- Tobacco (Last Week Tonight with John Oliver) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I was surprised to see the original AfD discussion result in a merge, given the 'flawed' nomination and an equal number of votes to keep the article. Regardless, the article has been expanded and restructured. It is now about the "Tobacco" segment in its entirety and not just the mascot. After expanding the article, I re-nominated the article for deletion, noting that I actually wanted the article to be kept but wanted to have another discussion about the topic's notability. That conversation was quickly closed and I was directed here, where I ask you to please re-evalute the article, which I believe clearly meets WP's notability criteria. You can find other sources to incorporate into the article on its talk page. I am sure there are other sources, too, but I stopped expanding the article further after it was reverted to redirect status. Thanks for your time and consideration. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Should be speedy closed and the redirects protected. The previous DRV has not even been archived yet, and the nominator's fatuous afd nomination makes it abundantly clear he merely disagrees with the outcome. —Cryptic 17:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry, I meant well when I re-nominated the article for deletion. I am not familiar with DRV. Please don't hold my procedural mistakes against the content itself. All I am asking is for editors to please re-review the article and discuss whether or not it meets WP's notability threshold. Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The previous and very recent DRV rapidly devolved into AfD round two and was correctly closed as "no consensus". The original AfD is the only one that reached a conclusion and so it currently still stands as the authoritative discussion of this article. Since the previous DRV was closed with no consensus, it is completely legitimate to discuss this again now.
- If we are discussing this again, I would like to suggest that participants consider the purpose of WP:DRV and consider limiting themselves to constructively addressing the two major DRV grounds which are relevant here.
- Firstly, did the closer of the AfD interpret the consensus correctly?
- Secondly (as an alternative), has some significant new information come to light since the AfD which obsoletes the original discussion?
- Arguments about the article itself really belong at AfD, not here. WP:DRV says "Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question". If we hold AfD round three here now, it will result in another no-consensus DRV close which will most likely lead to us doing round four early in the new year. Thparkth (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't get afd round three for disagreeing with round one. —Cryptic 17:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to make the discussion about the article's content by nominating it for deletion, but my efforts were quickly shut down. If AfD is not appropriate, and this avenue is inappropriate, what am I supposed to do? I'm getting a lot of resistance for attempting to keep an article that has been significantly changed and expanded since the original AfD. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The resistance might have to do with your continually demonstrated lack of understanding of Wikipedia guidelines, of its decision-making processes, of consensus, of standards, of simple instructions, of NPOV, and even of the meaning of the word "no". --Calton | Talk 05:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Just an additional 8 minutes of monologue. His other opinion pieces can have articles too, his "net neutrality" and "sentencing" have all received extensive reviews and they led to changes in national policy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Agreed. There could easily be WP articles about other segments, though I figured I should battle to save this one before starting others. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You might have had something resembling a point -- even an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS point -- if there were articles specifically about Oliver's segments on net neutrality and sentencing. There are none I can find, so that pretty much argues for the opposite of what you claim. --Calton | Talk 05:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore original title as protected redirect, delete new title completely. I blame myself for advising Another Believer to come here, since I completely forgot that he'd tried this stunt before. I know that you don't want to hear this, but no means no. --Calton | Talk 05:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure what you are referring to. I am not trying to pull any stunt. I created an article. It was redirected. I moved and expanded the article, one that was more inclusive and (in my opinion) more clearly illustrates notability. I nominated the article for deletion to start another discussion about notability. You closed that discussion and told me to come here, which I did. What am I doing that is so wrong? All I want is a fair, uninterrupted discussion about whether or not the new version of the article belongs at Wikipedia. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure what you are referring to Wikilawyering, ignoring consensus and group decisions, trying to do end runs around consensus and group decisions, ignoring set procedures, etc. Yeah, so "stunt" is good short descriptor.
- All I want is a fair, uninterrupted discussion... Aaand we can add disingenuousness to the list, since your self-serving narrative left off the fact you've had at least two bites at this apple already; your not liking the result is irrelevant.
- What part of "no" is giving you problems? --Calton | Talk 01:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Relax and assume good faith. The out of process deletion was for a fictional character, the article is now a standard episode article and has been expanded. This is the reason we have DRV. The same reason why we have appeals courts IRL. Consensus can change, and articles can be expanded in scope and level of detail. "Two bites at this apple already". Are people suppose to take a single bite of an apple and then discard it, or pass it to someone else? Get a new trite expression. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's "assume good faith lacking evidence to the contrary, and until his latest bit of disgenuous garbage, it was a question of whether he was demonstrating a "lack of basic competence or was trying to game the system deliberately: it's clear now that it's the latter.
- As for appeals, he's already done so -- twice -- and the only reason we're doing this a third time is that his attempts to make a couple of end-runs around the original decision were caught. I realize that pushing boundaries so one can escape restrictions or guidelines is a speciality of yours, but that doesn't make it right. --Calton | Talk 06:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and Relist. The original AfD closer erred in finding that a minority opinion in the discussion was the consensus position (there was actually no consensus, and substantial policy-based arguments were made on both sides). It should be set aside. The first DRV closed with no consensus, but with plenty of strong feelings on every side. Meanwhile the article has been significantly altered in a way that might have affected the outcome of the original AfD. There are some outstanding issues relating to the interpretation of notability policy in this case, and the community should have the opportunity to discuss them at a new AfD. Thparkth (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument boils down to the AFD not reaching the decision you wanted, and since the DRV did not void that result, the result should be voided? Tricky.--Calton | Talk 02:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand you feel passionate about the issue, but, you really do not have to make counter comments to everyone else's comments. Your arguments are not going to change their minds, and your comments do not negate their !vote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not expressed an opinion on whether or not the article should exist, and in fact I'm undecided on that matter. I have expressed an opinion on the validity of the AfD close. That is what DRV is for. Why don't you calmly explain why you feel the original AfD close was correct (assuming that is how you feel) rather than going on the attack? We can have different opinions about things and still be respectful and pleasant to each other. Thparkth (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. It's your job to explain to why the AFD decision -- process-wise, not AFD, Part 2 -- was incorrect, and all you have is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Calton | Talk 06:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already explained why I believe the AFD decision - process-wise - was incorrect, five bullet points above this one. This is nothing to do with what I just don't like. I have no involvement with the article and did not participate in the AfD. Thparkth (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And, again, your argument boils down to the AFD not reaching
the decision you wanted a different decision, and since the DRV did not void that result, the result should be voided. And again, it's not my role to argue if a decision was incorrect, it's yours to argue it was incorrect. --Calton | Talk 06:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus. There was no genuine consensus in the initial AFD, and the central reason advanced for deletion -- "no notability independent of the show" -- is not based in policy or guideline, and is inconsistent with established practice. If this actually represented consensus, we'd be emptying categories like "Saturday Night Live" sketches, to say noting of deleting things like President Obama on Death of Osama bin Laden (SPOOF). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you're going to have provide some evidence of that assertion to counter the interpretation of a group decision. --Calton | Talk 06:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Close with no action and trouts all around. Someone tell me how this isn't an end-run around the consensus of the previous DRV. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Point of information - the previous DRV did not reach a consensus. Thparkth (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn The original afd showed no consensus to delete or to merge, and the close was therefore unjustified. (I !voted delete at the afd, but I do not think my view had consensus). DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist. I am the person who opened the original AfD, and I will state that I did not care on how the original AfD went. I will also state that I am very unsatisfied with the merge done with Tobacco to LWT. I would rather have the episode (not just Jeff, but the segment as a whole) on its own page than what is currently on the LWT page. Either that or fix the merge, though I would prefer the Tobacco segment having its own page. I wouldn't be opposed to articles on other notable segments as well, to be honest. Prhdbt [talk] 20:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I implore everybody who takes part in these kinds of discussions to be more explicit about what they want. I've made a couple of attempts to close this, and I'm still not sure what the original request is asking. I see people arguing to overturn deletion, when there doesn't appear to be a deleted article. And, then I'm reading !votes like, Restore original title as protected redirect, delete new title completely. I haven't yet figured out what the original title and new title are supposed to be. Between the various renames, redirects, and an AfD asking to not delete an article, I'm lost. Please have pity on us poor admins. We're janitors, not mind readers. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the approximate timeline as I understand it. I think this is uncontroversial....
- So, as I understand it, no one has reqeusted the restoration of any specific article. Instead, the issue is whether it is permissible to create a stand-alone article, under any name, covering this topic. The only reason why it wouldn't be permissible is the original AfD (no other discussion of this topic has ever reached consensus) so this review has been primarily about the reliablity of that AfD closure.
- If the result of this review is to endorse the original AfD, then a stand-alone article on this topic will remain unacceptable. If the result is to overturn that AfD result, then a standalone article can be created.
- Thparkth (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
