Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 August 15

15 August 2014

Made Up (beauty salon)

Made Up (beauty salon) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This is not a WP:HOAX, sources are found at here and elsewhere on and offline, and it is notable enough for Wikipedia inclusion, on various websites. This should have been on AfD. --NigelHowells (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Kate Phelan

Kate Phelan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Not a hoax, and should not have been deleted under CSD A7. This should have gone to AfD. NigelHowells (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Donny Phelan

Donny Phelan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Sources were provided, albeit offline ones, but it was not a WP:HOAX, this should have gone via WP:AFD but the original deleter cited CSD A7 when sources were provided. This needs relisting. NigelHowells (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Jeremy Allen Robertson

Jeremy Allen Robertson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This doesn't qualify as a hoax, sources were provided, albeit offline ones. Prod was the wrong venue, AFD is the only way this should be discussed if the outcome here is poor. NigelHowells (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Chalmers Tschappat

Chalmers Tschappat (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe the close of this ignores a number of pre-established methods on how notability and concepts like BURDEN are to work when it comes to sub-notability guidelines.

I will add that the process of this AFD had two possible mis-steps which should be considered if this was a problem: first, I personally was asked by Dirtlawyer1 (talk · contribs) to participate in the AFD as I've been involved in discussing how the nature of notability and subject-specific notability guidelines should play out, and thus they involved me as an "expert" in this area (see [1]) which the closing admin Spinningspark (talk · contribs) appears to think is a problem. Second, because some of the discussion was going at a tagnent, a user moved many of the non-!vote comments/threads to the talk page (I added a note that this was done), which also may have been considered an issue.

But that's process issues, there's still other factors with this AFD. Notability has long been established as a "presumption", particularly when it comes to the SNGs - we allow topics that meet certain criteria to have articles as to allow time for editors to locate existing sources or for new sources to come about to be able to try to improve the article (in this case, a proper application of WP:NGRIDIRON. But at the end of the day, if the sourcing cannot be improved and a reasonable source search has been done, then the burden goes to those that want to keep the article to prove that the article should be kept. Specifically, this means that one can no longer use the presumption of NGRIDIRON, and must show standard GNG-type coverage (or at least, demonstrate that there are sources even if they can't get their hands on them immediately). And here we are talking about a player that played for only a few games, back in the 1920s, has passed away, so any expectation of new sources coming about is just not there. Other editors at the AFD reported what they searched and lack of any significant results. The closer seemed to believe that this was a case to try to establish this concept and thus seemed to ignore these points (which were brought up in the AFD), but it really is something already present in guidelines on deletion policy and notability, and I know personally I have discussed this point with the NSPORTS/sports-related editors on the same manner with the same consensus.

There is some argument whether the material added to the article over the AFD meets the GNG, but as was pointed out, it merely showed the player existed and was on rosters - sufficient for the initial presumption of NGRIDIRON but not the coverage that is required for GNG-style notability.

At minimum, I am extremely uncomfortable with this being closed as a unreasoned "keep", with a 3-3 split. A "no consensus" would be much more appropriate if the issue was a question of the GNG-vs-SNG matter. MASEM (t)

• The closure as "keep" was appropriate since the individual plainly passed NGRIDRON. To the extent that Masem believes that passing the SNG is insufficient, that is a discussion that is properly directed to the appropriate talk page, most likely at WP:NSPORT, but it is not a reason to overturn the ruling of the closing admin on this AfD. Cbl62 (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, there were only two (not three) delete votes. Even the nominator ended up suggesting he may have erred in making the nomination by the time the discussion was ended. Cbl62 (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

While I suggested that I may have erred in nominating, making such a statement doesn't (nor should it) change my !vote.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, like all SNGs, NGRIDIRON is a presumption that is given to allow time for sources to be located or to come about. When someone goes to more-than-a-passing effort to look for sources and finds none, and we can reasonably expect no sources have been found, BEFORE has been met and the SNG presumption is invalidated, placing the burden on those wanting to keep to find them. The argument that you can never challenge NGRIDRON is against the established nature of the SNGs and turns them into inherited notability, which we don't allow. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:WABBITSEASON There's no need to repeat the same argument over and over.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse I participated in the AFD and agreed with the closure. I found the argument that the presumption of notability has a deadline to be... well... presumptuous. It has long been standing procedure that even if a person plays a single down of a regular season game in the NFL, then the notability is presumed. The argument that the presumption has a deadline is something I can find no reference to anywhere. Notability does not expire, why would the presumption of notability expire? It seemed to me that the arguments were more against WP:NGRIDIRON rather than the article in question, for the article in question certainly met that guideline. If any editor has a problem with WP:NGRIDIRON then that is where the discussion should take place. Editors should be able to see guidelines as reasonably reliable and not have to defend against them on the fly. As to the canvassing issue, all I know is that when I asked people to come to an AFD to participate, I got spanked for canvassing. I'm disappointed that others seem to think they deserve a free pass on that one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Paul, you need to read WP:CANVASSING and understand when notice of discussions is appropriate and when it is not. Not all notices are inappropriate. There are two apparent exceptions that apply to Masem's invited participation in this discussion (expertise in the particular area under discussion, and prior participation in related discussions). You will note that not only was this done openly, but Masem appropriately disclosed how he came to the AfD in the AfD discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Dirtlawyer, you are aware that there is dissent in that opinion in this specific case with your involvement in the discussion at User talk:Spinningspark#AfD canvassing.

Uh, yes, Paul, I am aware that the closing admin has another opinion. As you can see, I initiated the discussion to which you linked and I was one of two active participants in that discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• further comment Dirtlawyer, your comments at User talk:Masem#NGRIDIRON vs. GNG state "Masem, I invite your participation in this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chalmers Tschappat. This AfD presents a potential test of the limits of the presumption extended by NGRIDIRON, especially in the face of a demonstrable inability to satisfy GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Your expertise is solicited. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)" This, to me, is a clear example of campaigning, defined as "Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner."--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Paul, I believe that my notice to Masem, including a brief summary of the policy and guideline issues presented by the circumstance of this AfD, is a succinct and neutral statement of those issues and possible consequences. You apparently believe otherwise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Paul, you are of course entitled to your opinion. However, if I were "campaigning" for a particular outcome in this AfD, as you suggest, don't you think that it's a little bit odd that I never registered an !vote in the AfD? What I want is consistently interpreted and enforced notability guidelines, and everyone involved here knows or should know that there is inconsistency in how we have enforced the actual language of NGRIDIRON and GNG. You need to AGF, and dial down your rhetoric. Like you, I am a regular editor of sports articles in general and American football in particular, and I only have the best interests of the encyclopedia and WP:CFB at heart. Hopefully, you can summon enough GF to accept that reality, instead of engaging in this discussion as if it were some sort of blood feud. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• • From WP:N: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. And while notability doesn't expire, the presumption that a topic is notable can be challenged. And it has been established before at Talk:NSPORTS this is how it works. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't see the word "deadline" in any of that. Further, the article in question was clearly not an indiscriminate collection of information. See WP:discriminate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
      • There are no secondary sources, so as such, it fails WP:NOR (no secondary sources to explain importance), WP:V (to some degree, as some of the sources aren't independent) and WP:GNG. And no, we don't specify a deadline because that would be gamed (both ways), but instead use common sense - we aren't suddenly going to have new sources appear about a player like this from the 1920s today. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
        • I remember the argument in AFD about how the New York Times shouldn't be used as a source. At least one other editor besides myself disagreed with that interpretation. As for verifiability, the information is indeed all verifiable (which is how it got in the article in the first place). The rest is just re-hashing of the same old argument.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
          • And I pointed out via WP:PRIMARYNEWS/WP:PSTS that that thinking was wrong; newspaper articles simply reporting details are primary sources, long established policy on WP. That's the same process that has been in place for many years and was ignored here in favor of a few !votes trying to parrot "it passes NGRIDIRON, you can't challenge it!" which is a non-starter. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
            • WP:WABBITSEASON we've done this already.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - I did not nominate this AfD, but I believed that it presented an excellent test case of a sports notability issue that has bothered me for some time. Accordingly, I am the editor who tried to focus the AfD discussion on what I believe is the core issue presented:

Whether an American football player who played in two AFPA/NFL regular season games in 1921, a fact supported only by a sports statistics website (see pro-football-reference.com) and by no significant coverage in any other independent, reliable sources, could rely solely on the one-game presumption of notability per NGRIDIRON as an absolute, or whether in the absence of any other significant coverage regarding the subject's pro playing career such presumption of notability could be rebutted.

If not, then the word "presumption" does not have its usual and ordinary meaning in the English language, and NGRIDIRON does not extend a presumption of notability, but instead creates an absolute grant of notability regardless of what reliable sources are or are not available. This is an open issue generally, and it is at the heart of this particular AfD. By summarily dismissing the discussion of core guidelines and policies as beyond the scope of the AfD, the closing administrator prematurely ended a perfectly valid discussion of the applicable guidelines and policies, logged a "clear keep" outcome in the face of a closely divided policy discussion, disregarded a narrowly divided !vote, and effectively registered a so-called "super vote" consistent with the admin's own policy preferences (see discussion on admin's user talk page). Moreover, until another editor initiated this DRV, the closing admin was unwilling to provide any explanation of his "keep" closing rationale, and chose to focus instead on accusations of inappropriate "canvassing" even in the face of one or more good-faith exceptions built into the canvassing guidelines. I have no interest in besmirching any editor's intentions, and I strongly urge everyone to dial down their level of rhetoric, stop making extraneous accusations, and focus on the applicable policies and guidelines instead. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• EndorseOverturn to no consensus [changed per discussion below]. I'd have !voted delete on this one and I'm not quite comfortable with the close (for one, the allegation of canvassing might have been made a bit too readily). This AfD was a good case to illustrate the application of the subject-specific guideline as mere presumption, not a guarantee, of notability, and to deem the subject of the article not notable on account of a lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. But that didn't mean that the delete side had a king hit in this debate. First, that view is contentious. Second, there was an arguable case that there might be significant coverage out there. To overturn this to "delete" would involve DRV imposing one view of how our guidelines work on the community when it is clear that, at least in the area of sports, that application is still quite contentious. On that point, the fact that this discussion is already longer than the Russia/Ukraine one below is telling. I agree with the nominator that "no consensus" would have been the better close. But the difference between "keep" and "no consensus" is immaterial and we shouldn't be concerned with formalisms like that. The only difference I've ever seen suggested is that it is accepted that a "no consensus" AfD can be renominated earlier. But no-one could reasonably object to giving this one another go in a few months time, at which point the argument that there might be sources out there could start to look a whole lot weaker. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Mkativerata, no one has advocated overturning the closing admin's "keep" and converting it to a "delete." At the time of the close, there was obviously neither a clear consensus for "keep" or "delete". Accordingly, the remedy in this DRV should be either (a) to reopen the AfD, and let the discussion play out, or (b) re-close the AfD as "no consensus". Otherwise, we are left with a "clear keep" close in the face of a closely argued discussion and a narrowly divided !vote, and that makes the least sense of all. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, I agree it should have been "no consensus", it's just that I don't think DRV should be concerned with that distinction. Although I am starting to think that if there were ever a case for DRV to change a keep to no consensus, it would be this one...--Mkativerata (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It does need to be. I've seen 2nd (or beyond) AFDs coming off a keep, where the arguments (which are technically wrong per WP:ATA) go "Kept before, keep again, no change has been proposed", and while those are supposed to be ignored by the closer, they typically are extremely hard to counter and argue against. Yes, from what the non-reg user's POV, they see nothing but extra tags, but it does affect future discussions on the article. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, in the trench warfare of AfD I can see that happening... I'm convinced. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn to "no consensus" per my own comments above. Given the absence of a clear consensus among the AfD discussion participants, a "no consensus" outcome at this DRV seems to be the best outcome in lieu of the ill-considered original "keep" closing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. I respect Dirtlawyer and think this could have been reasonably closed as "keep" or "no consensus." I see no reason to change the closing admin's note, which clearly says there is "no consensus" on the broader issue. That said, the thing I do find somewhat troubling, as Paul noted above, is Dirtlawyer's invitation to Masem, whose anti-sports bias predilection has been demonstrated over and over, and not to any other participants in WP:NSPORTS to be troubling. While I absolutely do assume good faith, the invitation to one anti-sports editor creates an awful appearance. Cbl62 (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, Cbl, but I don't see Masem's alleged anti-sports "bias" that Paul has railed against (or "predilection," if you prefer). What I see is an editor and an administrator who has fought for greater consistency in notability-related issues. I don't always agree with Masem (see our recent discussion in the Mark Dodge AfD), but I spend a lot of time reading and not commenting on the talk pages at WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS because there is a lot of collective wisdom and insight regarding notability to be found in those talk page discussions -- and a good bit of it is to be found in Masem's comments. We would do far better as sports editors to understand and absorb the legitimate notability concerns being raised by non-sports editors, and the Chalmers Tschappat article is a good example of that. No one produced a single significant source for the guy's 2-game pro football career. Not one. As for the unexplained clear "keep" close in this particular AfD, I think the closing admin clearly overreached by closing it as such when there was obviously no consensus one way or the other after a week's worth of policy discussion. And just like I respect and always consider your arguments, even if I don't always agree with them, I extend that same courtesy to Masem -- and for the same reason: you both know and understand more about these notability issues than all but a handful of other regular AfD participants. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Problems of Onomastics

Problems of Onomastics (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This AfD was closed by Spinningspark as "keep". However, in the discussion there was one very strong "keep" !vote (Dcs002), whose main arguments were discarded by Spinningspark. In addition, Dcs002 changed their !vote to "merge" later in the discussion. There was one "merge" !vote (Mark viking). Finally, there were two "keep or merge" !votes. DGG gave his opinion, but did not provide sources for that. Forbidden User claimed this was a "borderline GNG pass", but did not explain how (the article has one reference to a website not connected with the journal, but that is a dead link). As the nom, I indicated that a merge was acceptable to me, too. My reading of the discussion is a very clear (unanimous) consensus to merge the article, but not a consensus to keep. I discussed this with the closing admin here to no avail, so here we are. Randykitty (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• No need to overturn I'd have gone with merge but it is a great pity that the matter was brought to AFD when no reason was given for why the name of the journal should be a red link. I suggest sorting all this out on the talk page. We would do well to think more about how content would best be presented in an encyclopedia and less about whether an article should be deleted. Thincat (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Huh? "no reason was given"? I thought my nom was quite detailed. --Randykitty (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

You were succinct in your detail, and thank you for that. Thincat (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, if I can use 30 words instead of 300, I will do that. For my edification, could you perhaps tell me what I should have added to the nom that wasn't already said with "no independent sources"? --Randykitty (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. We have main space redirects for all sorts of topics that are individually not "notable". AFD is not intended for proposing merges or redirections {WP:BEFORE, C4 "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article."). It would have been helpful to have said why a priori you considered these unsuitable and why a red link was preferable. Thincat (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should read the AfD again. I did not start the AfD with an intention to merge or redirect, that is talk page stuff. I proposed deletion and gave clear arguments for that. For the sake of obtaining a consensus, I stated that I could live with a merge (,not that I thought this was the best solution). It seems like you have a fundamental problem with taking articles to AfD, because some redirect can almost always be found. Can we now concentrate on the question at hand, which is to determine whether the consensus in this discussion was to "keep" or to "merge"? --Randykitty (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

We are now talking past each other, which is a shame. I would have closed the AFD as merge Thincat (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Relist. I've endorsed Spinningspark's other close below on the basis that it was within discretion. I'm not convinced that this was; at the relisted debate there should be an onus on those wanting to keep to back up their view with some sources.—S Marshall T/C 15:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn to merge. Everyone in the debate saw a merger as a sensible outcome. Everyone. That's the consensus. Wikipedia has worked well in this AfD but I think the closing admin missed it. Yes, merging is something that can be done outside an AfD. But AfD can also impose a merge outcome, as it did here, and when it does, DRV should uphold it. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine

2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine was nominated for deletion, and a long and heated discussion was had on the subject. Spinningspark closed the discussion as "keep". His rationale is flimsy, at best. First of all, there was clearly no consensus to "keep" the article. Perhaps the result of the discussion was "no consensus", but "consensus to keep", certainly not. His analysis of the discussion totally misses the mark. He says that the "keep" side is rooted in policy, based on "sources", and that the article "covers more ground" now, but this is assuredly untrue. The question was never whether subject matter of the article in question was factual. It was whether that content should exist as a duplication of content elsewhere for the purpose of veering away from WP:NPOV. I shall write what I wrote on his talk page here, with minor editing and revision:

(Start quotation) The "keep" side had no policy-based arguments, zero. Forking content, i.e. copying existing content in WP:COATRACK fashion is not acceptable under policy. The sources cited by Sayerslle (whom you cite as heavily influencing your opinion) had nothing to do with whether content should be forked. They merely provided various facts and claims about supposed Russian interference. But these themselves do not make an article, because they refer to interference "in" a particular conflict, either 2014 Crimean crisis (the article that 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine was originally split off from), 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, or War in Donbass. That content with regard to the Donbass war was already written ages ago, and has existed at War in Donbass since that article was created. Recent minor additions to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine were made during the deletion discussion, but these only copied already-existing content from War in Donbass and its sub-articles in a way that is not at all acceptable. What little residual content that isn't duplication at the article in question could easily be merged, as many in the discussion said.

Copying content to a fork is unacceptable in every possible way. In fact, this particular article is essentially a WP:POV FORK, because, as the forking guideline says, it merely copies content from one article to another to address the matter in a less neutral way. The reason his sources were not "addressed" is because they had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at all, because no one with intelligence was contesting facts about what Russia is or isn't doing. Throughout the discussion, though, Sayerslle went on and on about how Russians were doing this, and Russians were doing that. I don't care about what Russians are doing or not, and I don't think most opinions in favour of chance at this discussion cared about that either. Sayerslle was trying to right a great wrong, to try and "make known" that Russians were doing whatever they are or are not doing.

Regardless, this is not my ultimate concern. My concern is that you (Spinningspark) have closed this debate as "consensus to keep" when there clearly was no consensus either way, and also when closure as "keep" is in contravention of policy. I will politely ask you to relist the discussion, and allow it to attempt to reach some consensus of either kind. This is an important and controversial discussion, and deserves its due time to reach a proper consensus. If, after the relisting time, there is consensus to "keep" the article, fine. But to say that this discussion at this moment reached any kind of consensus is absolutely absurd. (End quotation)

I would ask that this discussion be relisted, so that consensus of some kind can be reached. Spinningspark has denied that request. Therefore, I have presented a request for a deletion review. His assessment of consensus was heavily flawed. If relisting is not acceptable, I do request that consensus be reassessed by some other third party. RGloucester — ☎ 01:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Absurd to have such an article standing alone. Could just as easily have one titled "2014 American Installation of an Unelected Government in Ukraine." [2] 174.89.100.51 (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Please take your unhelpful comments elsewhere. This review is for discussion of the mechanics of the closure and assessment of consensus, not for rehashing debates or pushing points of view. RGloucester — ☎ 03:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I think this is incorrect understanding of policies by RGloucester. (a) It is fine to have sub-articles and umbrella articles, such as this page under discussion. We have a lot of them. This does not mean content forking (b) Some degree of content overlap is fine if this improves readability. (c) "and allow it to attempt to reach some consensus of either kind" No, it's fine not to have consensus. Speaking on the subject, there is already such thing as Russian intervention on Ukraine (including military occupation of Crimea, sending weapons, mercenaries and military personnel to Ukraine and direct cross-border artillery attacks by Russian army) per huge number of sources. Therefore, such page has every right to exist. My very best wishes (talk) 04:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

We have sub-articles already. Tons of them. We have umbrella articles. 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine is the umbrella article for the unrest across Ukraine, and deals with both Crimea and Donbass. It has a section on Russian involvement. War in Donbass and 2014 Crimean crisis are sub-articles of 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Both deal with the Russian involvement angle. This article does not fit anywhere into the schematic of articles we have. Copying content to other articles is never acceptable, especially when it is done for the purpose of advancing a point of view. Readability is not improved. It is made worse, because there is a confusing mess of duplication across multiple articles that doesn't make any sense. We have sources, and they exist in War in Donbass, 2014 Crimean crisis, and whatever, but these sources do not establish that the article should exist independently of the conflicts themselves (in an attempt to skew NPOV), nor do they provide justification for POV forking. I agree that it is fine not to have consensus, as I said above, but that's not how the closer closed this discussion. He closed it as "consensus to keep". RGloucester — ☎ 04:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a huge difference by all means between any unrest in a state and foreign military intervention. That's why there are not only Libyan Civil War article, but also a separate article for 2011 military intervention in Libya. -- A man without a country (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I mean 'pro-Russian unrest' is a pov 'frame' imo , even if the info ,or some of it , is in there - rgloucester says 'I don't care about what Russians are doing or not' - but it doesn't matter what he cares about - it matters what RS are caring about, and russian intervention does concern them, and, as with the guardian ref, they don't seem obsessed with hermetically sealing what happened in crimea off from what happens elsewhere in ukraine, - on the contrary - the large convoy moving with obvious top-level coordination and accompanied by numerous vehicles with official Russian military plates brought back memories of the "little green men" involved in the annexation of Crimea back in March. Wearing green uniforms without insignia, those men claimed to be local volunteers, although they were clearly highly trained Russian special operatives. Despite denying their presence all through the annexation, Putin later admitted that Russian military units had been involved. - [3] - [4]Sayerslle (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Please don't start this again. If you want to read about the convoy, go to War in Donbass, where it is described in detail. It has absolutely nothing to do with POV, or what RS say. What RS say is already written at War in Donbass, and has been. RGloucester — ☎ 14:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

this is an article about foreign military intervention - (from twitter ) Michael Weiss @michaeldweiss 'Mount an "incursion" alongside your "aid" convoy, then watch Ukraine stop incursion. Then cry your convoy is under attack. Then take a bow.' Sayerslle (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Once again, no one is contesting any facts about "foreign intervention", or "incursions". The problem is that these are already written about in War in Donbass, and that copying them to this new article is an example of forking. RGloucester — ☎ 16:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

so you keep agreeing yes there is plenty of material from various places and times for 'Russian intervention in Ukraine 2014', - fine, but if readers want to read about it they must go through the RGloucester gate and then they will be escorted to various articles, named the 'pro-Russian unrest', and the 'war in donbass', ' the chicanery in crimea ' or whatever, - but why must they? because you say so basically - this is only a 'problem' to those who are determined to make it one imo.Sayerslle (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

No, because forking content is against policy, and also because forking content with the intent to veer away from NPOV is even more against policy. RGloucester — ☎ 17:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

well i'd say leave it to develop now , - it could be a good article on Russian intervention in Ukraine - and no other title is as good as that to express a key aspect of the events there this year,and its been discussed in RS as a linked series of putinist inspired phenomena - maybe events will supersede all this somehow anyhow, - I don't like the insinuation that this is a pov motivated thing either - I admire pussy riot, whats wrong with that, didn't like to see them locked up for miming in a church, - but that doesn't give you the right to impugn - RS are the guide to all articles and you shouldn't assume you alone have the integrity to want to pursue a key ideal of this project. just because I don't want to end up like these putins idiots, doesnt mean I don't have integrity Sayerslle (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I must concur that the person closing the nomination didn't seem to properly address the WP:COATRACK issue. Many of those arguing for keep provided few policy-related arguments at best, and the closing rationale was largely the closer's own personal interpretation of the situation, rather than an analysis of arguments provided by both sides. Quoting SpinningSpark, "Some argued that it is a fork of 2014 Crimean crisis. It may well have started off as a fork of this article" - this isn't the issue, they've completely missed the point. This page is a content fork of not one article, but multiple existing articles with significant overlap. All of the content within this page, one hundred percent, is already covered by topics of existing articles elsewhere, it is absolutely inappropriate to state that the reason to keep this page is because it "clearly it covers more ground" than 2014 Crimean crisis. And finally, "But again, such problems are a matter for normal editing to sort out. They do not amount to grounds for deletion" - did the closer completely ignore the calls for merger, and not deletion? --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  I wasn't intending to comment here and just let the debate play out, but I can't let that pass. It is a complete misrepresentation of my close with carefully cherry-picked quotations. The close does, in fact, expend a great deal of ink addressing the multiple-article fork issue and the final quote had nothing to do with the issue of forking. It was addressing the issue of the need to attribute opinions. Spinning Spark 07:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  Nope - you focused on a pure keep-delete binary scale, with no concern for the in-betweens. As someone who did not want the article content deleted, and instead seeked a merger, your closing statement irks me, because it seems that you're basing your judgment largely on deletion being inappropriate. In essence, no action will be taken to fix the problems not because the keep arguments were valid, but instead because you did not see deletion to be fit. I do not disagree with you when you say that deletion is not the solution for the problems raised, however this is essentially your argument for taking no action at all. Look at the way you have worded your close. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Based on that discussion, the only closes that would have been within Spinningspark's discretion were "keep" and "no consensus". I think that I personally would have preferred "no consensus" as a close, but "keep" was within discretion. our system will not work unless sysops can have confidence that when they put thought into making the difficult calls, DRV will back them up unless the close was mistaken or unreasonable, so I think we've got to endorse.—S Marshall T/C 08:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think this rapidly-growing discussion would benefit from a couple of image files.—S Marshall T/C 15:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• (images removed) No we don't, I get that you'd like to prove a point, but it's messy and silly. If you want to be silly and entertain yourself, go to WP:Reference desk and ask people there if they can disprove creationism, guaranteed lengthy replies. --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't post those pictures to be silly, Benlisquare, I posted them for the benefit of you and RGloucester. It's up to you whether you take the point, but I assure you that the closer will.—S Marshall T/C 16:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, S Marshall, and I respect your opinion. I merely want clarity. If, as said below by Thincat, this result of "keep" means that we can continue a merger discussion on the talk page, then I have no issue with it. I just do not think this was made explicit. I would like this to be made explicit, so that we can all get on with our lives. I merely respond in the manner that I have because I do not like being accused of supporting "sockpuppets", or of being rooted in "preconceived opinions". RGloucester — ☎ 16:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• That's a fair question. The view from 30,000 feet is that Thincat is correct: a discussion about a merge can continue on the talk page per WP:CCC. If it reaches a consensus to merge then the merge can be enacted and that's that. No need for administrative tools there. But long experience with Wikipedia makes me add a hedge: the merge discussion has to be genuine, well-advertised and fully-argued by good faith editors. We don't want people using a discussion between three people that lasts a few hours to do an end run around a good faith AfD close.—S Marshall T/C 17:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

If that's the case, do you think that an RfC on a potential merger could be held on the talk page? RGloucester — ☎ 18:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• It certainly could, but I would recommend the proposed merger process over the RfC one in this instance. You may wish to wait for the DRV to close before starting that.—S Marshall T/C 18:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse - there appear to be a lot of problems with trying to us a headcount, involving sockpuppet(s), solicted votes, whatnot. Relisting would be likely to exacerbate the problem. Thus, headcount needs to be given little to no weight, as it's difficult, perhaps impossible, to discern accurately. It's perhaps troublesome that the first person (as far as I can see) to explicitly mention WP:SUMMARY is the closer, but that's pedantry. It's clear that POVFORK is wholly inapplicable, and correctly identified as such, given WP:SUMMARY. If headcounts were considered, one might lean towards no consensus (policy heavily favouring keep, headcount favouring deletion), but in a discussion where the delete camp was canvassing, recruiting sockpuppets, etc., it just feels too much like rewarding them for disruption. WilyD 09:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• So, just because the nominator was a sockpuppet, does that excuse all the problems brought up? I don't agree with the rationale that taking action would be "rewarding" sockpuppets; either the article has problems, or it doesn't. Arguing that action not be taken because of sockpuppet involvement is an association fallacy. Argue the points raised, and not the people who have taken part in the discussion. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Huh? I was pretty explicit that policy/practice strongly favours a keep outcome. No actual problems were brought up; some were postulated/proposed, but the discussion makes it pretty clear that the stated objections are invalid. However, in discussions where participation isn't fraudulently tilted to one side or another, the headcount can carry some weight; but since the headcount was manipulated, we should more or less ignore it, and go back to policies, and the question of writing an encyclopaedia, which is a pretty clear keep. WilyD 11:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't care about "headcounts", as I said above. Comments about "recruiting sockpuppets" and "canvassing" are even more absurd than the original closure. We had been having that discussion on the talk page for days, and I explained my actions in the discussion. The idea that WP:SUMMARY is applicable is also absurd, but that's not the point of deletion review. Have you actually looked at our articles that cover this situation? Have you read them from start to finish? RGloucester — ☎ 14:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It's necessary to note the problems of sockpuppets and canvassing to consider why headcount should be downplayed ignored. Otherwise, it would be legitimate to consider a no consensus closure, in which the overwhelming policy advantage of the keep position is mitigated by the headcount. If you don't care about headcounts, the only possible position you can come to is that the closure was correct. Trying to insinuate personal attacks to cover the absolute lack of an argument for deletion isn't helpful (or nice!) WilyD 15:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

How do we know that the sockpuppets weren't "keep" advocates with a false-flag agenda who purposely broke the rules in an attempt to sabotage any chance of the article being merged? Before this AfD, there was already pre-existing discussion on the article talk page regarding a potential merger. Then, all of a sudden out of nowhere comes someone with few other edits who starts an AfD, and a few moments later comes along another SPA who votes for deletion. Don't you find it suspicious? It feels like this was an intentional attempt to poison the discussion from the very beginning. Either that, or the sockpuppeter was really stupid in making his tomfoolery obvious as hell so that anyone could easily point it out. --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

There are no policy reasons that justify keeping the status quo, but once again, I'm not going to get into that. Regardless, as far as the "sockpuppet" concerns, if one reads the SPI in question, one will learn that he is most probably User:L'Aquotique, someone who has targeted me intensely in the past. I do not understand why you are so full of bile. RGloucester — ☎ 15:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse. In these kinds of discussions it is particularly incumbent on the closing admin to look behind numbers, assertions and policy invocations to carefully consider the strength of the arguments in light of policies and guidelines. The reason is that participation in the discussion is skewed by the fact that most participants are -- largely in good faith -- coming to the discussion with preconceived opinions based on their views on the wider conflict. And genuinely uninvolved editors tend to stay away, given the contentiousness of the discussion. I thought the closing admin here performed the task very well. A large part of the concerns raised by deletion advocates -- and I thought many were justifiable concerns -- are not necessarily reasons to delete the article. Also, DRV should principally concern itself with the big picture question "should the article be deleted?". Questions of whether this AfD should be relisted (and I really don't think that would achieve much), and whether the close should have been "no consensus" rather than "keep", involve undue micromanagement. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Again, you're only looking at it from a keep/delete perspective. I never !voted delete, I was after a merger, as were many others. When you say that the concerns raised weren't solved through deletion, you're missing out on a very important aspect of the discussion here. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I will echo Benlisquare's comments, but I will also say that I stalwartly opposed those who came to the discussion with "preconceived notions", on both sides. These include the closer's favourite barrister, Sayerslle. I have no preconceived notions. You can ask anyone that has been observing my work in this content area since the conflict began. I have been variously accused of being pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian. I don't give a damn. All I want is good content, in line with the MoS and policy. RGloucester — ☎ 14:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse. The close seems appropriate to me, and certainly within discretion. I welcome a detailed and considered closing rationale, as here. So long as the closer properly assesses consensus, it is perfectly reasonable to also make remarks which may help future editing of the topic. A close of keep does not preclude merge or redirect, it simply means that such actions require prior consensus at the talk page. Thincat (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

What? If that's the case, there is no problem. But I don't think that is the case. If we can continue and start a merger discussion on the talk page, then I have no problem with the closure. However, I don't think that that is what the closer meant. Once again, I too was seeking a merger, not deletion, though I originally favoured deletion. In fact, most of the participants that did not vote "keep" were in favour of a merger, not deletion. This was my problem with the closure. I thought that "consensus to keep" meant "consensus to keep". If it only meant "no consensus", then there is no problem. However, I think this should be made explicit. RGloucester — ☎

• Comment – Pursuant to the comments by Thincat and S Marshall, I am content to accept the decision of the closer in the matter of the deletion, if others here agree that this closure did not preclude a merger discussion on the talk page, and only ruled out deletion. If this is the case, this deletion review was made in error, as I had assumed that "consensus to keep" meant "consensus for the status quo", not "consensus not to delete". I have always believed that there was no consensus to delete the article. RGloucester — ☎ 18:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)