Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 27

Lynn valley elementary – Deletion overturned; listed at AfD. W. Marsh and Trialsanderrors had an interesting (if unfortunately testy) exchange going. In my experience, each of their different interpretations of CSD A1 is logically viable, and the issue has never been -- and probably never could be -- definitely decided by consensus one way or the other as a universal principle. However, applications of CSD A1 are made to individual articles according to the judgment of consensus in each particular case. In this particular case, consensus judges that CSD A1 does not apply, and all agree the original CSD A7 reason was clearly inappropriate. Hence, the result -- but a universal rule on CSD A1 cannot be distilled from the debate below (or any debate anywhere that I know of.) – Xoloz (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

page was deleted about 90 minutes after the nomination was posted at AfD. Closing admin gave as the reason that the speedy-delete tag was on the article. AfD discussion process should trump speedy deletion process if an article is in both. Otherwise we're wasting the time of editors taking part in discussions. I was one of two editors who contacted the closing admin with the same complaint on this decision. AfD should be relisted. Noroton (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood what happened. The AFD was closed because the article had already been speedy deleted. Speedy deletion during AFD is routine, several happen every day, and is intended to avoid pointless discussion. I see no assertion of significance or importance in the article. However, WP:CSD#A7 explicitly excludes deletion of schools because deletion of schools is controversial. Accordingly, the article should be restored and relisted, but the most likely outcome is to merge to a school district or local government unit article. GRBerry 21:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is only pointless if you've already made up your mind on the article. I understand that the speedy-delete tag was already on the article when it was nominated for deletion, but I consider that irrelevant: Once the AfD process starts, it should be allowed to continue under AfD procedures. The language at WP:CSD#A7 was changed to include schools after this article was speedy deleted, so technically it doesn't apply. Nevertheless, the additional language to the rule gives another reason to relist this. Noroton (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn & relist although I believe the AfD would have resulted in a delete result, I still think it should be relisted as I don't believe schools have ever really come under the speedy delete criterion. RMHED (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn A7 doesn't apply to schools. There's no consensus for that, A7 is intended only for uncontroversial deletions. --W.marsh 01:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Schools have been specifically excepted from A7. BlueValour (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse While the A7 was invalid, it's clear to me the correct end outcome has ensued in this particular case (we're even looking at a violation of Geogre's Law here). Per WP:IAR, let's not follow process over clear common sense - it's a waste of editors' time. Orderinchaos 10:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist or just merge. Since there is a real possibility that the outcome of a school AFD is "merge", there are no snowballs to burn in hell here, so no IAR-ing here. Not an A7 candidate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no article If the article is shorter than the DRV nomination and in the wrong spot (unless the school eschews capitals) A1 applies. Just write an article under the correct name. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No... A1 applies if there is so little context that a reader can't figure out what the article was about, which wasn't the case here, as the article said "Lynn Valley Elementary is a public school in the Lynn Valley district of North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada". People have bent over backwards for years to explain A1 is about a lack of any usable context, not just articles that are "too short". This article was 2 sentences but in another DRV we have someone claiming 3 paragraphs is short enough for A1... once you make length the criteria, people quickly get very arbitrary and make bad deletions with it. --W.marsh 15:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My standard on A1 is very simple: If for a reasonable editor the time to create a feasible new article is less than the time it takes to start a deletion discussion, A1 is applicable. This case here is not even borderline. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well you shouldn't be claiming it's A1 then, it's just your own rule that's not backed up by policy. --W.marsh 15:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh, it is. How loosely or narrowly to interpret each criterion of our speedy deletion rules is up to each editor. That's why we have deletion discussions and don't leave deletions to bots. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No... A1 says "Very short articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article". You say "nevermind that, it should take at least several minutes to write". Those are not the same at all. There's no way you couldn't identify what the article was about, based on the text that was deleted. That's all A1 requires. --W.marsh 16:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Last time I checked trialsanderrors's brain wasn't operated by W.marsh, so please don't state for me what I can or can't identify based on what. I find my proximate rule to determine when sufficient context is established perfectly apt both in general and in this particular case. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So you couldn't tell that Lynn Valley Elementary was a school in North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada based on the sentence "Lynn Valley Elementary is a public school in the Lynn Valley district of North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada"? I think you want much more than mere identification, but that was never the intent of A1. --W.marsh 16:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, but "Albert Einstein was a patent clerk in Berne, Switzerland" doesn't identify Albert Einstein either. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So... your contention is that merely being a school isn't a claim of notability then, just as being a patent clerk isn't? A7 applies to people but not to schools, has been explained. We're back to square one. --W.marsh 16:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not arguing A7. Your argument is that X is a school in Y identifies X, but it really just establishes that X is a member of set (schools in Y). That's classification, not identification, a much less stringent requirement. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Then we're arguing semantics. I don't think we're going to persuade eachother here... but your concept of A1 (which apparently involves guessing how long it took someone to write the article) is not backed up by consensus or policy. I say you'd get overturned at DRV quite often, trying to apply that. --W.marsh 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No, we're not arguing semantics. We're arguing on how much effort we can expect the individual editor to exert before they can burden the community with their complaints. I don't claim to express a consensus opinion, but I claim to express an opinion that's a viable interpretation of policy. If you diagree, knock yourself out. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I only expect the editor to provide meaningful content (context, in this case) towards a good article on the subject, which is the point of CSD, rather than just arbitrarily punishing people for not working as hard as we deem they should have. As for that AFD, it would seem purely procedural to object to your poor deletion rationale, as consensus seems to have been that the article was a hoax. --W.marsh 17:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I like my deletion rationale just fine, but I certainly invite you to monitor my usage of it. Your depiction of my argument as "arbitrarily punishing people for not working as hard as they should" is complete dumbfuck of course, and it seems like we've reached the end of a meaningful discussion. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, someone feeling the need to use the word "dumbfuck" usually means that meaningful discussion is at an end. --W.marsh 17:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist Schools are specifically excluded from the A7 speedy criteria and there was enough context for me to tell what the article was about and where school was located. As Sjakkalle says a merge is sometimes a possibility with schools. Davewild (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for god's sake just write an article if you don't want to endorse this deletion, the entire content deleted was "Lynn Valley Elementary is a public school in the Lynn Valley district of North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada", how many pages of verbiage and pointless bureaucracy-wrangling can we indulge in over that one sentence? Here's the school's website: [1]. Here's a redlink: Lynn Valley Elementary School. Here are some other Elementary School articles that may serve as a model: Category:Elementary schools in British Columbia. Please don't waste any more time arguing over it, if you care, go and create something. --Stormie (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was the bad deletion that made this necessary. The solution is to not make more deletions that have no basis in policy. --W.marsh 20:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per WP:IAR, as Orderinchaos said. I agree with Stormie that, if anyone really wants an article on this subject, they should just write one. It would be pointless to send this to an AfD that it is almost certain to fail. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn , the reason for carrying articles like this to Deletion Review is to impress it on admins in general that they need to follow policy as it is written. . DGG (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Schools are exempted from A7, so the speedy deletion was improper and the AfD should have been allowed to continue. Though the school doesn't seem notable to me, its article did not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. DGG and W.marsh are right that we should go through this process to discourage people from making invalid deletions. I have no objection to a relist at AfD. --Hut 8.5 14:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per DGG and W. marsh. I hate these one-line school articles, and most elementary school articles, but one-liners are generally of value to the encyclopedia. Consider, for example, that unregistered users can expand a one-liner but not create a new article. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 19:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist Not a very good article, but not a good speedy either. I agree with DGG - the reason for DRV is not just to restore the content, but to give admins feedback on their actions and (hopefully) encourage them to make better calls in future. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist on policy reasons only. This is a pretty obviously a waste of time, and I like the idea of WP:IAR to save a pointless debate, but if people want to tangle themselves in red-tape, let them. We'll just make everybody happier by deleting it again five days from now. Reso lute 17:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Dwellers of the Forbidden City – Deletion overturned to "no consensus" by substantial margin; no relisting required. The consensus is that, while the closer made good arguments, they were solely his own, and unsupported by the debate; they belonged within the debate, not as the close of it. – Xoloz (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Reason by closing admin for deletion is that while notability exists within the specific topic, notability does not exist outside it. I am not aware of any policy that an article must be notable outside its specific subject to be worthy of an article. This deletion needs further discussion. --Polaron | Talk 18:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn ~~and Restore~~ - The closing Admin brought up many, many good points, but all of those could be used to improve the article. Quite a bit of work went into trying to bring the article up to standards, had it not been for the Christmas break I know I could have done a lot more myself. Plus I believe that the original nomination was brought about in clear misunderstanding of policy of how AfDs work. Web Warlock (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

minor edit in my vote. Web Warlock (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Closing admin introduces a new, non policy based requirement and deletes based on it. Nowhere in policy or guidelines do we state that coverage has to be from outside the genre. If that were the case movie reviews would not help show movies notable, book reviews would not help show book reviews notable, et cetera. In fact, this purported requirement directly contradicts the general guidelines and community requirement. Since the closer's logic fundamentally relies on this rule which contradicts the community standards, the closer's logic does not hold up to examination. The proper closure for this AFD is somewhere between keep and no consensus. As both result in keeping, and a relisting is unlikely to improve matters, we should overturn without relisting. GRBerry 21:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by closer The basis of the close was that there is one cite evidenced showing any relationship to notability. Only one. The claim to notability is finishing #13 on a list. We don't know the significance of #13 on that list - if it's meaningful or easy to achieve. So we have a notability problem. We prefer multiple sources; we have only one, and that one although credible and the like, lists it as an ambiguous "13". Is that exceptional? mundane? in its field? We have no editorial comment, no "significant coverage" otherwise, nothing to indicate the world has taken specific interest in the sense WP:N anticipates (every product gets "new launch reviews", these don't evidence notability and this game's launch reviews were evidenced average+). We need significant interest - but have no editorials on this game, no articles on it, no discussions about it. Not one was given at the article, not one at AFD. For all that was cited this product was launched and then never discussed again, save for one numeric ranking of ambiguous significance. That is why it was closed as delete. the cites provided don't presently meet WP:N (although possibly others may exist). The comment referred to, is being currently discussed in email, it is agreed ambiguously worded. But it wasn't the basis of the close, nor a "new proposal" (many items are not much referenced outside their field) but an observation on the minimal evidence provided. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason you can claim "one cite evidenced showing any relationship to notability" is because you are massively wrong on what is relevant to notability. Most of the other cites were in fact relevant, and your blatant error on this is the reason that the close needs to be overturned. All of the reviews are evidence of notability by the community standards as documented in multiple guidelines. GRBerry 02:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The purpose of sources is to evidence notability. Sources that merely rate a product on release, which every product has almost, are indiscriminate. It could be the most routine, the most non-notable almost, and someone will have reviewed it. See software reviews, where "it's been reviewed" is not alone, evidence of notability for software. The item has cites showing average reviews existed on launch. Everything gets those. Routine press releases, rpoduct reviews, brief launch interest, etc, do not indicate "notability" even if noted in reliable sources... because they are indiscriminate and do not speak to notice being taken beyond the brief, or paid-for, or routine non-discriminatory kind. Where are the reviews evidenced, which gave discriminating attention in the sense of "significant coverage" (WP:N) - ie, articles addressing this specific game or testifying to its standing, to get beyond "Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information"? We have one only, and that one all we have heard is one rating, that's of uncertain significance, not one thing more. If you could confirm which cites you are using to evidence that "reliable sources" have taken "significant notice" and given it "significant coverage", that's what was missing at AFD (as I said). We need those. If they were not noted by mistake, can you note them now? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure Closing admin seems to have given careful consideration to the different factors to weigh up as well as policy considerations, and article is now a redirect to a section in an appropriate article. Orderinchaos 10:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per GRBerry. Also, as long as the arguments given are reasonable, they should not be lightly discounted. Reasonable balance between reasonable arguments on either side of the debate is no consensus territory, and arguments provided by the delete side such as the article being a game guide, was simply incorrect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There was clearly no consensus to delete this article. Reading the AfD discussion will make that apparent immediately. Rray (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per GRBerry and Sjakkalle. I find it troubling that an ArbCom member not only has such poor grasp of deletion policy but also completely misunderstands WP:POINT. The article contained a claim to notability ("N^th best of all time") which was both independently sourced and considered sufficient by the majority, so it is not up to the closer to disenfranchise the community and insert his/her opinion. While it is certainly unusual for an author to submit their own articles for deletion, there is no reason to consider this disruptive. Querying the community on the validity of a class of articles ("ranked D&D roleplaying scenarios") might keep the author from creating a lot content that would later be deleted. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What of the other 82 articles in Category:Dungeons & Dragons modules? Clicking on a few random ones, they are all far poorer than this article was at the time of its deletion. --Stormie (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn; "we don't know how many games of genuine credibility were rated" is absurd; it's List of Dungeons & Dragons modules with some of earlier elements of List of Dungeons & Dragons adventures. Even if it weren't a list in Wikipedia, there are people to whom the answer would be obvious, so don't say "we" don't know. More per Sjakkalle.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't know that. It's not stated, but (at AFD) mere assumption. There's no link or cite at AFD to confirm this. I see none. "There are people to whom it is obvious" is envelope pushing at WP:OR. Notability relies on sources, not editor's own views. No sources were provided to this information, nor any second source which is preferable. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a cite, the obvious cite; surely the article itself tells you out of what pool they selected the 30. We have a source, an article that places this as the 13th best D&D adventure of all time. It is up to the editors to decide whether or not that is a notable claim; no source can decide that for us.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oveturn as no consensus. Looking at the AfD, it doesn't appear that either the keep or delete points are that much better, and there are plenty of !votes for both. Original nomination violates WP:POINT as well, so I don't think it should be relisted very soon. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as no consensus If there is anything clear about articles like this, it is that there is no consensus about how to handle them. The closer very precisely attempted to lay out his own framework for deciding this, but he has no right to do so. His job was only to determine what the consensus was. The discretion given is to determine which of the arguments are so unrelated to policy or so unsupported as not to be worth considering. I admire his courage in trying to settle the issue, but he should be arguing the matter, not deciding on it. If he has a position on which arguments are the better, the place to do it is not join in the AfD and argue the point--he might well convince us there. The closer of an afd is taking making a judgment on what the community thinks about the applicable policy, not saying what he things the applicable policy should be. How right or wrong he may be about what the policy ought to be is totally irrelevant. This is especially evident when, as here, he introduces a completely to policy into the discussion--it may or may not be a good policy, but the place to do it is WP:N on WP:VP. If he has a new suggestion for a policy to deal with disputed articles of borderline notability, we should discuss it--he should not develop it and then announce it to us as a conclusion. I agree with others there is no point in relisting it until there is some consensus about how to handle such articles.
I consider this different from the fiction articles I usually support; it is not about an episode, or about a character, or setting, but about a related sub-fiction, with some aspects in common with episodes. It had much more of the conventional real-world information than the typical episode article. I am sufficiently neutral about this particular article not to have joined in the debate, but you didn't see me trying to close it according to what I personally thought the strongest position--and make a general conclusion about all articles of this type and develop a new policy in order to resolve the disputes over similar articles and many other types of articles in addition. And then saying I was not trying to set a precedent, when the AfD was specifically set forth as a test case. DGG (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; if he had argued it in the AfD, the issue about what #13th really meant would have come up, and could have been answered. As it was, it was deleted in part because the closer didn't know what that meant, despite the fact there were probably several people there who could have told him. That's bad.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closers comments:

I feel a large part of the above is based on misunderstanding of a complex close. Probably complicated by my attempt to note a side-observation that has been taken in a way I didn't mean.

AFD is an unusual type of debate. Its intent is to highlight evidence, not count views, unless the views are for equally tenable policy based possibilities:
"Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, [or] are based on opinion rather than fact ... are frequently discounted" Deletion guidelines for administrators

That is pure traditional practice and norms. We count strength of argument, not !votes. The AFD included a majority who considered the article should be kept as notable in large reliance upon two unexceptional launch reviews. But "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection", and WP:N consensus is that coverage with low levels of discrimination are not likely to be evidence of notability. Every product almost, from remarked upon to trivial, can produce at will one or two launch reviews, so launch reviews per se are often not evidence. So we have a case where many keeps were reliant upon the fallacious logic "Cite X shows notability => keep" where in fact cite X does not appear to show notability, as several opinions pointed out. On examination of evidence presented, the latter seem to be more likely to be right as a matter of communal consensus on the approach to "notability". So per WP:DGFA keep views must show their validity and that the topic is notable, but cannot rely on sources that don't actually speak to notability, to claim notability exists. Of the 3 cites found, two are startup reviews. Effectively, strike out all but one cite, for pure policy and norm reasons.
To correct one comment above, it would not have mattered if "there were probably several people there who could have told him" (WP:OR). Editors opinion cannot evidence anything at AFD. If a friend tells you an item he owns is rated #13 in its field in some reputable chart, does that evidence anything? Well, maybe and maybe not. There are many topics where #13 is non-notable, and many where it is. But their word on what it means is purely their own interpretation of it - original research. That is why alone, the mere fact of it, as stated in the one useful cite given, was not enough.
AFD unfortunately does not support "lets create a precedent case", as a rule. That's documented over, and over again enough that that is a precedent (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST). Some common outcomes exist, but they are comparatively few. Noting that an attempt to "force" a test case achieves no such thing, seems an important piece of information to tell the nominator, I think. The case gets closed as a case; it is unlikely to set a precedent (as most cases do not, nominator's intent notwithstanding); it is simply closed as a usual AFD.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors' opinions can't evidence anything at AFD? That's absurd; the only difference between topics where #13 is non-notable and topics where #13 is notable is opinion. WP:OR does not support your conclusion at all; it says "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought.", not "Wikipedia doesn't use original thought to conclude what's encyclopedic or not." Even without that, editors could have attested to the factual matter of what the cite said; it's absurd to use your lack of knowledge about a matter as a reason to delete, without asking the people who had the paper cite what it said or reading it yourself.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's correct though, if you think about it. It's possible to be #13 in some lists, and still not have attention from the world (and thus be non-notable) - and if that's the case no amount of opinion might make such a topic notable. The test for notability is roughly intended to identify whether the real world (or some independent part of it) is evidenced as having deemed it worthy of especial (or "not indiscriminate") attention. If they have, it's often likely we should as well (hence the word "presumption"). See WP:N. So here is an item, and we can agree it's got a rating of #13 in its subgenre of "modules for D&D" (which is a fairly narrow subgenre)... where is any indication at AFD that the world has paid it attention? If it was deemed "worthy of notice" in the eyes of even just the game-playing world, where is a single article, significant discussion, or significant mention of it, beyond a numeric rating "#13" and being reviewed on release (like everything else ever produced was). Coverage doesn't have to be online (and it may well not be), but that is what's needed to establish notability, as stated at close. Not one party to AFD provided actual fact and evidence beyond this, and opinion does not override deletion guidelines to this extent, which have long standing communal assent and specifically state that we look at argument and policy, not head-count. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn the delete arguments are hardly compelling such as "This is a non-notable, game-guide bit of cruft and there are dozens more where it came from." Tim! (talk) 08:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn with strong condemnation for the pointyness of the nomination. The closer makes an excellent analysis, but it is an analysis that should be a comment in the debate itself, not in closing it. The closer's role is to determine consensus. This does not mean counting heads, but it does not mean simply deciding which side they agree with either. The closer is entitled to discard arguments which are incorrect in principle (for example based on being useful), but not those which merely arrive at a different conclusion in a matter of opinion and judgement, such as (in this case) whether a source meets the requirements of WP:N. David Mestel^(Talk) 23:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Template:Memory Alpha – Deletion overturned; without impugning the closer, there is consensus here that the the question raised by Phil Sandifer's argument remains open. Suggestions to take the issue to a wider forum (like Centralized Discussions) are well-taken. For this reason, relisting of the template is by editorial option. – Xoloz (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Discussion showed no consensus to delete. Closing administrator's close reads like somebody who came to the discussion after a week and decided that they could use their admin vote to close it to their preferred outcome instead of participating in or acknowledging the discussion. Furthermore, there are numerous cases where we have multiple styles of templates and links for one purpose, making the closing reason nonsensical at best. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deleteion - most of the keep votes were "per Phil" and Phil's argument is based on precedent and the supposed vested interest in promoting other free-content sites. Precedent is important but not binding and there is no reason why the more widely-used template can't serve the promotional interest without this duplicative template. Given that the majority of the keep !votes were based on this non-compelling rationale, discounting all of the "keep per Phil" responses is appropriate. Otto4711 (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am deeply curious how fulfilling something that is intrinsic to the mission of the site - the creation of free content - is a non-compelling rationale, and am further skeptical of any argument that amounts to "Discount votes I disagree with." I certainly do not see a prima faciae reason for discarding those votes. Perhapse I'm missing something - what line exists between this argument and the argument "Discard all votes I disagree with?" Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am curious as to how this template contributed to the creation of free content. Linking one wiki to another doesn't mean that any content will be created on either wiki. Also curious as to how the existing and more widely-used template doesn't serve the purpose you're claiming for this template. As for discounting "me too" opinions, TFD is not a vote. A lot of people's agreeing with a poor argument doesn't make the argument stronger and a closing admin is absolutely correct to discount "me too" arguments in determining consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's rather counter-intuitive - if somebody's argument persuades people, that does say something for the applicability and validity of the argument. It is not necessarily the end of the discussion, but me-too votes are hardly discountable either. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not to be rude, but if the original argument is crap, then "I agree with the crap argument" with no further argumentation is crap. Otto4711 (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, but I fail to see what elevates the argument from one you disagree with to crap. I'm all about striking prima faciae nonsense arguments, but I have a hard time seeing what about my argument is prima faciae nonsense. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Your argument is (paraphrasing) "other similar templates have been kept" and "this helps us fulfill our mission." Precedent isn't binding so the first part of your argument doesn't matter. Another more widely used template exists so the second part of your argument doesn't matter. Otto4711 (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes. I get that you disagree. But that does not amount to prima faciae reason for rejection. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, clearly all you're going to do here is keep saying "I get you disagree" over and over again as if that's the actual content of my comment, so there appears to be little point in my continuing to engage. Otto4711 (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        This does little to make me think your comment amounts to much more than a decision that only viewpoints you agree with count in deletion discussions. Complete rejection of all comments expressing a viewpoint is a measure for comments that clearly bear no relationship to the discussion or to basic policy. That does not describe this case. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Looking at the TfD, I believe the closing admin made the right call. Besides, there's very little reason to keep a redundant template.--UsaSatsui (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - There is a key point that seems to have been missed by some in the discussion. That User:Phirazo orphaned (removed from pages) the template nominated (before nominating), replacing it with another template. Several in the discussion (including the nominator) stated something akin to: "Why keep it, it doesn't link to anything". Sounds too much like an attempt at Fait accompli to me. - jc37 00:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't answer the question of why a redundant template should be kept. I don't see how that's relevant. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that's true, then let's keep the older template and nominate the new one for discussion. There is no reason to prefer one over the other except aesthetics. My main concern is that some of the commenters didn't seem to notice that the nominator orphaned the older one. I'd like to see a relisting of both templates, and allow the community to decide between them (or to keep or delete both, if they wish). - jc37 21:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Before I orphaned the page, it was used in only a few articles, and it only really belonged in one - Mudd's Women. --Phirazo 05:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ahem! That's exactly what has already been done. The older template is the one that was kept, and the newer template is the one that was nominated for deletion. Template:memoryalpha was created in October 2004. Template:Memory Alpha was created, twice, in February 2005 and May 2005. Each time after creating it, its creators, Cburnett (talk · contribs) and Memory (talk · contribs), requested its deletion when they found that it was a duplicate of the older template. It was re-created a third time, by Angela (talk · contribs) in July 2005, because a few articles existed, probably leftovers from the prior duplicate template, that transcluded the newer duplicate template instead of the older original one. Xe created a redirect from the new template to the old as a quick fix for that, rather than adjusting the articles to transclude the older template. Uncle G (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Closing admin seems to have read consensus correctly - XfD is not a vote, and "promoting" anything (even free content) is most definitely *not* the job of an encyclopaedia, so the admin was correct to ignore or disregard votes made on this basis. Orderinchaos 10:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure. "Per Phil Sandifer" is a perfectly valid reason to keep if Phil Sandifer has a reasonable argument, and if so, this looks like a no consensus ("*FD is not a vote" does not mean ignore the number of people endorsing an argument, and close whatever way you want to, it does means consider other factors as well.) From reading his argument, Phil had a very persuasive reason for having a template with a pointer to Memory Alpha, but I did not entirely see the reason why this template should be kept along with {{memoryalpha}}, the reason given to delete was that this template had been replaced with a less intrusive version, making the old template redundant. If someone can explain why the old template may be better than the new one in certain circumstances, I'll be happy to vote "overturn" on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The templates generated with Template:FreeContentMeta have the secondary and important purpose of indicating an article with a similar topic but a very different focus. This is why they are made to resemble the sister project boxes. Just like the WikiQuote box has the implicit message "If you are interested in quotes by this subject or in adding quotes by this subject, this is where you should go," the Memory Alpha box has the implicit message "If you are interested in what Captain Kirk did when he was seven, or have information of that sort to add, this is where you should go." This is a distinct purpose to the external links section, which simply implies "For more information, see X" as opposed to "For another free content resource on X with a different focus..." Which is the point of our Sister Project boxes, and is a point that can readily be extended to these. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the clarification. Overturn it is then. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note that the clarification is erroneous. The "for more information" section is the Further Reading section. See Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Further reading. Although External Links is sometimes used erroneously in place of Further Reading, the distinction between the two is that External Links is for resources that wouldn't constitute an actual reliable source for article content. See Wikipedia:External links. "For another free content resource on X with a different focus …", where that "free content resource" is an unreliable source such as an article on a freely editable wiki, is exactly one of its functions. Uncle G (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I feel the deletion centres on whether the template serves exactly the same purpose as another template, but that Phil Sandifer has succesfully argued here and at the original debate that this template does serve a different purpose. Relisting the debate may help to explore whether despite the other purpose the template should still be deleted. Tim! (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn TfD was no-consensus. The jury is still out on if the style is acceptable or not, and even alternatives are being tried that addressed some of the previous concerns. No reason to not let this continue a reasonable attempt to address more concerns, as well as exploring further preference among editors (most didn't even know this template was an option). -- Ned Scott 03:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah come on, the template was more than a year old, and still no one is really using them. I welcome any experiment, but if the idea was that good, everyone would be using them by now. Instead its usage was sporadic (even well before Phirazo started removing the inclusions. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only learned about this template not too long ago, and a huge number of Wikipedians still don't know it's an option. Yes, sometimes the fact that something hasn't been adopted is a sign it wasn't a good idea, but often it simply means it wasn't noticed. -- Ned Scott 03:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse This template was used on one article it actually belonged in (Mudd's Women). The final count was 7 to keep, 7 to delete, but many of the keep votes were "Keep per" votes, and the concern of "no one uses it" was never answered in the TfD. --Phirazo 04:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, many editors didn't know of the template's existence. -- Ned Scott 04:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is difficult to show one way or the other. Consensus in the actual encyclopedia was to use the line format. --Phirazo 05:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, not really. Consensus doesn't always mean default behavior. To have a consensus we assume that the other options have been considered. -- Ned Scott 05:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The other options have been considered, over a period of almost 3 years now. Template:memoryalpha was nominated for deletion in 2005, and at the time it looked exactly like Template:Memory Alpha. The de-boxing of the template was discussed both then and since. During its history, the style of Template:memoryalpha has varied back and forth between simple prose and a box — editing which Phil Sandifer has xyrself been involved in, and which you can see discussed at Template talk:memoryalpha. Uncle G (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't been considered by a great many Wikipedians, and the rationale to linking to some wikis in this way has expanded since then. -- Ned Scott 03:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn it isn't a vote, and the keep arguments were equal in merit to the delete ones, and made by well established editors. the assertion was made in the CfD--I havent checked it--that the template was deliberately orphaned before the TfD. Myself, I have no opinion on the actual issue. DGG (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever else, noting that keep comments were made by "well established editors" is a fairly blatant appeal to authority, with its strong implication that how well-estblished the editors are has some bearing on the argument. A bad argument made by an old-time editor is still a bad argument. Otto4711 (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as no consensus. Around half the people were backing Phil's point, and it hasn't been shown that his point is fundamentally flawed in some way. Closing admin misses the fact of the matter when he says "It makes no sense to keep this template when it is used only once comapred to thousands of times for another template which does the exact same thing." 1. It's up to debate whether the template belongs on only one article. 2. There's the definite possibility of articles warranting the box in the future, so one is enough for the moment. 3. There's no problem with having multiple templates perform the same function in different ways. –Pomte 05:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin's statement: In the immediate aftermath of this TfD, Phil contacted me on my talk page, and among the various uncivil comments were implications that I prefer one template over another, that I am ignoring consensus, and that I close TfDs in lieu of participating in them in an effort to impose by views on the template namespace on others. I have no preference for this template or the more widely used template that I defaulted to. These types of templates have proven extremely controversial, to the point where I have begun closing nominations of free content wiki external links as suspended nominations, such as here, a move which was endorsed as wise by another admin who regularly closes TfDs here. Basically, it boils down to three points:
- One template is used thousands of times, the other is not. It does not matter why this is or how it came about, but that is how it stands. Duplicating the templates, even if parity in their use is achieved, defeats the purpose of the template namespace.
- It has long been an unwritten guideline that templates can be deleted even if they only thing "wrong" with them is that they are unused.
- The deletion debates surrounding these types of templates are controversial. I have suspended further nominations and requested a consensus be formed on whether this type of external link template is acceptable.
I therefore ask that this template not be undeleted, as these types of templates are controversial and under debate, undeleting would only cause unnecessary controversy. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 06:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I could see holding off on this DRV while holding a discussion about them. It still needs a lot of work, but I'm attempting to restart a proposal at Wikipedia:Linking to other wikis. -- Ned Scott 06:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - We've had the discussion, over and over again. For example: Template:Uncyclopedia, another interwiki-link-in-a-box-to-a-non-Foundation-project template, was discussed in July 2005, August 2005, and January 2006, and deleted. And as pointed out above, Template:memoryalpha, when it was an interwiki-link-in-a-box, was discussed, both at TFD and on its talk page. Uncle G (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those discussions don't even touch on the same issues, and are obviously not the end of such discussions. -- Ned Scott 03:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I'd support that. Basically, I deleted X because it was used 3 times when Y was used 2000 times, which is normally a legitimate and generally uncontested line of reasoning in TfD closures. Unfortunately, X and Y are involved in a longer term edit war/dispute, so... RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 06:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It doesn't matter how the situation came about, but it matters how it should be, and that was the point of the debate. The debate is not about how well the template is used now, but its usability in general.
  2. The templates are not duplicates. Consider the following 2 ways of linking to the same thing: {{Sisterlinks}} and {{Seealsosection}}, the latter of which, incidentally, you closed as no consensus.
  3. There is no unwritten TfD guideline to delete templates that are neither unused nor duplicates. This decision would obviously be contested based on the arguments in the TfD itself, and I don't know why you would think otherwise. –Pomte 12:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Phils's argument that we should be allowing cross links between free content media is invalid, as the deletion of this template does not prevent this. This was a duplicate template, and {{memoryalpha}} serves the exact same function. Given that Phil's keep reasoning is without merit, so too are the per Phil's. The WP:WAX defence isn't valid either. Reso lute 18:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were several discussions going on at the time, so I'm not sure if I repeated it in this specific one, but I know I made plenty of statements independent of Phil's. There are reasons being given as to the benefits of having such links not just exist, but to be marked in a certain way. The utility of a link has allowed us to give some ELs their own distinction, such as review links in the album template, or IMDb links in some infoboxes. -- Ned Scott 03:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete; closing rationale gave no adequate reason for contravening the lack of consensus in the discussion. The template's lack of use is not very useful evidence given that the nominator systematically orphaned it. The distinction between the templates is meaningful (as is evident from the discussion) and in that regard they do not serve the same function; one serves to promote a free content generator and provider while the other does not. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was used on one article it belonged in before I orphaned it. --Phirazo 04:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 December 2007[edit]