Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 23

23 December 2010

Canada–Tonga relations

Canada–Tonga relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The debate was relisted after seven days with a note reading, "consensus split, pointless NCing this one." I would agree that there was neither any consensus to keep nor any to delete at that point.
Since then, there were five further 'keep' arguments (one of which I presume you discounted as per WP:JUSTAVOTE, and rightly so) and three further 'delete' arguments. Of course voting plays no part in things but I do not think it could be said that those eight additional comments – nor the discussion they prompted – provided the overall debate with a consensus to delete the article.
In particular, some of the 'delete' arguments were spurious in the extreme, and there were strong elements of proof by assertion (people may well say that the opposing side also used such devices, and I might agree with that, but this would only strengthen the case for a 'no consensus' finding) including, "It's really not my problem if people choose to ignore the clear wording of WP:NOTE," "You act as if those links you've provided are substantial, when they are not," "Sources exist but you can't find them? pathetic," a statement that sources are only valid if they are available free online, a hint that sources covering more than one topic were unacceptable even if they contained relevant content [1], a suggestion that a proposed reference was invalid because none of the chapters were entitled 'Canada Tonga relations' [2] and even a copy-pasted deletion vote [3] – and note I didn't say, "copy-pasted deletion !vote."
I think it is clear that this result should be overturned to 'no consensus' – ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 14:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• comment I think the sources supplied are on the weak side, but feel the discussion showed a lack of consensus on that topic. Further I strongly suspect there exists a document that covers these relations in detail. Things like [4] seem like plenty evidence of a meaningful relationship. Was the close within admin discretion? I'm not sure, it's pretty close. I _do_ think NC was the better call though. Hobit (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• There was a consensus that my previous close of this debate should not have been made, and on Wikipedia one submits to the consensus, even when it's blatantly wrong. I'm grateful to Spartaz for stepping up and making the close that replaced mine, even though I think it went the wrong way. An argument for a merge was made and not refuted.—S Marshall T/C 17:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

  Merge argued or not, the close was not 'merge' – it was 'delete'. And while your close was overturned, it was not because the decision was considered wrong but because the procedure was. Neither of these points should point towards support of this 'delete' outcome. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 17:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

  That's exactly my point; merge was argued and not refuted, so the alternatives to deletion weren't exhausted, which makes the "no consensus" close objectively correct. But it's also true to say a number of editors did question my decision, rather than the procedure. That doesn't make them right, and I remain of the view that they were wrong. I also think it's a shame that with such a contentious discussion, a rather nuanced close should be replaced with a simplistic one.

  But the other side of it is that Spartaz was backed into a corner. With so many editors !voting to overturn the "no consensus" at DRV, he had to take account of that discussion, which in itself represented a consensus.

  So, objectively wrong though the "delete" camp are—and that's very clearly my position—Spartaz couldn't realistically have closed it otherwise. Even when the consensus is badly wrong, as in this case, it's to be obeyed.—S Marshall T/C 22:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn as no consensus The Afd was relisted earlier because there was no consensus, and the comments of those participating after the relisting were also rather equally balanced. The issues regarding copyright violations that had been raised earlier had been addressed and the arguments for retention regarding the validity of the sources counterbalanced the arguments for deletion. There was neither consensus based on argument or numbers for either deletion or retention, and the original non-admin close as "no consensus" was appropriate in terms of an end result, though questionable based on user involvement. While it was appropriate to undo the non-admin close, there appears to be no clear consensus for deletion. A justification from the closing administrator explaining the reasoning behind the close might have provided a basis for the close, but none was offered. Alansohn (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Emdorse close. There was no outcome but deletion that would actually conform to WP:Policy on WP:Original Research. Abductive (reasoning) 21:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

  The DRV process is to discuss whether a close was procedurally acceptable, not whether or not you personally agree with it. Clearly, multiple editors felt that the article fell within the bounds of WP:NOR, so the question is, was there a consensus to delete? And the answer is, no. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 21:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

that is purely your opinion. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn and re-close, unless there is a clear consensus here that the close was not just within discretion, but "correct". I recently pledged, at another DRV, to !vote to overturn any contentious XfD where the closing admin didn't give adequate contemporaneous reasons for the close. I agree with the outcome here as I always agree with Spartaz's closes, and I think I'm being a pain in the arse. But I nonetheless think it is an important principle for a number of reasons which I won't wank on about here. And I shouldn't abandon my position merely because I like the outcome. BTW, I'm still waiting on DGG's answer to Libstar's question in the AfD, which in some way goes to the question of "weighting" of the !votes in this AfD. Re TT above - none of the keep !voters even attempted to refute the NOR argument. It was essentially ignored by the "there are heaps of sources" catchcry. I can only assume that no-one attempted to refute the argument because it couldn't be refuted except by providing sources that discussed the relationship as a whole. It was a killer irrefutable point that should have decided the AfD as NOR is an overriding policy. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• It would be a killer irrefutable point if NOR was a reason to delete. But surely, NOR is a reason to rewrite, isn't it?—S Marshall T/C 23:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• In some circumstances, yes. But in other circumstances the topic is irredeemably OR because on the sources available it simply isn't possible to write a NOR article on the topic. That was the essence of the point made in this AfD - that the sources wouldn't permit anything other than synthesis. That point was not refuted. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• But wouldn't the merge proposal have addressed it satisfactorily? And wasn't the merge proposal itself unrefuted?—S Marshall T/C 23:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Merge" didn't have anywhere near consensus support. It was a random idea thrown up in the discussion without any analysis of whether it would actually be viable. I completely reject the idea that if one participant throws up a merge suggestion, it has to be exhaustively considered before deletion becomes an option. I should add that the validity of OR as a reason for deletion is also understood by appreciating the close relationship between WP:NOR and WP:N (particularly WP:GNG). That is, without significant coverage in reliable sources, an article's subject matter is likely to be hopelessly prone to OR, because the article will either have to synthesise non-signficant coverage or rely on unsourced material. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I think it was a bit more than "a random idea". When I read that debate, I see significant, if minority, support for a merge and acknowledgement among the "delete" camp that merge is also a viable option. I also think that it's AfD's job to consider all reasonable suggestions made during the debate, and that if a reasonable suggestion is made during the debate but remains unrefuted, then the closer probably ought to take account of that.—S Marshall T/C 23:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• But if there is no explanation regarding what material would be merged, or what the material would be merged into, how is it a reasonable suggestion? What of substance would be merged into Foreign relations of Canada, an article that obviously discusses infinitely more significant matters than Tonga? No-one even sought to explain that. "Merge" isn't a proposal worth a grain of salt unless it is "Merge X into Y, which would be viable for the following reasons…". We demand reasoning from keep and delete !votes. "Merge" should be held to the same standard especially if anyone closing the debate is going to take the attitude that the mere fact of a merge proposal can stand in the way of a consensus to delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm, when I read it in context, I understood the reasoning behind the "merge" proposal. But I can understand how come others would not, and we might need to agree to disagree here. (Incidentally, I think it's hilariously ironic that you're making those arguments beneath an "overturn" recommendation while I'm essentially endorsing, particularly when you and I have both directly swapped sides since the last DRV on this article. :) We'd both be ripe subjects for a study of the psychology of Wikipedia!)—S Marshall T/C 23:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know about the psychology of wikipedia... I reckon it's just a DRV thing. :) --Mkativerata (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse the poor attempt at original closure by a non-admin who even admitted it was heading to delete. the last deletion review clearly had consenus for delete. as with any AfD it's about strength of arguments, most keep arguments didn't bother to find sources, and the sources which were found were weak and far from indepth. there was clearly consensus that these sources were far from suitable from advancing notability. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Artur Balder

Artur Balder (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There's an editor, User:Lolox76, who seems to be hot under the collar about the deletion of Artur Balder which seemingly arose out of the AfD for Curdy. Input from the upset Lolox76 appears on User_talk:Rodhullandemu#Deletion_of_new_article_Artur_Balder. The gist of the case appears to be "A simple Google search would proof evidence of his work as a well known writer, and the article at the english wikipedia Little Spain recelntly appeared sustains enormous critical attention evoked by the documentary that discovers a district of Manhattan." I remain unconvinced, but I had two minutes to spare and thought I'd help the complainant by putting this deletion review together. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I have temp-undeleted the article so that (by looking in the history) it can be seen during this DRV. JohnCD (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)