view/restore)
      as the real reason for that deletion was (of course) that the content was entirely duplicated from the real article (but page title was nonsensical). Also note that there is an earlier R3 speedy deletion by uninvolved admin:
      (del/undel) 18:40, 18 August 2010 Dlohcierekim (talk | contribs | block) deleted page JUSTIN DREW BIEBER (r3) (view/restore)
      so there is a precedent for my perfectly normal and valid R3 speedy deletion. And the talk page this DRV is really about, has been deleted four times already and every version is just junk, save for last deleted entry that is the speedy deletion contestation statement by anon that WilyD wants to keep as some kind of archival record and this being the root cause for this important WP:DRV nomination. jni (delete)...just not interested 15:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The JUSTIN DREW BIEBER page was just a redirect to Justin Bieber, who is a Canadian singer with the middle name Drew. WilyD 18:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • After some thought, my view is that this discussion should be closed without result. I feel that the dispute here is fundamentally about conduct rather than content. I think that at the heart of it, we have a clash of personality between sysops, and DRV is not the correct venue for resolving that. I also think that when the clash of personality is resolved, it will be trivial to decide what to do about the redirect.—S Marshall T/C 21:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - We don't need to start making YELLING CAPS FOR SHORTCUTS. It doesn't matter how we got there, but if the end result is that JUSTIN DREW BIEBER remains a redlink, then we're golden. Tarc (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The history of the talk page is:
(del/undel) (diff) 08:09, 17 February 2014 . . 175.141.118.4 (talk | block) (509 bytes) (→‎This page should not be speedy deleted because...: new section)
(del/undel) (diff) 04:40, 12 August 2012 . . Aleenf1 (talk | contribs | block) (34 bytes) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G8). (TW))
(del/undel) (diff) 07:13, 10 August 2012 . . 173.177.82.71 (talk | block) (22 bytes) (←Created page with 'i love you :) ♥.♥')
(del/undel) (diff) 23:01, 6 September 2011 . . 41.178.185.62 (talk | block) (21 bytes) (←Created page with 'i love JUSTIN BIEBER')
(del/undel) (diff) 23:48, 8 March 2010 . . 99.168.83.177 (talk | block) (empty) (rv vandalism)
(del/undel) (diff) 23:45, 8 March 2010 . . Laurieann riojas (talk | contribs | block) (50 bytes) (←Created page with 'U R SO MEAN AND HE IS MARRIED TO LAURIEANN RIOJAS!')

so there is nothing worth keeping. Otherwise, the redirect is unnecessary - if you type 'JUSTIN DREW BIEBER', you get redirected anyway. PhilKnight (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn  This issue should not have gone beyond the initial post that noted that a talk page had been G8 deleted while the main page existed.  The error could have been corrected.  The deleting administrator has stipulated that this was an out-of-process deletion.  He/she also asserts the right to decide if talk pages and talk page discussion are "useful".  Given that I don't have access to the two edit histories, and that the history is disputed in the existing record, I have not analyzed further and have not commented on the R3.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was not out-of-process deletion. Please read the deletion policy. We simply don't have rigid rules that say deleting admin must always first delete the speedily-deletable non-talk page, only afterwards the associated talk page. If the page is speedily deletable, its talk page has no right to exist by default, unless there is a deletion debate or anything actually important there. Please do some deletions in order to see how it works in practise! Of course deleting admins can assess the usefullness of deleted talk page, how you'd do G6 cleanup if you could not use your common sense? The edit histories are not disputed in this discussion, the useless history of the talk page that this review debate is about, is right there in front of your just couple lines above! None of the overturners or the nominator have yet explained, why they find the edits "i love you :) ♥.♥", "i love JUSTIN BIEBER", "U R SO MEAN AND HE IS MARRIED TO LAURIEANN RIOJAS!" must be resurrected. Talk pages that contain inane remarks are routinely deleted per G2, G3, G6 or some other criteria of speedy deletion policy. Could you please provide an explanation right here, why these inane talk page edits are needed in this encyclopedia, or do we really need to drag this trivial and obvious speedy deletion to RfD after DRV? jni (delete)...just not interested 07:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that you want to rewrite history, but I will strike the part in my comment that says that you have stipulated to the deletion being out of process.  Instead I will directly quote,

Uhh, maybe I should have used G6 here but who cares about the exact reason as there was no useful content in talk page. I would have deleted the stupid upper-case redirect also, had it been created by some newbie. Is there a reason to keep it? jni (delete)...just not interested 10:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The key words here are that you "would have deleted" which means (1) that you didn't delete, and (2) that you didn't plan to delete the redirect.  G8 is for "Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page", which according to your words this is not.  As for the answer to the first half of your question, one word with a wikilink: strawman.  To the second half of the question, I have not commented on the R3.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"would have deleted" means exactly what it means. If admin sees speedily deletable material, they are under no obligation to take action. Performing admin actions is entirely voluntary. If I see someone vandalizing your userpage with Justin Bieber spam, I can just ignore it, make some snide remark about it on some talk page and go surfing for some porn in the 'net. Then at later time, I can change my mind and perform the admin action I contemplated about earlier but didn't perform at the time. Delaying admin actions is even preferred in many cases, although I admit out-of-order G8 and R3 combination with several hours time difference is unusual and may be confusing for some editors (but it is fairly common to delete talk page first, and the page immediately afterwards, if it saves few mouse clicks for deleting admin). Admins are also allowed to use their common sense when cleaning zero-content wiki artifacts, we are not even talking about an article or anything that has any encyclopedic qualities embedded into it here! <tinc>I mistook WilyD as one of my trusted cabalist cronies, but he choose to ignore my generous offer to overlook his R3-deletable edit as a special favor to fellow admin, but instead he choose to start yelling about admin abuse and made this nuisance complaint, of zero-content talk page he had himself deleted earlier, to this forum.</tinc> jni (delete)...just not interested 08:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement "The 'deletion contestation' statements of seldomly even read by deleting admins..." is concerning.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, no worthwhile content to undelete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per above. I see no useful purpose in an all caps redirect and no need for the talk page and think WilyD is a little too quick to find fault. Dlohcierekim 23:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find nothing compelling about a talkpage deletion preceding an article page deletion as a reason to overturn the deletion of a talk page where the article page is subsequently deleted. Due diligence requires that I look at the talk page after I've decided to delete and article. If I find nothing compelling there, I delete the talk page and then the article. That's just good time management. There would be nothing gained in flipping back to the article page to delete it and then return to the talk page to delete it. Also, I think the rationale for a deletion is less important than that it meets a CSD category. There are times when more than one CSD category could apply. Does it really matter if it is deleted per G6 or G8? Should we undelete it because we don't like the rationale? Dlohcierekim 14:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse We could debate why all day long, but in the end, the result will be the same. Let's move along. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I'm puzzled that this even got this far. Mackensen (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, deletion of the redirect was reasonable, deletion of the talk page was also reasonable. In a technical sense I suppose it was done in the wrong order, but there's really nothing here worth saving. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:52, 24 February 2014 (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/2014_February_18&oldid=1082337103"