Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 August 27

27 August 2009

African admixture in Europe

African admixture in Europe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

An article was recently deleted. Soon after, someone recreated it. I nominated that one for deletion the regular way. I now realize that I should have nominated it for speedy deletion G4, which is in fact the action that Administrator RoySmith ended up taking on his own. But then he was forced to relist it due to a procedural error on my part. Inexplicably, the ensuing deletion discussion resulted in a decision to keep the article (though just barely). All of the people who voted "keep" completely ignored the fact that it's a recreation of a recently deleted article, even though I made that perfectly clear. And one voter looked suspiciously like a sock. So this article has been spared on a technicality (my stupid mistakes that other people went along with), which I don't think is a valid reason. The fact remains that it meets WP:CSD G4 and should be deleted. I tried convincing the Administrator who closed the discussion, but he told me to request a deletion review. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. This is absurd. DRV is for fixing procedural errors, not just a second chance to overturn a decision you didn't like. This is a content dispute between a small group of editors (possibly two?). They have been unable to resolve their differences and have taken the argument to AfD and now (twice) to DRV instead of working with each other to reach consensus. What makes this so absurd is that we're not even talking about deleting a topic; the entire debate is whether the topic should be covered as a distinct article or a section of a larger one. It doesn't matter. I'm starting to think the best solution here is to just slap a long block on both parties for being disruptive. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. No procedural problems. The numbers are not close (I count 6-3 in favor of keep), so IMO you need a very strong showing that the closer committed a clear error in weighing the arguments. I can't even say that there was error, much less clear error. No opinion on the block suggestion; DRV is not the proper venue for that. Tim Song (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment from closing admin - my only comment is that I can't countenance the idea that a speedy deletion can override an AfD consensus (with the standard exceptions like copyright, BLP, etc.), which is why I did not accept Small Victory's request to overturn to deletion. I believe I am correct in maintaining this assertion, though I'm willing to be told I'm wrong. No other comments to make regarding the correctness of the close. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• I endorse this accurate close. Fritzpoll could not have closed it in any other way. Also, I'm heartily sick of seeing this article at DRV.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse- Odd situation, one I admit to never having seen before, but I can't find fault with the way it was closed. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse The point of G4 is only to weed out recreations that are not worth considering. If the article is improved enough that there is a consensus that it is good enough, that consensus holds. It's absurd to think we can never reconsider a decision to delete, but can reconsider a decision to keep as often as necessary. DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with you people? This is a clear-cut case of an article that should have been deleted immediately. And in fact it was, until a silly procedural error brought it back from the dead. The deletion discussion you're all talking about is beside the point because it should never have taken place. This is the discussion that counts, where it was decided (9-1) that the material should be removed and merged into a preexisting article, which is what happened. The new article, which is nothing but a poorly disguised clone of the old one, was created two weeks later in direct violation of that consensus. None of the "keep" voters the second time around paid any attention whatsoever to these facts, and now neither are any of you. This is beyond ridiculous. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can change. As DGG explained quite clearly, G4 is designed to avoid repetitive discussions that serve little purpose. Since the discussion has already happened anyway, and resulted in a different consensus, the new discussion is the one that controls now. Besides, WP:CSD says that admins may, "at their discretion", bypass discussion and delete the article if it fits a CSD. It's within the admin's discretion to decline a G4 and bring a case to AfD even if it were a recreation (I haven't seen the original, so I can't tell). And, even if the article were deleted by G4, it probably would have been brought to DRV and restored/listed for AfD, if the !votes in this discussion are any indication, so at most, any error was harmless. This is at least wikilawyering that wastes everyone's time. Tim Song (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, if you guys can't even get something as straightforward as this right, then the deletion review process is officially worthless. Looks like I'll just have to nominate the article for deletion again until the "consensus changes" to the right decision. Nice work everybody. ---- Small Victory (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. It's not good for Wikipedia, and it's not good for you, either. Tim Song (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "make a point". I'm trying to get rid of an article that doesn't belong. And after a reasonable amount of time passes, I have every right to renominate the article for deletion, which is exactly what I plan on doing. The user who recreated it is the one being disruptive, and the Administration's inability to recognize this and take the correct action is mind-boggling. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Disillusion yourself of the notion that there is an all-powerful "administration" that can make these decisions. We read and enact community consensus - unless you can show that I misread the consensus at the AfD, there isn't anything we can do. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I think that User:Small Victory has overlooked a key point; if the topic of an article is legit, the article will be kept even if the article is biased or riddled with errors. In this case, nobody can deny that there has been continuous African gene flow into Europe. An article on Australian Aboriginal admixture into Africa would be deleted. If the article is full of errors, fix it. Abductive (reasoning) 04:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There's been gene flow from Africa to everywhere in the world, so there's nothing notable about the gene flow to Europe. Furthermore, that's not the same thing as "African admixture". The field of population genetics is now at a point where admixture can be accurately quantified, and the studies doing so have found no more than a drop of African admixture in Europeans. Certainly not enough to justify a whole article on the subject, which is in large part why the previous article was deleted and merged (in shorter form) into Genetic history of Europe. It seems you've already come around to this way of thinking. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)