Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 14

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)

14 November 2006

Parodies featured on Arthur

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parodies featured on Arthur

Parodies featured on Arthur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I dont know if I'm doing this right, but whatever. Anyway, I nominated this article for deletion, the voting was 7 delete 4 keep, at 63% for deletion, yet the result was no consensus. From what I see, the page is nothing but fancruft, and original research. The people who voted it with keep were people who worked on the page and didn't want to see their work removed. P.S. If I'm putting this in the wrong section, please let me know. DietLimeCola 22:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well, 66% and up is the magic percentage that has traditionally represented a deletion consensus. At any rate, I don't really mind if I'm reversed here... I guess the DRV should concern whether I should have deleted in spite of the numbers, because the topic was original research. --W.marsh 22:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. AfD is not a vote, there is no "magic percentage". Two of the arguments for keeping depended on inclusion of other articles, which is a flimsy argument for keeping, and the only legitimate keep argument was "it is sourced" (only if you count the use of TV episodes as primary sources which often falls under original research). Consensus and weight of argument was clearly for deletion, in my opinion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse result. Are we going to start reviewing all "no consensus" closes at this point. Not sure if there was a consensus here, saw no problem with it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think I might have accidently given him the idea that his only choice was to bring it to DRV... of course merging or just waiting a while for another AfD were options. --W.marsh 23:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Er, or not, per below. --W.marsh 23:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per Sam Blanning. AFD is not a vote, and "article X is here, so article Y should be here too" isn't a very strong argument for keeping anything. One article's inclusion does not justify the inclusion of other articles. --Coredesat 23:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Read what he posted in my talk page so you can get a better view of his point of view in this situation. [1] DietLimeCola 23:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per Sam Blanning. Mackensen (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak endorse In my opinion, the arguments to delete outweighed those to keep, but not to such an extent that I think the admin erred in exercising discretion to default to keep. Would suggest that the original nominator tag the article/content using {{unsourced}} and {{fact}} as appropriate and renominate in a month or so if the supporters cannot provide independent reliable sources to verify the article. A relisting to generate further consensus might also be appropriate. Shimeru 23:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Closed properly. The closing administrator did his best to interpret the debate, without inserting bias by throwing out or heavily weighting any opinions based on his own. No further action should be taken at this time. To err on the side of granting a little extra leeway to good faith contributors is always desirable, even if you don't appreciate the topic, Jimbo says so himself. Unfocused 23:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse no consensus which means it can be renominated anytime. I'm not happy with the outcome but I find it within reason. Put up {{Sources}} and {{OR}} tags and renominate in four weeks. ~ trialsanderrors 01:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete: I place no blame on the closer, but I count another voice in the debate, myself, and that is the administrator's own reading of the deletion policy. Original research and overly granular coverage really are deletions, and this article is, at best, something that fans already know, and, at worst, just a fan's tribute largely to himself. Geogre 01:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• I'm torn. On the one hand, as W.marsh says, we can tag it for cleanup and if it's not been fixed in a month, debate again. On the other hand, experience indicates that if an article is AfDd as uncited, is not referenced during AfD, and is kept duie to WP:IHEARDOFIT and similar arguments, it never does get referenced. We tend to end up with low drama due to multiple no-consensus AfDs with nobody actually fixing the fundamental problem of an article which appears to be composed entirely of original research. Were this AfD I would vote unequivocal delete, as it is canonical fancruft. In the end, there is no valid topic "parodies on Arthur" (too arbitrary). Guy (Help!) 11:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think my original thinking was along the lines of "Apparently no problem had been pointed out with the article prior to the AfD, people put a lot of time into this article, let's see if they can find some encyclopedic use for this content if given some more time". Probably not, but who knows? It could theoretically have been moved to a title that implies a more encyclopedic direction, sourced, etc. --W.marsh 13:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete normally I'd endorse in a situation like this but two factors sway me into overturning. One, the keep arguments (which are a minority) are mostly incoherent or invalid and discountable while many of the delete arguments are cogent and consistent with policy, thus the weight of the debate is clearly delete. Secondly, the article is clearly indiscriminate cruft that violates WP:NOT and should be deleted, nothing is gained by waiting 4 weeks and renominating rather than deleting it now since clean-up cannot make it an acceptable article. Eluchil404 12:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure While closers are free to invoke "AfD is not a vote" at appropriate times, they are not compelled to do so, except perhaps in the most egregious cases. W. marsh used his discretion to rely on a more numerical consensus-determining method, and the result is not clearly unreasonable. As JzG says, this may be renominated if it is not improved later. Xoloz 17:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• endorse closure it can be renominated later this closure is valid though Yuckfoo 02:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, the closure was well within reason and as we've witnessed with the Cleveland steamer article you are free to renominate it for deletion as many times as you want until you're blue in the face. Double jeapordy doesn't apply here. RFerreira 04:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete-"Strong request to stop crying" is a personal attack and shouldn't really even be counted as a "keep". That would make it 7 to 3, even if we are doing "number of votes" rather than "strength of argument". Deletion arguments are strong and in keeping with policy, keep arguments are mainly "But somebody else got to do it!" Clear consensus to delete. Seraphimblade 08:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment To add to my previous, the following (from WP:DGFA) seems relevant:

"Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates such policies, and where it is impossible that an article on any topic can exist without breaching these three policies, such policies must again be respected above other opinions." Seraphimblade 12:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure per the commenters above, closure was within bounds of administrator's discretion. Yamaguchi先生 04:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)