Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 141.212.111.116 (talk) at 18:54, 16 January 2009 (→Category:Theatres in the United States: overturn). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< January 10 Deletion review archives: 2009 January January 12 >

11 January 2009

Tenzin Tsering

Tenzin Tsering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Reasons for deletion review:
1) admin decision: (delete) is used as precedent (see Talk:Tamding Tsering) to delete entire Tibetan national football team, a gross scope expansion of the original deletion review, and
2) I would like a second opinion on the closing admins decision, I interpret the discussion as a no-consensus and not delete Power.corrupts (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by review nominee. The Tamding Tsering page, and an entire class of other similar pages, are being prodded, as per a recent AfD: "Non-notable football player. Should be deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenzin Tsering".
I am at great unease with wiping out the entire Tibetan team from Wikipedia. I understand the debate mentioned above at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenzin Tsering, but

  • I challenge if this decision really should be given precedence. The decision above concerned a single player, would it really apply to every player on the Tibetan team. Aka, Give the devil your little finger, and he will take the hand. this is a gross scope expansion of the original deletion review.
  • Some of the earlier arguments concern difficulties of verification, because Tibetan football has a poor Google footprint. Verification is indeed a cornerstone, but Internet penetration in Tibet cannot be taken for granted.
  • I challenge if the result of the above debate really was delete, I sincerely believe it was no-consensus - I would like to take this further for an opinion of other admins.

* I would also appreciate a check of how many Chinese votes went into the deletion decision above. The Tibetan situation is politically very sensitive; formally Tibet would never be able to have a national team, as it may not qualify as a nation..  :Jmorrison230582 assures that the delete votes on the afd mostly came from British or Irish users - fair enough, I don't want to promote ghosts. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also belive in a level playing ground. I see tonnes and tonnes of pages on American football and baseball playes, European football players, and I see a page on Algeria national ice hockey team (initially thought to be a hoax) etc., etc... I'm not applying OTHERCRAP EXISTS, I'm merely calling for decent behaviour here.

This comment applies to the following pages (list may be incomplete):

Power.corrupts (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Review of the AFD suggests to me that the closer got this right. There was no consensus that the player met "Athlete" and no reliable sources were presented to support inclusion under N. Therefore delete is the correct result - especially as there was canvassing on the keep side. Whether this displays systemic bias I don't know but I suspect that one solution would be to create a properly sourced NPOV central article and redirect all these players there. Therefore endorse the close of the individual player. The deletion of the rest of the team is more problematic as they might be independently notable but in the absence of reliable sources being presented I see this as an acceptable outcome if not the one I would personally have chosen. A group AFD might have been a better choice. Spartaz Humbug! 22:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC). Struckthrough that last bit, My error for accepting the statement that the rest of the team had also been deleted without checking. You had not posted the list of names when I read the DRV nomination. The remaining players have been prodded. That is an acceptable compromise between outright deletion and an AFD. Any user can remove the tags and then the article has to go to AFD if it is to be deleted. Spartaz Humbug! 22:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (disclosure:I voted delete in the AfD) - the admin had got the consensus spot-on in my view; the arguments for keeping the article did not address policy, and AfD is not a vote. With regard to the rest of the articles, I think that a new AfD for all would simply be gaming the system in an attempt to keep articles which are basically the same as Tenzin Tsering. There are some exceptions, however, which look to have been de-PRODded, and should probably have a debate of their own. – Toon(talk) 22:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse After reviewing I would rate the consensus as delete boardering on no-consensus. While personally I prefer caution in the circumstances and would have probably closed it as non-consensus, the closing admin was within his discretion to close it as delete and as such I see no reason to overturn. As for the rest of the team being deleted/PRODed, I feel that with the controversy this particular AfD has aroused it would be best if they all go through AfD since it is unlikely that they will be controversial (that however has no relevance here and I threw it in as a side note.) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure of Tenzin Tsering AFD, seems a perfectly reasonable handling of the issue, since it definitely seems he does not pass Wikipedia's notability standards. I would recommend that all players who have no claim of notability other than playing for the Tibetan team (I understand from JMorrison's comment at Talk:Tamding Tsering that some do) be redirected to Tibet national football team - it would probably be nice to add their club affiliations to the team list on that page. --Stormie (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment--I have de-proded the rest of the articles. I need time to look for sources to establish notability or merge the information about the player into Tibet national football team. Searching for sources for Tsering Dhundup, I found out that he is a notable activist that has been arrested and deported to China. --J.Mundo (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure of the AFD, and note that discussion of the prodding of the other articles is not in scope here at DRV. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. It was proven that this player failed every single guideline which could be applied, such as WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE and WP:V, and the decision to delete was definitely the correct one. The only arguments given to keep this article was that as a Tibetan footballer playing abroad, it somehow made him an automatically notable political activist - if he were a notable political activist, there would be some sort of non-trival hits about his work in this field but none could be found. Bettia (rawr!) 09:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The idea that Tibet is not a recognized state is a Chinese POV and not supported by the different maps I checked. Also, according to our own article, China says it's an autonomous region (that is a contradiction, if a region is autonomous it governs itself). The fact remains there is a significant amount of people who do believe it's a state and thus a national team exists. The FIFA just doesn't recognize it because of the politics involved to avoid a row with China. Furthermore, the article listed several sources that were never debunked as invalid and the lack of internet penetration in Tibet means that there should be a focus on finding paper sources before dismissing the content as unverifiable. (If anyone is wondering, I'm not Tibetan, I'm from the Netherlands) - Mgm|(talk) 10:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist: Significant new information has come to light. One of the arguments for deletion was that the Tibet National Team was not sanctioned by FIFA. But this organization's decisions are heavily influenced by politics, 1, 2,3, 4: "The national teams of Tibet, Northern Cyprus and Gibraltar have seen their progress hampered by larger countries with a political interest in the territories." --J.Mundo (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does that not then make us the publisher of original thought in this regard rather then the reporter of accepted wisdom. That approach has uncomfortable aspects of soapboxing, promoting fringe views and OR in it. Spartaz Humbug! 16:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree; it doesn't matter why FIFA doesn't recognise Tibet, we don't opine on such matters, or cast judgement. Were this player in a fully professional league, whether FIFA-affiliated or not, he'd be notable enough. – Toon(talk) 17:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion but the deletion of Tenzin Tsering should not be used as a reason for the deletion of other Tibetan players' articles. If those are to be deleted, they should be judged on their own merits (or lack of, as the case may be). – PeeJay 15:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - article failed all relevant WP policies. The PRODs are outside of the scope of this DRV, but I did remove one after adding sourcing which showed one of the players passes WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - the article simply fails any policy. There is not a single source on the page or elsewhere which gives Tsering "significant coverage", in fact barely any coverage at all. Many are not independent and his mention is merely trivial at best in any of the sources, so he easily fails WP:N or WP:BIO. Secondly, not one of the sources actually states that he has played for the Tibetan team, so he fails WP:ATHLETE. Peanut4 (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion As the editor who started the AfD debate I fully support the closure in no way did the article meet any criteria for addition to wiki. I don't think any editor is using this deletion as a precedent as each article must be judged on its own merits. BigDuncTalk 10:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion per above and discussions on other pages. Govvy (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. To delete all Tibetan football players simply on the basis that some countries don't recognise Tibet as a nation, seems to be getting into political issues that Wikipedia shouldn't be meddling in. To maintain NPOV article must be retained. Nfitz (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. Move to delete on the part of the nom does seem to reflect the consensus in the discussion, particularly when policy weighting is considered; whatever the status of this Tibetan team, the player in question lacks sufficient verifiable sources for an article. The issue of precedent isn't relevant to Deletion Review; if some (or all) of the other articles mentioned can pass verifiability and notability on their own, then the PROD's can be contested as appropriate. --Clay Collier (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FTenzin_Tsering_and_WP:ATHLETE. --J.Mundo (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know you tell me. The fact that a user was asking to "head over to the AfD for this Tibetan footballer to try and find consensus" because is "mainly politically motivated at the minute" doesn't sound fair to me. I'm not questioning the good faith of the members from WT:FOOTY, I'm concern that a general consensus was not reach. --J.Mundo (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did observe keep-vote-stacking efforts from certain users (and I don't believe the particular post you linked to was a vote-stacking effort). However, that has nothing to do with whether the closing admin properly recorded the consensus. There is really no question that the closing admin did act properly, and I haven't seen any argument here which would make me believe otherwise. Most of the overturn votes are shades of WP:ILIKEIT, and the few that are not suggest that we ignore WP:BIO and WP:V because of political considerations. Jogurney (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps withdraw. A similar discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamding Tsering, the topic is identical, but the scope is broader, and that discussion is more developed. Not to waste people's time here, I could be inclined to withdraw and let the other discussion run to its conclusion. This is my first request for DRV and I'm unsure what action would be appropriate here. I would be happy to leave it to the discretion of an admin. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Theatres in the United States

Category:Theatres in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)) (CFD1 | CFD2 | CFD3)

This is about the result of a redirect discussion, not a deletion. However the closing admin, User:Kbdank71 referred me here. This is about 2008 December 27#Category:Theatres in the United States - the closing admin, Kbdank71, said that there was no consensus and did not provide a closing statement. This discussion was about a move of "Category:Theatres in the United States to Category:Theaters in the United States" to comply with WP:ENGVAR and related guidelines. This is so the category would reflect the most common spelling in the United States, as that is what the guidelines call for. User:Kbdank71 said there was no consensus. The discussion had 6 people (including myself) in favor of the move. 4 said oppose - But for one of them:

"Oppose – it's not tagged; and the cfd in Sept 2008 by the same nom is fairly recent and looks more like an oppose than a support. Occuli (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)", only specified how it was nominated and that it "looks more like an oppose". The nomination issues were fixed, and the editor never cited any particular reasons for actually opposing it, so it does not count. That's right, it should not be taken into consideration at all.

His response was

"Well, if you wish to nominate the whole US tree, it all needs to be tagged and listed. (It is perfectly in order to cite previous cfds, particularly if recent, without needing to repeat the oppose arguments."

And mine was

"In this case you have to clarify them because the reasons varied in the nomination depending on who opposed. Some were conditional on the way the categories were tagged. Other reasons were proven to be invalid (see the outcome of the Johnbod oppose statement below) via discussion, so new reasons have to be created. Please specify any additional specific reasons..."

- he never cited anything specific. There were many reasons cited in a previous renaming proposal, and some had to do with how the discussion was filed, so in order for Occuli's "Oppose" to be justified he needed to cite a specific grievance, or else the "because of the previous one" makes no sense whatsoever. So this would make it 6 favor and 3 oppose. On Kbdank's talk page at Category:Theatres in the United States I discussed the matter - the closing admin referred me to DRV and said that the discussion barely resulted in no consensus and that in school 66% was failing in school. However I say there was consensus. The reasons include: Wikipedia:Consensus is mainly about how to interpret existing guidelines and policies. The relevant policies (WP:ENGVAR and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling)) clearly support the move with documentation and sources; ENGVAR says to use the most common English spelling variant of a particular country, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) states that "theater" is the most common. As indicated in the previous discussion through various U.S. universities and the Oxford English Dictionary website, theater is the preferred/primary spelling in the United States. The opposing side did not provide links to reliable, academic sources - no URLS, no page numbers of certain editions - that opposed the sources the pro side and the policies provided. Consensus also has to do with who is "right" in the discussion or which side has support from reliable sources and policies. If I need to paste the links to the academic sources I gathered which support the move, please ask and I will lay them out. -- WhisperToMe (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse no consensus as closer. There was enough opposition to the rename for there to be consensus. No problem with relisting if that is desired. --Kbdank71 21:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. I was in favour of renaming in the discussion, but I see no error here by the closing admin. In cases like this where there is extensive discussion and good points made by all sides, identifying a consensus (or lack of one) will always be somewhat of a judgment call. Simply disagreeing with the closer's decision when the decision is a reasonable one is not a good reason to overturn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:DRV#Principal_purpose_.E2.80.94_challenging_deletion_debates says "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly" - This is my point, Factory. So it is perfectly justifiable to disagree with the closer's decision and use DRV. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You missed the "when the decision is a reasonable one" part of my statement. I don't believe he could have "interpreted it incorrectly" if one accepts that it was a reasonable decision. I do; ergo, I endorse the decision. You disagree with that, but I'm not arguing the DRV has been improperly brought. (P.S. Don't call me "Factory". :) ) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my view the discussion was mainly focused on a statement (The preferred U.S. spelling is "theater," so the categories should reflect this as per Wikipedia guidelines) and proving it true or false; there isn't that much room subjectivity. I extensively researched the issue and found sources that overwhelmingly prefer the -ter spelling (except in cases of some names) - So the points depend on the sources used by each side. I had the expectation that the sources on one side and the lack of sources on the other would be taken into account in the decision, not simply the fact that there was a number of people who said oppose. How about this idea? I will ask one of the people who indicated an oppose if he could scan the relevant page from the British OED; IMO this is possibly the one good point that the opposing side has. On the same token I'll look in the American OED. This way when it is time to relist there will be a definitive outcome. I asked him here so I could get a look at it. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse non-consensus closure, as there was indeed no consensus. It can, of course, be relisted. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - there was no consensus that I can perceive. (And I was and remain 'opposed' and irritated again by WhisperToMe's remorseless repetitive badgering.) Occuli (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Occuli, this "badgering" is something that is justifiable and good. Why did I act aggressively on the talk page? It is because "In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments, including the evolution of final positions, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace if available. " - Wikipedia:Consensus. I asked you to provide a rationale, and you didn't choose one aside from the 'nominate the whole tree' (easily fixed) and 'I reference the previous discussion' (when the whole previous debate was all over the map). I feel that this change is clearly supported by guidelines and academic sources. I vehemently opposed the "Oppose" side because I felt that "Support" is clearly established. Therefore opposing side needs to debate and debate and to answer requests and questions. Wikipedia:What is consensus?, an essay, says "Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process. If someone knows that the group cannot move forward without their consent, they may harden their position in order to get their way." - This is why I asked for rationale. Occuli, if asking you to support your claims, explain your claims, and answer my claims is "badgering" then please expect that throughout Wikipedia. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - There was no consensus. In the U.S., theater is a more common spelling and theatre (pronounced "thee tree" by those of us who don't know any better) is used when they want to charge more for the same service. There you can pay more for their Beefeatre Gin drinks in glasses cleaned with dishwatre and be warmed by their heatre. -- Suntag ☼ 18:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments to those voting "Endorse": Do you mind explaining exactly how there was no consensus? Please keep in mind the entire nominating post and supporting materials, then please write a reply explaining why there was consensus, and cite my own writings and related policies and posts about how consensus is determined. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn one side of the discussion cites sources and policy. The other side did not. I don't see how one can do anything but weigh the supported arguments more heavily. As this is a move, not a delete, I don't think the status quo needs the same degree of bias as in a deletion discussion. 141.212.111.116 (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House clean

House clean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) The page was not a redirect page. It was an article which I started. And the spelling was not a typo. It was to help it be found. Chuck (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC) The spelling was also because that is how I would spell it if I were looking for the article. I worked over a year on that article, so I think it should be kept. --Chuck (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted. House cleaning is already a redirect to housecleaning and this particular title (house clean) fails naming conventions. I'd be happy to restore the history if a merge is warranted, but I didn't see much content for that; I'd be happy to dig up the reference info, though. How is housecleaning different from both house work and housekeeping? - Mgm|(talk) 13:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a desperately unsatisfactory state of affairs, to be honest. Chuck Marean created an article at House clean. Seven minutes later, User:Non-dropframe (presumably on new page patrol) redirected it to house work, as it was more or less redundant to that article. Six hours or so after that, ZimZalaBim came across the page and tagged it for speedy deletion as an implausible typo, and an hour or two later Alexf deleted it.
    The deletion under R3 was not correct, as (from WP:CSD), "Redirect pages that have useful page history should never be speedy deleted". However, having looked at the deleted article, it is clear that it is a how-to guide, which Wikipedia does not support. I don't think that the article could be improved to the extent that it would be retained; nor do I think that it contains information not included in existing articles.
    As such, I think the article should remain deleted — although it should be noted that the process it went through was suboptimal. While everyone acted in good faith and, in isolation, correctly, ZimZalaBim and Alexf should both have looked at the history before tagging and deleting the article respectively. And finally, if Chuck Marean wants the content to use somewhere else, it should be sent to him. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, that doesn't tie up with the I've been working on this for over a year comment of the nom, I also notice the article mentioned above Housecleaning was a creation today by the nominator, presumably of similar content to the deleted article? This seems quite messy to me. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. It was a redirect from "House clean" to "House work" which looks to me like an implausible misnomer in a redirect. I doubt somebody would type house clean (which is bad English as it should be more appropriately named house cleaning) to mean house work. -- Alexf(talk) 17:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stifle and 81. seem to have it quite right—in practical terms, we would say that Chuck's article, which whatever its deficiencies was eminently not speediable, was speedied—and I don't know that there is really any solution here that will satisfy all (of course, there rarely is). So, what to do? Pace Alex and Mgm, House clean is a wholly plausible search for Housecleaning and an appropriate redirect (it is true, of course, that the English is non-standard, but redirects exist to serve the reader and need not conform to naming conventions; they need only be theoretically useful). It is also clear to me that there exists a consensus amongst those who have reviewed the material that Chuck's article was redundant and (to use a term that sounds harsher than I should like it to) inferior to Housecleaning and its children articles, such that Chuck need make out a case for his article's being maintained as a standalone at Talk:House clean or for his merging any significant chunk of information from his article to Housecleaning at Talk:Housecleaning. My thought, then, is that we ought to undelete in order that Chuck might make reference to his material should he like to suggest that some of it belongs in Housecleaning but, until there is a contrary consensus (as likely there never will be), redirect to Housecleaning. Joe 20:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC) (Struck; my reading of the situation was careless. Joe 22:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Overturn and redirect to Housecleaning. The correct procedure was clearly not followed, the page apparently did have some useful history, and while it may have been bellow the standard of housecleaning housekeeping, it should not have been speedied. And since an argument could be made that the redirect is implausible, I would suggest listing it at RfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and redirect (or, if the content of housecleaning is the same as that that house clean comprised, just redirect) per Tony, without prejudice to its being listed at RfD. Should housecleaning, which has some issues, be deleted or restored to a redirect to housekeeping, so too, of course, would this go or be redirected. And that's probably more than ever I should like to think or say about house cleaning/keeping/management/anything. Joe 22:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, of course. --NE2 23:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a courtesy notification, for anyone interested in following up on this set of events, that I have proposed merging the multiple stub articles on housecleaning, house work and household management into a single article, housekeeping. (This merger will also require moving the current housekeeping disambiguation list to a new housekeeping (disambiguation) article.) Any feedback is appreciated here. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim talk 03:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • Overturn Per Stifle, the deletion under R3 was not correct. Redirect pages that have useful page history should never be speedy deleted. See CSD. It's not clear how the article became a redirect and making it a redirect doesn't seem to have been through consensus. Also, there doesn't seem to be a speedy deletion basis to delete the article. -- Suntag ☼ 15:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_January_11&oldid=264512714"