Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 1

1 February 2012

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Completely inappropriate non-admin snow closure despite votes to delete. 86.180.104.250 (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• The closing editor, OwenX (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), is an administrator, so the reason for which review is requested is moot.  Sandstein  07:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• The userpage User:OwenX clearly marks the user as an adminstrator. Was not closed as SNOW! Neither should it have been, with reasonable "delete" !votes. It was closed as "Speedy Keep". This should be overturned as no WP:SK criteria were met (or even named). Overturn to straight "Keep". Or just don't worry about it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Correct. Overturn and relist because the reason given for the speedy keep – the nomination occurs too soon after the last one – is not among the criteria for a speedy keep as listed at WP:SK. Speedy keep is possible when "The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and (...) nobody unrelated recommends deleting it", but this was not the case here, as Tarc did recommend deletion. If it is indeed the view of the community that the nomination occurs too soon, consensus will say so.  Sandstein  09:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that the discussion has not run seven days. Or even one. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Elapsed time since the previous AfD was not the reason stated for the closure. The AfD was closed for being disruptive, in the sense that it could not possibly serve any purpose beyond wasting editors' time, as five previous AfDs have demonstrated. The elapsed time since the previous AfD was mentioned (in parentheses) for emphasis only. The closure was in accordance with WP:SK section 2. Owen× ☎ 10:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD3 closed 29 October 2009 as no consensus (endorsed at DRV)

AfD4 Closed 19 October 2011 as keep DRV overturned to no consensus

AfD5 (reviewed here) "speedy kept" after 7 hours, with seven keeps and two deletes.

• Overturn (relist). Speedy keep criteria are and should be specific. Speedy closing of reasonable discussion is an abuse of authority and can have a chilling effect on new volunteers. With a history of "no consensus", a renomination after three months is quite reasonable. An excellent nomination will address directly the arguments in recent discussions, but a less-than-excellent nomination is not a speedy keep criterion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Hi Owen. You say "The closure was in accordance with WP:SK section 2". Possibly, but I don't see it. Important to that consideration, I think, is that the AfD5 nominator Wilhelm meis (talk · contribs) doesn't not seem to have been a participant in the previous discussions. I think that for you to cite WP:SK#2, you need a reason to not AGF. Maybe you have reason, or maybe you see otherwise, or maybe WP:SK#2 needs some work. For this sort of thing, a predictable no consensus, I think it best to let the discussions run their seven days. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  What makes you think I didn't assume good faith? I specifically said in my closing comment, "even if done in good faith". I have no reason to suspect the nom did this in bad faith. However, seeing as these repetitive AfDs for the same article serve no useful purpose, they are disruptive. Owen× ☎ 11:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry, I make no such accusation. It is that my reading of SK#2 is that all subpoints either assume bad faith or incompetance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  With the past discussions being repeatedly reaching "no consensus" (actually, I could see AfD4 being closed as "Delete"!), I have faith that eventually a logical breakthough with occur. While I wouldn't put money on it happening in AfD5, judging from the state of things at the point of closure, I think the stiffling effect of Speedy Keep does more bad than good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn (relist). The closer has cited WP:SK#2: "The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and [...] nobody unrelated recommends deleting it." Neither of these conditions holds: (1) OwenX believes the nomination was disruptive, but other editors in good standing do not. (2) Two editors other than the nominator had already recommended deletion. Kanguole 11:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Very weak overturn (relist). I think that this could just have been an appropriate closure, in a WP:IAR fashion, although that case should have been made with rigorous reasoning, which this was not. That parallels this DRV nomination, which falsely states that there was a WP:SNOW close and falsely states that the closer is not an admin. DRV nominator, AFD closer: pot, meet kettle.
  I agree with those editors who point out that the nomination did not meet WP:SK#2, because it was not "unquestionably vandalism or disruption". The closing admin was mistaken in citing that provision, because disruptive editing is clearly defined as involving a pattern of such behaviour. However I sympathise with the closing editor's endorsement of complaints that a further nomination less than 4 months after the last one was premature, especially when it did not refer to the previous nominations as required by WP:BEFORE#B4. The fact that DRV overturned the previous close to "no consensus" would usually suggest that a further nomination would be acceptable soon, but after 4 unsuccessful nominations the community is not well-served by simply being asked to rehash the same territory so soon without any new arguments being put in place, or even any attempt to address the previous discussions. Something approaching an exponential backoff might be appropriate.
  It is rare to see a situation where the AFD nominator, the AFD closer and the DRV nominator all did a sub-standard job, and I hope that any further deletion discussions of this article will be better handled, and that the community can reach a consensus about this list for the first time since May 2009. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I will, if I must, make exactly the same arguments I spent hours making in October, but in the absence of any new arguments for deletion, and no evidence that consensus has changed, I can't help feeling that relisting is a monumental waste of everybody's time. --Merlinme (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral - I saw the close last night but had no time to respond, had planned to raise the matter with the closer today, as it simply does not meet any criteria of WP:SK. On the other hand, the AfD was filed by someone who has apparently never edited in science-related topics, and a DRV by a one-off IP who got the basic of basic facts of the case completely wrong. I was one of the two to call for deletion, thereby invalidating a speedy keep #2, but I have little desire to be drawn in to a topic that in the past had been rife with socking, manipulation, and deception. Tarc (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn - With no comments on the merit of the original nomination, I !voted keep in the AFD, but I believe that the closure was significantly out-of-process given that the discussion was sufficiently controversial to invalidate speedy keep criteria. WP:CCC, and there's no reason not to let this AFD run its necessary five-day course.--WaltCip (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Yeah, reluctantly, we do need to overturn and relist here. This was most recently at DRV on 19th October here, at which time Courcelles as DRV closer said: "another AFD in a cople (sic) months time would be acceptable". We've got good faith users !voting "delete". There's clearly a fundamental and long term lack of consensus about this across the encyclopaedia, which means nominating it for deletion is a fatuous waste of time, but waste of time or not, our job at DRV is to see that the deletion process is strictly followed, and "overturn and relist" is the only outcome consistent with that.—S Marshall T/C 18:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, WP:IAR and WP:BURO would indicate exactly the opposite. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
    • WP:IAR is read to apply to decisions that can be objectively seen as to improve the encyclopedia. A deletion discussion does not fall under this.--WaltCip (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
      • If one assumes that a new discussion would be just as pointless as the prior discussions, then avoiding it could be seen as an improvement. However, I suspect that not everyone sees this exercise as pointless. Dragons flight (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I never wave the IAR flag, but have we become this much of a bureaucracy that this process must be followed despite us all agreeing it is pointless and wasteful? Even accepting the fact that I stretched SK#2 beyond its original intent, must we go through the motions just to satisfy a ritualistic need? This DRV discussion is important and may have far-reaching implications to changing speedy closure policies, but I still maintain that the AfD that led to it was a pointless waste of time. Perhaps we need to add a "speedy no consensus" option... Owen× ☎ 20:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
    • OwenX, I think the learning opportunity here is that unless there's a pressing reason not to let editors have their say, it's usually more longwinded and more disruptive to close a discussion early than it is to let it lie. Your opinion (and my opinion) that it's a waste of time are never sufficient grounds for an early closure in any case where good faith editors are disagreeing with each other. DRV has always taken a dim view of "IAR speedies" for exactly this reason: you can make an "IAR speedy" if and only if you can show a pressing reason why good faith editors shouldn't be allowed to have their say.—S Marshall T/C 21:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• waste of time - sustain close as too soon after last pointless waste of time William M. Connolley (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your job at DRV is to use common sense, and to not to "see that the deletion process is strictly followed" for the sake of it.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Monumental waste of time. Concur with BrownHairedGirl's points, and with Merlinme's point that there has been no indication of any change since the last Afd. These repeated attempts for deletion are tendentious, and should be nipped in the bud. (And exponential back-off does sound good.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Exponential backoff sounds good. In the abscence of substantial new information or arguments, a minimum period before rehashing of the same sounds reasonable. Can we add it to WP:SK? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• If everyone agrees the process is wrong, surely change the process? In the case of an article which has been nominated (and survived) multiple times, I think if the current AfD processes don't outline clearly under what circumstances the article can be renominated, then they should. Perhaps being nominated by three editors who didn't take part in the previous discussion. Exponential backoff would also be fine. As an absolute minimum, a new nomination must acknowledge the previous discussion and explain why they think it would be different this time. If "complete failure to consider recent AfD or provide evidence of changed consensus" is not currently a reason for a Speedy Keep, then it should be. --Merlinme (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• relist The last AFD was overturned to "no consensus" and the one before that was "no consensus" as well. In such a scenario a renomination after 3 months is fine. Closing this as a speedy keep was inappropriate and the fact that the closing admin does not seem to realize this worries me. Feel free to discuss ideas about changing AFD/speedy keep criteria at the village pump, not here. And for the record, I don't think anything is wrong with the process and would oppose any of the changes named above. Yoenit (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Correct as SNOW; Precondition to relisting Before this is relisted I would like to see a an example (made up one is fine) where the nomination is ineligible for WP:SK but still qualifies for early closing as WP:SNOW. If no one can provide such a hypothetical, then DRV has put the letter of the law ahead of common sense and will have declared DRV a snow-free sacrosanct zone, i.e., a bureaucracy. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Following up on SNOW.... in the original discussion, there were three DELETES, by editors who have never appeared on the article or talk page history with efforts to improve the article, and they made no new arguments from the last time:

(A) The WP:VAGUEWAVE by the nominating editor satisfied 1 of the 2 elements for speedy delete section 1.

(B) The WP:BELONG "hit-list"/"ridicule" arguments by the other two editors favoring "delete" are predicated on two fallacies. First, our article does not create a "hit-list" because everyone on this list has already (past tense) chosen to put their minority views before the public eye. Second, for these editors to suggest that my intent is to create such a hit-list, they erroneously assume I have bad faith. My actual intent is to collect and report the best NPOV facts regarding scientific disagreement as possible. Interestingly, if I (as a "keeper") were to assume bad faith, it would go like this: If one is opposed to policy changes in response to global warming, and one had bad faith, one might wish to create the public perception that there are a lot of opposing scientists. Such a person, seeing the rather short nature of this list, would view even the most idyllic NPOV reporting on this of facts as a threat to their tactic, i.e., the tactic of suggesting there are a lot of such scientists. Such a person might wish to sink this list thru ongoing recurrent AFDs, hoping eventually that one will stick, because that is a good way to suppress an important NPOV source of good information regarding a major component of a major ongoing public policy debate. DISCLAIMER: I'm not suggesting any of the "delete" editors are such a person. I'm only pointing out that one can assume bad faith from both sides (delete/keep) of the coin, and this effectively cancels each one out, leaving us with.... the goal of reporting NPOV facts as best we can.

(C) The Just Not Notable argument simply asserts the negative, but editor Tarc does ask the fair question "What is notable about them collectively?" I think I just answered that in the prior paragraph, but if this gets relisted I'll point out recent articles in WSJ and a major study by Yale/Georgetown that documents how the tactic I mentioned is impacting public perception in the US as opposed to the rest of the world. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

IN SUM... SNOW, and I would say "there is nothing new" here, except that there is simply nothing. An argument-without-an-argument is no more new than a vacuum can be redundant. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)