Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 21: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:25, 21 May 2010

< 2010 May 20

Deletion review archives: 2010 May

2010 May 22 >

21 May 2010

List of most popular cat names

I feel the closer did not really attempt to evaluate the comments for consensus in an unbiased manner. Despite the fact that Deletes outnumbered Keeps 2 to 1 (I fully understand it's not a vote, but I'm just making it known), the closer initially closed the AfD as Keep with a nonsensical closing statement, which indicated to me that the closer was going to close this as a Keep regardless of what the Delete !voters' rationales were. After 3 editors commented on the closer's user talk page, the closer struck his original closing comments and replaced them with comments which, while more reasonable, still do not reflect the consensus of the editors in my opinion. At the very least, this AfD should have been closed as No Consensus. The result would have been the same (i.e. the article would have been unchanged), but future AfD's for this article would not have the benefit of looking back in time and noting that there have already been two AfD's that ended in a Keep. I, for one, cannot find a rationale in the !votes that overwhelmingly supports a Keep decision over a Delete decision, to the point that we can say that a consensus has been reached among editors. I respectfully request that this AfD be changed to either No Consensus or Delete. SnottyWong talk 20:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse My first reaction when reading the closing statement (both of them) is to spit chips. As for the first: participants in the AfD debate come up with reasoned arguments and ought to be given a reasoned closing statement. As for the second, using the first AfD as a ground to close the second as keep has no basis in deletion policy: consensus can change. And the statement betrayed the closer's obvious personal preference for one side of the argument. Arguments on both sides of the debate were policy-based - neither side was overwhelmingly weak or strong by objective measure, so that should have been recognised with a no consensus close. But there wasn't a consensus to delete and the difference between "keep" and "no consensus" is one of semantics. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way what is with the 5th dot point of this essay? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would guess it is referring to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting template, {{delsort}}. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Delsorting isn't "wikiproject pages". Dropping a note on a wikiproject page for input is fine - I do it often when I see debates that are on quite technical areas as expert input is helpful; however doing that as a mechanism to "solicit support" for inclusion is not ok.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The article was vastly overhauled, hence many of the early !votes were less pertinent by the time of the close. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Norway relations

The closer used a supervote to express their opinion against consensus on the theory that the article was synthesis. No new conclusion was reached which is the definition of synthesis. This person should not be closing bilateral articles, they should just be another !vote Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion—I don't know where votes come into this, but the closing admin used an exceptionally specific statement to explain which votes they discounted for specific reasons (such as blatant ILIKEIT issues), and soundly evaluated the arguments, which is precisely what anybody judging non-numerical consensus is supposed to do. I see absolutely no problem with the decision; indeed, it was one of the most measured AfD closes I've seen in a long time. ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 18:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You didn't seem to mind when I closed previous bilateral-relations AfDs as no consensus. How strange. Anyway... you've misrepresented my closing comments, but editors will be able to judge those for themselves by reading the AfD. I stand by them. Shimeru (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not strange at all, you tallied the votes at the previous one and didn't use a supervote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. I never tally votes. Because AfD isn't one. Shimeru (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong endorse Absolutely spot-on close, discarding the comments that needed to be discarded and leaving no room for the spurious arguments of the disruptive editors that have tainted this AfD. Best close I've seen for a long time. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Overturn-With all due respect, I believe this close sucked balls. It did not reflect consensus, no matter how idiotic the consensus of wikipedians may be in the eyes of a closing admin at any one time. I understand that the admin's role is to "assess the discussion and make a decision to Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, or Transwiki the article based on a judgment of the consensus of the discussion". Its clear there is no consensus regarding this particular article, indeed the same applies to many of these bilateral relations AfDs (which I have been learning the history of this week). The !vote count was 13-7 to keep, and while that of course is not dispositive, I didn't even bother to !vote on this one because I found it to be an obvious no consensus close--most editors simply don't have time to opine on every AfD. On this article, this is a legitimate debate as to whether the sources are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG, and since its not even a BLP, a default no consensus to keep would be the only fair result. I started this comment to post on the closing admin's talk page, but couldn't even finish it without the DRV being started. The DRV is going to waste a huge additional amount of editor time with no benefit to the project. What needs to happen (among those who want to participate) is more collaboration on how these bilateral AfDs should be treated. Cheers.----Milowent (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be under the misapprehension that AfD is a vote. And to be honest, it doesn't even matter, because a No Consensus close will inevitably lead to another AfD on such a topic that doesn't actually exist in the real world. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I believe this close sucked balls," – well, at least you're taking a constructive stance on this. +what BlackKite said, it's not a vote and the consensus was clearly explained by the closing admin. ╟─Treasury Tag►belonger─╢ 19:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The admin explains why he rejected the lack of consensus. But there was no consensus to delete, as I tried to emphasize in the rhetorical style of master debater Vinny Gambini.--Milowent (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be under a misapprehension as to my apprehension. I do not claim AfD is a vote; its a determination of whether consensus exists. The closing admin shepherds along the messy democracy of wikipedia and is not a benevolent dictator, even if having benevolent dictators would be preferred. As to whether this topic "exists in the real world," I do not purport to be an expert in foreign relations, I simply am responding to the sourcing, content, and opinions I saw in this AfD.--Milowent (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as Keep Wikipedia is based on the consensus of participants, not on the supervote of admins as occurred here. Alansohn (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to justify your claim that there was a consensus (not numerical majority) to keep the article? ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 21:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Most !keeps were not based on policy, and were rightly disregarded by the closing admin. Claiming the nomination was in bad faith--even if true--is not a valid !keep argument. Yilloslime ^T_C 20:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Glaysher

I am appealing the decision of Wikipedia to delete the article on me, “Frederick Glaysher,” in April of 2008. Because of the dominance of Baha’is of the largest Baha’i denomination on Wikipedia, I believe my appeal can not and will not receive a fair hearing through the normal procedure. Because of the increasing importance of Wikipedia during the last decade, and the Haifan Baha’i determination to keep any article about me off Wikipedia, I believe they have severely damaged the recognition and growth of my career, as a poet and writer.

At the time the “Frederick Glaysher” article was under debate in 2008, Wjhonson observed, "The attacks imho are religion-based as this person is a vocal critic of certain Baha'i institutions. There is no evidence that his works are vanity-press publications. The article is fairly new and deserves new eyes to expand it, instead of this pressure by a vested group or a few individuals to suppress it. Wjhonson 4 April 2008" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frederick_Glaysher

Wjhonson had also stated,"Their only purpose is to attack Glaysher. This del entry should be voided on that basis solely...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_4#Frederick_Glaysher

In addition to Wjhonson, other Wikipedia participants also had misgivings about how the discussion and deletion were conducted. Please refer to the Wikipedia database for details. The record of my being a “vocal critic of certain Baha’i institutions” can be found on my website The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience, Documenting censorship and suppression of free speech and conscience within the Baha'i Faith since 1998: http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship

Wjhonson created a Wiki page for me on his County Historian Wiki at http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Frederick_Glaysher The “Frederick Glaysher” article there has had over 6,500 hits on it during the last two years, which I believe demonstrate there’s significant interest in who I am and my career, both as a poet and literary critic and as a reformer within the Bahai religious tradition. During the last two years, significant new material has also made its way onto the Internet about my work as both a poet and Bahai reformer.

Extended explanation.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In order to help Wikipedia understand the ferocity and deception involved in the treatment I have received from Baha’is who dominate discussion of articles that they perceive to be related to their interests, I believe it is necessary to describe in a few paragraphs the Bahai religious conflict that is taking place behind the scenes on Wikipedia, and which led to the deletion of the “Frederick Glaysher” article.

I have been publicly attacked by Baha’is and slandered in many venues, on and off-line, and as an “apostate” by Moojan Momen in a leading British academic journal: ‘Marginality and Apostasy in the Baha'i Community’" in Religion 37 [2007] 187–209. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%237135%232007%23999629996%23674070%23FLA%23&_cdi=7135&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5b99f6924a55e2c8a71092082ec219a3

My published “Response to Takfir” (denunciation of infidels) appeared in Religion 38 No 4 2008: http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/archives/A_Response%20_to_Takfir.pdf Original journal source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%237135%232008%23999619995%23701138%23FLA%23&_cdi=7135&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b476fc231c4982240a933b11582a5375

Since the Reform Bahai Faith has often been attacked and slandered in the past by the larger denomination of the Baha'i Faith located in Haifa, Israel and Wilmette, Illinois, as have several other Baha'i denominations, I must point out that I believe the Reform Bahai Faith has also been misrepresented and suppressed on Wikipedia, by the Haifan Baha'is. As documentary evidence of the harassment that several Bahai denominations regularly experienced from Haifan and Wilmette Bahais, please visit the website of the Orthodox Bahais who are currently being sued by the dominant Baha’i denomination in the US Court of Appeals, along with two other small Bahai denominations. Contempt Motion by Wilmette NSA against Orthodox Bahá'í Faith: http://trueseeker.typepad.com/true_seeker/court_case.html

On February 20, 2009, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals of Northern Illinois vigorously questioned the Haifan Baha'is on their harassment of other denominations, including Reform Bahai. Judge Diane S. Sykes stated that their conduct "Clearly raises some Constitutional concerns." A brief 3-minute official court recording of the proceedings may be listened to at http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/archives/US_Court_of_Appeals_2-20-09.mp3 A link is provided on the following page to the original 30-minute US Court recording from which the 3-minute excerpt above is taken, should you wish to verify its authenticity: http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/USCourt_Appeals09.htm

The Reform Bahai Faith is a peaceful, open, universal interpretation of the spiritual teachings of the founder Baha'u'llah. Knowing that the Reform Bahai Faith has been misrepresented on Wikipedia, when not completely suppressed, I ask you to consider our own understanding of who we are and what we believe, if necessary. About the Reform Bahai Faith http://www.reformbahai.org/about.html

All matters Baha’i aside, my career as a poet and writer is being adversely affected, and I appeal to Wikipedia on that basis for an impartial evaluation and decision. I wish to note that my two books of poems received over twenty-five reviews, several of which are available on the Internet. Many poets on Wikipedia have had nowhere near that number of reviews, including my other citations, for instance, in an interview with the Nobel Laureate Saul Bellow.

If Wikipedia consensus does choose to permit an article on me, I request that consideration be given to “locking” or handling it in some way that will prevent future abuse of it by continuing Baha’i fanaticism directed against me out of religious hatred.

Thank you for your careful consideration of my appeal.

Frederick Glaysher Books, poems, essays, reviews, interviews, blogs http://www.fglaysher.com

Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience Documenting censorship and suppression of free speech and conscience within the Baha'i Faith since 1998: http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship

Reform Bahai Faith http://www.ReformBahai.org

Endorse deletion—there was absolutely no procedural malpractice in the closure, it seems perfectly sensible to me. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 18:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion-while the article was deleted over 2 years ago and is long gone from google cache to verify, the closing admin seems to have properly judged the consensus of the discussion, and closed the matter as delete. Since its been so long, if a new editor wanted to create an article on this subject in their userspace and solicit opinions as to its chances, I would be willing to opine. However, as the appealer here is the subject of the article, I am not comfortable with the subject creating his own article.--Milowent (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Untertitel.jpg

Admin Pascal.Tesson deleted this image. The Admin wrote, "This article or other page provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. It is patent nonsense (CSD G1)." I could not find a discussion to delete it, so I'm guessing the Admin speedily deleted it. I do not know why the Admin called it patent nonsense. The text in the image was in Swiss German. From the userbox on the Admin's userpage, I see this Admin is able to contribute with a basic level of German. Perhaps the Admin did not understand the German in the image?

I could not find who uploaded the file, however, I found that GreyCat split the article in which we use it, Subtitle (captioning), from Subtitles, and I found that Andreas -horn- Hornig, added the image. From the userbox on the user's userpage, I see this user is a native speaker of German. I did not see that the Admin notified Andreas -horn- Hornig of the image's deletion. This either means Andreas -horn- Hornig is not the uploader or (gasp) the Admin notified no one of the image's deletion! I hope the latter is not the case.

In either case, would someone please undelete this image, as it is still currently, and always has been, in use in the article, since the day GreyCat created/split it? Taric25 (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure where you see the deletion reason, the image itself never appears to have been uploaded here. I can however see something on Commons [1] where the image seems to have been deleted as a copyvio. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see now. You've seen the images talk page which was deleted by Pascal Tesson as patent nonsense back in October 2007, they didn't delete the image itself. The image was on commons and not deleted until August 2009 as being a copyright violation. Not sure why you didn't try discussing this with Pascal Tesson first (as indeed the instructions here direct) you'd probably have found this out a lot quicker and without the need to jump to conclusions. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CozyCot

I don't know the previous content and the entire history of all creation attempts of this article (five of them, since November 2007), the first four ones having as reasons "blatant advertising", "very short article providing little or no context", "doesn't seem to be notable. Most of the references are primary sources, and the two news are not specifically about CozyCot.com". The last one got an Afd. However, I find notable the subject of the proposed article, with significant coverage in reliable sources, independent of the subject, being one of the most popular websites from Singapore. I posted at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CozyCot a sourced content that I want to propose for review.

Restore I'm not overly familiar with the sources used, but they appear to be reliable and some of the articles are solely about CozyCot. Hobit (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse For the same reason given in the AFD - nothing about CozyCot on Google News (beside company PR). Three of the sources on the article are press releases by the company, another one is apparently an ad which appeared in The Strait Times. I couldn't check the two other ones but all in all, the website doesn't appear to have received significant coverage. The sources in the article proposed above are not better - the editor just stacked up dozens of unreliable sources to give an appearance of notability. Most of the sources I checked don't address the website directly in details as required by WP:N and those that do are company press releases. Laurent (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [2] looks like a real article and not a press release. I can't tell exactly what this site is, but it seems reliable. [3] covers a number of websites, but has a few paragraphs on this one. Are is there something wrong with those sites I'm missing? Hobit (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The user Laurent has been asked at the Afd to mention which are exactly the press releases, if they really exist. At this moment, the proposed draft includes 5 reliable sources specifically about CozyCot ([4][5][6][7][8]), one with significant coverage [9] and other 4 ([10][11][12][13]) to give an idea about the way CozyCot is cited in Singaporean media when it's about netizens' popular opinions. This if by reliable sources it is understood media with current Wikipedia article. But I think that also media like Media Asia should be considered reliable, they are not yet properly covered on Wikipedia. Most of these sources are from the last month (I just added few moments ago another source (the interview on 938LIVE). Probably they give an idea about the usual coverage of CozyCot in East Asian media. Sources exist, but they are not easy to find, I see that Google News does not show most of them, being already archived in order to remain available only for paid subscriptions, and they can be found on webcaches, article hosting on Asiaone etc. It looks like the previous content of the article did not respect some Wikipedia rules, but the subject being notable, the content should have been just bettered, not deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.92.95.14 (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per WikiLaurent (talk · contribs) and the fact that the verdict was very clear indeed. ╟─Treasury Tag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 18:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can someone explain why is this subject not considered notable, although it fulfills the notability guideline, requiring significant coverage in reliable sources, independent of the subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.226.35 (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wet paint sign

Reasons given for deletion are mostly classic examples of arguments without arguments and do not make use of policy, guidelines, or essays. They are as follows: 1.) The nom's reason is nothing more than the words "not notable" (see WP:JNN) 2.) WP:UNENCYC (unencyclopedic). While this is considered to be an argument to avoid in general, one participant gave it as the reason to delete. This person said the article sounded "silly" and cited another unrelated AFD in progress at the time, but gave no actual policy stating why this does not belong. 3.) One participant said it should be deleted because a previous AFD had a non-administrative closure. Once again, this is not a policy favoring deletion. 4.) Another said "does not really explain why it is notable" (just another way of saying "just not notable") 5.) Another participant gave some barely coherent explanation saying why articles on other signs exist or not. Once again, this was not policy based. 6.) Others supporting deleting just said so per others in the discussion.

Reasons favoring keeping were as follows: 1.) Plenty of non-trivial sources do exist, therefore this meets the general notability guideline. References can be found in many places, including books. 2.) Many arguments given in favor of deletion are classic examples of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 3.) The nomination offers no new evidence from the past one this should be deleted 4.) In all, these arguments are policy- or essay-based, not just personal opinions.

Additionally, the "keeps" outnumber the "deletes" 9:6. Shaliya waya (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse- a quick read of the AfD page confirms that the delete arguments were not just "votes without arguments"; they were mostly well argued and grounded in policy. And I can do no better than to echo the closer's rationale that if, after two years, two AfDs and a rescue drive there's still no proper sourcing then that's good evidence that there's just no way of getting an encyclopedia article out of this mess. My opinion is that this was well within the closing admin's discretion and that they made the correct decision. Reyk _YO! 05:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's comment: Shaliya waya, you dismiss all the "not notable" arguments, and claim that there are "plenty of sources out there". Could you indicate which of these sources provide "significant coverage in reliable sources"? None of the sources in the article at the time of the nomination or at the time of the closure of the AfD met this requirement, making all "not notable" arguments rather strong, despite an essay claiming that they should be ignored. All references were just passing mentions, using "wet paint signs" as a short example of something else (e.g. the first source,[14], and this one[15]). Fram (talk) 06:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. A poorly sourced article about a non-notable topic got deleted because even though there were fewer delete !votes, the keep !votes were weak and not as policy based. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse A bold close but, given the strength of the delete arguments, it was within the closing admin's discretion. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I liked the article, but policy overrules that. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Stitching together many passing mentions and claiming that these constitute analysis of the topic in secondary sources is what the Article Rescue Squadron does wrong. It muddles the meaning of secondary sources, debases debate and wastes everybody's time. I hope against hope that the ARS gets the message and quits it with the WP:OR. Abductive (reasoning) 16:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, obviously, per all the above. ╟─Treasury Tag►duumvirate─╢ 18:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Are we just deleting all the cool articles now? I would have closed as no consensus, because there was not consensus to delete. Oh well, perhaps someday a better version will be created by someone that will withstand scrutiny and rejoin Wet floor sign. The worst !vote, perhaps, is the final delete, by Abductive, which says "I had high hopes that the Article Rescue Squadron could find real sources on this one. As it turns out, they failed." Looking for sources is every editors' responsibility, if only the pariahs in the ARS are doing it, the project is going down the tubes!--Milowent (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 :{{DRV links|Cyprus–Norway relations|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Norway relations (3rd nomination)|article=}}
-The closer used a supervote to express their opinion against consensus on the theory that the article was synthesis. No new conclusion was reached which is the definition of synthesis. This person should not be closing bilateral articles, they should just be another vote [[User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )]] ([[User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|talk]]) 18:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
+The closer used a supervote to express their opinion against consensus on the theory that the article was synthesis. No new conclusion was reached which is the definition of synthesis. This person should not be closing bilateral articles, they should just be another !vote [[User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )]] ([[User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|talk]]) 18:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 *'''Endorse deletion'''—I don't know where [[WP:VOTE|votes come into this]], but the closing admin used an exceptionally specific statement to explain which votes they discounted for specific reasons (such as blatant [[WP:ILIKEIT|ILIKEIT]] issues), and soundly evaluated the arguments, which is ''precisely'' what anybody judging non-numerical consensus is [[WP:CON|supposed to do]]. I see absolutely no problem with the decision; indeed, it was one of the most measured AfD closes I've seen in a long time. <font color="#A20846">╟─[[User:TreasuryTag|Treasury]][[User talk:TreasuryTag|Tag]]►[[Special:Contributions/TreasuryTag|<span style="cursor:help;">quaestor</span>]]─╢</font> 18:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)