Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 January 25

25 January 2021

Chris Yonge

Chris Yonge (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closer's decision was "keep". When questioned about what they based their decision on, the answer was not that they evaluated all evidence brought forth, only that a number of "experienced" editors say the sources are sufficient. This answer implies that the closer considered the editor that brought forward the AfD and those who voted against keeping the article to be less experienced and therefore what they say should not be counted equally, that the closer, themselves, did not evaluate the evidence presented thoroughly when making their decision and, based upon the only answer we did receive, a consensus would not result in "delete" even if relisted. There was sufficient evidence presented to dispute the reliability of the sources, both included and not, such that it warranted more of a response from the closer concerning their decision and how they arrived at it based on provided evidence and not the experience level of editors involved. A result of "no consensus" would be better tendered if one believed a consensus to "delete" would not be met by relisting or more of an explanation should be presented to suffice why the evidence disputing the reliability of the sources should be disregarded as that was not presented within the discussion. This is not a just conclusion for either side. Either the result should be "no consensus" or it should be relisted. "Keep" based on legitimate policy explanation was not presented sufficiently to conclude with that determination. --ARoseWolf 20:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Just by the numbers, there were seven "keep" !votes and four "delete" !votes (counting the nominator); one of the "delete" voters was an IP whose only edits related to this article, and another was a new account with fewer than a dozen edits, almost all being cursory AfD !votes. One "keep" voter was similarly a new account primarily adding AfD !votes (though at least they made a reasoned argument). Numerically, the actual balance of participation to be given any weight is 6-2 in favor of keeping. As an experienced AfD closer, I immediately noticed the participation of long-term experienced editors like Dream Focus, Bearian, and Atlantic306, who have contributed intelligently to past AfD discussions. I believe that as a closer, I am entitled to credit their evaluation of the sources and strength of coverage. I frankly don't see how this could have been closed any other way. BD2412 T 21:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse. Thank you. I could see readily that there had been a serious effort to improve the article. As I wrote, there are some less than stellar sources, but overall, the revised article meets WP:HEY and WP:SIGCOV. The closing for keep was proper. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC) P.S. Of my last 500 AfD discssions, I !voted delete 71.1% of the time, and "Without considering "No Consensus" results, 95.0% of AfD's (sic.) were matches" of my !votes. So I'm fairly much where the consensus is, and am slightly deletionist. Bearian (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse close Wasting everyone's time on a deletion review because you want to change "keep" to "no consensus", despite either one being the same results and not making any difference at all, is ridiculous. Giving coverage to a musician's music is the same as covering them, they notable for their work. Consensus was overwhelming that there was significant coverage in reliable sources. Dream Focus 21:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Glad to know how you feel about another editors genuine concern about the results of an AfD. Consensus was not overwhelming. Numerical results do not equate the substance of what was offered. Why should your say matter anymore than any other editor? Is their a caste system on Wikipedia that I am unaware of where certain editor's say matters more than others? You provided the same sources which were rebutted as not being reliable and no proof was brought forward to show them as reliable. Most of the coverage is nothing more than mentions of the the persons name and a hit or two of their music. That is not significant coverage and mentions do not stack to build to notability. NO definitive evidence was ever brought forward and NO sources were added that even remotely touched the the levels needed at any reputable encyclopedia to consider this person as being notable. If you want to have an encyclopedia as a collection of every piece of information you deem worthy to be included then go create your own. Calling another editors concerns a waste of time is shameful and uncivil. --ARoseWolf 13:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• I would suggest that the user who submitted the article to a deletion review also refer to WP:AGF and not succumb to WP:OZD. TwinTurbo (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be quite a few than need to take their own medicine when it comes to good faith. --ARoseWolf 14:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse - the closer correctly interpreted the consensus. This isn't about discounting new editors, but about discounting comments that aren't grounded in policy. The closer's decision to do that was perfectly reasonable, and I can find no reason to upset it. See WP:CARCASS. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of where my comments on the AfD specifically were not founded in policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsistunagiska (talk • contribs) 14:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Your comments were based in policy. I'm talking about 1) the comment by the IP address beginning 2001:569 and 2) the comment by Onursides. In my view, neither set out a convincing policy rationale (e.g. "per discussion" doesn't move the needle), and so the closing administrator was entitled to disregard them. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse as there was a clear keep consensus and no valid reasons have been given for overturning it imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse - We know that AFD is not a headcount. But we know that the counting of heads is done at AFD. This is a case where Keep can be justified by the headcount alone without going into quality of arguments, so that is sufficient reason to endorse. It was also the right close, but that is not important. Send some trout flies to the appellant. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact it is done is no excuse for breaking the rules. Quality of argument is the very foundation of what AfD is. To discount the quality of argument and the evidence provided is a disservice to the encyclopedia. You cant choose which rules you want to enforce and expect to be taken serious. --ARoseWolf 14:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Let me run down the list of sources we are calling reliable and offer this subject significant coverage:

HipHopCanada, Spotify, LinkedIn, Billboard, YouTube, Boombox Sound, SoundCloud Pro, This is AGTV, Banger of the Day, AppleMusic.

Lets review the others that give the subject "more" in-depth coverage:

Exclaim offers him a brief (like literally two sentences) bio and gives you his concert information. LBB Online is an interview which is considered a primary source the last I checked. Toronto Rappers is just a song. The one source I opened and looked at that had any in-depth information was newsroom.accenture.com and it didn't even mention the subject, just someone he's associated with. And we expect that other people are going to take this encyclopedia seriously? I mean, come on. I want to believe we are being legitimate here but its getting out of hand. We are keeping subjects because we like them, not because they actually have significant coverage. I invite, further I encourage, anyone to look at these sources objectively and search online for others that really give the subject in-depth intellectually independent coverage that makes this person more notable than the average producer, songwriter or even the average person busting their ass every day to make ends meet. Provide it to us so I can look at this subject and be convinced it meets the verbatim and literal letter of the law when it comes to notability here on Wikipedia. Saying the quality of the argument doesn't matter is like saying facts don't matter. --ARoseWolf 14:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse. The AFD could not possibly have been reasonably closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse I can see no other reasonable close. --Enos733 (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse - There has been no evidence offered to demonstrate that the close was improper, contradictory to policy or was inconsistent with the consensus reached at the AfD by participants based on the arguments presented in the discussion. The ruling on the field stands. Alansohn (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The evidence is the closers own words. They didn't look at the arguments being presented and took a few editors that they have seen on AfD's prior to this one and determined their arguments had to carry more weight because of their longevity on Wikipedia. A clear violation of AfD policy. A closer has a massive responsibility to the integrity of the encyclopedia. They should be as well versed in the details and arguments as the nominator. --ARoseWolf 18:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, as stated, I weighed the evaluation of the sources and strength of coverage proffered by participants in the discussion. BD2412 T 18:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

It was quite clear, "As an experienced AfD closer, I immediately noticed the participation of long-term experienced editors like Dream Focus, Bearian, and Atlantic306, who have contributed intelligently to past AfD discussions.". When I questioned you seeking further understanding of your vague closing argument the answer I got was "a number of experienced editors have weighed in to say that the sources are sufficient for this article", which could lead someone to the conclusion that the arguments of these particular editors were given more weight because of who they are and your familiarity with them rather than the actual content of the arguments themselves or your in-depth review of the arguments equally. At no point did you say you assessed the arguments equally giving only weight to the policy based arguments themselves. How can I as an editor who diligently searches these subjects out and takes the basic notability guidelines of Wikipedia at its literal and verbatim face value accept that my policy based arguments, and by proxy the arguments of other editors, are treated with less regard than those considered "more seasoned and more experienced" by a particular closer? It does not instill a sense of confidence in the closing. Good faith is not a perpetual indifference to criticism of actions and the results of said actions. I can believe you are an editor of good faith but not have confidence in your closing based on what you have offered as to how you arrived at your conclusion, especially when I know the arguments being made and their merit and treat them, including my own with objection. --ARoseWolf 19:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Eight people have endorsed the close, along with the nominator[edit: I meant to say closer]. When all 9 people who participated in the discussion are against you, maybe you need to stop accusing everyone else of being wrong and consider perhaps you are the one in error. Dream Focus 19:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The nominator endorsed the close? Where is Magnolia? I don't see the nominator commenting here. In fact I was told by the nominator they supported the review. Got a big thank you from them too. Stop pushing your personal POV as fact. Thanks --ARoseWolf 21:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I meant to say the administrator who closed it, they the closer not the nominator. You did of course contact Magnolia on his talk page at the start of this [1] but they choose not to comment. Anyway, two more people just endorsed it, and still no one showed up to agree with you. Dream Focus 22:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

You may base your opinions and beliefs on how many people agree with you but I don't. I don't pretend to know how you should live your life and I don't act better than you or offer advice where it's not wanted. I will accept the results of this review but it doesn't change my opinion nor my principles. If this article came up for AfD again today I would vote the same and make the same argument because I do not believe it passes the basic notability guideline for inclusion. I never will until sources are found or added that would change my view. I would never attack someone the way you all have here and I would be the first to defend you and anyone if they were attacked like this as I have in the past. What is absurd is the way everyone thinks they are superior to others just because they have been here longer and very free with their opinions on the way they think I should be. I act on my principles, not yours, and I follow the rules as they are written and that won't change. --ARoseWolf 14:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse. I note that the nominator here at WP:DRV in the deletion discussion interprets "presumed notable" as "presumed not notable", in the belief that the word "presume" actually means its opposite. Funny then that in "the only notability guideline that matters" the very same "presume" word is used. What is it that makes so many people presume that that is the only notability guideline that matters rather than what it is, one among equals? Real, unpresumed, notability is decided by consensus at discussions, and in this case was clear. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• That's not policy, that's mob rule. And if that's your assessment of what I interpret "presumed notability" to mean then you have a lot to learn about me. Thanks for the input though. I appreciate all the assessments of my personal intentions, interpretations, my experience being questioned, personal attacks on the validity of my arguments rather than the arguments themselves and such. I sure am glad you all know me better than me. --ARoseWolf 21:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Mob rule or not consensus is certainly policy. As Winston Churchill said about democracy, it is the "worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time". What would you replace it with? I based my assessment of how you interpret things on your actions in the AfD and here. If you do not interpret things in such a way I apologise, but it means that you are even more inconsistent than I thought you were. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Consensus shouldn't overrule law. I don't agree with most SNG's because they are vague and were made to give specific subjects an advantage over others but even then, no SNG can be applied in this case. The subject of this article has to meet the basic notability guideline. As stated, there was evidence brought forth rebutting the "presumed" notability. All the closer had to tell me was that they weighed the evidence equally and decided that the keep vote had more merit. Instead they chose to belittle some editors whose arguments and thoughts are just as valuable as any others by implying they glanced at the AfD and saw familiar names voting a certain way and decided those voices carried more merit with no regard for the arguments themselves. That was my issue with this closing. The closer could have avoided this with a proper analysis and ruling. Implying you sided with one argument over another simply because of who is making the argument is a mockery of the AfD process. Rulings are not to be based on numbers and not to be based on who is involved but strictly on the merits of the arguments. That was not conveyed in this case. I am not going to comment on the rest of what you wrote because its just plain silly to insinuate the kind of rhetoric you are using to describe me personally. --ARoseWolf 13:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• It's not always accurate to state it doesn't matter who makes the argument. It depends – just like testimony from an expert witness may carry more weight in a law court, depending on the point at issue. In some cases you'd be right, the logical force of an argument and its congruence with policy speaks for itself . But in other cases the arguments hinges on an assessment of the extent of coverage in the sources. Here's a key point - while it's not prohibited for a closer to assess the sources themselves, generally that's the job of the voters; the closer just weighs the expressed consensus. Inline with what admin BD2412 and others are saying, a skilled veteran editor like Dream is trusted to evaluate sources somewhat more than a random new account. (Btw, if the closure relies too much on their own evaluation of the sources, that can be frowned on as a supervote. ) Hopefully this is clear for you? If not, I designed this rhyme to indicate in poetic form why it matters who bothers to show up at these AfD's. Per your interest in rap, maybe that would help set your mind at rest. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Catchy poem. I disagree with your assessment. I don't believe Dream's argument should carry more weight than Magnolia's just because of the name or how long they have been here. The closer should absolutely weigh the arguments based on the arguments themselves even if it is an IP making the argument. I have seen this played out before and been on the opposite end of it. People are going to scream either way. My issue is not with the closing but how the closing was conveyed to myself upon requesting the criteria by which each argument was judged. If you look at my conversation with the closer you will see it was them who suggested the review process as a means to arbitrate my concerns. The only reason it has become more than a simple discussion about this is because of the personal attacks made upon me here, questioning my intelligence, my interpretations, my knowledge and my experience. Again, AfD is not a majority vote nor is it a democratic process. Wikipedia is not a democracy. AfD is a judgement based on the merits of opposing arguments in line with policy. It has nothing to do with tenure here at Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with experience in certain fields or professions and it has nothing to do with names. --ARoseWolf 14:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• You make some good points. FWIW I very much doubt anyone seriously doubts your intelligence, you come across very formidable in that department. It's just kind of the way AfD is, any individual trying to argue against the overwhelming majority always takes some flak. I've known some of the participants here for over 10 years and they are useually kind and helpful people. AfD doesn't really bring out the best in anyone, including me. We can always hope it will become more respectful... One point I'd have to disagree with is length of service does make a big difference. Policy as written does largely hold true, but not quite 100%- and there's generally no substitute for long years of experience to learn the unwritten rules. Hope you descide to stick it out and stay, the way these things play out does eventually start to make more sense.FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• If nothing is definitive then this project will eventually fail. It is a house of cards. A policy is a policy and should be adhered to. Having policies that contradict each other and remain vague in the attempt to allow for gray areas is only leaving room for disaster. Altering that policy on whim just to satisfy editors simply because they have been here longer and enough of them vote a certain way does not speak well for the encyclopedia. That causes the mob rule scenario in which an article on a subject may be kept in one instance and a similar article on a similar topic may be deleted just because of who is making the argument and not the merits themselves. If you have two doctors giving an opinion and one has been a doctor for 5 years and the other has been a doctor for 3 years and 6 months, whose opinion should be given more weight? By what you are saying it would be the 5 year doctor simply because they have been a doctor longer. However, you only know their name and you only know how long they have been a doctor because you've seen them around. You don't know whether they have an MD, a PhD or a DVM. One's arguments may be great for their respective profession but not for others. You wont know that unless arguments are weighed, not on their name or longevity but the content of the arguments themselves. --ARoseWolf 15:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• And to add, I'm not going anywhere. You all don't get the luxury of knowing you drove me away or changed one ounce of my principles and commitment to the rule of policy here at Wikipedia. If you want to break the rules that's your business. I will adhere to the letter of it and vote that way every time. I expect admins and closers to weigh the arguments based on policy and not pick a side simply because they know someone involved and when they don't I will say something. That will never change. What can change is policy. If someone feels the policy is wrong then go through the process to change it. Don't circumnavigate it in some cases to keep something you like and deny it in others because you personally are indifferent to the subject because all that does is cause outsiders not to trust your "expert" opinion. --ARoseWolf 15:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• The imminent failure of Wikipedia has been regularly predicted for twenty years now. For that reason, it is not a particularly compelling argument. BD2412 T 18:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• However compelling or non-compelling you personally feel the argument is the fact remains the same. Implying you made a policy based decision solely off the tenure of Wikipedia editors and your fondness for their opinions is not good practice for anyone. --ARoseWolf 19:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• And I would add that in those twenty years Wikipedia has completely destroyed the previously lucrative market for print encyclopedias, and during that time has never had hard-and-fast rules handed down on Mount Sinai, but has made do with consensus of established editors. If that's failure then I'd like to know what success looks like. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse Close. Repeating what has already been said here and regardless of my participation, the result was very reasonable. User:Tsistunagiska, you did present some reasonable arguments during the discussion, however, others on the contrasting side of the debate did too. There is no point trying to change the vote as I think the outcome genuinely couldn't have gone the other way. See WP:CARCASS and WP:OZD. CAVETOWNFAN (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse. I recommend the advice in WP:RENOM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:Mayors of Davao City

Category:Mayors of Davao City (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Restore categories for mayors of Davao City, General Santos, Naga, Camarines Sur and Puerto Princesa. These three are outside the jurisdiction of any province (see Cities of the Philippines#Independent cities (analogous to the independent cities of Virginia)), so classifying these under the supposed provinces they fall under is factually incorrect. Keep deleted the other two categories. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: Some mayors of these cities may have been answerable to provincial government before these cities became independent, but I'm not sure who these are. FWIW, Rodrigo Duterte's mayorship came after Davao City became independent, and if the Davao City mayors categorized here served after Duterte became mayor, all of them were not answerable to Davao del Sur. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Question - Did the appellant discuss this with the closer? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Follow-Up Comment - This appears to be a request for the closer to modify the close rather than a request to overturn the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Ask the closer about this sort of thing, and only come to DRV if you disagree with their answer. DRV will overturn and undelete content deletions way more readily than non-content deletions such as categories or templates. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)