- Johny Messo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Can someone take a look at the closure, because (1) it was done while improvements of the article were still going on, and (2) the closure was to delete, but there was no clear consensus on the outcome: two users voted to keep (Sorabino and Gidonb), while user (SportingFlyer) voted to delete, thus agreeing with the nominator (Buidhe). Another user (Bearian) initially also voted to delete, but after seeing some improvements pointed to selective merger as an option. One more user (Styyx) just commented, by providing several useful links to sources that could be added. I contacted the closer (Spartaz) directly (here) and asked them to reconsider closure, and relist discussion for another week, but he declined, unfortunately. I also contacted other participants in the discussion, regardless of the way they voted. I hope that this article will be relisted, since there are many sources to be added. The person in question is a politician and author, who is president (since 2009) of the World Council of Arameans, an international umbrella organization of the Aramean people in diaspora. Sorabino (talk) 08:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The AFD was open for over two weeks, and the sources were provided, assessed, and found wanting. Whilst the numbers on each side were relatively closely balanced, the keep side just kept saying "more sources must exist" without actually coming up with them. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC) Change to strong endorse because of excessive badgering by the nominator. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Referenced content was added daily to the article, look at the edits history, and much more is there to add, particularly when it comes to involvement of this politician with organizations such as UN, EU, Council of Europe, ministerial and ambassadorial meetings and conferences on themes related to Arameans and other Christian communities throughout Near East. Sorabino (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Stifle, compare the state of the article as it was when proposed for deletion, and its state at closure. You will see that it was completely rewritten. I hope that you can actually see the article? Sorabino (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have taken all of the above into account. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Stifle, but did you actually take a look at the article, and checked the edit history? I am asking because your initial comments imply that allmoast nothing was added, and that is not true. Do you think that this person is notable enough to have an article? Sorabino (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I have taken all the above into account. Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I just wanted to emphasize that it feels awkward to discuss an article that can′t be seen. Sorabino (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Visibility of the article. Can someone restore the visibility of the article, just temporarily, during the course of this review process, so that all users can see the content of the article and its edit history? Sorabino (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hobit, thank you for mentioning Google cache, text of this article can still be seen here: Johny Messo, but edit history is not accessible there. Sorabino (talk) 06:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I just used the Google cache of the article. I'm leaning toward an endorse here, but would like to see what sources the nom (or others) believes counts toward WP:N. I'm seeing a lot of published works but nothing that really covers this person. Hobit (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hobit, the question of Wikipedia:Notability is the most important issue here. As stated above, this person is president (since 2009) of the World Council of Arameans (WCA), an international umbrella organization of the Aramean people. Someone might ask: Yes, but does that constitute notability? Well, the organization he presides (WCA) has the same representative significance for the Aramean people as, for example, the World Jewish Congress has for the Jewish people worldwide. Of course, WCA is a much smaller and less prominent organization, but it special significance for the Aramean community worldwide stems from the fact that Arameans are a stateless people, that is still fighting for the recognition of basic minority rights. As president of WCA, this person had prominent role in those efforts. As said above, there are many additional sources and reports on his involvement with organizations such as UN, EU, Council of Europe, ministerial and ambassadorial meetings and conferences on themes related to Arameans and other Christian communities throughout Near East. Recently, Israel became the the first country of the Middle East that officially recognized Aramean minority (2014). WCA and its president had prominent role in those efforts. Those are events of historical importance for the Aramean people. When it comes to subjects related to stateless peoples, minority groups, their organizations and prominent representatives, we should show special sensitivity, particularly when we are dealing with those who are currently active, like this person. If he is relevant enough for key international organizations and foreign governments, as president of WCA and representative of Aramean people, than we should not deny that relevance by deleting this article. In any case, total deletion would be highly inapropriate, and that radical outcome certanly did not gain majority support during discussion. At least, if relisting is not granted here, "Johny Messo" should be turned into a redirect pointing to WCA article, thus allowing future developments. And just to be clear: as someone who got interested in this article only after the deletion proposal was initiated, I am not proposing that alternative solution (redirect as alternative to deletion) in order to wait some time and then restore the article. And one more remark, just to be clear I am not an Aramean, or an activist. I am just generally opposed to deleting articles on minority organizations, their outlets and representatives, as I demonstrated in several discussions on similar topics. Sorabino (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Temporarily restored to facilitate the DRV. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Stifle, thanks but can you temporarily restore the full visibility of the article? Sorabino (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorabino No. That will only happen if this discussion overturns the deletion decision. Stifle (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You can see the full article (and all previous versions) with the "View History" tab towards the top right of the page. WilyD 23:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- On a quick review, I’m leaning endorse. Maybe it should have been a redirect to World Council of Arameans (Syriacs). That article is currently at AfD, but is heading towards a “keep”, with possible rename. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- SmokeyJoe, it seems that closure was done in a haste: within a single hour, from this to this action, the same user closed more than twenty discussions in a row, thus investing less than three minutes per discussion. At that speed, oversights are inevitable, particularly with complex discussions, since it is hardly possible to read and analyze a complex discussion, look at the article in question, and perform technicalities of a closure, all within three minutes, and that much time was spent on this discussion, that was last in that row. Also, in a related discussion (World Council of Arameans) there were three votes to keep and none to delete, but the same closer decided to relist. That is not wrong, but with such liberal application of closing criteria maybe he should have relisted this discussion too. Sorabino (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What a lack of good faith. This is one of our most experienced deletion discussion closers. Closing a discussion is not rocket science, this was neither a particularly long nor complex discussion, and a quick look at the other closes you discuss show most of them were what I'd consider "easily" closed. SportingFlyer T·C 00:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- SportingFlyer, lack of good faith by whom? Sorabino (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be you. Spartaz Humbug! 14:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- [Placeholder for long unnecessary bludgeoning response]
- Overturn to No Consenstus - There were enough Keep statements, and the Keep statements were sufficiently persuasive, that the closer should have either explained why they were discounting them, or Relisted a second time, or closed as No Consensus. The close appears to ignore the Keep statements, and that is an error by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to No Consensus - Precisely for the reasons stated by Robert McClenon above. I was unpleasantly surprised that my opinion, based on source research, was discounted by the closer versus other opinions. Possibly this was for not arguing which makes things only worse. I ask closers to be respectful of the participants in AfD discussions and patient enough to relist when there is no consensus. As Sorabino points out, this was relisted only once. gidonb (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I further agree with Sorabino that, for strongly related discussions, the combination of the decision to close as delete where the opinions were equally mixed and valid and the decision to relist where there was 100% consensus to keep is problematic. I assume good faith and would like to think that this is an unfortunate coincidence but I can see how Sorabino, who comes across to me as passionate about this very topic, is "p*ssed". I found this in the NL queue, examined the sources and am otherwise not involved. I only want to be treated fairly and wish to treat others fairly, including very much the closer. gidonb (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Gidonb, I also had no interest for those articles, prior to the initiation of delete proposals, but when I saw that they were nominated at the same time, I became quite interested to see why would anyone want to remove an article on WCA and its president, since WCA is not only a representative organization of an entire stateless nation, but also an organization with consultative status at the United Nations, since 1999. I tried to improve those articles by adding referenced content, but much more could be added to both articles, and that is why I hope that some productive solution can be found, other than complete deletion. Sorabino (talk) 05:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorabino, thank you for clarifying! For sure, one can become passionate about a topic also by referencing and expanding articles that one happens to stumble upon. It happened to me more than once. I found Johny Messo in the Dutch queue and the World Council of Arameans (Syriacs) when I looked into merge options. gidonb (talk) 05:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Gidonb, that is exactly the case. Since recently, I became interested in articles on minorities, particularly those of the Middle East, but those two articles (JM and WCA) were out of my scope. I also noticed that some other articles (related not to modern Arameans, but to modern Assyrians) were recently nominated for deletion. I tried to improve those articles too, and opposed deletion. I am mentioning all that because I realized that there are not many active editors from those communities, and the rest of us sometimes forget that articles on various minority subjects should be treated with additional sensitivity. Deletion should always be the last option. Sorabino (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - as noted, I don't have strong feeling, and I think a selective merge would probably be the first choice for me. I was canvassed on my talk page, and I stated am not at all surprised this was deleted, but I don't see a strong consensus on what to do. Bearian (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearian, thanks for clarifying your position on the article in question. As stated above, I contacted the closer and all participants in that discussion (not just you) during the interval between the closure and initiation of this review process, in order to resolve this directly, as guidelines recommend. How would that be canvasing? Sorabino (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. While a little bit of justification in the close might have prevented some of this drama, the close clearly was within discretion. --Randykitty (talk) 09:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- In case its not clear, I already explained my reasoning to the drv initiator here. Spartaz Humbug! 09:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I know, I just mean that it would have been helpful if you had done that in the close. Having said that, I probably wouldn't have acted differently if I had closed that AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Randykitty, why are you labeling this discussion as "drama"? My proposal here is the most simplest one: relisting for another week, so that some further improvements can be made in the article, and also hoping that a clearer consensus could be reached, whatever that may be. Sorabino (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- After checking the sources and reweighting the contributions in line with policy and guidelines, I agree with the closer that there was a rough consensus to delete. I agree that "no consensus" would also have been within discretion, but of the two, I would prefer the "delete" close as more reflective of the community's view.—S Marshall T/C 13:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- S Marshall, could you please look again, because only one user in that discussion supported the nominator, while two were for keep, and the fifth user (Bearian) clarified here (above) that his first option would be to merge (he amended his initial delete vote, already during discussion). Such division of votes hardly constitutes any consensus on the matter. Sorabino (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have done so, and the outcome was the same. The keep votes are of very little merit, while the deletes were firmly grounded in policy.—S Marshall T/C 01:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- S Marshall, the question here is whether the complete deletion was justified as the outcome, thus disregarding the possible relist or merge options, and not leaving even a redirect to article on the organization (World Council of Arameans). Sorabino (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse The !votes to keep were weak, with very little that indicated how this meets our inclusion guidelines. gidonb states that the GNG is met, but with no sense of what sources count. Sorabino mentions adding sources, but no one has really listed specific sources. And looking at the article nothing looks to be in-depth and independent about this person. To be clear, I'd also have endorsed an NC reading, but I think delete is quite reasonable. And to be even more clear, a move to a draft would be perfectly reasonable. Hobit (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hobit, if move to a draft would allow improvements of the article, that would be a good solution to. Sorabino (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist . There's enough disagreement above that a relisting of the AfD would seem the appropriate course.. I'm not sure how I would !vote on the AfD. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC) .[reply]
- Comment. AfD for World Council of Arameans (Syriacs) was closed today as keep. There were no votes in favor of the delete proposal. Now, when that outcome is known, one of possible solutions for Johny Messo is to merge it (selectively) with World Council of Arameans (Syriacs), leaving it as redirect, with its fully preserved edit history. That would be a compromise solution, and it would reflect more fairly the division of votes between delete and keep options. Relisting would still be my preferred option, but if that is not granted here, at least a redirect should be kept, as mentioned above. Sorabino (talk) 08:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note for the reviewer. Unfortunately, it seems that there might be a wider issue here. I understand that no closer is thrilled by their closures being challenged, but that should not affect their attitude towards other issues. Few days ago, I approached the same closer (Spartaz) in relation to his premature closure of AfD for Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies, directly related to the ongoing AfD discussion on Assyrian Academic Society. In spite of being engaged in resolving those issues, he decided to take the role of closer in the second AfD too, and made a decision to relist. In that discussion, only two users supported the nominator, while five voted to keep. I asked (here) user Spartaz to revert his relisting of AfD for Assyrian Academic Society, and allow an uninvolved editor to make a decision on that AfD. There are some other issues related to both of those AfD discussions, but they are out of scope of this review. Sorabino (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy you are looking for is INVOLVED and raising a DRV or making allegations suggesting bad faith on my part does not make me involved. Indeed, I’m so offended by the review of my close that I even haven’t bothered to vote, and, if you look through the archives I’m brought to DRV a lot because I close out the discussions that are hanging around, meaning that they are not easy or likely to be disputed. None of which gives me a reason to have any kind of agenda at all towards you - especially as the clear consensus of this discussion will be to endorse and DRV is historically more likely to find against me than for me. What I have found over the years is that users tend to project how they would react to things on how they believe other editors are reacting, which means your allegations of bad faith and revenge on my part say more about you then me. I would relax if I were you, I dealt with real trolls and really bad actors on wikipedia and nothing you have done so far gets anywhere close to what I would consider annoying. Indeed, compared to some, even your walls of text which have annoyed some users here are elegant instruments of brevity. If you really want to get my comduct looked at ANI is your venue not DRV - but good luck with that. Spartaz Humbug! 09:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Spartaz, the tone of your response says it all. Those two AfD were directly connected, and your closure of the first was challenged, pending the outcome of the other, thus making you a directly interested party, but yet you decided to act as a closer for the other AfD too, favoring the option that would justify your decision on the first AfD. It is crystal clear what your motivation was. Please, revert your decision on the second AfD and allow an uninvolved and impartial user to make the calls in the case of the Assyrian Academic Society, that is so far a solid keep. Your demonstrated disregard for the five keep votes, while two delete votes were self-defined as "week delete" anyway. How would such structure of votes justify the relisting? Sorabino (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing a discussion is an admin action and someone challenging that does not make you involved from future admin actions involving that person - otherwise trolls would successfully get admins willing to stand up to them removed from dealing with them.
- Every article I relisted was done so as part of closing off a whole (or part) of a day's discussions that were more than 24 hours late for closure. That's what I do.
- Relisting for a better discussion that actually talks about sources is standard for me. Check my contribs. Its not out of context with other recent relists
- You should try to get over yourself. I take this tone with everyone. Even people who are nice to me. Spartaz Humbug! 16:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Spartaz, your responses to those problems are quite surprising. This is not a personal issue. Those two AfD were directly connected by the very nature of the articles in question, since the Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies was published by the Assyrian Academic Society, and from the very initiation of those discussions a possible merge was proposed and supported by several users, whose views you disregarded, and on that point your closure was challenged. Therefore, you should have left to some other, uninvolved closer to make decisions on the second AfD, since you have a direct interest in the outcome. Sorabino (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|
