Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 27: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:36, 27 December 2010

< 2010 December 26

Deletion review archives: 2010 December

2010 December 28 >

27 December 2010

List of African supercentenarians and List of South American supercentenarians

note: I'm not that good with Wiki-formatting; someone who is good at it, please fix. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_African_supercentenarians#List_of_African_supercentenarians

The above AFD was closed with an incorrect assumption:

The result was delete. At "vote count" we have 5 delete vs. 3 keep (in a "normal" case with reasonable arguments on both sides this is borderlining on rough consensus), but what is compelling in this particular case is a lack of reliable sourcing for the list. It was well argued that the main source for the list, GRG, was not a reliable. The only keep voter who, to his credit, mentioned sources at all was Thecheesykid, but even he did not consider the reliability of the source. The arguments that this seems to be a regular almanac entry, and that the material is better in list form than individual articles seem rather irrelevant unless the sourcing issue is addressed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There are several problems with this AFD. I will start with the most-obvious:

1. "It was well argued that the main source for the list, GRG, was not a reliable."

This is FICTION! The GRG has been recognized by major sources, such as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Tokyo Times, USA Today, etc.

For example, check out this article here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-12-26-oldest-man-christmas_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Note the listing of the Gerontology Research Group, along with Guinness World Records.

Thus, the above conclusion is wrong on two counts:

A. It fails to consider the availability of reliable sources B. It passes judgment on the reliability of outside sources, even though reliability of the GRG is also established by other notable outside sources. I doubt any of you would argue against USA Today or the Wall Street Journal being non-notable.

2. If this were the only issue. Sadly, it is not. JJBulten has indicated a plot to delete all articles on supercentenarians sourced to "scientific" sources, because he believes they conflict with his belief that humans can live to 969 because the Bible says that Methuselah lived to 969. Aside from the fact that many Christians argue that Biblical longevity is not comparable to longevity today, what is at issue here is not JJ's belief but whether Wikipedia follows correct Wikipedia policies, such as WP:V and WP:NOR, which mean that mainstream, reliable outside sources should establish or disestablish notability, not one's personal agenda.

3. JJBulten has argued, online, even on Wikipedia!, that he plans to delete articles such as this first, and then argue that the List of European supercentenarians is biased because there are no articles on "minorities." Talk about incredulity! So JJ targeted minority articles first, because they were easier to delete, then he plans to hypocritically argue that the European articles are biased?

4. Can anyone seriously argue that geographic organization by continent is a bad idea?Ryoung122 03:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need a better way of organising our material about centenarians and supercentenarians. This AfD, which is still in progress, is highly relevant. I think we need lists of centenarians and supercentenarians, but lists of what kind? Alphabetical seems better than by continent.—S Marshall T/C 03:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tase Matsunaga

The administrator who closed this (and similar) AFD's on supercentenarian articles (see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asa Takii) Sandstein, listed a rationale for deletion that is contrary to the evidence presented in the AFD discussion. 1. Self-published sources: did Tase Matsunaga publish her own sources? Certainly not. She was covered in reliable, cited, outside sources. Therefore, the rationale for the AFD decision was incorrect. It should also be noted that this article was part of a massive 9-article "deletion" attack by JJBulten, who has confessed online to targeting supercentenarian articles for deletion, with an agenda. To call someone out for lying and cabalism, when those accusations are proven and sourced to online sources, is not "inappropriate conduct." A referee throwing a flag for a foul being committed is not the committer of the foul. Thus, this and similar articles need a second go-through. 2. Tase Matsunaga was Japan's oldest person and her final age (114 years 191 days) is higher than any verified supercentenarian currently living. Notability is not temporary; this is not a "one event." There were reports, for example, of her gaining the title, then reports of dying. That's two events, at a minimum. Thus, the second rationale for deletion is also incorrect. A third reason: JJBulten violated Wiki policies and decorum on AFD, including mass-spamming, mass-nomination of articles, voting for his own self, and recruiting/canvassing to get "votes." The article itself lasted for years and years. Does notability suddenly evaporate, like current events passing? I think not. A fourth reason: JJBulten has accused articles on supercentenarians of being biased in favor of Europeans, but this is after he targeted for deletion articles such as List of African supercentenarians, List of South American supercentenarians, and then supercentenarians from Japan. Thus, this person had nominated this article in bad faith, and got this through the process as if it were a 'vote'. It is not. Thus, the process needs to be reviewed. -- Ryoung122 02:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Endorsed - as correctly pointed out, at any given time on Earth, there is an oldest living person. As soon as they're dead, there's another oldest living person. While the other points may be valid ones, the deletion on this, in my opinion, is correct. Barking Fish 02:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

1. Did you know that the average world's oldest person keeps the title for 1.12 years? That's a lot more rare than, for example, a baseball player. Yes Barking Fish 03:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Yet, we have articles on ball players who had only 1 major-league at-bat, ever, and by default they are "notable". Again, Yes. They may only have had one ML bat, but if they're covered in major sporting press, they're notable Barking Fish 03:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. The rationale behind the deletion was incorrect. I can't comment on that. Barking Fish 03:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. Another option, to merge to List of Japanese supercentenarians, was not considered. Or that. Barking Fish 03:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5. Notability for extreme age alone can be established by outside sources, not one's personal opinion of whether persons are notable by age. As I said, once they're dead, they're not the oldest person alive anymore. Barking Fish 03:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6. Japan, with 127+ million persons, tracks 100% of their citizens and "confers" the title of "Oldest Person in Japan", thus establishing outside-source notability. Yep, and again, when they're dead, they're no longer the Oldest person in Japan. Barking Fish 03:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryoung122 02:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia "notability" has nothing to do with "fame, importance, or popularity" - the very things you keep arguing. Read over WP:GNG. Notice how none of it focuses on "fame, importance, or popularity"? You need to be using WP:GNG to support your Wikipedia notability position, not your personal view of what non-Wikipedia notability might mean. Your significant interest in the topic, significant lack of ability to add content to Wikipedia based on Wikipedia guidelines and policy, and your inability to refrain from accusatorial tone posts may cause others to endorse the deletion of a problem article that otherwise would be kept as meeting WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus/weak keep - The nominator and delete position requiring sources in the article's text is not based in policy or even a guideline. WP:GNG welcomes "ton of sources are available, in that her death was widely and internationally reported" and the deletion position that relied on and then disparaged her "fame, importance, or popularity" as a basis of notability was not based in policy or even a guideline. As for the last deletion position, the nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or do not exist and the status of articles on other similar topics has no necessary bearing on a particular article. See generally Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Individual_merit. Admittedly, the keep positions were weak as they relied on her "fame, importance, or popularity" as a basis of notability, which is not based on policy or even a guideline. In the end, using AfD to prod improvement of a topic that meets policy is not the way to go and following through by deleting the article for failure of anyone to improve the article is punative, not administrative. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Expand

The administrator who closed this TFD has obviously put a lot of thought into their close, but the simple fact is that the !votes on it are pretty much a dead heat, I don't see how this can be a delete close when it is clearly a No Consensus. They've already stated that the deletes are between 65 and 68, keeps at 67 - that is not a delete close. No way. I ask for this Deletion to be overturned forthwith, it is not valid to close in this manner when votes are this tight. Barking Fish 00:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close The template is still in the process of being deleted. Too soon. (Also, I thought we went with consensus, not vote counting?) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin went with a head count and counting votes, so I go by what the admin did when they shut it. Barking Fish 00:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved admin who couldn't care less about the template, I'd have closed it no consensus, especially given its TFD history of non-consensus and overturned deletions. --slakr^\ talk / 00:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... and the fact that it's being deleted en masse is not a valid rationale for quashing a drv, in my opinion. --slakr^\ talk / 00:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that going by the reasoning behind each vote instead of vote-count — which is what we should be doing, and what BarkingFish clearly forgot — there's a consensus to delete. As the closing admin pointed out, the "delete" arguments were getting challenged less than the "keep" ones. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that for a while you've wanted this thing gone, but the last DRV, which covered the exact same situation, was only half a year ago. --slakr^\ talk / 01:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure - Well thought out closure. Garion96 (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close (having not participated in original discussion) – XFD closes, like AFD, are not mere vote counts. Weight of arguments matters and the closer is correct to try and assess those as well however difficult it may be.
(Every article can be expanded and improved. Requesting more or better information gets added is the expected condition of all articles, so noting this is true of a given article is a bit pointless unless it's made very clear why. Most of the important cases already have specific templates (limited geographic coverage, omitted significant POV's, etc)). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No word in bold from me yet because I need time to consider this, but I wanted to give pointers to where we've seen this at DRV twice before, here (delete closure overturned) and here (no consensus closure endorsed).—S Marshall T/C 02:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - I'm also uninvolved with the original discussion. I read through the all the comments and made a rough tally of the !votes. Although there may have been 65-68 keeps and 67 deletes, when I counted !votes based on the merit of the argument presented, the outcome was different. I threw out any !votes that had no rationale behind them, I threw out !votes that were basically arguing that {{expand section}} is useful, and I threw out any other votes that had other faulty reasoning (i.e. "delete because it's overused"). I recognize that this probably opened the whole thing up to a lot of bias from me, but I also considered !votes saying that it encouraged new users to edit or let users know that Wikipedia is not complete. I feel like a) the majority of readers are aware of the fact that they can edit and that it is not complete, and b) if users do need to be encouraged and/or notified of this, the expand template is not the way to go. Anyway, after going through, I've come to believe that there is a very rough consensus for delete. It is still divided, but it seems to me that, more or less, the consensus is either for deletion or for a major overhaul of the expand tag. I wonder if this overhaul wouldn't be facilitated by deletion and then starting anew anyway. Anyway, we need to go with Wikipedia:Deletion process#Consensus's rule of carefully considering, dissecting, and eventually synthesizing each side's argument, and not simply counting heads. I think if this is done, a more clear consensus to delete can be found. Addendum: Also, per S Marshall's reasoning below. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 02:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight, GorillaWarfare. You think it would be easier to delete the template, creating an 18000 job queue, then making a new one and creating a new queue to replace it where it was taken from, than simply leaving it where it is and working on it live? That seems like an awful lot of hassle for a small template. Fix it, don't fry it. Barking Fish 02:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With so many of the articles tagged with this template, it's nearly impossible to understand what the original tagger intended to have expanded. I feel like removing it completely and starting anew would be easier, yes. But I also think this point is not pivotal to my argument. If it's completely overhauled without an actual deletion, to me that's more or less accomplishing the same goal through different methods. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 02:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Well I've had that one explained to me, via IRC. Apparently it was originally created for Wikipedia:Requests for Expansion which died a couple of years ago. It is still, however, used within resources such as Twinkle, as part of the combined {{articleissues}} template. It seems silly to waste time removing it, then rebuilding it. I would be happy if this could be overturned to at least halt deletion, so someone (even me) could fix it with an alternative. Barking Fish 02:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After scratching my head for a while, I'm going to endorse this. It was a bold close, and it would be easy to find for "overturn to no consensus", but with this I think we need to prioritise the needs of our readers and newer editors over the wishes of maintenance taggers. Taggers are just going to have to get used to using templates that identify exactly what they think needs expanding.—S Marshall T/C 02:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which means that some essential tools for the Maintenance Taggers, like myself, are going to have to undergo a major rewrite. Things like Twinkle simply don't carry the option to enter exact information on what you think needs doing to expand the article, simply that it needs expanding. What you're supposed to do is tag with {{expand}} and then post on the talk page of the article what you think is wrong with it. That is going to slow a hell of a lot of maintenance down and make our job harder, but yeah, forget about the people that make sure others understand what needs doing, do what the readers want. (Sarcasm) :) Barking Fish 02:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that makes things harder for you. Maybe some changes to Twinkle would help?—S Marshall T/C 02:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they would actually. But it's a case of getting Twinkle's creator to rewrite the scripts, and it would mean then we could use Expand, maybe with an extra section like other templates do, for example: {{expand|reason=Not enough info on blah, blah, etc, this section needs to be clarified}} and so on... It would mean there being an alternative to {{expand}} if this was to happen, or the template being left alone and requiring a reason for it to actually work. Barking Fish 02:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think it's accepted that Sjakalle's close has created work for the people who maintain automated editing tools. We need solutions so that maintenance taggers can continue to contribute to the encyclopaedia as effectively as before.—S Marshall T/C 02:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting it doesn't really change anything. Even if a better template existed today, we'd still have to delete most current {{expand}}ed tags simply because there's usually no way to fill in a description of whatever the tagger felt was missing, or even to tell if it's been resolved since tagging. So best overall delete all, then if we get an {{expand|reason=...}} then start afresh with that. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as No Consensus. On !votes, this was a clear No Consensus. Many of the Keep arguments (in an admittedly WP:TLDR discussion) were ignored in the closure, of which the role the template can play in inviting readers to become editors is just one example. On the arguments, this was a clear Keep, but make substantial efforts to address concerns over misuse (particularly over unnecessary application to stubs, and too little use of the reason parameter). See eg AN thoughts on what can be done. To the list of possibilities we could add changing Twinkle to require a reason be given (or at least, a very clear "are you sure?" warning if it's omitted). Rd232 ^talk 02:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no-consensus. There really does appear to be no consensus about this template. My reading of the discussion would lead me to a different conclusion to the closer. People appear to be putting forward plausible reasons for keeping the template, and it is widely used. That there appears to be some division about this template suggests further discussion may be of some value. SilkTork *^YES! 03:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome further discussion, maybe including some of the people who would need to work with whatever came out from it, like the script writer of Twinkle, and page patrollers for example - yes, readers are affected, and I appreciate the issue it raises, so I would be happy if we could get the finer points ironed firmly out, then decide on how to fix it before we eventually dispose of this one - deleting it while having nothing to replace it serves precisely zero purpose. Barking Fish 03:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've discussed it at great length and in enormous depth, at a total of (I think) four TfDs, one of which was subject to an RFC, and including this one, three DRVs. At some point someone's got to make a decision.—S Marshall T/C 03:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus It was almost evenly split between keep/delete, and there was not significant discussion regarding alternatives to deletion (i.e. changing the template). There were valid arguments for using the template in different ways than currently just slapping it on random pages, but we have yet to examine these. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse judging by the weight of the opinions. Many keep !votes were with no explanation or invalid arguments. There was misunderstanding about the future of {{Expand section}} too which the closing admin made clear. Perfect close. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no-consensus as DRV is for consideration of whether or not the decision was a fair representation of the discussion, I don't think there was a consensus for deletion, and the default position is to keep. We're not here (DRV) to discuss whether it is right or wrong to delete the template, but only to judge whether the evaluation of consensus was correct; therefore - regardless of my opinion about the template itself - I have to recommend overturning the decision. I do appreciate the efforts of the closing admin to explain their rationale, but I feel that their opinions would have been better within the discussion, not as a closing reason, because it offered too much in the way of opinion instead of merely stating the facts and findings of the discussion itself. I fully accept that the template can be misused, and might be improved, but I simply do not see a consensus to delete it. I think that we're trying to discuss overall article tagging policy in the wrong place. Chzz ► 03:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll prepare a list of the keep arguments to prove that most of them were invalid. TfDs aren't a majority vote -- Magioladitis (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: simple !vote counting on an XfD generating as many comments as this is clearly not conducive to good decision making. The closing Admin therefore summarised the arguments, and analysed their strength, in making the close. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Give up -- this is another failed proposal...with no consensus, closed based on a head count. If you want to try changing the way {{expand}} is used or phase it out, go ahead, but TfD won't do much. Mono (talk) 05:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 96: / Line 96: @@
 *I'll prepare a list of the keep arguments to prove that most of them were invalid. TfDs aren't a majority vote  -- [[User:Magioladitis|Magioladitis]] ([[User talk:Magioladitis|talk]]) 04:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 *'''Endorse:''' simple !vote counting on an XfD generating as many comments as this is clearly not conducive to good decision making. The closing Admin therefore summarised the arguments, and analysed their strength, in making the close. <font face="Antiqua, serif">''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub><sup>''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''')</sup></font> 05:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
+*'''Give up''' -- this is another failed proposal...with no consensus, closed based on a head count. If you want to try changing the way {{t|expand}} is used or phase it out, go ahead, but TfD won't do much. [[User:Mono|Mono]] ([[User talk:Mono|talk]]) 05:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)