Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 23

23 December 2010

Canada–Tonga relations

Canada–Tonga relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The debate was relisted after seven days with a note reading, "consensus split, pointless NCing this one." I would agree that there was neither any consensus to keep nor any to delete at that point.
Since then, there were five further 'keep' arguments (one of which I presume you discounted as per WP:JUSTAVOTE, and rightly so) and three further 'delete' arguments. Of course voting plays no part in things but I do not think it could be said that those eight additional comments – nor the discussion they prompted – provided the overall debate with a consensus to delete the article.
In particular, some of the 'delete' arguments were spurious in the extreme, and there were strong elements of proof by assertion (people may well say that the opposing side also used such devices, and I might agree with that, but this would only strengthen the case for a 'no consensus' finding) including, "It's really not my problem if people choose to ignore the clear wording of WP:NOTE," "You act as if those links you've provided are substantial, when they are not," "Sources exist but you can't find them? pathetic," a statement that sources are only valid if they are available free online, a hint that sources covering more than one topic were unacceptable even if they contained relevant content [1], a suggestion that a proposed reference was invalid because none of the chapters were entitled 'Canada Tonga relations' [2] and even a copy-pasted deletion vote [3] – and note I didn't say, "copy-pasted deletion !vote."
I think it is clear that this result should be overturned to 'no consensus' – ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 14:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• comment I think the sources supplied are on the weak side, but feel the discussion showed a lack of consensus on that topic. Further I strongly suspect there exists a document that covers these relations in detail. Things like [4] seem like plenty evidence of a meaningful relationship. Was the close within admin discretion? I'm not sure, it's pretty close. I _do_ think NC was the better call though. Hobit (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• There was a consensus that my previous close of this debate should not have been made, and on Wikipedia one submits to the consensus, even when it's blatantly wrong. I'm grateful to Spartaz for stepping up and making the close that replaced mine, even though I think it went the wrong way. An argument for a merge was made and not refuted.—S Marshall T/C 17:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

  Merge argued or not, the close was not 'merge' – it was 'delete'. And while your close was overturned, it was not because the decision was considered wrong but because the procedure was. Neither of these points should point towards support of this 'delete' outcome. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 17:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

  That's exactly my point; merge was argued and not refuted, so the alternatives to deletion weren't exhausted, which makes the "no consensus" close objectively correct. But it's also true to say a number of editors did question my decision, rather than the procedure. That doesn't make them right, and I remain of the view that they were wrong. I also think it's a shame that with such a contentious discussion, a rather nuanced close should be replaced with a simplistic one.

  But the other side of it is that Spartaz was backed into a corner. With so many editors !voting to overturn the "no consensus" at DRV, he had to take account of that discussion, which in itself represented a consensus.

  So, objectively wrong though the "delete" camp are—and that's very clearly my position—Spartaz couldn't realistically have closed it otherwise. Even when the consensus is badly wrong, as in this case, it's to be obeyed.—S Marshall T/C 22:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

  WP:ATD isn't a trump. WT:Deletion guidelines for administrators/Archive 1#Deletion is to be a last resort rejected an addition along those lines in April 2009. Flatscan (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

  ... which you've linked for me several times before, as if it refuted my position. I don't think it does; it's hardly an RFC, is it? Nobody familiar with DRV will be surprised that those particular editors took that particular position at a small and poorly-attended discussion.

  It's true that WP:BEFORE does not have the force of policy, but both WP:ATD and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM do. They aren't ambiguous.—S Marshall T/C 10:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

  It's not possible to refute your position outright – even if the discussion were stronger, it could be overridden by an updated consensus. I presented the WT:DGFA link again the second time, according to Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia talk:Deletion guidelines for administrators/Archive 1 1) for the benefit of other readers and 2) because I don't remember any previous responses. WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM points to the same section as WP:PRESERVE, which has been referenced at many AfDs without receiving special treatment. If we continue this discussion, I'd like to see evidence – discussions or individual AfDs – supporting your interpretation. I have seen AfDs split between merge, redirect, and delete closed as "redirect, history available for merging" rather than delete, but usually when the non-delete outcomes had substantial support. Flatscan (talk) 05:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

  Which of the two aspects of my argument did you want me to prove with reference to discussions, please? That policies can prevail over !votes, or that WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD are both policies?—S Marshall T/C 09:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

  That response misses my objections entirely. I'll move this general discussion to another page where we might communicate more clearly. For this specific case, I added a comment agreeing with Mkativerata below. Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

  I don't seem to see this other page you mention?—S Marshall T/C 19:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

  I haven't started it yet – I'm planning to create a user subpage to hold a draft RfC. Remind me if I haven't contacted you in around 10 days. Flatscan (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn as no consensus The Afd was relisted earlier because there was no consensus, and the comments of those participating after the relisting were also rather equally balanced. The issues regarding copyright violations that had been raised earlier had been addressed and the arguments for retention regarding the validity of the sources counterbalanced the arguments for deletion. There was neither consensus based on argument or numbers for either deletion or retention, and the original non-admin close as "no consensus" was appropriate in terms of an end result, though questionable based on user involvement. While it was appropriate to undo the non-admin close, there appears to be no clear consensus for deletion. A justification from the closing administrator explaining the reasoning behind the close might have provided a basis for the close, but none was offered. Alansohn (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Emdorse close. There was no outcome but deletion that would actually conform to WP:Policy on WP:Original Research. Abductive (reasoning) 21:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

  The DRV process is to discuss whether a close was procedurally acceptable, not whether or not you personally agree with it. Clearly, multiple editors felt that the article fell within the bounds of WP:NOR, so the question is, was there a consensus to delete? And the answer is, no. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 21:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

  that is purely your opinion. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

  You mean a bit like, "There was no outcome but deletion that would actually conform to WP:Policy on WP:Original Research," is just your opinion? ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 09:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn and re-close, unless there is a clear consensus here that the close was not just within discretion, but "correct". I recently pledged, at another DRV, to !vote to overturn any contentious XfD where the closing admin didn't give adequate contemporaneous reasons for the close. I agree with the outcome here as I always agree with Spartaz's closes, and I think I'm being a pain in the arse. But I nonetheless think it is an important principle for a number of reasons which I won't wank on about here. And I shouldn't abandon my position merely because I like the outcome. BTW, I'm still waiting on DGG's answer to Libstar's question in the AfD, which in some way goes to the question of "weighting" of the !votes in this AfD. Re TT above - none of the keep !voters even attempted to refute the NOR argument. It was essentially ignored by the "there are heaps of sources" catchcry. I can only assume that no-one attempted to refute the argument because it couldn't be refuted except by providing sources that discussed the relationship as a whole. It was a killer irrefutable point that should have decided the AfD as NOR is an overriding policy. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• It would be a killer irrefutable point if NOR was a reason to delete. But surely, NOR is a reason to rewrite, isn't it?—S Marshall T/C 23:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• In some circumstances, yes. But in other circumstances the topic is irredeemably OR because on the sources available it simply isn't possible to write a NOR article on the topic. That was the essence of the point made in this AfD - that the sources wouldn't permit anything other than synthesis. That point was not refuted. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• But wouldn't the merge proposal have addressed it satisfactorily? And wasn't the merge proposal itself unrefuted?—S Marshall T/C 23:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Merge" didn't have anywhere near consensus support. It was a random idea thrown up in the discussion without any analysis of whether it would actually be viable. I completely reject the idea that if one participant throws up a merge suggestion, it has to be exhaustively considered before deletion becomes an option. I should add that the validity of OR as a reason for deletion is also understood by appreciating the close relationship between WP:NOR and WP:N (particularly WP:GNG). That is, without significant coverage in reliable sources, an article's subject matter is likely to be hopelessly prone to OR, because the article will either have to synthesise non-signficant coverage or rely on unsourced material. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I think it was a bit more than "a random idea". When I read that debate, I see significant, if minority, support for a merge and acknowledgement among the "delete" camp that merge is also a viable option. I also think that it's AfD's job to consider all reasonable suggestions made during the debate, and that if a reasonable suggestion is made during the debate but remains unrefuted, then the closer probably ought to take account of that.—S Marshall T/C 23:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• But if there is no explanation regarding what material would be merged, or what the material would be merged into, how is it a reasonable suggestion? What of substance would be merged into Foreign relations of Canada, an article that obviously discusses infinitely more significant matters than Tonga? No-one even sought to explain that. "Merge" isn't a proposal worth a grain of salt unless it is "Merge X into Y, which would be viable for the following reasons…". We demand reasoning from keep and delete !votes. "Merge" should be held to the same standard especially if anyone closing the debate is going to take the attitude that the mere fact of a merge proposal can stand in the way of a consensus to delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm, when I read it in context, I understood the reasoning behind the "merge" proposal. But I can understand how come others would not, and we might need to agree to disagree here. (Incidentally, I think it's hilariously ironic that you're making those arguments beneath an "overturn" recommendation while I'm essentially endorsing, particularly when you and I have both directly swapped sides since the last DRV on this article. :) We'd both be ripe subjects for a study of the psychology of Wikipedia!)—S Marshall T/C 23:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know about the psychology of wikipedia... I reckon it's just a DRV thing. :) --Mkativerata (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Mkativerata here. The references to merging were not selective, which implies dumping the entire page into the two Foreign relations of articles. The delete comments generally dismissed the content/sources, and Mkativerata went further, calling the article a "random synthesis of factoids". I read that as an argument against merging. Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Well, it's editors' discretion what's merged and what isn't. The details aren't a matter for the closer to decide. Personally I usually choose to read a "merge" recommendation as including some judicious trimming at editorial discretion, which would take place in accordance with the discussion.—S Marshall T/C 12:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • You're right that the closer takes no responsibility for the implementation of the merger. I think our differing assumptions highlight that if those comments had been more specific, we wouldn't have to assume. Flatscan (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse delete the poor attempt at original closure by a non-admin who even admitted it was heading to delete. the last deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_December_19#Canada.E2.80.93Tonga_relations clearly had consensus for delete. as with any AfD it's about strength of arguments, most keep arguments didn't bother to find sources, and the sources which were found were weak and far from indepth. there was clearly consensus that these sources were far from suitable from advancing notability. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn as no consensus based on the strength of the keep votes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

  which were weak indeed and didn't address the issue of lack of indepth coverage of the topic. LibStar (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

  That is purely your opinion [5] ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 09:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

  ... says the guy who nominated the article for deletion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn as no consensus There were 7 Keep votes, 2 Merge votes and 6 Delete votes (one of which was based on the copyvio which was fixed and would have also merged) in addition to the nom. Not a consensus to delete.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

  AfD is not a vote. Spartaz can count. And DRV isn't a vote either, so unless you can come up with a reason to overturn the close that's actually based on a policy or procedural deficiency, your !vote here is unlikely to count for much, I'm afraid. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

  There was no consensus to delete and that's what my comment here reflects. If you are "afraid" that it shouldn't have much force because it is a vote, I think you ignore the argument I was making. I could also add that the closing admin didn't give any reason why the outcome of the AfD should have been a delete so I don't know what arguments he gave weight to. If I thought that this process was a !vote, I would have !voted for overturn to keep.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus Pretty much what Alansohn and Treasury said. I did not participate in the first DRV. Outback the koala (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn, to no-consensus There is no reasonable way there can be seen to be consensus about what to do with this article. I recognize they are somewhat of a problem. I know what I would like to do, which is to keep it for future expansion (or just possibly merging with articles on Canada's relations with other similarly situated countries or Tonga's relations with Canada and other countries in the Western hemisphere.--the problem for merging articles like this is which direction to do there merge--I am not at all sure which way would be the more useful. ) But I cannot pretend there was true consensus to do that--or to do a merge directly--but neither was there to delete. If we can not decide, to say so is the best we can do. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Why would it be desirable to merge text from an article with so many copyright problems [6]? That would just spread the mess around. Chester Markel (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• I object to this DRV on top of a DRV. What was wrong with the close? Nothing: an admin did it, within his/her discretion, and with reference to established policy, guideline and consensus. None of the arguments to overturn are anything over than wishing it was kept, and only because of fear that similar articles would be next on the chopping block. Abductive (reasoning) 05:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

  Object away, but they are 'appealing' two different closes in a perfectly legitimate way. And you may wish to see WP:AGF. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 09:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, consensus for deletion after discounting a few keeps. A closing comment would have been helpful. I disagree with S Marshall's contention that WP:ATD should take precedence here, and I have replied above. Regarding a merger, it is possible to avoid an attribution dependency by rewriting from the sources, and this may be preferable when considering the persistent copyvio issues. Flatscan (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Forgotpasswordsht provided no rationale (WP:JUSTAVOTE). Opbeith argues inherent notability for all bilateral relations, without reference to the specific case. DGG's "Keep based on the sources." did not specify individual sources or quantity of sources, and he did not answer 3 requests to clarify. Dream Focus provided a few specific sources, but they were rebutted, and 24,000 raw Google news archive results aren't very useful (WP:SOURCESEARCH). Flatscan (talk) 05:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The delete recommendations based on lack of quality sources (including the copy-paste) retained their weight as each new source was rebutted by Hrafn. If a good source had been presented and not rebutted, those comments would have lost weight accordingly. Flatscan (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of current text without prejudice to recreation due to persistent copyright violations [7]. Chester Markel (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

  That is an opinion about deletion (which is anyway flawed), not a comment about the propriety of the debate closure. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 09:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse, I find the closure reasonable in light of the debate. It was not a closure that no reasonable administrator could have made. If there is consensus to overturn the decision on the merits, the article should still not be restored until it is ascertained that any copyvios have been scrubbed. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

  Point of order—I think all the copyrighted material was indeed removed during the course of the AfD. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 09:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse - Reasonable close within admin discretion. Tarc (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I'd be interested to know if treasury tag intends to respond to every single endorse comment. LibStar (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

  Keep watching and you may find out! ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 16:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus. The debate was relisted on the determination that no consensus had been reached. The post-relisting discussion, at worst, leaned in the direction of "keep". The closing admin provided no explanation for discounting the plicy-based keep arguments or for disregarding the previous determination of a lack of consensus. Therefore, the cose was both procedurally and substantively inappropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. Per Mkativerata.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Mkativerata's recommendation is to "Overturn and re-close" despite his agreement with the delete outcome. Flatscan (talk) 05:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse. Well within discretion, especially considering the relative strengths of the arguments presented. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse- many editors expressed the concern that an accumulation and synthesis of trivial factoids does not an article make, and this concern was not adequately addressed in the AfD. I therefore cannot conclude that Spartaz was way out of line in interpreting this debate as "delete", even though the votes were numerically similar. Reyk _YO! 01:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn and reclose. Even though, of course, it's not a vote, with the !vote being relatively close, an explanation from the closing administrator is surely important if the administrator is going to close anything but no consensus. Let's give the closing admin an opportunity to state at the AfD the reasons for the close, and then we can debate, if necessary, whether it was within the admin's discretion to so close. Without that explanation, there's no evidence at the AfD to refute that the close was arbitrary. --Bsherr (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse: many of the 'keep' !votes simply cited the fact that "sources" had already been cited in the AfD, when said sources had been demonstrated to contain minimal and highly tangential (and in one case completely irrelevant) coverage. The closing admin was perfectly correct in discounting them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

  Should he also have discounted comments such as those I highlighted in my statement above? (Ie. for instance, should he have discounted the argument that a source was invalid if it didn't have a chapter entitled Canada Tonga relations?) ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 08:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Given that the first two you 'highlighted' weren't !votes, its unclear as to whether he discounted them or not (and most probably irrelevant). I can certainly see how Yilloslime made his 'Estonian' mistake (since corrected) -- the material is such generic minutiae that a generic AfD response is not out of order (if you swapped the articles, and swapped the names, how many would actually notice the difference?). "Should he also have discounted" your !vote that blatantly exaggerated the level of coverage (including one source that did not even mention Canada and Tonga in connection with each other)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

  If I had made a !vote which "blatantly exaggerated the level of coverage" then he should indeed have discounted it. Since, however, I did no such thing – and am not clear which of the sources I suggested "did not even mention Canada and Tonga in connection with each other" so I would appreciate some clarification of that – then obviously he should not. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 09:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• "This touches on the subject"[8] -- that source "did not even mention Canada and Tonga in connection with each other" -- but rather "just mentions Tonga as a nation New Zealand has relations with", as I pointed out in the AfD. And as "said sources had been demonstrated to contain minimal and highly tangential", I stick by my "blatantly exaggerated the level of coverage" comment. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

  And I stick by my "elephants are purple and anyone who says otherwise is a racist" comment. Doesn't make it true, though. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 16:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Given that, unlike my comment, you comment is unsubstantiated, you can can "stick" your purple elephant where the sun don't shine -- and cease and desist your trademark Emperor-with-no-clothes argumentum ad nauseum. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

  Yep, argumentum ad putting things in italics really convinces me more than argumentum ad not putting pointless italics all over the place. Good one. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 08:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• The TreasuryTag wit, or at least half of it. Have a WP:TROUT. Now go away, I'm done feeding your ego. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

  Yep, argumentum ad unfounded accusations of trolling and bad faith, you're onto another winner there. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 18:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse - Yes, the raw vote count was close, but AfD closers have some discretion. Spartaz looked at the "keep" votes and saw they were based on the same specious process that has invented fictitious "topics" during this silly bilateral-relations AfD cycle. He discounted the desperate attempts to create something out of nothing by proclaiming a few scraps of totally irrelevant information a "topic" no one had actually heard of, and rightly so. By contrast, the "delete" voters actually know something about international relations and do not view this process as a game their side must "win", and their forceful arguments won the day. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

  In general, firing off pointless "by contrast, the 'delete' voters actually know something about international relations" insults against a group of people which actually happens to include at least one student of International Relations (hem hem) is not only non-constructive but also rude, annoying and disallowed. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 01:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

  Well, I actually hold a degree in the field, so there. More to the point, it might be informative to talk to someone in your department who would know about these sorts of things. Ask what Canada's notable diplomatic relationships are, and the answer would go something like "US, United Kingdom, Mexico, France, India, Russia, China, Japan, Australia, perhaps a few others". Ask if Tonga makes the list, and you'll get either a puzzled look or a laugh. Or, I don't know, how about asking relevant Canadian experts if they've heard of their country's relationship with Tonga? Again, the whole notion is absurd when approached from that rational angle, as opposed to the "let's play the game of stuffing an article full of trivia about a fictitious topic so we can 'rescue' it at AfD" paradigm.

  I'm sorry if my general comment insulted you personally, for such was not my intention, but this sort of activity does not inspire any sort of confidence about the education you're receiving. In the future, you may wish to be more discerning about what sort of bilateral relation you view as notable. It would be helpful if you based your decision on sources that made such notability readily and obviously apparent to a broad swathe of readers and editors, not on meaningless scraps of information pasted together as part of a game. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse, as well within the discretion of the closing admin. I strongly disagree with Mkativerata's contemporaneous statement requirement - not only is it inconsistent with the basic principle of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY ("A procedural error made in posting anything [...] is not grounds for invalidating that post"), but it is also unworkable in practice: since the word "contentious" is poorly defined, closing admins are left to guess whether a closing statement is necessary to avoid automatic overturn !votes in borderline contentiousness XfDs. Given the rate at which XfD closures are brought to DRV (probably one or two a day on average, at most), the result would be a lot more unnecessary admin work, and less admins closing XfDs because they don't want to have to write a closing statement simply because some people, somewhere, may find that XfD contentious when the result is obvious (note that even a near-unanimous delete !vote XfD is not a safety valve, as demonstrated by the recent DRV of Category:Music, mind and body). I agree that contentious closures that are not supported by a rationale even when one has been explicitly requested from the closer should be overturned unless no reasonable admin could have reached a different conclusion, but I frankly see no justification to require closers to supply a rationale at the time of the close. T. Canens (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

  The inconsistency, as I see it, is that admins are encouraged to treat AfDs as "not a vote", discounting !votes with no or poor rationales. A number of such !votes would have been discarded in this AfD. !Voters are expected to explain themselves. So why shouldn't the admins who close the debates also be expected to explain themselves? Their actions are the most decisive of all. It's not just about procedure (although I think there is a strong procedural imperative to require reasons). It's also about respect to our contributors. All it requires in a case like this is a few sentences. It's not in any way an onerous bureaucratic imposition. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Why"? Because it's a catch-22 -- if somebody disagrees with a (bald) close, they're just as likely to disagree with the reasons for one -- see WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 16#Template:Expand for a voluminous close that is being contested, in large part, because the closer discounted !votes, in spite of explaining the reasons why. If contentious closes are going to be contested whether the closer is verbose or brief, then the length of the close is going to just be a matter of closer's personal preference. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• You certainly have a point. Often I suspect a detailed and honest closing rationale invites appeals. But I'd prefer a DRV where the reasons for the close are clear to all to a DRV where we are left to guess what those reasons were. The last thing we would want is for admins to avoid reasons in order to avoid scrutiny. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• In this case we could hardly claim to be "left to guess" -- the quality of the sources were being hammered, but people still kept !voting "based on the sources"/"The sources are fine" -- or my favourite, Cdogsimmons' keep-as-personal-attack-on-Libstar (though Opbeith's keep-because-of-vague-dogmatic-waffle comes a close second). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse This was well within my discretion as closing admin and I based my decision on the absence of specific sources that discussed the relationship between Canada - Tonga. None of the sourcing provided in the discussion was anywhere near substantial enough to demonstrate notability for the subject and the delete site had solid policy based arguments and a compelling analysis of the available sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse. Quite within the discretion of the closer, I would say, especially in light of the disparity between the quality of arguments on either side. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Artur Balder

Artur Balder (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There's an editor, User:Lolox76, who seems to be hot under the collar about the deletion of Artur Balder which seemingly arose out of the AfD for Curdy. Input from the upset Lolox76 appears on User_talk:Rodhullandemu#Deletion_of_new_article_Artur_Balder. The gist of the case appears to be "A simple Google search would proof evidence of his work as a well known writer, and the article at the english wikipedia Little Spain recelntly appeared sustains enormous critical attention evoked by the documentary that discovers a district of Manhattan." I remain unconvinced, but I had two minutes to spare and thought I'd help the complainant by putting this deletion review together. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I have temp-undeleted the article so that (by looking in the history) it can be seen during this DRV. JohnCD (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Restore and send to AfD Looking at the AfD, I see very good consensus to delete the article on Curdy, but not sufficient consensus to delete the article on Balder. The article on the author was added midway in the discussion, and thus did not have the necessary 7 days discussion. I think it would need at AfD by itself. Orland, who brought the AfD of Curdy. said in fact later there there might be sufficient information for the author to be considered notable. As an author of more than one book, he is certainly going to be more notable than any one of his books. I await a discussion on the AfD to determine that. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn and send to AFD. There's no way a 2008 AFD can serve as the basis for speedy-deleting an article which asserts significance/notability solely on the basis of a subject's involvement in a 2010 documentary film. I don't even see enough information to reliably conclude that we're not dealing with two different people sharing the common name. (It may well be the same person, but in the absence of on-Wikipedia information showing that, there's just no way G4 can apply.) The article appears to include enough of an assertion of significance to survive A7. The related Little Spain might also be sent to AFD, but not bundled, as that subject might be notable even if the film/filmmaker aren't. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - Cutting corners is not a good way to run AfD because it will make people hot under the collars. Artur Balder only had a 5 day AfD run and was added after others listed their positions at that AfD.-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Please remember that this biography was once a part of a large spamming campaign, with Balders bio and protagonist in more than 60 wp-languages; way than more notable spanish authors as Cela. Balder now seems to have changed career, but he's maintained the talent for publicity. --Orland (talk) 10:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Well, I am really not an expert on Wikipedia. I work for a production company based on New York City, and my purpose was to make it easy for wikipedist in relationship with the work that pulled together the documentary "Little Spain". Without this documentary, almost a century of Spanish American history in New York City would not be known. The documentary would not have been possible without the work of Artur and a great number of Spanish American still living in the area. So I would preciate so help since Im not a wikipedist and of course I dont know the procedures. I say sorry if I did something wrong, but I think the deletion of Balder in many wikipedias has been a bad image for the wikipedia itself, and it is time to do it better. The references ARE there everyone who wants to see it. Thanks anyway and I will try to edit the references. Lolox76 (talk)
  • Question: Lolox, you say that you "work for a production company based on New York City". Yet, your google searches indicate that you actually might be living in Belgium. How come? You are very welcome to email me to confirm your identity. --Orland (talk) 08:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Answer: This is out of the procedures. As far as I know, my work, the way I get paid, what I do and when, is not relevant or the subject of the matter. First, it is Christmas time and people do travel; second, it is not your bussiness what I am doing in Belgium. At the same time, your frustration or professional desperation is not the subject of the discussion. I think you are very hot about the question because you take it too personal. The profile of your contributions to the organisation look much more destructive than constructive. But you know, and many other will agree with us, that the deletion of the article with the present references is just something that goes obviously against the rules of Wikipedia. The production company Meatpacking Productions LLC will give proof if required by impartial editors, openly. But I'm really impressed seeing how you dont look at the official website of the documentary, the Latin American Herald Tribune link, or EFE AMERICA sites... as listed below, and just make the comprobation by yourself before write nonsense down, which will destroy your own prestige as editor of Wikipedia -if anyone still secretly has it towards you. Somehow we can undestand your desperation, because these proofs and facts show that your spam campaign about Artur Balder was inflated by personal missfeelings, and we recomend you to step back, undestand the situation, and start with me editing some interesting articles, not only about the director, but about some other subjets related to the Spanish American district of Little Spain, for instance. --Lolox76 (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Dear Lolox. There is little or nothing in my edits in this case, or in any other antispamming campaigns i've participated in, that should indicate any "personal missfellings" from my side. (previously I've been accused in a similar way of been against turks etc). So far I have not made any vote against Balder, just reminded about the wp history of his biography. By accusing me of personal motives it seems as if you are trying to reduce the weight of my commitment to wikipedia and my experience in these matters. This kind of false arguments is not a good way for you to seek support for Balder's and your company's interests. Bw --Orland (talk) 14:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
        • It is not about seeking for support, it is about the below listed references that you don't want to check. Here the reference at Meatpacking Productions LLC website, section productions, with information about the project 2010 and what's going to happen in 2011 with new feature length projects. Of course, at IMDb the production company listed at "Little Spain" is ours. http://www.meatpackingproductions.us/productions.php And I insist: your commentaries like "Balder now seems to have changed career, but he's maintained the talent for publicity" are too personal against the honour and work of a person who publicly is recogniced and wellknown by his creative work and contribution to literature and now to the history of New York and the memory of thousands of Spaniards that had a hard life in America after the dictatorship of Franco. On the other hand, if you go to http://www.little-spain.us/gallery.php (the documentarys' official site) and click on "Directed and written by Artur Balder", you will go here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/little_spain_14_street_manhattan_new_york_documentary_movie_tv/sets/72157625270475380/ the english section about the director. In the small bio you will see, that the writer and the director we are talking about are THE SAME person. So the doubts above from John are answered (no?). --Lolox76 (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• References: I dont know if it should be done here, but I will add some references below.

There are references to Artur Balder as writer in the most important Spanish media. I list some of them:

El País, published for instance in nacional sites, culture, books 2006: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/cultura/Artur/Balder/triunfa/narrativa/infantil/debuta/historica/elpepicul/20060610elpepicul_5/Tes?print=1

On the other hand it is strange that someone can state that may be the Artur Balder of Little Spain is not the same as the Artur BAlder of the books, since at the official site of the documentary you can download the press kit in high resolution, and in the chapter that it dedicates to the director, Artur Balder is the author of El Evangelio de la Espada, Crónicas de Widukind, and this is too in the GERMAN wikipedia stated. Both links:

http://little-spain.us/Little_Spain_Prensa_2010.pdf

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artur_Balder

The Little Spain official site links to an official Flickr site where is clear to see the references of Artur Balder. I invite you to visit the www.little-spain.us

Artur Balder is author of, as far as I know, 7 novels, some them translated into 8 languages, including nederlands, italian, french, with major publishing houses. The publishing house in spanish for his fantasy fiction is Random House Mondadori. You can read at the corporate website of RHM the recommendation of the author:

http://www.randomhousemondadori.com/Sellos/SellosFicha.aspx?Idioma=En&id=15

The historical fiction is being published by Edhasa, a major prestigious publishing house in Spain:

http://www.casadellibro.com/libro-el-evangelio-de-la-espada-cronicas-de-widukind-/1811185/2900001410005

The official site for its last historical fiction, published in november 2010, had a shortfilm for promotion of the saga, and all the information is available in english, german and spanish, with an excerpt of the book in russian, too:

htt://www.widukind.eu

References caused by announcement the documentary of "Little Spain":

http://www.google.be/search?q=%22little+spain%22+documental&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:es-ES:official&client=firefox-a

Looking at the search result you can see ALL the spanish media in the list in the first 100 results, from La Vanguardia, El País, El Mundo, La Razón... Just all. There is consensus about the relevance of the work of Artur Balder in relationship with the restoring of the historical memory of a large number of immigrants in New York City and Little Spain.

The information, that was not intended primarly to the american media, was however trnaslated from agency EFE AMERICA reports into the pages of the Chicago Tribune and Latin American Herald Tribune, and translated into english:

http://www.google.be/search?q=%22little+spain%22+documentary&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:es-ES:official&client=firefox-a

Particularly the link to The Latin American Herald Tribune:

http://laht.com/article.asp?CategoryId=13003&ArticleId=378105

And this is the resulat of a first private screening at La Nacional, the Spanish Benevolent Society of NY, last november, for the Spanish media and media agencies. Wikipedists have to know that the documentary is going to be released in a major film festival of New york city in 2011, but I cannot write down the name since it will be 100% sure.

The IMDb has accepted the credits of Balder's work in film industry during the last 10 years:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3470412/

Articles about Artur Balder are present in about 10 languages of Wikipedia, included the german one.

I hope I can rebuild a logical article about the subject, and later continue adding other contributions since there are a lot of historical interesting discoverings at 14th street of Manhattan in relationship with its Spanish American past.

Lolox76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

• Some references at Spanish and American media about the documentay Little Spain, which directly mention the director and writer Artur Balder.
• Little Spain references at IMDb.
• Little Spain references at The Herald Tribune.
• Little Spain references at El País.
• Little Spain references at LA VANGUARDIA.
• Little Spain references at El Mundo.
• Little Spain references at Antena 3 TV, Weekend News.
• Little Spain references at Levante EMV.
• Little Spain references at news agency Europa Press.
• Little Spain references at Todo NY.
• Little Spain references at La Voz de Galicia.
• Little Spain references at Canarias Ahora.
• Little Spain references at La Opinion de A Coruña.
• Little Spain references at Hispanic New York Project, edited by Claudio-Iván Remeseira, prof. for hispanic research at Columbia University.
• Little Spain references at ABC.
• Little Spain references at Diario Informacion.
• Little Spain references at Faro de Vigo.
• Little Spain references at Panama America.
• Little Spain references at La Voz de Asturias.
• Little Spain references at Ideal de Granada.

--Lolox76 (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• The director of Little Spain and the author mentioned at German wp are the same person. References..
• Meatpacking Productions section.
• Little Spain official site, see section "Directed and written by Artur Balder.
• The director's english section at the official flickr account where every section of Little-Spain.us redirects to.
• Widukind.eu is the official website, in german, english and spanish for the upcoming translations. If you go to section Q&A, you will find the listed references. It is the same person. So Mr. Balder did not "changed career", as Orland suggest, just continues being published and is working as a filmmaker in New York city area.
• German Wikipedia section. The article at the German wp is for some years there, and to say that this is not a valid reference is to say that the work and credibility of the German wp editors is not good enough. As far as I know, the regulations are the same for the whole organisation.

--Lolox76 (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)