Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 16

16 December 2010

FedEx Express Flight 647

FedEx Express Flight 647 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

First off, it's starting to look like it's only ever Cirt who closes these aircrash Afds - that is surely grounds for reviewing his decisions to make sure they are correct in terms of the community's view of these debates, as from where I'm standing, his closing statements, which are at least now progressing beyond the no statement at all approach to closing, don't look similar at all to the detailed expressed thought process of other admins who have closed them in the past w.r.t how they read these debates - namely what constitutes a good and bad argument, and how editors can and can't show that EVENT is met. In this specific closure, Cirt simply just makes a vague statement that there is a "strong consensus", so we can start with that - how exactly were the delete arguments rebutted, for example 'Wikipedia is not a list of aircraft hull losses'? He doesn't say. What did he think of the accusations and defences of argument by assertion in that regard? Again, he doesn't say. Secondly, he goes on to say there were "editors noting there is a good deal of coverage in WP:RS sources available to improve upon material relating to the subject matter" - well, from where I'm sitting, ignoring the immediate 2003 news report, which surely every can see does not meet EVENT on it's own, then this must amount to the 2006 NTSB report, and the one news article from 2006 about the report coming out. So, is he endorsing the keeper's view that all you need to write an aircrash article that meets EVENT is just an NTSB report, or not? Is he endorsing the idea that this one 2006 news report represented 'significant, extensive, in-depth, ongoing' coverage that meets both GNG and EVENT, or not? It's worth clarifying that point at least, because concluding that NTSB reports are defacto N-worthy for EVENT has huge implications, as it makes every single crash automatically notable - a very obvious violation of WP:NOT if you ask me. And if he didn't mean just the NTSB report and it's one piece of (trade press) news coverage, is he referring to the book sources presented? If so, why does he not comment on the fact that the keepers didn't present any evidence that they contained anything about the crash, apart from a list entry? Even if we are (completely artificially and unjustifiably) restricting this notion of aircrash notability to 'hull losses', why did Cirt not comment on the complete silence that met the presentation of actual figures which show just how many crashes per year per one aircraft type would meet this notion of notability, and the obvious implications? Frankly, precisely because this whole topic is in dispute, with contradictory views on both sides, a closure that actually addresses the specific points raised is beyond necessary by now. If Afd closers don't actually start to close them with actual reference to the actual arguments made and disputed, then these articles are going to continue to be written, and Afd'd, not least because the attempted guideline to settle this dispute, AIRCRASH, has not got any further than 'it must meet the GNG, EVENT, and NOT#NEWS', and editors still have frankly, massively different ideas about how you meet those for aircrashes - as you can see in this idea that an NTSB report is a secondary source, and is all that is required in terms of WP:N - at the very least that is what Cirt should have commented on, not give vague statements (actually, stating 'strong consensus' means that the delete arguments were utterly shit - so that requires some explanation - exceptional claims and exceptional evidence and all that.) Frankly, when you actually look at his closure - "The result was keep. Significant consensus is present for Keep, with editors noting there is a good deal of coverage in WP:RS sources available to improve upon material relating to the subject matter" - if you actually go and look at some of them, you could copy and paste that into any past aircrash Afd for any article except the most absolutely trivial of incidents which simply don't make the news at all, and it wouldn't sound like it contradicts the 'consensus' one bit - well, if you read AIRCRASH, that is quite obviously not what the purpose of that essay or even Wikipedia actually is, for some pretty obvious reasons, starting with WP:NOT and working downwards. MickMacNee (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: It appears that MickMacNee (talk · contribs) decided to go straight to escalating this matter to deletion review, and failed to even attempt to raise the matter for discussion with the closing administrator. -- Cirt (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  So what? Firstly, was there any chance at all that you would have overturned your decision? I've never seen you do so in aircrash Afd's given similar objections to here, so why would you have done so now? Secondly, I had already said in the Afd with this post that if the closer did not explain their view of certain aspects of the debate in their closing statement, I would be DRV'ing it, so, while you are free to ignore that completely, you cannot claim that you are now surprised I have indeed done what I said I would do. Unless you never even read that comment? I did point out in the last Drv that there was evidence that that you had at best, given the debate a quick scan, and so might miss that sort of thing. So, given all that, why exactly should I be bound by such obvious process wonkery for no reason? And don't say WP:CIVIL, because it would have been civil of you to at least acknowledge the post I linked above, either in closing, or at least to me personally, whether you wanted to act on it or not. (WP:CIV - "Do not ignore the positions of others"). MickMacNee (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  Your tone, choice of language, lack of politeness, and desire to escalate the matter directly, are all unbecoming. -- Cirt (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  That's your answer? That's your sole explanation for complaining that you are apparently now upset that I did exactly what I clearly said I would do? MickMacNee (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like an exact repeat of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 17 to me. Once again, MickMacNee thinks his personal view ought to overrule the consensus, and once again, he's wrong.—S Marshall T/C 17:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  It's only a repeat in the sense that if you are a sign of what's to come, then 'reviewers' at DRV seemingly have absolutely no intention of doing any y'know, reviewing. You have jumped in here so fast, is there any reason to believe you even read the whole of my rationale, let alone the whole of the discussion it refers to? If you think your personal opinion carries more weight than mine, brilliant, that sounds like a great recipe for building consensus. Let's forget all about that clearly inconvenient notion that you win the argument, or at least show to others how you are right, by actualy demonstrating to the other person exactly how and why they are a complete dumbfuck using a bit more than just your personal opinions, even though like here, their only dumbness is in engaging you in that way themselves, wasting time referring to policies and the Afd instructions in their lengthy explanations of their detailed reasoning, like, y'know, an actual rational argument. So, if you've nothing more to add, I guess I'll see you at the next DRV, because my opinion of the policies has not changed, the instructions for how to discuss an Afd have not changed, the concept that consenus is a little more than a dumb vote count has not changed, and if your response is going to be typical, I still see absolutely no reason why I am wrong, and you know full from last time that I am most certainly not alone in my objection to how these closures are being done, and the non-reviews like your comment embodies, before you try and paint this as one lone madman's crusade. MickMacNee (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  Yup, an exact repeat. Assumption that anyone with an opposing viewpoint must have failed to read the debate or the guidelines; absolute refusal to accept consensus. Please do add another huge wall of text, because that'll definitely help.—S Marshall T/C 22:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  Consensus is not a simple vote, or a round up of unsupported personal opinions. You've said absolutely nothing in support of your endorsement here, so nobody here has anything at all to convince them that you have read the debate, or do understand the Guidelines at all. Your endorsement is as informative in that regard, as Cirt's complete failure to even mention what he thought of a single specific aspect of that debate, which had such stellar opinions registered as 'keep, it's not as boring as this other article' FFS. Why you think that people should extend you this amount of extraordinary good faith in a review, that your unsubstantiated opinion rules all, and other people's opinions don't count at all in that exercise, even though they have expended huge amounts of time backing up their opinions with policy and instructional wording. Based on the timings alone of my posting the DRV, and you voting, that's good enough for me to just dismiss your endorsement out of hand as some sort of expression of personal emnity. Your complete refusal to say anything of substance in further reply, such as for example, an attempt to detail how you would have interpreted the specific arguments with some specific reasons, just puts the icing on the cake for me, as does your apparent dislike of 'walls of text' (or as other people might call them, full explanations of a position) which I am putting out there in an apparently futile expectation of the same in return. Sod it, let's just disable the edit function completely, there's clearly no point in discussion here at all, we might aswell just make Afd and Drv an exercise in radio button pushing. We can all rate from 1 to 10 how much we 'like' an article, or how well we think the closer did in counting up the resulting numbers. MickMacNee (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• I do think MickMacNee has a valid reason for deletion and if consensus was that WP:ONEEVENT applied here, I'd endorse deletion. But the consensus clearly went the other way. ONEEVENT isn't a black-and-white issue (a significant enough event can overrule it and the bar for that isn't a bright line) so the opinions of the editors matter quite a bit. Endorse. 17:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs)

  ?. WP:EVENT is not the same as WP:ONEEVENT, which is if anything just about BLPs. MickMacNee (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I feel strongly that my delete argument on this AfD was left largely unrebutted, and a lot of the keep arguments ignored policy. However it seems that the eventual decision did reflect consensus, at least insofar as the number of keep !votes clearly outweighed the delete !votes. So... sort of undecided as to whether or not I endorse the decision and, in any case, I am clearly biased. I'd be interested in hearing some outside views first.--Korruski^Talk 18:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse. Mick, your argument about people claiming the NTSB report confers notability is bit weak, seeing as WP:N was only brought up by others with regards to it after you did. The only mention of the NTSB report linked to Wikipedia policies before you linked it to "WP:N-worty evidence" here was LeadSongDog's comment here, which cites the NTSB as a RS, not N. Oakshade's later comments about the NTSB report and WP:N were in response to you. Also as I pointed out there, your tone is distinctly unbecoming of somebody who has the best interests of Wikipedia in mind; WP:CIVIL is stretched to the limit often, and some of your comments, both there and in your OP here, IMHO really stretch WP:NPA even. Not to mention instantly tossing it to DRV because you didn't like the outcome (following a statement that you would do so if the closing admin didn't do things your way), as well as essentially accusing editors of canvassing because they notified the ARS in accordance with their guidelines, say a lot. But conduct detrimential to Wikipedia completely aside, the article was determined, by consensus, to be worth keeping. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  Look, if you want to discuss civility, instead of the actual issues for review here, then I suggest you don't blithely throw out accusations yourself - the idea that I accused anyone of canvassing in that Afd is utterly false. What is infact incivil also, is your characterisation of a very long, very detailed, policy backed review rationale, as me simply 'not liking' the outcome. That's two blatant pieces of incivility right there, in a comment where you are supposedly complaining about me being incivil. And no, me stating that I would take this to review if the closer didn't comment on certain aspects is not infact a POINT violation in the slightest. I would love to see any admin block someone for a POINT violation in this circumnstance, it's only you who seems to believe that would be remotely correct. The Afd instructions are crystal clear, and I stated that they were pretty clearly not being followed by certain voters. If a closer does not want to comment on that aspect of an Afd, then anyone is well within their rights to DRV it. That's the whole point of this venue, supposedly. On the one factual point you did raise in this comment, out of about 20 points in the review rationale, there's simply no point in even talking about who said what first about the NTSB report and N, if Cirt isn't going to expand here on whether that was even what he was talking about in his closure when he mentions sources. MickMacNee (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I will not endorse this as I already !voted keep in the original discussion. The user who opened this seems more like they want to get their way than anything else, and starts off this thread with a salvo fired at the administrator who closed the discussion. I will repeat what I said at AfD: the accident was a commercial revenue generating flight, it resulted in the complete destruction of a large aircraft, it has ongoing ramifications for crew emergency evacuation training throughout the industry (aka not exclusive to the MD-11, FedEx, or cargo flights), and reliable sources are available. To that I will add one more: this accident is just one of a disproportionately large number (relative to the size of the fleet) of MD-11 accidents caused by control issues during the landing sequence. I initially became aware of this accident, and by extension the deletion discussion, while researching MD-11 control problems. N419BH 19:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse The Bushranger's statement above in reply to Mick is pretty reasonable. Also, at Wikipedia we sometimes have to accept the outcome of a vote, discussion etc. Taking an AfD to DRV just because you didn't accept the outcome (especially if the consensus is clear), is not the best thing to do. The admin who decides the outcome of the particular AfD generally 1) looks at the consensus between the "keep" and "delete" votes, and 2) checks the validity of all the votes and comments. Mick, if you voted "delete" on 10 AfDs, and none of those were deleted, would you then start 10 DRV discussions? I suggest speedy closure of this discussion. HeyMid (contribs) 19:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  I will DRV any Afd where there is grounds to believe that 1) the admin hasn't properly weighted the arguments (and maybe you can explain how that consensus was derived here with what weight to what argument, if Cirt refuses to, and I will then be more than happy to accept it, if people then choose to endorse your explanation, but you simply saying 'he's done it right', is just compounding the problem), or 2) possibly hasn't even read the debate in detail (ref. Cirt's surprise it has come to Drv). MickMacNee (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse The overwhelming consensus was to keep it, so it got kept. Dream Focus 20:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse - A DRV is to review what and nominator thinks is an improper closure, not a continuation of the AfD. All MickMacNee's arguments here are a gigantic re-hash if his extremely lengthly, almost mathematical, AfD formula of his interpretation of our guidelines to explain his delete vote and then attacks the closing admin for not agreeing with him. Overwhelming consensus here to keep the article with those supporting keep using their arguments based on their interpretations of guidelines and polices, which this nominator obviously disagrees with. Interestingly, MickMacNee constantly attempted to "invalidate" those in favor of keeping by citing WP:VAGUEWAVE or argument by assertion whist ignoring one of the 3 "delete" votes which was the epitome of WP:VAGUEVAVE and argument by assertion, which even further justifies the admin's closing. That SIX days before this AfD was closed he stated "this will go for review" demonstrates he had no intention of respecting consensus if it didn't end the way he wanted it to. This is DRV is looking pointy. --Oakshade (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC) (Note - I hope this was an accident, but MickMacNee deleted my opinion here. [1])

  First off, of course it was an accident. Now, let's get a few things crystal clear - it is NOT the closer's job to agree or disagree with me, it's their job to weigh the arguments based on policy, and instructions. You wanted the article kept, based on a strawman, and then an apparent belief that all investigated accidents are notable (that is, like it or not, the ONLY logical conclusion from your interpretaion of WP:N). Now, in terms of deletion review, it is absolutely meaningless for you to be coming here, claiming with zero evidence that, surprise surprise, your 'interpretations' were of course brilliant, and the closer must have agreed with you as he kept the article, and everything's rosy in the world. It is not. The closer has said absolutely nothing specific in his closing, and not for the first time in aircrash Afd's, even though they are wholly disputed and in need of clarity, and that is what I am putting up for review here. For all we know he might have thought your opinion of WP:N was worthless, or he might have thought your strawman was the best argument he's ever seen - but we will apparently never know from him directly. I am not rehashing the Afd at all by pointing these basic facts out, I am objecting to the process given the large amounts of evidence that many of the arguments in the Afd were poor. If you really want your arguments to be shown in this review to have been superior to the delete side's, then I would think you would have wanted more clarification from the closer too, instead of playing these games where you and others throw casual insinuations out there about how it's 'interesting' that I did this, or how pointy you think that comment was (have any of you actually even read POINT btw? It's completely irrelevant). You want to play it that way? Well, I think it's really 'interesting' that you repeatedly tried to claim I was asking you to copy and paste the entire source into the Afd, when I did absolutely nothing of the sort. And I think it is really 'interesting' how many times you chose to completely ignore whole portions of posts when they referred to actual policies, guidelines and instructions, and instead chose to variously claim I had apparently 'admitted' to or 'agreed' with things I never had. That is incivil btw, especially to do it repeatedly. And I think it's really 'interesting' that you refused about 5 times to even acknowledge the logical outcome of your interpretation of WP:N. That aspect of the debate was not even an issue of interpretation that the closer would have been agonising over, it's a flat out simple issue of fact. Again, who knows what he thought of that? No comment form him, and no sign of that level of review here yet. We can all play these games of evasion and misdirection, but they are irrelevant sideshows to the issue up for review here - how did the closer come to this decision, given the fact that no, argument by assertion is NOT considered a valid expression of an 'interpretation' of a policy, this again is not an issue of interpretation, it's a basic fact of Afd, as are all the other things in the instructions that many keep votes (and remember, it is claimed there was a STRONG CONSENSUS in there) clearly and boldly violated, repeatedly. MickMacNee (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

There you go again. A 2nd gigantic rehash of your AfD arguments and rebuttals/harassments of those who disagree with you. The only addition in this AfD you've offered up is "I was brilliant and everyone else was awful, therefore the closing admin was wrong." Your attacks on my AfD arguments here are contradictory to reality, but as clearly you've failed to understand that a DRV is not an AfD, I'm not going to engage with you again. Cue your long rant. --Oakshade (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually no, this is more reminiscent of your Afd behaviour tbh. You pretend you can ignore others at length yet still assert you are 'engaging', as well as making yet more outrageous accusations that you could not hope to support if anyone ever pulled you up on them (you are now accusing me of harassment FFS!), and yet again when people put some actual facts to you, you do a diva style exit stage left. You can either properly defend your statements, like that "contradictory to reality" comment, or you can storm off. You cannot do both and expect to retain any credibility. There is frankly more than a little bit of childishness about your whole approach actually. MickMacNee (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting argument, since it pretty much describes your own tactics with the exception of the "diva style exit". And no, before you ask, I'm not going to bother any more either; I've made my comments, and people can judge who's right and wrong using their own minds. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse Mick, your even bringing this to DRV is concerning, considering the unanimity of endorsement that the last aircrash DRV you initiated received. Editors are expected to modify their understanding of consensus and policy when their own interpretations are significantly out of sync with the community's, which appears to be the case in this topic. If anyone's conduct is at question here, it's certainly not Cirt's. Jclemens (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  You might have had a point here, except 1) the crashes in question are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT in every way possible, 2) the AIRCRASH guideline has completely changed between then and now, even though it is still not clear there is agreement on how it should be read (or are you just ignoring all the delete votes?), and 3) plenty of people were reluctant to endorse Cirt's last closure, but effectively said they wouldn't have been brave enough to go against the 'consensus' of a dumb vote count in favour of actual policy based weightings of arguments, which is what an overturn would require, and 4), like here, nobody in that DRV even bothered to address the points raised, so it was just a vote count on top of a vote count - that's not something I am ever likely to be persuaded by, especially when it involved most of the same people from the Afd and Drv, and yet again was given a one word closure. MickMacNee (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

So...it's a cabal, then. Nice to know. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)