Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 27

27 April 2011

Apartheid in Bahrain

Apartheid in Bahrain (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was deleted after a discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Apartheid_in_Bahrain

I believe that the page should be put back up in light of ongoing media coverage of apartheid policies being practiced by the indigenous Shia majority of Bahrain by the Sunni monarchy and government. In particular, Since the page was deleted, Ali Akbar Salehi, the Foreign Minister of Iran, has formally expressed his government's concern over the “apartheid-like” discrimination practiced against the the Shiite majority by the government of Bahrain in a letter addressed to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. And the press, particularly in Iran, has continued to cover the issue and to call it apartheid, as does the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights and international observers including Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.Casaubon (talk • contribs) 19:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support, regardless of how it will be titled ("discrimination against Shiites" or elsehow). NYT search shows up 752 results for the last 12 months. – George Serdechny 19:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

  As an FYI, the options for a deletion review differ from an AfD. I had to learn this as well, so I am pointing it out to you here. The options are to either endorse the outcome (in this case deletion), relist, or overturn (in this case to keep the article). CycloneGU (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

  It's slightly more complex than that. The common statement of "not afd round 2" encapsulates that. So merely stating overturn because you disagree with the outcome, or endorse merely because you agree are not valid sentiments. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

  George Serdechny, that count of 752 is misleading because it just shows occurrence of the terms "apartheid" and "Bahrain" on the same page. It does not represent all of the stories about "apartheid in Bahrain." Many of the hits (as seen on the first page of results) are from different stories that all contain links to the same editorial by Kristof. Some are from reader comments and are thus obviously not reliable sources. Others can clearly be identified as false hits from their summaries alone in your search results (e.g., from page 2: "... Jimmy Carter and the South African anti-apartheid leader Desmond Tutu, ... In Bahrain, a Proxy Battle Between Saudi Arabia and Iran ...", "...for the safety of the journalists we've deployed in Egypt, Bahrain, ... Africa was to negotiate job security for the apartheid-era army. ...").

  CycloneGU, I. Causabon is basically asking for an "allow recreation" judgment, which doesn't deal with whether the prior AFD was valid but instead argues that circumstances have changed, such as by new sources arising that establish notability. See warning and discussion. postdlf (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Last-minute rescue

nominated for deletion as Just-in-time lad (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• User:George Serdechny/Last-minute rescue · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
• Deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Just-in-time lad

Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion § Last-minute rescue

There is no certain opinion about article's new name, however different points of view represented at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#"Last-minute rescue" or "Griffith's last-minute rescue". The point is mainly about restoring the article under its current title.
To administrator, who is in charge: I'd like to ask you to restore it along with its talk page, which has not been moved to my userspace (original talkpage is here: Talk:Just-in-time lad - seems it contains some useful info). Thanks. – George Serdechny 06:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• It's a reworking of an article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Just-in-time lad. As such, it should be taken to Wikipedia:Deletion review, if at all. postdlf (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Done. Besides, it's not "a reworking". It's final edition of the article prior to be deleted. Anyone, who can point me out any OR issues in it, strongly welcomed. – George Serdechny 14:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment from closer. The article was originally titled Just-in-time lad, purporting to be a stock character, and was deleted as OR. The creator was dismissive and sarcastic in response to the deletion arguments in the AFD; rude in response to my valid, skeptical questions about why I should userfy it when he asked me to do so ("I did not ask for your opinion"), incredibly claiming that he wanted it undeleted so he could nominate it for FA; and after another admin userfied it the creator seemed to treat it as a foregone conclusion that the article was going to be restored to mainspace, not even mentioning in a Wikiproject discussion he started that it was an article that was just AFD'd. So I think there are a number of problems here, first and foremost is that I see no indication that George Serdechny has acknowledged, or understood, the issues raised in the AFD, if he still insists that it has no OR problems. He had already tried retitling it during the AFD to "last-minute-hero".(see comment here) I see no argument here for undeletion or moving his userpage draft to article space other than the fact that he disagreed with the outcome. postdlf (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• You only forgot to mention that my "dismissive and sarcastic respond", was a respond to the following statement: "I don't see any hope that this could eventually be restored as an article". What a valid, skeptical questions!
  And "yes", I'm still insisting that the article has no OR problems. The problem is mostly about the "massive effect" of those who claim it has, without even reading it.
  Like you, for example. You reproach me with "last-minute-hero" but there were no such definitions in the article when you deleted it.
  P.S. It seems your time is not so precious as you previously claimed while responding me with "Don't waste my time". Well, if so, then I have to answer simply:
  Don't waste mine. – George Serdechny 15:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - Until the original research is removed, this article isn't worthy of being in the mainspace, let alone being nominated for featured article as this user has clearly indicated he wants to do in two April 22 edits. CycloneGU (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• As I've allready said: Anyone, who can point me out any OR issues in the article, strongly welcomed. So, point it out. Please. – George Serdechny 15:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• I have given the article another look since my comment. My main issue is that I can't verify a single one of these sources. It looks like some of the sources are themselves encyclopedias, which does suggest notability. I am wondering whether it might be appropriate to relist and at the same time try to give assistance to remove original research even if it means a haircut reducing the article to a fifth its current size (I have no idea if that would be the case, I'm being hypothetical). I might even be able to head to a library at some point and look up some of these, but don't hold your breath for that. Also, don't be in a hurry to nominate it for FA either, that is still far away. CycloneGU (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Well thanks, but note that * 15 of 19 referred sources are publicly available at google books and other free-access web-resources. Other 4 available for authorized customers only, but you can easily verify quotations by matching them in the google search line. There are mostly direct quotations. – George Serdechny 17:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Notwithstanding that DRV is not AFD round 2, the confusion in the lede alone doesn't inspire me with a lot of confidence that the sources are being interpreted correctly. It claims that it's a "type of cross-cutting...used in cinematography," when cross-cutting is actually an editing technique, and cinematography is the actual process of using a camera and lighting to film shots. It also misidentifies D. W. Griffith as a cinematographer when he was a film director. And if you read the whole article, you see that it's actually trying to describe "last-minute rescue" as a narrative device, not something unique to film (and probably just a typical suspense-increasing tactic, where the climax of any kind occurs at the proverbial "last minute" whether or not it involves a rescue or other action; see also Dramatic structure#Falling action). Particularly given that this started out as an attempt to describe a purported archetype and only shifted once it was pointed out in the AFD that "just-in-time-lad" was made up and not supported by the sources George claimed it was, it's clear that the very concept of the subject is confused in addition to the details.

  So I see no reason to question or overturn the judgment of the AFD participants, and no reason to relist. George certainly shouldn't have come here with the "final edition of the article prior to be[ing] deleted", "still insisting that the article has no OR problems." If he's going to try to use his userspace copy to forum-shop an end run around AFD (as he did with the film Wikiproject) without actually addressing any of the reasons why it was deleted, I think the userfied version should be deleted as well. postdlf (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Umm, can I ask you: Why didn't you share this wisdom with me, before deleting the article? And still, where's OR?.. – George Serdechny 18:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• postdif was the closing admin. in the AfD. What this means is that the result is not his opinion, it is merely his reading of the consensus. He read a consensus to delete, and closed the AfD as such. I do not question his actions. CycloneGU (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• You don't, I do. Yes, I agree that "he read a consensus to delete, and closed the AfD as such". But, he did not stated nothing even barely close to "George, I was so tired when summarized AfD, but you can go to DRV. Good luck!", he decided that it will be better to ignore my request to userfy and to start to "bull" each other. – George Serdechny 18:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Are you accusing postdif of editing in bad faith? Keep in mind that he is not going to advise one way or the other because that suggests that he has an opinion and would invalidate his close. If you were to inquire about protesting the close as he read it, he would be able to suggest deletion review. But prior to that he is not required to make the suggestion. CycloneGU (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, I linked OR in my comments and here again if you need the definition. Unless you mean the article, let's let this appeal play out and see what others think. It might be appealable under the new name, but I'm not an expert in the subject. CycloneGU (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's get back to things which "doesn't inspire postdlf with a lot of confidence that the sources are being interpreted correctly":

1. This type of crosscutting or intercutting came to be known as the "Griffith last-minute rescue" (The New Encyclopaedia Britannica). I've decided that "used in cinema" is not the best possible definition and replaced it with "used in cinematography" (because cinematography is a process, while cinema is not).
2. I've intended to define D. W. Griffith as a "cinemtographist", but the dictionary, which I use (slovari.yandex.ru - the most used in Russian part of the Web) showed up that there are no such word in English, while "cinematographer" is translated as "кинематографист" ([cinemtographist] Error: {{Transliteration}}: missing language / script code (help)) and film-maker, respectively.
3. I've named article "just-in-time-lad" and made some other weak definitions, because it's only one year passed since I've started to study English and I've never been to English-speaking country before. You (as well as the others) were able to point it with teplates: , , etc. Deletion is actually the last thing to do with a new-made article. Did somebody used templates, or asked for clarification? – George Serdechny 18:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• As the person who initially tagged the original article for deletion, I want to point out that even if the article in question wasn't plagued by the question of OR, would the subject of the aticle even be noteworthy enough to stand alone as its own article? Most of the minor sections, such as "Deus Ex Machina" or the "In Other Cultures" section already have their own, much more comprehensive articles on Wikipedia. The vast majority of the remainder of the article is solely on D. W. Griffith's work. Even if the OR issues are cleared up, it would make a lot more sense to just integrate any actual relevent and fully sourced material from it into D. W. Griffith, rather than insisting this be its own article.Rorshacma (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• We did not and do not discuss merging yet. Besides, I'm planning to expand the article, but only after it will be restored in the main space. – George Serdechny 19:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• That's not how it works. Expand the article where it is right now and prove it belongs in the namespace as its own article. We're not denying your contributions, as some can be used in other articles; the comment you are replying to is discussing whether this should be its own article. CycloneGU (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - a well-written and very original article. As such, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Dlabtot (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Urgent request: Instead of discussing my (or anybody's else) personal qualities/contributions/intentions and other miscellaneous things, can we go closer to the point (OR). Thanks. – George Serdechny 19:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This deletion review is to discuss whether the original close was correct and whether there is enough changes to the article to warrant overturning to keep or even relisting at AfD. Original research is not the only thing to be discussed. With that said, I would urge others from the AfD to bring up their points here. I will take the courtesy of notifying some of the participants as a neutral party. CycloneGU (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

AfD participants are not the "neutral party". There's no wonder that those who vote to delete the article without reading it, will skip any common sense arguments in order to erase even the single mention of this blunder. Of course you should notify them, and entire community as well. – George Serdechny 19:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

All right, I only had to notify one user; the rest were alerted by postdif to this review. Among my perusals I also noted this edit. Telling an administrator that his record willbe blemished by voicing his opinion on an article against your own opinion is not cool. If you are trying to get people to agree with you, this is not how to do it.

Also, the entire community has a chance to participate in any AfD. These are the people who participated. Thus, it can be assumed they are most interested in this review. CycloneGU (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't want these people to agree with me. I want more broad discussion. – George Serdechny 20:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Speaking in good faith, it sounds like you don't understand how Wikipedia works. Surely additional people will come in who tend to focus more on deletion reviews (I'm one of them). However, those involved in the AfD are also welcome to provide their comments in a deletion review as well. You cannot control that or tell them you don't want them here; if they want to comment, they will do so. CycloneGU (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I've told you, I do not want these people to agree with me, cause I feel no need in such agreement, whether they will make any comments or not. I cannot control them and I never wanted to. – George Serdechny 20:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. First and foremost, DRV is not intended to be a second-run AFD; there were no procedural errors during the AFD process and no reason to believe that the closing admin misinterpreted consensus or closed in a way incompatible with it. Generally speaking, that suggests there is no need to overturn here. Procedure aside, there really is nothing to suggest that this moves beyond original research -- specifically, it was a novel synthesis. The article, as it appeared in AFD, was well-referenced, but it was the article, not those references, making the connections. I applaud the efforts to improve the article during AFD, but that fundamental flaw appears inescapable. The article's author extensively cites critical analysis of D. W. Griffith. And, to be fair, there is plenty written about Griffith's "last minute rescues"[1][2][3][4]. That's the sort of thing that should certainly be discussed in Griffith's article, if it's not already (I haven't looked). There's enough coverage of the film concept that it might even earn a passage in climax (narrative) or deus ex machina. Maybe -- maybe -- even an article of its own, although I'm dubious. But that's not what the article we saw at AFD presented. The AFD article wasn't about a storytelling technique, it was about a character. It was an article that purported that the characters who perform those last-minute rescues, those climaxes, those deus ex machina constitute an archetype with independent notability. And I cannot source that connection or that claim. Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• "But that's not what the article we saw at AFD presented". That is not true. Here is a version of the article 3 days before it was deleted. Well, two and a half days, if precisely. Is there any comma or any single dot, which makes it different from the version, which we're discussing now? – George Serdechny 20:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. In both the AfD and the article itself, the article creator made it quite clear that the stock character name ("just in time lad") was an irrelevance and could be changed. There is therefore no room to suggest that a revised character name makes any difference to the AfD opinion which was clearly and unabiguously expressed, so there is no convincing case to overturn its outcome. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)