Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 June 29: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→[[Arbor View High School]]: rming closed discussion |
|||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #C7BEFA; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;"> |
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #C7BEFA; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;"> |
||
:''The following discussion is preserved as an [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|archive]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page. <!-- from Template:Archive top-->'' |
:''The following discussion is preserved as an [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|archive]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page. <!-- from Template:Archive top-->'' |
||
====[[Arbor View High School]]==== |
|||
* Discussion [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbor View High School]] closed by [[User:Mackensen]] |
|||
Requesting review of this closure, where the majority expressed various different reasons to keep this article, and the closer personally determined that this article did failed to demonstrate a wide enough "notability". |
|||
* '''Overturn and undelete''' given the circumstances. [[User:Silensor|Silensor]] 22:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''' AfD is not a vote but rather a discussion where opinions flow. If the strength of argument from 20 people is somewhat weak, nonexistant, or trivial, but the argument of 8 people is well thought out, then the opinion of 8 should stand. [[User:Yanksox|<font color="black">Yank</font>]][[User talk:Yanksox|<font color="red">sox</font>]] 22:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Weak overturn and undelete''' The nominator did explain his reasoning, and as we all know AFD is not a vote. However, it seems impossible to look at the debate and say there was a consensus to delete the article. In my opinion, ''neither'' side made a particularly good case to justify their views, and voting on school AfDs seems to follow dogmatic "school articles rock"/"school articles suck" moreso than any reasoned debate. With that said, no consensus exists, so the article should be restored. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 22:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep deleted''', Delete side of the AFD did a much better job of presenting their argument. [[User:JohnnyBGood|<font color="Green">'''JohnnyBGood'''</font>]] [[User talk:JohnnyBGood|<font color="Red">'''t'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/JohnnyBGood|<font color="Red">'''c'''</font>]] <b>VIVA!</b> 22:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Overturn and undelete''', as per the nominator. [[User:Carioca|Carioca]] 23:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Overturn and undelete''', as per [[User:Carioca|Carioca]]. [[User:JarlaxleArtemis|<font color="black">⇒</font> <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> <font color="darkgreen">Jarlaxle</font><font color="goldenrod">Artemis</font></font>]] 23:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Overturn and undelete'''. I thought it was plenty notable, per my opinion in the AFD thread. -[[User:Hit bull, win steak|Hit bull, win steak]]<sup>[[User talk:Hit bull, win steak|(Moo!)]]</sup> 23:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep Deleted''' per my opinion in the AfD, I believe Mackensen, correctly outlined his rationale and it did seem logical. [[User:Yanksox|<font color="black">Yank</font>]][[User talk:Yanksox|<font color="red">sox</font>]] 23:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn and undelete''' The closing admin has misused their position of authority in order to obtain the result they personally favor. While, the admin has descretion in determining if there is a consensus, that doesn't translate into descretion in deciding if there should have been a certain consensus. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] should refrain from closing AFDs where he has a strong bias, and instead take part as a regular a AFD participant, and let a neutral party determine what, if any consensus exists. Wikipedia can not allow deletion decisions to be made by the random chance of which admin shows up first to close. --[[User:Thivierr|Rob]] 23:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*:On what basis do you declare that I have a bias? As a notable [[peerage|peer-crufter]] I've often been accused of being an inclusionist. My only bias here is against lazy reasoning (there, I've said it). [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 02:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*::You are bias, because you knew you couldn't get your way in the AFD, if you participated like everyone else. If you want to delete something, you need to establish a consensus, through persuasion. You're approach is fine for a manager in a business, or a senior editor in a commercial publication. The "boss" in such a case, can listen to the underlings, weight their views, and decide what's best, with no regard for consensus. Such bosses are selected for the job, because they're deemed more able to make such decisions, than the underlings they oversee. But you're not not a boss. You're a [[WP:ADMIN|janitor]], with a mop and bucket, who's volunteered to throw out the trash, but doesn't get to decide what qualifies as trash. Of course, if you want a full say in a deletion discussion, you can have it, but as a regular AFD participant, and not as a closing admin. --[[User:Thivierr|Rob]] 06:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*:::Get my way? What way is that? If you think I'm a sorry deletionist I'd like to point you in the direction of [[Hussey's General Store]]. Just because you don't like the decision is no excuse to impugn my character by suggesting I did this because I dislike high schools (I disliked mine, to be sure, but that's a different matter). [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 10:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Overturn''' and undelete. I can't see how this close is justified in any way. The admin states: ''Articles which fail to establish notability may be deleted even if they are verifiable and referenced''. What exactly is that thought based on? How do we define notability? How does it apply to a school? or a town? or to many other things where there is not even an inkling yet of common ground on how to define "notability"? These are troubled waters well beyond the brief of an admin closing an AfD discussion...and this was one of the most partisan closes I've seen in quite some time --[[User:JJay|JJay]] 00:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*:Good question. It would have been even better if someone had addressed it during the debate, since said debate turned on the issue. Again, I dispute that there's anything partisan about this close. I did my level best and if you disagree say so, but don't make it a personal issue. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 02:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**:There is nothing personal in my comment, nor will I provide links to your frequent delete votes as a participant in exactly similar debates. The problem is that you have cited a policy that does not exist, to justify a close that can not be justified. If you want to sway opinion do so by participating. If you want to close debates, then do so without disrespecting the community consensus. --[[User:JJay|JJay]] 22:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment:''' I've notified [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] of this DRV. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 00:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Overturn and undelete''' per Andrew Lenahan, no consensus existed to delete. [[User:Yamaguchi先生|Yamaguchi先生]] 00:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse closure''' because no cogent reason has been presented in this DRV for overturning Mackensen's excellently thought out and carefully worded decisions. Sysops have discretion. I personally would not have enough cojones to close as he did, but nobody has explained why his actions were outside the scope of permissible discretion. - <b>[[User:Crzrussian|CrazyRussian]]</b><small> [[User_talk:Crzrussian|talk]]/[[Special:Emailuser/Crzrussian|email]]</small> 00:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn and undelete''' This was a hard decision to call for the closing admin. However, there is a general point that I should like to make - it is that the closing admin cannot take their decision solely on the debate on the article in question in isolation; they have to have some regard to the thrust of opinion that has built up when similar cases have been discussed. |
|||
:In this case, we had the usual well rehearsed arguments between the school deletionists and inclusionists - never the twain shall meet. Undoubtedly there will be nothing inherently notable about a freshly built school - reputations take time to form and it is upon such reputations that notability stands or falls. The other side of the coin is that high (secondary) schools have a high profile across a wide community area. A further question that should be asked is - would someone decide to look up this school in an encyclopaedia and expect to find it there? In my view, for high schools, the answer is yes. |
|||
:In instances where there is an overwhelming weight of arguments in favour of the minority, the closing admin can, and should, go against the majority. That was not the case here and it is not for the admin to call wafer thin decisions. Overall, with the weight of opinion and numbers broadly evenly divided, my view is that the closing admin should have declared the debate '''inconclusive''' with the article surviving on that basis. [[User:BlueValour|BlueValour]] 00:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse closure''' Closing admins are expected to evaluate the arguments. It is precisely this work by the closing admin that makes XfD not a vote. Mackensen was courteous enough to explain their evaluation. All participants who cited [[WP:SCHOOL]] as an argument for keeping demonstrated thereby that their opinion should be discounted because they don't understand the difference between a rejected and accepted policy. In any XFD, one of the most significant contributions are those by people who 1) regularly participate and 2) change their view based on the specific article under consideration. They are the ones who are most likely to be judging the totality of the evidence. In this discussion, that appears to have been Yanksox ("I am usually a defender of school articles, however, I firmly believe that this article has no place on Wikipedia."), Motor ("As for this particular case: this school does not assert notability, nor have I been able to find any."), JJJJJust ("Personally, I think schools do have a place in Wikipedia, and I did create an article for my school and still maintain it. But, I voted by judging article at present, and, at present, it holds no notability claim.") Everyone in this group chose to recommend delete, which tells us where the weight of the arguments was even before the closing admin evaluated the discussion. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 01:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
: What policy requires notability exactly? --[[User:JJay|JJay]] 01:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:: '''[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information]]'''. The [[WP:N|notability essay]] and the various guidelines, essays, and proposals on topical notability are attempts to explain what it takes to live up to that policy. The essence of not being an ''indiscriminate'' collection of information is ''discriminating'' - somethings make the cut and some don't. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 13:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::*Right, so the short answer is no policy requires notability exactly, which is why WP:N is an essay. And if your definition for notability is "somethings make the cut and some don't", well, WP:N is likely to remain an essay for quite some time. --[[User:JJay|JJay]] 23:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment'''. I've explained my reasons adequately enough in the close; in fact, my reasoning was longer that the article itself. No vote here from me. Please note also that I closed '''without prejudice''' to any recreation. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 02:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn and undelete''' The decision was incorrect, but I am not attributing bad faith to the closer or any of the participants. -[[User:TruthbringerToronto|TruthbringerToronto]] 02:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**<u>'''Strong censure'''</u> of [[user:Silensor]] for ten selective notifications to AfD keep voters [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060629233752&limit=10&target=Silensor] - <b>[[User:Crzrussian|CrazyRussian]]</b><small> [[User_talk:Crzrussian|talk]]/[[Special:Emailuser/Crzrussian|email]]</small> 02:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
***Agreed. When I got his note on my talk page, I figured he must've been in process of notifying all involved parties on both sides of the debate (as would have been proper). -[[User:Hit bull, win steak|Hit bull, win steak]]<sup>[[User talk:Hit bull, win steak|(Moo!)]]</sup> 13:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
***"Vote" stacking? C'mon [[user:Silensor]]... you know better.--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 19:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*This seems to be a clear case of an admin weighing argumentsinstead of "votes". Beyond this, I'm puzzled by the idea that no high school article can be deleted, as if there was a clear and nearly universal consensus for such a thing. It seems obvious to me that there is not, and that a hard and fast standard does not exist at this time. Even ignoring that fact, there are a few types of arguments that should always be ignored, because they are absurd. "Keep all ___", "Delete all ___", "Delete, ___cruft" are amongst these. As such, I see no reason to overturn this decision.--[[User:Sean Black|SB]] | [[User talk:Sean Black|T]] 02:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn and undelete''', as per the nominator. [[User:Bbx|bbx]] 04:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn and undelete'''. The proper thing to do would have been to close the debate as '''no consensus''', because really, there isn't one, and while the admin in question used his judgement, I don't feel that it was appropriate to do so in this instance. I understand that the article was closed with no prejudice to recreation, and I don't feel that said admin deserves any of the personal attacks in this discussion, but I don't feel that the arguments presented justified deleting the article. The excellent coverage of other high schools on Wikipedia (somewhat excusing my alma mater's page) creates an ''expectation of presence'' for other high schools within Wikipedia. Ordinarily "we have other articles like this" is a weak argument to keep, but I feel the situation for high schools (endlessly debated in AfD, DRV, and other forums) lends extra credence to that argument. There isn't a tremendous amount of harm that can come from overturning the decision, while there is tangible good in providing a base to improve on in the wiki-way. Hence, overturn.[[User:Captainktainer|Captainktainer]] * [[User talk:Captainktainer|Talk]] 06:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse''' deletion. The correct AFD procedure was followed by the closing admin. [[User:Mackensen]] paid attention to the debate and listened to the arguments (disclaimer: I was a delete commenter) and documented his reasoning properly -- something that should be encouraged, not overturned. Many "keep" comments made reference to non-existent precedents, a rejected policy and relied mostly on hand-waving arguments. In addition, no new information has been forthcoming that would justify an undeletion or a relist, and no substantive arguments have been presented during this DRV to show that the AFD was wrongly conducted and that the closing admin acted in error or improperly. I would also like to note the internal [[WP:SPAM]]ing undertaken by [[User:Silensor]]. This kind of behaviour is not acceptable. It is bad enough when this happens on AFD, which (in theory) is ''specifically'' not a vote, but DRV is vote-based and is open to abuse from this kind of spam. If Silensor is using DRV as a loophole to vote-stack AFDs then he should be strongly reprimanded. - [[User:Motor|Motor]] ([[User talk:Motor|talk)]] 09:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**You're well aware that precedent (see [[Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive|here]] for example) is to keep all verifiable high schools (absent copyvio and attacks). Feel free to give any example to the contrary in recent times. When exactly was the last time there was a consensus to delete a verifiable real high school? You don't see precedent, simply because you ignore any result you disagree with. While support for keeping elementaries tends to be softer, support for high schools has been stronger, for a longer time period. But, even though your AFD vote was based on a faulty premise, I wouldn't use that as an excuse to throw it out. It is ironic, that you just justified the exclusion of your own vote. --[[User:Thivierr|Rob]] 09:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::*This is not a precedent for keep -- as you know full well. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents]] is quite clear about there being mostly no consensus... presumably because the Schoolwatch project members catalogue AFDs and make sure to show up early and claim imaginary "precedent" and "inherent notability" and other such hand-waving arguments. However... I am focusing on the basic nature of this DRV: the admin acted properly, and according to procedure, and within his discretion. He justified his decision properly, and went into considerable detail. As for me: No-one asked me to come here (feel free to check my talk page), I'm read DRV normally. My response here is entirely based on whether this AFD was conducted properly or not. Unlike you, I'm not interested in refighting the AFD. I am merely judging whether the admin acted properly, not whether I agree or disagree with his decision. The simple fact is: neither you, nor those spammed, have presented any compelling evidence to suggest that the closure of this AFD was somehow out of process and improper and should be overturned. - [[User:Motor|Motor]] ([[User talk:Motor|talk)]] 11:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::**Look more closely at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents]], it says what happened with schools, in general up to August 2005. It's now the end of June 2006. Time has passed. Also, there's a substantial difference between high school AFD results, and elementaries. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents]] is simply a reflection of what can be found from AFD results, without actuallying wading through them. But, in this case, you do need to look at the detail of current results. Now, if you refuse to look at the evidence in detail, but wish only to look at last year's summary, that's fine, but don't pretend you haven't been presented evidence. You just don't want to look at it. --[[User:Thivierr|Rob]] 16:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse deletion''' - As a general principle, even if every student in a school came here and said they wanted an article about that school to be kept, if the school isn't *notable* for some reason other than its mere existence then there is no justification for the article remaining. --[[User:AlisonW|AlisonW]] 10:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse closure''', keep deleted with no prejudice against recreation. The explanation by the closing admin (which is way longer than the article itself) is a reasonable one. In the article, the notability asserted was not for the school but for its architectural merits; however, on investigation I am not sufficiently convinced that it is notable on this ground. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 11:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''' Whilst I feel that the case for deletion was not made and I would have closed as a no consensus keep, Mackensen exercised his discretion reasonably here. Having said that I would of course normally urge that the article be undeleted and expanded, without prejuduce for its future relisting. But I have decided on this occasion to focus on the attacks on Mackensen, particularly this one: "misused their position of authority in order to obtain the result they personally favor." Well I hope that the closer ''does'' feel able to exercise commonsense. I have heard some plausible, if someewhat tenuous, arguments for deletion of school articles ''on principle'', and believe that Mackensen may, having thought about them, give more weight to those than I do. This is quite in order and does not amount to an abuse, but rather to an act of adjudication. So while I would normally have voted to overturn this deletion, I think it's more important on this occasion to be clear that this, while it was in my view a mistaken close and should be overturned, was not an abuse. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 11:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep deleted'''. The closer clearly states that the deletion is '''without prejudice to recreation'''. The stub which was present did not assert any ''specific'' notability to this school, as we usually require for high school articles. The fact that many similar articles escape AfD is irrelevant: there are many bad articles on Wikipedia which we haven't found yet. Anyone wishing to write a new article must try a bit harder to make it pertinent: if they succeed, they should be welcomed with open arms. [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] [[User talk:Physchim62|(talk)]] 11:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**I'm sorry, but you're incorrect when you say that the article did not assert any specific notability for the school. I know that it did, because I added it to the article myself: The school was a totally new design prototype, with a series of mall-type buildings connected by an esplanade. This makes it extremely unusual among schools (99% of which keep all academic classes within a single building), and thus notable. -[[User:Hit bull, win steak|Hit bull, win steak]]<sup>[[User talk:Hit bull, win steak|(Moo!)]]</sup> 13:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
***'''Comment''' Precisely. [[User:Alphachimp|<font color="Maroon">'''Alphachimp'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alphachimp|'''<font color="Blue">talk</font>''']]</sup> 13:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn and Undelete'''. It is true that [[WP:AfD]] is not a voting process. A lot of people (including myself at first) think that they are voting for the deletion. This leads to spamming, etc. Instead, the AfD process is a means of achieving ''consensus''. There was clearly ''no consensus'' reached in this AfD. I don't think it is the place of the closing admin to "weigh" the value of the arguments offered and come down in favor of his personal choice. I respect the sensitivity involved (particularly in the extremely long response at the top of the AfD), however I can't condone an admin decision that seems so entirely contradictory with the weight of user opinions. I certainly hope that this deletion review is not decided in the same way. |
|||
*I'd like to note another [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frisco Centennial High School|similar article]] that was up for AfD at the same time. A lot of the same people (myself and some admins included) voted on both of these debates. The arguments were also similar. Frisco Centennial achieved ''no consensus''. I certainly hope that the admin closing this debate does not exercise a personal judgment call. --[[User:Alphachimp|<font color="Maroon">'''Alphachimp'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alphachimp|'''<font color="Blue">talk</font>''']]</sup> 13:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*:Again with this business about personal choice. You're operating under the mistaken assumption that I have some stake in this (possibly because you obviously ''do''). I weighed the arguments, as is the prerogative of every administrator, although more common with administrators of long standing. This is the decision I arrived at. Don't presume to question my motives simply because you don't like the outcome. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 13:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*::I'm not operating on the assumption that you have something at stake. I really never said that. I said that you exercised a "personal judgment call". To clarify, that meant that you made a judgment call all by yourself, without the input of other admins. As to my personal stake in this debate, ''I have none''. Honestly. I've never even been to the state this school is in. [[User:Alphachimp|<font color="Maroon">'''Alphachimp'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alphachimp|'''<font color="Blue">talk</font>''']]</sup> 13:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*:::Well, somebody had to. Deletion closes are generally made by one admin. If you look above, other admins are endorsing my judgement and that I was well within my right to make such a judgement. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 14:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*::::Honestly I don't want to get in an argument here. I just entirely disagree with your decision to delete and do not think that it was appropriate given the circumstances. [[User:Alphachimp|<font color="Maroon">'''Alphachimp'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alphachimp|'''<font color="Blue">talk</font>''']]</sup> 14:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse closure of delete without prejudice'''. Textbook example of what admin discretion should be, with a detailed and intelligent explanation. To those who want to Keep the article - Mackensen clearly outlined what the issues were and has in fact encouraged you to attempt to address them and recreate the address in a manner in makes sense to include in WP. [[User:Martinp|Martinp]] 14:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*:Martinp has hit the nail on the head here. Thank you. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Endorse deletion''' per AFD. I find no fault in the reasonings of the closing. — '''[[User:pd_THOR|<span style="color:#CC0000;">pd_THOR</span>]]''' <sup>|''' [[User_talk:pd_THOR|=/\=]]</sup> | 15:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Weak overturn and undelete''' per Starblind. I was a little thrown by the blanket dismissal of [[WP:SCHOOL]] as having "no bearing" -- whether policy or not, editors are most certainly allowed to use it to ''back up'' their own opinions on notability, policy or no. I certainly don't see a consensus to delete in the AfD discussion. [[User:Bikeable|bikeable]] [[User talk:Bikeable|(talk)]] 15:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*:Well, no WP:SCHOOL ''doesn't'' have much bearing. It's a rejected policy. The community explicitly rejected the ideas therein. That matters a great deal. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 16:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*::That's simply absurd. There was a straw poll on that, and it received majority support, but failed to get the super-majority consensus. It was ultimately tagged, appropriately, as rejected, because there was no hope for consensus. There wasn't a consensus to reject it. A number of those opposed to it were "inclusionists", so rejection wasn't simply from those who felt it was too inclusive. People can certainly cite something, where a majority supported it. It seems your entire knowledge of WP:SCHOOL comes from the wording of the {{tl|rejected}} tag, and you are unaware of the history. --[[User:Thivierr|Rob]] 22:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse closure''' and suggest that proponents of undeletion follow the redlink above and write an article that asserts and demonstrates the notability of the school. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] - [[User talk:Hipocrite|«<small>Talk</small>»]] 16:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:*With all due respect, I altered the stub while it was listed on AFD to do exactly that, and it got deleted anyway. -[[User:Hit bull, win steak|Hit bull, win steak]]<sup>[[User talk:Hit bull, win steak|(Moo!)]]</sup> 21:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep deleted''' and fight the school inclusionist cabal. Mwa-ha-ha-ha. --[[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;cursor:w-resize;">'''Cyde↔Weys'''</span>]] 19:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*: Thank you, Cyde. (see history) ;-) [[User:Silensor|Silensor]] 20:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse Closure''' and Martinp got it exactly right.--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 19:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn and undelete''' per nom. --[[User:Myleslong|Myles Long]] 22:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn and undelete''' - for same reasons as the comments of other users who have voted for the same. Also note that there are many schools nominated for deletion, and the debates end up to be very similar most of the time. It is unreasonable to expect each editor to go over the very similar arguments over and over again for each school that is nominated for deletion - it's just a waste of time! In the end [[User:Mackensen]] did not do the right thing deleting an article not only without concensus, but agains the majority.--[[User:Konstable|Konstable]] 07:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*:I've never mistaken this effort for a waste of time myself. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 11:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn and Undelete''' — Per nom. Hmm, an arbitrary personal decision made against an opinion of 16 keeps and 13 deletes. Consensus appears to favor a keep. — [[User:RJHall|RJH]] ([[User_talk:RJHall|''talk'']]) 01:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*:I object to the characterization of a three-paragraph rationale as "arbitrary." What would qualify as reasoned? [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 02:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse closure'''. This is why it's not called "Votes for deletion" anymore. ([[User:ESkog|ESkog]])<sup>([[User talk:ESkog|Talk]])</sup> 01:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''': I've only been an outsider observer on this lately because I went away on vacation. I was the one who wikified it into a stub form with it's 1-2 sentences back a couple of weeks ago. Just out of curiousity, why has the article been restored now? I haven't seen a conclusion here yet but [[User:RJHall]] seems to have unilaterally restored it. Am I missing something? [[User:Metros232|Metros232]] 03:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*:He didn't restore it; he's written what seems to be an entirely new article. I certainly don't see a problem with that. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 03:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
**Ahh, okay. It's been awhile since I saw the article before it was deleted since I was in and out for the last week or two. It looked really similar to the way it looked the last time I saw it. I was just going on visual not content since I can't remember all that was in the article, just that it physically looks the same. [[User:Metros232|Metros232]] 03:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
***I used the cached content from google and added in a number of additional details. That's the reason there are a few similarities in appearance. — [[User:RJHall|RJH]] ([[User_talk:RJHall|''talk'']]) 19:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
****Since Mackensen, as the closer, accepts the new version has no problem, this DRV is now moot, and can be closed. Since RJH acknowledges using some of the old version, the history of the old version must be restored, in order to respect GFDL attribution requirements. --[[User:Thivierr|Rob]] 21:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse Closure''' and '''Deletion''' per [[User:Crzrussian|CrazyRussian]] and per my reasons given in the AfD discussion itself. I appreciate the closing admin had a tough task ''cannot'' be faulted for ''not'' treating the discussion as a vote. [[User:Agent 86|Agent 86]] 09:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn and undelete'''. No matter how much reasoning one puts into the close here, the fact remains that there is no consensus to delete any verifiable and reasonable high school article. The article did not violate any of the core policies to such a degree that justifies deleting this in spite of several people who wanted to keep it. Past precedent on similar AFDs ''is'' in my opinion a perfectly valid factor which should ''not'' be arbitrarily discounted. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 11:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse closure''' Whilst I think that high school articles should be kept, as they are one of the first things that young could-be-wikipedians may look at when they arrive here, I believe that we select admins knowing that they will sometimes have to make hard calls. The argument was well explained and I cannot find fault with it, even condidering my own opinions. The conclusion of the discussion by Mackenson should stand. [[User:Inner Earth|Inner Earth]] 20:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse very carefully considered and supported decision''' ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 22:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Comment''': This deletion review discussion is now moot. The deleted content prior to July 2, 2006 must be restored in order to meet GFDL attribution requirements, for reasons explained above. [[User:Silensor|Silensor]] 04:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
'''Now ''recreated''' in a new and better form which Mackensen (the closer) has accepted. History is also restored since the [[Wikipedia:undeletion policy|undeletion policy]] allows for such "history only" undeletions automatically. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 06:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)'' |
|||
:''The above discussion is preserved as an [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|archive]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.<!-- from Template:Archive bottom --></div> |
|||
Revision as of 18:34, 3 July 2006
29 June 2006
Articles for deletion
I understand that there's a phobia about "cross namespace linking" or whatever, but removing this redirect renders it inconvenient for people to look for this section. Not everyone knows to put Wikipedia:... before the title. So I protest this deletion on the grounds that it creates an inconvenience and the existence of a redirect was causing no harm to Wikipedia, in my opinion. I'd like to see someone make a case as to why it was harming Wikipedia to have this here. 23skidoo 00:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete per 23skidoo, useful redirect to newcomers that causes no harm. Yamaguchi先生 00:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. Don't patronize newcomers. They are quite capable of learning the structure of Wikipedia, and will soon find their way around, just like you and I did. Keeping the mainspace (the encyclopedia) separate from WP:space (the bureaucracy) is valuable. --Ezeu 00:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted, do not create cross namespace redirects. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. I see where the author is coming from. There is no doubt that in the early days, WP can be somewhat daunting to navigate. However, if the newcomer does read the links in the 'Welcome!' message (which I would guess many don't :-( ) then they should be well armed. This discussion has, however, raised a very good point that I think should be clarified in the 'Welcome!' message. The dichotomy between the 'mainspace' encyclopaedia and the WP: section will not be well understood by those new to the scene and should be spelt out in the 'Welcome!' message. If this is done then links in the mainspace to WP: are not needed. Meanwhile Keep deleted is right. BlueValour 02:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. Just because I think Be bold was useful doesn't necessarily mean I think this is useful. "Be bold" is a fairly notable identifier of one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, but I don't think this is. --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete. There is no basis in policy for this fanatical opposition to cross-namespace redirects. (Or if there is, no one has taken the time to point it out to me despite repeated requests.) It is not used in the article space and never has been. There is no possibility of confusion over this link. It is a convenience link for anyone who forgets to type Wikipedia at the front of the link (bullet 2 of the "avoid deleting such redirects if" section of Wikipedia:Redirect). It could be helpful to newcomers and it does no harm. To BlueValour's point, of all the things that I'd try to teach a newcomer on their first day (that is, in the Welcome message), the technicalities of the various "spaces" are not one of them. In the meantime, redirects are cheap. Rossami (talk) 04:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Deleted. Cross-namespace redirects confuse articlespace from wikipediaspace, and should be avoided. --Improv 05:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete Well, since I will certainly avoid closing this DRV as if my life depended on it, I chime in to second Rossami's remark. Until all cross-space redirects are deleted (even the "WP:" ones) there is ample practical precedent that user-friendliness trumps a very strict reading of a style guideline. Xoloz 05:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but this is a non-vote that the anti-deletionists are bound to lose. If people, and newbies in especial, can't find AfD then this suits the Wiki-Cabal, who run the deletion policy, because it means that they get to run things the way they want without interference. ####
- Comment. Again, as with the last cross-namespace redirect, DRV is overstepping its bounds. The issue should be whether process was followed; this page must not become a second forum for debating deletion decisions; it is only for new information and possible admin error. In this case, since the page was not deleted by a proper RfD, I propose the compromise that whatever happens to Votes for deletion (currently the subject of a well-attended and legitimate RfD) also happen to this redirect. -- SCZenz 06:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete: We in the cabal have no stance on this petty issue. :-) (We do need to make it easier for the new users, as AfD is actually one of our starter pages for new, somewhat censorious, users.) Geogre 11:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted pending other rfd result Technically not a valid rfd (ASR is not a CSD (but I would support it becoming one)) but leave as is pending rfd result as mentioned by SCZenz. I would reply to some of the above points that WP:ASR is the basis of opposition to cross-namespace redirects, which, while it is a guideline, not policy, does not mean it should simply be ignored. CNR's can cause confusion, when readers browse a enclyopledia, they do not expect to fall through a crack and end up behind the scenes without warning, which CNR's do. Making it easy to find WP pages via search for people who forget to type "wikipedia:" is not a strong enough reason, if in doubt, we should remember that wikipedia is an encylopedia, and assume people want encylopedic content, and act accordingly. Regards, MartinRe 13:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete. I'm putting my money where my mouth is. I do not like this page and I do not think it should exist on Wikipedia, but it was not deleted by RfD, it does not meet any CSD, it does not explicitly violate a clear policy, and the RfD on the similar redirect I cited above did not achieve consensus. I want it deleted, but unilateral deletion + DRV is not the way/place to do this. -- SCZenz 15:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted per MartinRe: too many people are putting editor convenience above the goals of the project. --Cyde↔Weys 15:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I utterly cannot believe what I have just read. It is honestly making me wonder whether I should continue my involvement in Wikipedia at all. If you can't make things easy for the editors why the hell should they bother contributing to this thing??? 23skidoo 21:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- For the good of the 'readers, not for the convenience of the editors. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Reviewing the history of the redirect and the context in which it was used, this redirect was only ever used in talk page discussions which clearly indicated the context of a policy page. What evidence to you have that this redirect created confusion or inconvenience for even a single reader? Rossami (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- For the good of the 'readers, not for the convenience of the editors. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I utterly cannot believe what I have just read. It is honestly making me wonder whether I should continue my involvement in Wikipedia at all. If you can't make things easy for the editors why the hell should they bother contributing to this thing??? 23skidoo 21:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. What part of "no cross-space references" don't you people understand? Kelly Martin (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- As we have asked many times before, where is the policy-level rule that there are to be "no cross-space references"? Where has it been decided that these redirects are inherently bad? I am continuing to try to assume good faith but the longer the question goes unanswered, the more my faith is strained. Rossami (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- The question has been repeatedly answered on many different pages. Refusing to even acknowledge the answers to your statements is not a good way to win a debate. --Cyde↔Weys 18:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- No, actually the question have never been answered. I have been shown two arguments, neither drawing on a policy-level decision. The first argument is that any such redirect constitutes a self-reference. WP:ASR is a guideline, not a policy and looking at the usage and context of these redirects, the applicability of the guideline is weak at best. The second argument is the fifth bullet in the list on Wikipedia:Redirect - another guideline page. That bullet must be read in context with the bulleted list immediately below. No one has yet answered the request for a policy-level decision. Rossami (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- The question has been repeatedly answered on many different pages. Refusing to even acknowledge the answers to your statements is not a good way to win a debate. --Cyde↔Weys 18:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- By policy or by the fiat of some users? If the former, please show rather than tell. If the latter, please explain why such power is adherent. I thought this was rather innocent, but Kelly's and your nasty tone is really quite offputting. Geogre 20:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- As we have asked many times before, where is the policy-level rule that there are to be "no cross-space references"? Where has it been decided that these redirects are inherently bad? I am continuing to try to assume good faith but the longer the question goes unanswered, the more my faith is strained. Rossami (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted per Ezeu --Ardenn 20:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete per Rossami, Geogre, Yamaguchi, and SCZenz. Please excuse my ignorance, but if this question has been answered repeatedly, why not provide links to such answers rather than skirt around the question? Silensor 20:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. ~ PseudoSudo 22:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete - many new comers may barely know how to use a computer. It causes no harm.whicky1978 talk 23:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion – Gurch 11:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse Will (message me!) 12:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you go with what people trumpeted constantly on Be bold's DRV, this is an obvious out of process deletion (DRV IS ONLY ABOUT PROCESS!!!!111ONE) and should be undeleted. As noted above, ASR is not a CSD and it does not even declare them verboten. WP:NOT has wide acceptance, and it is policy, and yet it is still not a CSD. My vote is actually delete though, as deleted page is worse than a cross-namespace redirect. Kotepho 19:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Unsure Before I vote, can anyone give me a quick, straight answer to the following: Why are cross-namespace redirects frowned upon? Is it a technical issue such as database performance, or is it just because having too many of them would set a bad precedent (like people redirecting silly things to their user pages and such)? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- In my view, CNRs are discouraged as they blur the line between the encyclopedia and wikipedia (which causes trouble with mirrors, among other things) and can result in people searching for encyclopedic content and getting a wikipedia page instead. (While this may seem useful to editors (which all contributers are), no reader would expect to search encyclopedia britianica and receive minutes of a britianica board meeting as a result, so why should this happen in wikipedia? CNR do make it easier for editors by introducing cracks in the wall between the encyclopedia and wikipedia, but this means that people (readers) browing the building (encyclopedia) can fall into the pipework (project space) just beacuse the builders (editors) though it would be easier for them to create cracks in the floors and walls. As there are numerous WP: style short cuts, there should be little reason for a non-WP: article to point to wikipedia space, as if someone does not put in the "Wikipedia" prefix in a search, we should remember that we are an encyclopedia, so should by default return encyclopedic content, and not push them into project space just to make it easier for a small subset of editors. Regards, MartinRe 00:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted per Kelly Martin. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Un-SALT - good grief, if a cross-namespace redirect is bad, SALTing the thing is worse. By SALTing it, instead of having something borderline useful, you have something completely useless. Personally, I think soft redirects are the best way to handle all of these. With a soft redirect, you help newbies learn the correct place to go, keep them from being dependent on the wrong thing, and have something useful. BigDT 05:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete per George. - brenneman {L} 12:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Undelete per Geogre, give it a full run on RFD if needed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted, conditional, I don't see any procedural problem in the nomination. If it belongs to the set of speedy deletions nominated later apply the result of that review also here for consistency. -- Omniplex 12:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Unusure -- I understand MartinRe's arguments above but what is the harm in redirecting a term such as "Articles for deletion" that has no possible encyclopedic usage and is highly unlikely to be mistakenly entered by a reader searcing for something else? (E.g., how does this create problems with mirrors?) - AjaxSmack 18:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)