Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 7: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:14, 8 April 2010

< 2010 April 6

Deletion review archives: 2010 April

2010 April 8 >

7 April 2010

Susan Scholz

I strongly feel that this article was in need of more discussion, one which had started only one day ago. I have no stance on the article itself, any of the voters, or the admin who closed the discussion. But I would be happy to keep the article based on some policy-conforming argument (e.g., notability). And exactly that we were trying to find out in a discussion which was interrupted by this premature closure. I would very much appreciate a re-listing of the article for further discussion. Thanks, Nageh (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse own closure, which was not premature, being made more than 7½ days after the nomination. Relisting would have violated WP:RELIST. There was genuinely no consensus at the discussion. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained on your talk page, you were interrupting an ongoing discussion. Nothing forces you to relist, but a little bit more social sensitivity would be due. Nageh (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Social sensitivity doesn't come into closing AFDs - its hard enough trying to interpret discussions against policy without trying to avoid upsetting anyone - which is an impossibility in most cases anyway. There was enough discussion there to reach a rough consensus that there was no consensus so I endorse this close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose with premature closure. Although I hold great respect for Administrator Stifle and believe that he is one of the better administrators in Wikipedia, especially in term of judgment, I believe that the closure was premature. Note that I do acknowledge that WP:REFLIST specifies “only one or two commenters (including the nominator)” and “it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy”. However, given that Wikipedia has no firm rules besides the five pillars, I believe that because (1) there was no more than a handful of commentators and because (2) the comments were half–policy-based, a re-listing would have been a proper and warranted decision. Fleet Command (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. There had not been many contributions to the discussion, but the discussion was ongoing, exploring the central issues relating to deletion. The last of those contributions was only 29 minutes before the closure, replying to another a comment only one hour and 43 minutes before the closure. This discussion hadn't gone off on a tangent or descended into abuse, and it wasn't rehashing old ground.
I am surprised that WP:RELIST doesn't address this situation, but since the overriding point of WP:CONSENUS is reasoned discussion to reach a reasoned conclusion. That process was still ongoing, and should not have been arbitrarily curtailed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist- Stifle's close was completely within the bounds of policy, specifically WP:RELIST. That said, I think the discussion could have benefited from ignoring that particular rule, and re-listing it for more discussion. Umbralcorax (talk)
Endorse. 7 days and six commenters is more than enough for a close. I don't think the tit-for-tat at the end of the discussion held out much hope for resolving anything. A "no consensus" close was therefore correct; it was the only close open to be made. If anyone feels strongly that the article should be deleted, it can of course be renominated. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse It was borderline, and there were enough comments. The relevant standard for keeping was WP:PROF, the part about being an authority in one's subject. In the academic world, this is measured primarily by the extent of citations to one's work, and formalized by the award of academic rank. In this case, the academic level was Associate Professor at a good but not world-class research university, which is one step lower than is usual. However, the citations were quite sufficient considering the subject, accounting, which is not a field of very high citations. Speaking for myself, I did not comment until late in the discussion because upon first look , I was undecided. Upon seeing the 7 days were almost up, I gave my opinion, which was weak keep. I can understand relisting, for if so, I am prepared to make a full argument for why the citations should be decisive. We normally do close academic afds on that basis. The arguments against considering were in my opinion irrelevant, e.g. "every academic writes papers"--every academic does, but the papers are of very variable impact, and most do not come near writing 10 papers with more than 10 citations, as was the case here. The GNG is explicitly not the applicable guideline for academics, except as an alternative. DGG ( talk ) 19:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The major issue here was how an ongoing discussion was dealt with. I am easily convinced that an article is indeed notable, and I was trying to find out exactly that, until this discussion was deliberately turned off. I understand that I was late in joining the discussion (not everybody has time to check the lists every day - I guess that's one of the reasons AfD discussion are kept open for at least 7 days), but it's a matter of attitude (I expect especially from an admin) to respect an ongoing discussion, despite of some policy (note WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY here), where the aim is to *improve* the quality of wikipedia. And four comments is not particularly a lot compared to many other AfD discussions which are relisted despite of several more comments present. Anyway, I did some personal research on the OP (in lack of an ongoing discussion), and while it could not find any clear signs of notability, it provides a sufficient answer to my open question in this closed discussion. Feel free to cancel this re-opening request, but keep in mind that people (freely) participating in a discussion are most likely trying to improve the quality and not drag it down, and therefore give them a chance to conclude with their arguments. Nageh (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse We get too many relistings at AFD. A no consensus result is better as it allows a pause for editors to work upon the article without the threat of it being immediately deleted, as can happen once the 7 days is up. This threat has a chilling effect and so it is better to close the proceedings. There is no bar to a further nomination after a reasonable time has elspased and there would then be a 7 day minimum period for the next round of debate, which provides a better basis for orderly discussion and improvement. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. BLP is of borderline notability. Some were in favour of keep some of delete. No consensus is a reasonable assessment of debate. Off topic: It would be valuable to have a mechanism to notify automatically contributors to an AfD of any deletion review of it. I only came across this deletion review by accident when I was editing the talk page of Stifle to refute a false allegation he made about my editing conduct. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

@Colonel Warden and Xxanthippe: You did read what my issue was, right? Nageh (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You want further discussion, right? You may talk as long as you like at Talk:Susan Scholz. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs are not a forum for the discussion of Wikipedia policy. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Relist Presently, it reads like someone's resume. It's all very well voting to keep every article under the sun, but someone needs to clean it up, as it's a mess. I'm not going to do it. As it happens though the result was no consensus but as hardly anyone commented a relist could be beneficial. Aiken ♫ 00:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A check of recent academic AfD debates shows a high deletion rate so "every article under the sun" is not being kept. 6 editors expressed opinions on this AfD, about an average number. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

"[i]t's all very well voting to keep every article under the sun" (Emphasis mine). Actually, only 4 expressed a bolded "!vote". The other two were the nominator, which is expected, and a commenter. As I say, it's all very well being an inclusionist and "saving" these articles, but they need attention from these people afterwards, otherwise they'll stay in a messy state forever. Afterall they are usually non-notable so nobody is going to go looking them up and fix them. These inclusionists need to take some responsibility for their actions - no wonder our reputation as a quality encyclopedia is non-existent. How can we be when so much trash is kept? </rant> Aiken ♫ 00:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The usual process for a No Consensus (which is not the same as a Keep) is for it to be left for a while to see if anybody improves it and if people feel that it is still inadequate, as you apparently do, they can prod it again at a later date. I don't see that further discussion will help at present. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

But the no consensus close is incorrect. It should have been relisted because the result is not clear, and had minimal participation. Aiken ♫ 01:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route articles

London Buses route 66 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) – this article and the subsequent four were discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 77. Their page histories were deleted and redirects were later created. Cunard (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 79 London Buses route 187 London Buses route 260 London Buses route 384 London Buses route 80 London Buses route 69

Most of the recent London Bus Route deletions were closed as keep. For those that were deleted, the lack of notability was claimed. But at the very worst, they should have been closed as a merge/redirect to a parent article, with edit history retained, so in the future, in the event sources are provided (which is very likely given some arguments), the last version can be pulled up, and improved from there. Dew Kane (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've organized the links for easier viewing of the deletion debates. Cunard (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If in the future sources are provided why can't the articles go to WP:REFUND as required, why are these articles special such that we wouldn't treat them the same way as others? (See Wikipedia:Pure_wiki_deletion_system for the rejected proposal to implement deletion as blanking of pages) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just noticed PWD has had some debate recently --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(closer's comment) I don't really care whether most of the other recent debates were closed as keep or not, I can't imagine e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 331 in its current state being closed as anything but a delete or a redirect (not a merge, not much use in "merging" to List of bus routes in London). The articles I deleted are now redirected, which is fine by me. If anyone wants in the future to recreate these articles when more and better sources have become available, then I have no problem with userfying them at that time. Fram (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Close Nothing out of process here. Eusebeus (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - At worst this was no consensus. The fact that the closing admin stated that most of the keeps were procedural makes me question the judgement. There were only 2 procedural keeps out of 10, compared to 4 delete comments. Jeni ^(talk) 09:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There were two that explicitly stated "procedural keep", and different others that were implicit procedural ones, e.g. "Speedy Keep All The nomination is frivolous and vexatious as well explained by User:MickMacNee." or "to give the road project a fair chance the articles should at worst be nominated at a rate of one per week. " And then there are keeps that give e.g. flickr as a reliable, useful source... And ignoring for a moment that it is not a votecount, where do you get 4 delete comments? Apart from the nomination, there are 6 deletes, with two of them also endorsing a redirect as an alternative. Discounting those seems a rather deliberate way to misrepresent the discussion. (and I cound 9 deletes, not 10...) Fram (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, correct and courageous closures. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closing admin's job is to weigh arguments, not to count votes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS Note that Dew Kane, who lodged this request for deletion review, made a rapid-fire series of absolutely identical !votes to "keep" London buses articles at a rate of of over one per minute: see the contribs list. Each of these "keep" !voters read, in full: *'''Keep''' all information contained in this article is verifiable. The majority of London bus routes are notable, and the system is notable.

It is deeply implausible to Dew Kane checked the verifiability of all these articles at a rate of over one per minute, so that argument should be discounted as implausible. The second part of Dew Kane's argument is that "majority of London bus routes are notable"; but no evidence was offered for that assertion. Even if there was evidence that the "majority of X are notable", that it is not evidence that any individual instance of X is notable.

Faced with !votes such as these, a closing admin should simply discount them as irrelevant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- nothing wrong with these closes. Reyk _YO! 14:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - and I might note that some of those voting keep did so in a very disruptive, battleground manner, without any policy-based argument. Aiken ♫ 15:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The deletes were an exceptionally bad close, based presumably on the closers own view, not the consensus of the discussion. There is no possible reason why at least the content should not have been merged, and no valid reason was suggested in any of the discussions. The only valid closes of the ones that were closed delete would have been either merge, as a compromise close, or the more explicit compromise close of no consensus. (actually, perhaps some of the keeps should also have been no consensus). It is not the role of an admin to decide which of various WP policies apply; that is a matter for the community. The !votes to close as procedural and discuss it elsewhere were perfectly in accordance with policy as one of the accepted ways of dealing with complicated issues, and throwing them out was outside reasonable limits to individual judgment.

More generally. I directly deny the position that "the job of an admin is to weigh arguments." The job of an admin is not to weigh arguments, but discard the arguments unrelated to policy or from SPAs, and then determine the consensus of the community. We are selected as admins by the community for our rough knowledge of what is or is not policy, not for our ability to have mastered the merits of competing arguments where the community is divided. I would say no admin in any circumstance has the right to do that, at AfD or elsewhere. We serve the community, we do not lead it. Anyone who wants to be a judge of policy or lead the community should not be doing it at WP--we are not an hierarchy. How could it be otherwise , when admins as well as others disagree about what the policy should be on most disputed questions--how can any admin pronounce that they are right, but not their fellows? My own view is that the policy that WP is an encyclopedia with elements of a gazetteer means that all bus routes are notable, and whether they should be in separate or combination articles is a matter of style, but i would only try to convince the community of that, not decide it for them. DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse any merges and deletions: were the vast majority put up for merging, I'd think they'd be merged for being hopelessly short, and if put up for deletion without a current discussion, be deleted/merged (NOTDIRECTORY, NOTTRAVEL, NOTINFO, etc), with the exception of a few like the 30, which was famously bombed five years ago, or the 9 and the 15, which have heritage routes, hence I feel why deletion with a possible redirect is acceptable here. I also don't think the notability arguments were convincing, especially seeing as the sources seemed to be to those that just listed the routes, without any commentary on their own. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There was clearly no consensus for deletion and the closer failed to follow the guidance of WP:DGFA: "respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants...When in doubt, don't delete". On the facts of the matter, there are clearly lots of substantial sources for these London bus routes. Last week there was a full page article about route 22 in the Standard and tonight there's a two page article about route 88. There's a journal specifically dedicated to London buses: London Bus Magazine and there are other journals about buses in general which have plenty to say about London. There are numerous books on the subject which go into considerable detail about particular routes. For example, route 71 has a full page (page 146) in the Routemaster Omnibus while route 77 has several pages (109, 136, 146) and other routes have entire chapters. To be openly called a liar when one finds and presents substantial sources of this kind is quite uncivil and makes a mockery of the process. The judgement of editors who have not inspected the sources is obviously weaker than those who have seen the evidence and so should be discounted accordingly. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's all very well discussing sources that discuss other routes, such as the 22 and 88 - but neither of them are here! It's like comparing apples and oranges - just because those two might be notable does not make every route automatically the same!

Your point regarding London Buses - yes, London Buses are notable, but is each and every individual route? Of course not! When a route is discussed significantly (I think your definition of significantly differs significantly to mine :]) in multiple reliable sources then of course it can be considered for inclusion. However, just because something is written down doesn't make it notable. We all know this - I could dig up the electoral rolls and claim I am notable - after all, I'm on every single electoral roll for the past few years. I must be notable in that respect! Same with bus routes - they're on maps, timetables etc. Other than the obviously notable ones, you seem to be missing the point that they are as common as common can be. Should every building have an article? Routes are simply a way to get from A to B, on a bus. If I dug around hard enough, I could get more citations for my street (in fact, every street) in the country. Same for people. Every person has a story to tell, right? You see where this is going? Just because something is mentioned it doesn't make it automatically worth an article. London Buses as a whole are very notable, in fact probably the most iconic. But the individual routes aren't, with exceptions of course, such as the 30. You have not proven the case with many of the examples, despite your claims. You have done admirable work on finding sources, but you could have a million sources and it still wouldn't suddenly make it notable for an encyclopedia.

Finally, please stop trying to get the closer to discount comments because you don't agree with them. It's really rude. By all means, ask questions, engage in discussion, and disagree. But please don't go on the attack on the nominator/delete voters, because it helps nobody, least of all yourself. Aiken ♫ 01:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Squared Circle Wrestling

This is no longer a small wrestling company and is reference throughout wiki and desrves an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.178.124 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article was deleted over three years ago; just recreate it if it's notable now. Speedy close. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy permit recreation per Stifle. The deleted version was unreferenced, and all the information in it will be three years out of date so it wont help you write a new article. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 :{{DRV links|London Buses route 72|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 77|article=}}
 :{{DRV links|London Buses route 77|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 77|article=}}
+[[London Buses route 79]]
+[[London Buses route 187]]
+[[London Buses route 260]]
+[[London Buses route 384]]
+[[London Buses route 80]]
+[[London Buses route 69]]
 Most of the recent London Bus Route deletions were closed as keep. For those that were deleted, the lack of notability was claimed. But at the very worst, they should have been closed as a merge/redirect to a parent article, with edit history retained, so in the future, in the event sources are provided (which is very likely given some arguments), the last version can be pulled up, and improved from there. [[User:Dew Kane|Dew Kane]] ([[User talk:Dew Kane|talk]]) 03:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)