Catahoula bulldog – No consensus closure endorsed. This doesn't preclude any editorial discussions about merging or redirecting the article. Hut 8.5 18:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The closer suggested bringing it here, and has been notified. In the closing statement, the closer pointed out, “The article as it currently stands is woefully lacking in WP:RS, and has been tagged as such for three years.” Exactly. The reason it lacks RS is because the subject is not notable which was stated as the reason to delete or redirect in the AfD - it is a fictitious breed based entirely on anecdotal reports and fails WP:GNG and WP:V. There simply are no RS to cite to establish notability. Members of WP:WikiProject Dogs have spent a great deal of time researching and trying to find reliable sources. Normal procedure for article creation/acceptance is WP:V, WP:NOR and widespread coverage in secondary and third party sources to establish notability, not to create an article and then spend 3 years trying to find RS to justify keeping a non-notable subject. The delete/redirect/merge arguments were strong. AtsmeTalk📧 12:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - does WP:V and WP:GNG not count for dog articles? AtsmeTalk📧 13:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The list of sources listed below are UNRELIABLE SOURCES - I cannot believe what I'm seeing. The misunderstandings, misinterpretations and acceptance of unreliable sources is off the charts. AtsmeTalk📧 21:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
People are just disagreeing as to if WP:V and WP:N are met for the topic. Sources have been provided in the discussion. Hobit (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to redirect-without-deletion, to Louisiana Catahoula Leopard dog. It is not correct to identify four different outcomes in an AfD (delete, keep, redirect, merge) and require consensus for any one of them. In this case there is a consensus for one important thing: that no separate article is warranted. There are five editors who argued for an unconditional keep: Nomopbs, Krtimi991, Hal333, AvalerionV, and SpinningSpark. The second, third and fourth of those !votes were cursory and should be given less weight. On the other side, six editors argued to get rid of the article, either by deletion, merge or redirect: Atsme, Montanabw, Ched, AReaderOutThataway, Cavalryman and The Gnome. All six gave good reasons. We then have Andrew D who was happy to keep or merge. Had the six editors I mentioned above all said No article, and then given their reasons, their reasons would have been substantively the same. When the AfD is examined in that way, as it should be, there is a rough consensus for "no article", based on numbers (6:5), strength of arguments (definitely, given the three cursory keeps), and support for arguments (clearly). The best close in this circumstances is a redirect without a deletion. That means (a) we give effect to the consensus that we shouldn't have an article, (b) we allow for the merger of content to take place from the history of the article, at editorial discretion, and (c) we allow for the redirect target to be changed at editorial discretion. Outcome (b) even brings a seventh editor, Andrew D, on board with the consensus. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My "keep" certainly wasn't cursory since I linked to a reliable source. SpinningSpark 09:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gah. That discussion is a mess. The article is poor. Sources for the topic seem to exist, but aren't integrated into the article. And I'm not sure how reliable most of those sources are. Merging is probably the best outcome, at least until someone is ready to add sources. And I'd say either "keep" or "redirect" was the consensus, with (IMO) redirect/merge leading the way. I've no idea what I'd have done, but I think it had to be either merge or no consensus, so I have to endorse the NC call. I'd have endorsed redirect, merge, and perhaps keep also. Hobit (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I disagree with the analysis above regarding no article. The keep !votes are not strong, to be fair, but there's not really a consensus to delete, nor does a consensus to merge exist considering the number of potential merge targets. Being unsourced does not mean an article fails WP:GNG, and there's enough potential sources mentioned in the discussion to at least give the benefit of the doubt that the article could be kept, i.e. WP:V was met. But this is a total mess, as the article's still currently unsourced, and there's no agreement on what to do with it - I would try either a merge discussion next, or to the keep !voters, sourcing the article properly. SportingFlyerT·C 07:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, the closer made a fair assessment of the discussion. This appears to be here because the OP doesn't like the outcome, not because the close was faulty. If anything, the closer was at fault for giving too much weight to the argument (now being rehashed at this RFV) that this dog is not a "proper" breed. The closer stated there was no consensus either way for the position that such dogs should not have articles. That argument is entirely without merit in policy, and, on the principle that policy-based arguments should be given more weight, it should have been summarily discounted. Also being rehashed here is the claim that there are no reliable sources. That is now being disingenuous since I provided at least one reliable source in the discussion. SpinningSpark 09:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closer did the best they could with the information provided, and the voters did the best they could with the information du jour when each voted. The 2019 AfD in question [2] was the second AfD for this article; the first was decided as Keep six years ago in 2013 [3]. On the day it was nominated for AfD (6 August 2019), it had four citations [4]. By the day the AfD was relisted (13 August, though it had 4 Keeps), nom had deleted all but one of the citations to make this version [5]. On the day the AfD was relisted a second time (21 August), this is the version [6]. The following day (22 August), after the AfD Close for No Consensus decision, the nom appealed directly to the closer [7], removed the last remaining citation to leave the article citation-less [8], and filed this appeal [9]. That's a lot of effort put forth to achieve the deletion of just one article. In support of any non-deletion option, we have the four original citations [1][2][3][4], 151,000 Google search results [10], at least nine more breed info pages, books, or mentions on breed-related webpages [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13], and the breed is often enough mentioned in general discussion or news without breed information [14][15][16]. The people clearly consider the Catahoula Bulldog to be a 'thing' (whether it is a breed, crossbreed, mutt or whatever) and is not a fringe idea requiring omission from Wikipedia. The dog is clearly notable enough to have some sort of mention in Wikipedia. A little bit of effort on the article (or a section in one or both of the parent breed pages, Louisiana Catahoula Leopard Dog and American Bulldog) should clear up this whole mess and end the perpetual discussions about it. Normal Op (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you're right - looking through the history, the nom of the AfD and this DRV stripped all of the sources from the article in the middle of the deletion discussion, and before anyone else had !voted delete. I admit this looks a lot different as an article without the sources, which could potentially have influenced the later voters, and I know I myself don't check the article's history before I !vote. This is some of the most tendentious AfD editing I've seen, and the conduct in my view is bad enough that if this were at ANI I'd actually support a short term block for the nom if one were proposed. The delete !voters should have been able to review the sources in the article on their own. SportingFlyerT·C 18:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow is right - all UNRELIABLE SOURCES. Funny how all of this activity came all at once. Hmmm. AtsmeTalk📧 21:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You mean you have proposed a topic ban. The user is not currently topic banned or blocked. That is pretty much a classic ad hominem attack and is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. SpinningSpark 09:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Read what I wrote - how on earth did you interpret "an open discussion to t-ban him" as meaning "currently topic banned"? No wonder we're having communication issues. I also included the diff so there should be no confusion. You accusing me of an ad hominem is the actual PA here, not anything I've said. AtsmeTalk📧 17:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"...how on earth did you interpret..." I didn't, you should read what I wrote. You are attempting to discredit the editor rather than responding to their arguments. That's the very definition of ad hominem. SpinningSpark 18:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Sure, there are some pretty clear consensuses that can be read from the discussion, like "this article currently has no sources" and "what are we going to do about it" and "I'm thinking we should challenge some of the unsourced content... maybe? Are we doing that now or later?" The closer definitely could have closed this as "this don't be a page no more" (not really a thing, but NOTBURO so whatever) but there would still need to be a discussion of what and how much to merge. Closing as "merge" can automatically and immediately start that discussion and closing as redirect would probably be the cleanest option now but do either of them fully reflect the consensus of the discussion? ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ So maybe we close this as merge/redirect? There are delete !voters but we can just roll them into the consensus per ATD or something... but the keep !voters do have a (PAG based) point (look, I'm pointing at sources! maybe they do exist! I'm not 100% sure how many there are you're not saying they're not sources either.) At this point all we're really missing is someone suggesting draft/userify (look, it's not there yet but it's clearly got potential. I'm just suggesting we let someone work on it a bit) or transwiki to a sister project. But hey, truly perfect situations for a no consensus closure (or any other close really) are hard to come by. Is this a reasonable reading? I think yes. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete thr article already. Zero RS...not recognized by any kennel club. Sounds like a made up "breed" to me. I once had an AustralAmericanShepherd...he was named MONGO after me. Real breed...have pictures to prove it!--MONGO (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse It is my opinion that it is bad faith to strip and article of all sources and then demand deletion. Atsme did just that. Good close! Lightburst (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There was no consensus to delete the page as there was only one delete !vote. Determining the direction of further editing of such a page is not the function of AfD and closers are not required to unpick and resolve complex content issues – that's best done on the talk page, using the RfC process. The nominator is forum shopping this matter in various places, including RSN and NPP and so there seems to be no shortage of other ways forward. Andrew D. (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There is no need to relitigate the deletion discussion. The closure was proper and based on a careful reading of the argument that there was plenty of ground to fix the article's flaws or explore alternatives to deletion.Patiodweller (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There was no consensus to delete, or for anything else. See advice at WP:RENOM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The closer summarized it well in stating that the discussion was all over the map. Therefore No Consensus is the best close. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
It seems the closer did not want close against a large number of "Keeps." Close like this disincentivizes thorough research of sources and claims, because whatever you do, if there are a large number of empty "Keeps" that will amounts to nothing. And in converse, this promotes "joining the trend" so as not waste your time doing a research that no one cares to read.
Even though I made a detailed analysis that shows how the article was built on more than 10 utterly unreliable sources and user-generated contents (which none of the "Keeps" reliably refutes), the closer felt that since they 'disagree' (without evidence) with my analysis then the consensus was to "Keep." The sole source he based his reasoning republishes WP:DAILYMAIL articles [11] and claims no journalistic professionalism [12]; this shows you can simply circumvent DailyMail ban by finding vanity sites like these that republish them.
I am bringing this close for a review. I discussed it with the closer and he agreed. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but with leave for immediate renomination. It wasn't the administrator's job to decide who won the argument. Administrators are not adjudicators. It was the administrator's job to decide where the consensus lay. Ammarpad: you might have had the better arguments, but you didn't have anything approaching consensus. After the maximum number of re-lists, the closing admin had no choice but to close the discussion as "keep".. Part of the difficulty you faced was that you didn't start the AfD, and it wasn't started well, with a nine-word non-sequitur nominating statement. So... I suggest allowing Ammarpad leave to re-nominate the article at any time, which would ordinarily be discouraged following a "keep" close. A good nominating statement that lays out the sourcing problems from the outset might result in an AfD that takes a different course. In my view, the keep !votes were so poorly considered, and the sourcing problems so obvious, that here at DRV we should exercise our supervisory prerogative to say "do it again".--Mkativerata (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you're equating "consensus" to "majority." It's not. Consensus is determined by strength of arguments and conformity to overall Wikipedia fundamental policies and guidelines. Deletion discussions are not done in void, they must to conform to the Wikipedia-wide consensus/fundamental standard; WP:RS included. Even if 100 people come to AfD and say they "agree" to use the unreliable sources, that can't trump the established site-wide policy, nor can their large number means "consensus." No, I won't renominate it, there's nothing that I can say more. I spent several hours analysing each and every sources, and posted analysis (that no one refutes up to now). Some people decide to say, just that does not matter. To me, it matters, but if the consensus here, is also it does not matter, then there's nothing to pursue further. Perhaps, I am a bit pedantic for insisting only sources with proven reliability can be used to build biography of a living person. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
endorse The argument for deletion hinges on a publisher not be reliable. There was nothing close to consensus that that is the case. Anyone wishing to renom this should take it to WP:RSN first. If the discussion at RSN concludes that pulse.ng isn't reliable, great. Renominate with a link to said discussion. If not, I'd suggest walking away. Hobit (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse In order to close this as a delete, the closer would have had to make a judgment call on the sources - I agree the keep votes weren't great, but at least some of them had the opportunity to review the sources, so keep was the only possible outcome here. I agree with Hobit that renomination would be possible if Pulse is found to be unreliable but I've used Pulse as a source before for soccer articles and didn't really have any problems with it, and I'm not sure this would be deleted if renominated even if Pulse isn't regarded as a reliable source - I did a WP:BEFORE search and found enough sources to vote at least a weak keep. SportingFlyerT·C 06:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse while there can be policy based reasons for a few deletes to outweigh many keeps, I don't see any indication that this AfD was such a reason. This strikes me as a normal disagreement over reliability of sources and how that impacts notability and a keep consensus seems like the appropriate closing of that AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Consensus was to keep. See advice at WP:RENOM. Do not renominate for deletion for at least six months from the close of this discussion, and then, if you do, make a better nomination statement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - In this case, the consensus was sufficiently solid to keep that it is an obvious valid conclusion. Either a No Consensus or a Delete would have to be justified. A Keep speaks for itself. Appellant writes: "I discussed it with the closer and he agreed". Agreed to what? That you had the right to go to DRV, which is of course? To reverse their close? I don't see that. If the closer is agreeable to a renomination, then a renomination is permitted. If not, just wait six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt a renomination would be useful, but surely it's not up to me to tell somebody if they're permitted or not permitted to do so. -- RoySmith(talk) 21:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
