Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 30: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:03, 30 October 2009

< 2009 October 29

Deletion review archives: 2009 October

2009 October 31 >

30 October 2009

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

The vast majority of the "Keeps" went directly against policy, often saying it should be kept because they dislike the tone of the other articles on the subject, and want something pushing their point of view to balance (That makes it a WP:POVFORK, which is explicitly forbidded). This article clearly violates numerous policies, and the Keeps offer no real argument to counter this, or strategy by which the article can be brought back in line with policy.If it's desirous to provide links to people opposing global warming, this can be done as a category without the necessity of creating an original research povfork, with cherry-picked, not-necessarily representative quotes - which may violate WP:BLP - which, because of the insistence on including this quotefarm, inherently violates WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, with dozens of POV-pushing quotes. Nothing in the deletion discussion overturns policy, and this has had more than ample chance after previous discussions to fix the problems. If core policy isn't enforceable, what is? Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 15:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Objection to endorsements: About 45 people voted delete to 31 Keep, and of the keeps, a large number were out of policy. Furthermore, the guidelines to closing deletion discussions say that consensus should be judged on strength of argument, and that arguments thaat go against policy should generally be ignore. A large number, perhaps even the majority, of keeps are explicitly for reasons that violate policy, and should be disregarded.

The guidelines for deletion further go on to say:

“

Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid original research and synthesis, respect copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies. Where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, policy must be respected above individual opinions.

”

Those are specifically the inherent problems brought up in the deletion arguments. Hence, by the deletion rules, this article should be deleted. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 16:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, consensus is what's enforceable. It's rare indeed that DRV will overrule a consensus, and I think it's very hard to fault Backslash Forwardslash for closing that debate in that way. I should tend to think in terms of Backslash Forwardslash's closure statement: work towards finding a NPOV title for the article, and be diligent in removing any unsourced or poorly-sourced material, but equally, accept that global warming is controversial and there is a strong feeling among other editors that this list serves a navigational function concerning that ongoing debate. Navigational lists are absolutely encyclopaedic, so we have a closure that's in accordance with policy, with Wikipedia's purpose, and with the debate that preceded it.
I must admit that on a personal level, I have a great deal of sympathy for Shoemaker's Holiday's nomination, because I do recognise the very real concern that this list is a coatrack for crackpottery. But I think we already have the right result here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A good majority (45 to 31) voted delete. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 16:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, there's more to consensus than !vote-counting. That's particularly true when the same article has been AfD'ed 4 times in succession; I should think the fact that there have been AfDs "just to make sure there's still no consensus to delete" would tend to raise the bar. We can't permit people to keep repeatedly AfDing the same content until it goes away, because it smacks of an end-run around consensus.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It gets nominated again and again because it directly violates core policies, and the deletion guidelines specifically say it should be deleted. Saying that if enough POV-pushers defend an out-of-policy article long enough it becomes undeletable is a terrible precedent. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 16:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do realise that's how you feel about it. Characterising this list as an "out-of-policy article" and claiming "the deletion guidelines specifically say it should be deleted" may not be entirely helpful to your case here. We do see a lot of people who feel angry or outraged at something, here at DRV, but wouldn't taking a more moderate tone and acknowledging other points of view be the more collegial approach?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse- Seems like that was valid reading of the (lack of) consensus. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per S Marshall. The close was not clearly erroneous. Tim Song (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. S Marshall's arguments go directly against the actual deletion policy. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 16:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus close per S Marshall. The article has no evident core policy problems that would mandate deletion. (Note: I've fixed a few formatting problems in the nomination.) Sandstein 16:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Looking only at !vote totals, I don't see 60% as sufficient consensus to delete when reasonable policy arguments are advanced by both sides. Both the keep and delete !votes tended to mix content and deletion arguments, the keeps should not be discounted in isolation. Closer's decision was conservative, reasonable, and policy-based. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DO THE DELETION GUIDELINES MEAN NOTHING HERE?!! WHY CAN'T WIKIPEDIA FOLLOW A SINGLE ONE OF ITS OWN POLICIES ANYMORE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk • contribs)

I would sincerely suggest you to take a break from this issue or maybe from whole wikipedia to calm down. I fully agree that article is garbage that should be deleted, as it is essentially wikipedians interpreting some quotes they have found somewhere, and then categorizing scientists according to their personal opinions, with editors who have different POVs trying to keep list long(to show wide worldwide dissent) or short (to show that dissent is just few handful misfits). But loosing your calm and going all CAPS LOCK is not going to help at all.--Staberinde (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Contrary to popular belief, an argument does not become more persuasive the louder one shouts it or the more often one repeats it. Sandstein 17:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse there was clearly no consensus to delete. -Atmoz (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Close was not clearly erroneous. As I believe the reasons give for "Keep"ing were, although stated in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, actually contrary to those guidelines, I would have closed as delete, had I not voted to delete. However, I suggest "Relist" or perhaps "Nullify result" might be an appropriate result of this DRV, even though it would almost certainly not produce anything better next time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "no consensus" already by convention permits relatively speedy renomination, and it isn't really a "result", but rather "no result, therefore do nothing". It's easy to nullify a "result", but how can we nullify a "no result"? Since relisting right now is unlikely to be productive, I suggest that we just endorse the close. Tim Song (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Hmmm, was David Shankbone on the list? A reasonable close. The keeps were not out of policy, indeed some deletes might familiarize themselves with Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. Compiling our own list is not considered OR.John Z (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really. You think all these keeps are within policy, and not arguing for keeping a WP:POVFORK?

Extended content

Keep The "science of GW is settled" POV is predominant, and this article/list shows that there is notable opposition to the "consensus" position. The mainstream position is made up of key conclusions, and the list is grouped to indicate where the various opponents "stick". Opposing a key (i.e. crticial to the position) conclusion doesn't put one on the "gradient of opinion" it puts one in opposition to the position. To suggest that this list belongs in "Climate Change Denial" is to assume the POV that those listed are inherently wrong in their conclusions (as if the very "denial" name of such an article). If the general GW related articles related such opposition in an open and objective manner, then I would say delete it as redundant. LowKey (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep If those supporting the consensus about global warming on Wikipedia had been a bit less POV in their attempts to quiet any mention of dissent by knowledgeable scientists, their arguments for deletion would make more sense, but that horse left the barn long ago. Article is entirely composed of otherwise notable figures who have publicly dissented from the claimed "everybody who knows agrees" consensus. htom (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This smacks of sweeping scientific dissent under the carpet, the disruptive use of tags should also be removed. Justin talk 20:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep There is a conspicuous under-representation of minority and/or dissenting views on any of the other global warming articles; Keep is conditional upon Renaming the article and changing the format to something more encyclopedic (i.e. not a list) Voiceofreason01 (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is under-representaion of minority / dissenting views on global warming both within and without WP. Protection of rationally-expressed opinion is important, and even more so when it concerns a minority. Problems with the article can & should be fixed, but that is difficult to do when it is under such consistent attack. I would suggest that if keep is decided, then there should be a longish period before the issue is mooted again. Contributors deserve a chance to cool down, and put in some hard work. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That there are people willing to suppress free speech is frightening enough, that they want to suppress it while screaming they are doing it for the good of mankind is downright scary. The people who are screaming for deletion remind me of the Inquisitors trying to root out heretics. All the scientists quoted in the article are well respected and they have points of views that need to be heard over the clamoring sameness of what people get to hear in the main press outlets. Post the "the objectivity... blah, blah, blah warning and let adults decide for themselves. Say no to censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottca075 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is important to be able to have access to the opposing views on climate change and its causes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.67.164.37 (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — This is one of the most pivotal issues to mankind. The list of scientific luminaries opposed to the consensus view is of intense, profound and growing interest to millions of people, and wikipedia is performing a vital function by maintaining it. ► RATEL ◄ 00:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a big chunk of the keep votes, and there's other borderline ones in the same line. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 19:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes like that were discounted in my read of the consensus, but so too were equally weak delete arguments. You can't just ignore the votes you don't like. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse It always interests me when after a very sharply divided debate, where there is considerable disagreement between established Wikipedians about the applicable policies, a non-consensus close is challenged. It's saying: I don't care if it looks like everyone disagreed. The people who really counted agreed -- that is, the people who think the same way i do. Myself, I might equally say that all the delete votes were against the core policy of NPOV. Given the natural variation, nominate something 4 or 5 times and it has about an even chance of being deleted, regardless of the merits. I think this non-consensus result was the aberrant one, and we'll be back to keep the next time. I suggest waiting a year. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sportspeople convicted of a crime

I wasted two hours creating this cat without any knowledge of this prior presumably precedent setting Cfd, which dates from a year and a half ago. Good Olfactory just came along and used Cyde bot to delete the lot, didn't bother telling me, and flipped me off when I asked him to review it. This category is a valid category imo, I would not have wasted the time otherwise, the arguments in this cited prior Cfd discussion, are few, and weak. The only argument that is in any way reasonable, is BLP, and given the fact we already categorise Policemen, Clergy, and Politicians in this way in Category:Criminals by occupation (and there are others dotted around like British Peers), where is the problem? There can be no argument that a convicted sporstman is not as notable or defining as a convicted politician. The fact that we already have a list is not an argument for not having a category, per WP:CLS, and in actual fact, in the short time this cat was allowed to exist, the list was being updated as it was no longer a pointless orphan, and the cat was also added to other people not on the list. I want this unilateral, and frankly brutal, deletion overturned, and if necessary, a new Cfd covering all criminals by occupation categories opened. MickMacNee (talk) 08:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coming to DRV calling previous decisions "brutal" isn't generally a way of endearing yourself to people here. WP:CLS permits, rather than requiring, a category to go alongside a list, and I remain unconvinced as to whether a category, which generates substantial BLP issues because it can't be cited unlike a list, would be good here. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It can be sourced in the way that any other category already is - if you don't see a source in the article, you remove the category. If you are worried about BLP, focus on truly dodgy categories, such as whether Lee Hughes really has converted to Islam, rather than categories that have a clear yes/no outcome - either they were convicted of a crime, or they weren't. Quite apart from being a problem, this category is actually helpfull for tracking articles which will be be at risk to blp violations. And I would like to know what usefulness you think a list on its own serves, when you cannot navigate to it from all of those people's articles that are on it? (or, just because a category is not permitted, does that mean See Also links are also barred? If no, why? What's the difference? If yes, then let's just stop pretending that we are supposed to connect related articles). And don't you think the blp minded editors of those articles would be interested to know, and hence be able to monitor, the list? Or is it better for BLP that it sits as an unnnoticed and unwatched oprhan. It was half an hour before I found it when I started looking for it. Not letting anyone know it exists is not the right way to enforce BLP. I'm sorry if the word 'brutal' upsets you, but that's what I call an unnotified unilateral deletion of two hours work, that nobody could ever have known would not be allowed, based on Politicians, Police and Cergy, and god knows how many others, already existing, and with a list existing. If an editor with two years time and thousands of edits can make such a mistake, then how long do you think anybody else is going to stick around here to figure out wp:cat? The irony is, on another given day, I bet someone would come and argue that having a list is the BLP violation, and that we should have a category to keep the referencing on the bio articles. Nobody can win in this madhouse environment, if they are here to help readers and create navigational aids. MickMacNee (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm certainly not a fan of the "OMG someone said BLP quick let's delete" attitude. And of course I'm one of those who thinks CfD has serious structural issues. But there was an identifiable consensus to delete there, and the procedure does seem to have been followed correctly, so in this case it's an endorse from me.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per the previous two, and per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Kbdank71 12:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The consensus was clear enough. Tim Song (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Couldn't be closed any other way. Question though: if someone wants to recreate an article that has been deleted, they can do so if they've fixed the previous problem. If it is believed that consensus was at fault, where does one go to recreate a CAT? Here I assume. So should we be looking at something other than just consensus? Should the nom be directed to go back to CfD and request it be reconsidered? There needs be a process. Hobit (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Permit creation on the basis of conformity with other categories. There are blp issues, but they apply to the other categories also and can be resolved on the talk pages of the articles concerned, or of the category. if there is a list, there should be a category, if only to catch the ones omitted from the list. There would need to be a very special reason to not do so. If we need a procedural reason to ask for a rediscussion, it is that the previous one was not adequate--as is the case for many cfd discussions. As hobit says, there must be some way to change a decision if opinion changes. Per IAR, and NOT BUREAUCRACY, if there is no mechanism set up for doing so for categories, it should be done wherever suitable--and this place is as suitable as any other, since a number of those who have made the sometimes unfortunate decision to work on screening deletions watch it. S Marshall, I wonder if you have any ideas where to discuss it further. I think the alternative to finding a place to review is to abolish Cfd,since its decisions remain those of a small coteries and over-local consensus. Or at leas tto fully discuss new issues with the person who complains. I think a bot for the purpose is unacceptable. DGG ( talk ) 14:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to discuss this problem on the talk page for Category:Wikipedians who think CFD is broken, but of course the said category was deleted and depopulated against consensus as a result of a CfD discussion. When we've overturned that and our discussion space has been restored, I think that would be the optimum place.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Anything wrong with using WT:CFD? A user category probably isn't a suitable place to discuss change as has been proposed. --Kbdank71 16:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment- I'd like to say to overturn based on WP:IAR, but I doubt that would go over well. I know the consensus was for deletion, but I'm in agreement that the CFD process is deeply flawed. If it isn't overturned, and if the category of Category:Wikipedians who think CFD is broken ever gets re-created, add my name to that list as well. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 50: / Line 50: @@
 That's a big chunk of the keep votes, and there's other borderline ones in the same line. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Shoemaker's Holiday|Shoemaker's Holiday]]''' <sup>''''' [[User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday|talk]]'''''</sup></span> 19:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 :Votes like that were discounted in my read of the consensus, but so too were equally weak delete arguments. You can't just ignore the votes you don't like. '''\''' [[User:Backslash Forwardslash|Backslash Forwardslash]] '''/''' ([[User Talk: Backslash Forwardslash|talk]]) 20:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
+*'''Endorse''' It always interests me when after a very sharply divided debate, where there is considerable disagreement between established Wikipedians about the applicable policies,   a non-consensus close is challenged. It's saying: I don't care if it looks like everyone disagreed. The people who really counted agreed -- that is, the people who think the same way i do. Myself, I might equally say that  all the delete votes were against the core policy of NPOV. Given the natural variation, nominate something 4 or 5 times and it has about an even chance of being deleted, regardless of the merits.  I think this non-consensus result was the aberrant one, and we'll be back to keep the next time. I suggest waiting a year.   '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 21:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 ====[[:Category:Sportspeople convicted of a crime]]====