Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 27: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:01, 30 August 2011

< 2011 August 26

Deletion review archives: 2011 August

2011 August 28 >

27 August 2011

File:Feloni in 2006.jpg (closed)

Slugslinger

I feel that the closing administrator, User:Wifione, misread the deletion discussion and threw out several opinions that should have been taken into account. Numerically, the discussion closed at 6-3 in favour of deletion with the majority of the delete opinions referring to the lack of reliable, independent sources as their rationale. On the keep side we had two sources presented to establish notability, but they were examined and found unsuitable by other participants in the discussion.

I also disagree with Wifione's rationale for throwing out several opinions in the discussion. On his talk page he claims that questioning the reliability of sources is just as worthless as a WP:ITSNOTABLE. I think this is wrong; the suitability of the sources has been challenged on pretty good grounds and it is up to those wanting the article kept to defend it. Therefore, agreeing with the challenge is a legitimate opinion but simple denial is not. Based on this, I think Wifione was wrong to ignore the input of Roscelese, Yaksar, Dwanyewest, an IP editor and myself. When they are taken into account, as they should be, consensus to delete the article is clear. Reyk _YO! 22:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to Delete. All three Keep votes were flawed - one claimed notability on the back of this "source", which is merely a listing in a toy guide. Another Keep vote (by Mathewignash) hung on a single source from a book - this quote to be precise - a passing mention in a footnote on Page 276. Since these were not valid reasons to Keep, the third Keep vote (which was basically "per the others") should also have been discarded. The fact that the article still doesn't have any significant independent sources after an AfD should be telling. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing surprising about that AfD. If you'd just told me it was a transformers article, given me a list of the participants, and asked me how each would vote, I would have been able to call every single one of them. What we have here is another skirmish in an ongoing battleground. This is basically a conduct issue, not a content issue, and it's not solvable unless we treat it appropriately. I'm sure it'll be escalated eventually. In the meantime I won't fault the closer for calling "no consensus" on a debate that didn't actually reach a consensus, and I'll remark that a redirect to the appropriate list would have been the correct outcome.
A lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources does not mean "delete". It means "do not have a separate article on this topic". That isn't just WP:BEFORE, it's also WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. The quibbling about WP:BEFORE was a red herring because WP:PRESERVE is part of Wikipedia:Editing policy. Which means that yes, policy does require you to exhaust the alternatives to deletion before nominating for an AfD. The alternatives weren't exhausted so I simply don't see the nomination as appropriate. But, I'm disappointed to say, I don't expect any of the participants to be prepared to change their behaviour on this because it would mean "losing".—S Marshall T/C 09:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You obviously haven't tried "the alternatives to deletion" with Transformers articles. I would actually have been quite happy to see it merged, because it's practically impossible to merge a Transformers article unless you get an AfD verdict anyway (you just keep getting reverted). You're quite right that it's a conduct issue - I just wonder how long we're going to let people get away with this. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's true, I'm not exactly an enthusiastic editor of Transformers articles. :) Like most fictional topics, I really don't care whether Wikipedia covers it or not (although I'll confess that I'm still annoyed that we have an "article" about Sexuality in Star Trek). DRV won't normally enforce a merge outcome, but in the circumstances I'm prepared to disregard that convention and recommend an overturn to merge, if that helps?—S Marshall T/C 10:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse If we bypass the !votes that were not evidence based, we are left with only two !votes, both of which think the article belongs as stand-alone on Wikipedia. Unscintillating (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you like to explain that ridiculous statement? There are no significant sources in this article, which is what most of the Delete votes said. (Edit: oh, wait, I've just looked at yuor contribution history. Very interesting. Who were you previously? And ... oh look ... [1]. Interesting.) Black Kite (t) (c) 14:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow, I didn't even see that at the time. A disgusting, transparent smear attempt. "Sabotage"... what a crock. Reyk _YO! 21:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, The problem with merges for articles on elements of fiction is that they almost always degenerate into mere one-line entries in lists, and it is very difficult to keep content against persistent and repeated attempts to remove it by small edits. For most of the AfD debates of elements of fiction where I vote !keep, I would !vote merge if I thought there would be an honest and sustainable merge. (To be fair, it can sometimes be equally hard to remove inappropriate content against editors who have taken OWNership of the article, but this is more likely to occur with such things as articles on non-fiction books.) AfDs are at least generally visible, although for some topics (such as most elements of fiction) the result is pretty much a matter of chance based on who has the time and energy to show up. DGG ( talk ) 14:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, DGG, I'd have been quite happy with a merge, it's just that with the appalling WP:OWNership issues with these articles, it's impossible to do so without getting the green light from an AfD, because you get reverted every time. As I said, this article still hasn't got any significant sourcing, so I presume the next step is to merge it. As such, I've placed the tag, for all the use it'll be. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Black Kite, above. The keep !votes alluded to notability while only presenting one source, which didn't offer much in-depth discussion. (OT: damn those toys from the 80s are expensive!) Them From Space 15:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. Reviewing the AfD, I agree with Wifione that a number of arguments on both sides were not especially strong, and so could not be given much weight:

Delete sources of dubious quality.
Keep Sources found indicate notability.
Delete- yet another fanblurb with extremely poor sourcing. Attacking the nominator is not a legitimate defence of this article.
Poorly sourced Transformers article with unreliable information DELETE

However, I would argue that the "legitimate" keep arguments that Wifione did gave weight to in the no consensus decision are also poor or were refuted:

Keep I'm no Transformers buff but find it quite easy to find expert and detailed coverage of the topic in detail in sources such as this. The topic is demonstrably notable and just needs work per our editing policy.

This source was appropriately challenged by Reyk, as it is structured as it is structured as a directory of all toys, rather than a source with significant coverage).

KEEP Once again Black Kite doesn't bother to do the research. I expanded that first source, as it was from a book that specifically use Slugslinger's biogrpahy, motto and function in a talk about violent toys for boys. This is definitely a viable third party source that isn't "in-fiction".

This argument consists of 1) Complaining about the nominator, 2) An improper characterization of a source that isn't "specifically about" the subject (it was a mention, as noted by Roscelese), and 3) A focus on in-universe material to a degree that is that is inappropriate for this article.

Arguments supporting to keep the article were appropriately challenged and refuted but still given weight by the closing admin. Therefore, I think the decision should be overturned to deletion. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, the sources are valid, and the decision was just. That said I'm not against Black Kite's merge tag. It might need to be merged to Targetmasters or something for the time being, and then brought back if more sources can be found later. Much better then deletion where the text is lost to the common editor. Mathewignash (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete, although as S Marshall points out the best outcome would be to preserve any pertinent content by a merge and redirect. It is normal for AfD participants to disagree on the strength and reliability of sources, and most of the time a closing admin is in no position to favor one over the other, specially if that would be based on their own take on the subject. That is not the case here: the only two sources presented at the discussion were extremely weak, in such a way that claiming that they provided any amount of significant coverage is simply out of proportion — frankie (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I'd say that if at least one deletion argument had been made more politely it would have been harder for me to justify this, but there was no compelling numerical or policy-based superiority in arguments sufficient to make "no consensus" not a valid outcome. Were I to have closed it, I would have enforced the merge, and I think that's probably the best way forward at this point. "No consensus" is not a free ride to keep lousy articles in mainspace--it can indeed be a respite for an appropriate merge. Jclemens (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Vladimir Putin

My apologies if I linked this incorrectly; this is my first sign-in of any serious length in nearly two years. I'd like to nominate the above article for deletion review. My purpose in initializing that article and a few other similar articles on Putin was specifically to give the main BLP the breathing space needed for it to become a quality article by way of giving the edit-warriors, Russophiles, and Russophobes an outlet for their more controversial additions.

It appears that it was kinda fast-tracked through AfD in May, after two previous attempts were decisively defeated. The margin by which it was finally approved, on this third try, suggests that this was "on the agenda" for at least some of the people involved, though I won't speculate as to why that is so, as did the people who ascribed to me a desire to smear Putin, when what I really wanted to do was clean his BLP up. I have no intention to participate in any ensuing discussion, and am no longer active here, so nobody need bother placing anything on my talk or anything else, and I'm not even going to bother notifying the deleting administrator. Somebody else can handle that; I simply don't care that much about this place or its silly policies any more.

I literally came here today to pull down my own private mirror so I wouldn't have to see this kind of crap any more. But others....might want to see a clean BLP on Putin, and that's not going to happen when politics motivates both followers and critics to constantly battle each other to shape the main article. Just sayin'.

So, I'm basically seeking to ensure a genuinely fair shake for the "Criticism" article, not because I actually care about its content, but because I really wouldn't mind seeing the main article cleared of all battle debris, in keeping with my original intention. Ender78 (talk) 09:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past several years, there has been a move to get rid of these kind ("Criticism of X") of articles. Wikipedia:Criticism explains why. I know it's hard, but it's not really proper to try to de-battleground an article but moving everyone to another non-NPOV article. A more proper way to split the article would be to create articles like Allegations of corruption against Vladimir Putin, Presidency of Vladimir Putin, etc. and integrate them in a summary style fashion into the article. NW (Talk) 15:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure by default. The submitter does not advance an argument why the closure of this AfD was procedurally incorrect or why relevant circumstances have changed since then. DRV is not the place to re-argue the merits of whether or not an article should have been deleted (about which I have no opinion in this case). Sandstein 19:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Consensus regardin "Criticism of" type articles has clearly changed, and nom does not suggest any sound reason for finding impropriety in determining that consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but with no prejudice towards recreation of a neutral article. Speaking solely on behalf of myself, I don't see whats wrong with the "criticism of..." type articles, as long as the criticism itself is notable and the article is presented in a neutral way. The first stipulation ensures that we don't have a companion "critism of..." article to every article on Wikipedia. The second is tough to do, but it isn't impossible. I would be willing to let a neutral article on this subject back in (perhaps a draft could be taken back to DRV?), although I'm not sure if other editors would want an article on this subject no matter how well it was written. Them From Space 15:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, even if the criticism is going to be notable, there's still no difference in notability between criticism and public perception in general (often these articles have been turned into "public image of foo"), and if that's the case, the latter would be more neutral. The only exception would seem to be someone whose public image was entirely negative, but that seems to be an issue beyond mere criticism; an article on criticism of Saddam Hussein, say, would just be silly. My view would be endorse; local consensus was clear and the close was also in line with current community consensus on this issue. Chick Bowen 22:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 50: / Line 50: @@
 *'''Endorse''', the sources are valid, and the decision was just. That said I'm not against Black Kite's merge tag. It might need to be merged to [[Targetmasters]] or something for the time being, and then brought back if more sources can be found later. Much better then deletion where the text is lost to the common editor. [[User:Mathewignash|Mathewignash]] ([[User talk:Mathewignash|talk]]) 23:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 *'''Overturn to delete''', although as S Marshall points out the best outcome would be to preserve any pertinent content by a merge and redirect. It is normal for AfD participants to disagree on the strength and reliability of sources, and most of the time a closing admin is in no position to favor one over the other, specially if that would be based on their own take on the subject. That is not the case here: the only two sources presented at the discussion were extremely weak, in such a way that claiming that they provided any amount of significant coverage is simply out of proportion — [[User:Frankie|frankie]] ([[User_talk:Frankie|talk]]) 14:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
+*'''Endorse''' I'd say that if at least one deletion argument had been made more politely it would have been harder for me to justify this, but there was no compelling numerical or policy-based superiority in arguments sufficient to make "no consensus" '''not''' a valid outcome.  Were I to have closed it, I would have enforced the merge, and I think that's probably the best way forward at this point.  "No consensus" is not a free ride to keep lousy articles in mainspace--it can indeed be a respite for an appropriate merge. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 02:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 ====[[:Criticism of Vladimir Putin]]====