Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 8: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:35, 9 May 2010

< 2010 May 7

Deletion review archives: 2010 May

2010 May 9 >

8 May 2010

Nicholas Beale

This article was most recently deleted in January after its fifth AfD, which was closed by kurykh (talk · contribs) as delete and salt on grounds of non-notability. To be clear, I'm not arguing that the closure should be overturned - I agree with it completely - but I think the title should be created as a redirect to Questions of Truth (the book whose co-authorship is Beale's main claim to fame) since it's a very likely search title and pointing readers to the book will tell them everything noteworthy about the man. It's my understanding that an AfD closed as delete does not by default preclude creation of a redirect over the title. Indeed in this case several editors argued for a redirect and none argued against one, so I don't believe that creating one would be against the spirit of the AfD's result. Kurykh seems to disagree (I asked them first here, where kurykh didn't reply but SlimVirgin did, and subsequently here) and I don't want to wheel-war by creating a SALTed page, so I brought it to DRV to get a consensus. I agree that SALTing was a good idea to prevent the page's continued recreation, so if we do create a redirect it should remain protected, which achieves the same result. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allow Redirect I don't think creating a fully-protected redirect is against the spirit of the discussion. It's basically the same but with a useful change for those who search for this term. Since no one in the AFD specifically argued against a redirect and there was no consensus against one, there is no reason to no create one. Regards So Why 21:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. A search for Nicholas Beale brings up Questions of Truth as the very first result, so it's only one click more for people to find it. Why is this change necessary, other than for the vanity and puffery of a known COI editor? rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted Though common sense might argue for a protected redirect, I am wary of future disputes over the protection. Note that if you type 'Nicholas Beale' into the Wikipedia search box and hit 'Go', you will see Questions of Truth listed as the first search hit. So the practical need for a redirect may not be there. The person who has been attempting to create Beale's article in the past has shown amazing stamina, and we should be prepared to show him that 'enough is enough.' (See protection log). I speculate that the subject is behind the numerous re-creations of the article. Based on the log, it appears that someone tried to re-create the article at least seven times in 2009. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concede that it's not the end of the world to make people go via a search results page, but I definitely think it's less user-friendly. Since it's clearly the page people typing that search will want to read, we should send them there automatically unless there's a good reason not to - and I still can't see any such reason. A protected redirect and a protected redlink both prevent recreation of the article, so I don't really understand the argument that we need to show 'enough is enough'. Are you worried that Beale will see the redirect and start campaigning to have it unprotected so he can recreate the article? If so why is he more likely to do that than campaign against the salting, which has stood for four months? Olaf Davis (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted A redirect is, as noted by Rjanag and EdJohnston, unnecessary because a search for "Nicholas Beale" easily leads readers to Questions of Truth.
Furthermore, creating this as a redirect is misleading because the Questions of Truth article mentions Beale only in passing; thus a redirect would create the illusion that the article has nontrivial discussion of Beale.
Because of the long history of disruption (per EdJohnston: someone tried to re-create the article at least seven times in 2009), this should remain a protected red link to prevent further abuse of Wikipedia. The article has been created and salted numerous times, and one salting was circumvented when a user asked the closing admin to userfy the article. Cunard (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Allow protected redirect. The salting was only to prevent recreation, not because of any offensive in the title. The alternative is that internet searching lead to these: User:Jmt007/Nicholas Beale; Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 2 (#Beale); and User:NBeale. "No index" tags are not well respected. We should allow the redirect and let searchers find the best thing that they would be looking for. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated User:Jmt007/Nicholas Beale for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jmt007/Nicholas Beale. Your argument about the alternatives for Internet searching is flawed because a search will also return Questions of Truth since Beale is mentioned in that article. In fact, a Google search (with the search term: "Nicholas Beale" site:en.wikipedia.org) returns a number of results, of which Bouvier Beale is first, User:Jmt007/Nicholas Beale is second (now at MfD) and Questions of Truth is third. The system is working as it should be, so a redirect is unnecessary. Cunard (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google results depend on your past google activity, and those who live near you, and those who do searches similar to you. Yes, the internal wikipedia search brings up Questions of Truth third, but it should be first. The redirect is useful, and usefulness is sufficient for a redirect. Redirects are cheap. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The internal Wikipedia search for "Nicholas Beale" brings up Questions of Truth first. Cunard (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it does, my mistake. I must have been looking at the google search[1]. I think the redirect will help google send people to the better page. (Or is Bouvier Nicholas's father?) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect, while it might help Google refine its search results, will not help readers. Readers who want to learn about Nicholas Beale will be disappointed that Questions of Truth barely discusses Beale. If people using Google search are searching for biographical details about Beale, it would be more worthwhile for them to try another website. Cunard (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allow protected redirect, per Smokeyjoe and my comments in AfD#3 and AfD#4.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Expand

Coren (talk · contribs) closed the TfD discussion for this template as "delete" several days ago. I am requesting that this decision be reviewed because I feel we are losing a very valuable template that was very useful in certain situations (and not only in situations where certain sections need expansion) and I feel that there was clearly no consensus to delete the template. Therefore, I request that the deletion of this template be reviewed. Immunize (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse; (as closer). As I've stated in the close rationale, consensus was unclear by a simple headcount but the keep arguments were mostly in favor of its section version (which is redundant with the {{expand section}} template) or what seemed to be to be a flawed argument that it was simply harmless; given the strength of the arguments about its lack of usefulness, and that a gradual phase out is a reasonable way to proceed, it seemed to be (and still is) the proper way to close that discussion. — Coren ^(talk) 19:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus The expand template discussion was, while very long and with many editors, filled with limited discussion. Although the arguments mentioned were limited, or as the closer states, "flawed", the community did not come to agreement (Not even close). Editors voting 'keep' rejected the notion of stub-classing articles, in favour of keep the template for a variate of reasons, most of them ligit. There was no reason to close anything other than no consensus. Outback the koala (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Coren gave a good rationale by looking at the discussion and not simply by a headcount. Garion96 (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Coren's closing rationale was well thought out. I have read the discussion myself and agree with the closing. Note that we still have a myriad of "stub" templates, and "expand section". Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus While Coren obviously put some thought into his rationale, he seems to have failed to addressed some reasons cited in favor of keeping the template, e.g. that it can be helpful to have the template if multiple sections have to be expanded (or even the whole article is in dire need of expansion to be useful) as a way to avoid using {{expand-section}} multiple times or when there are no sections yet. If one takes those reasons into account, I don't think one can say that the discussion has resulted in anything that can be considered consensus about what to do with this template. Regards So Why 21:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The idea that the template should be kept because it is useful was debated to death in the Tfd, and Coren's closure gives no reason to believe he did not assess this aspect of the debate. The nominator presents zero evidence that the consensus was "clearly" keep, let alone how Coren made an error in judging it. MickMacNee (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was not "clearly" a keep, however it was not clearly the reverse either. Outback the koala (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus. As someone who did not participate in that debate, I'm afraid I think Coren was simply wrong. "Redundant" is not a reason to delete at TfD. "Redundant to a better-designed template" is a reason to delete, and Coren seems to have confused that with "Redundant to a more specific template" (i.e. {{expand section}}). But "more specific" is not the same as "better-designed". By analogy, {{who}} is more specific than {{clarify}}, but we wouldn't delete {{clarify}} because of that, would we?
Rjanag made this point rather clearly in the debate, and he was not refuted. MuZemike's remark further down is also highly apposite.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus Coren gave a thought-out rationale, but the result of the discussion seems to be a no consensus. I did a quick count and found that roughly six users stated that the template should be kept due to its usefulness in sections. I certainly wouldn't say that this counts for most of the keep votes, which was part of the rationale for closing. In addition, there seems to have been a failure in addressing the valid reasons given for keeping the template, both in the rationale and in the discussion itself. Other than to point out invalid reasoning, there was little back-and-forth discussion among users, meaning that neither valid keep nor delete votes were suitably discussed out, which makes it a weak community consensus. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. Don't normally participate in this kind of review, but was surprised to see user closing discussion by looking past and effectively dismissing clear emboldened statements such number of strong keeps as if those users meant something other that what they said or somehow made a mistake and were not being reasonable or reasoning properly?! There clearly was NOT a consensus and closing discussion in that manner can not be seen to constitute Consensus decision-making the way it is normally understood. Bruceanthro (talk) 10:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who, if anybody, gave a plausible evidence backed argument to keep the template, let alone one that was "strong" enough to outweigh the huge amount of delete opinions given? Consensus does not mean every discussion has to be unanimous, not in the least. MickMacNee (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's the right question to ask, actually. The number of "delete" opinions is as irrelevant as the number of "keep" ones. The right question is, were all the "keep" arguments fully refuted in the discussion?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I of course was not talking about vote counting. Coren was already pretty clear that he did not simply vote count before making his closure. For all the people claiming he didn't take account of this keep argument or that keep argument, they need to show the reverse too. If it matters, I hereby change my vote to "stong" delete, as I saw nobody refute my objections to the template. Infact, I got told to shut up! Pretty strange then that people want to overturn the closure for lack of evidence of back and forth discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you say, "For all the people claiming he didn't take account of this keep argument or that keep argument, they need to show the reverse too", I don't agree. Our deletion policy says (in bold, no less!) "when in doubt, don't delete". A well-reasoned objection to deletion raises, or ought to raise, a doubt that has to be overcome before deletion may proceed. There are some things that can overcome that doubt, such as a copyright violation or other core policy issue, but no such policy issue applied here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main thing that can overcome that doubt, are counter arguments which go ultimately unrefuted. The delete positions exist and are numerous, they are not discountable just because keepers raise doubts simply by voting, without ultimately following their arguments through. To believe that really would mean that deletion discussions are just votes. They aren't. MickMacNee (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that unrefuted counterarguments would overcome the doubt, but I do not see that Rjanag's argument was countered at all. Also, when you say "To believe that really would mean that deletion discussions are just votes. They aren't", I really don't think that follows.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rjanag merely stated it has some genuine uses, but is often abused or misued, thereby already weakening his case. His only example of a genuine use, was to show how it can be used in the exact same way as {section-expand}, without saying why this redundancy is of use to anybody. I don't see anywhere else where he expanded on his keep rational that it has genuine uses, and I see plenty of rebuttals to it, both before and after. As far as I can make out, all he really argued for there in terms of action, was rolling {expand-section} into {expand}, which nobody else suggested, wuite the opposite infact. Muzemike, like many others, merely suggested this tempplate was useful, again by simple assertion, without adderessing the numerous counter-arguments made that it's use in the way he described (to highlight incomplete non-stubs) was redundant to other more appropriate and better supported systems. I will say again, I see no evidence Coren didn't weigh these opinions as given. MickMacNee (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I try to avoid snark, but by your argument if I said strong close that would have somehow made my argument more important and you couldn't bring it to DRV? I'm sorry, but when you evaluate consensus, it's the strength of the argument that counts and not how strongly it's expressed. — Coren ^(talk) 14:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 *:::::The main thing that can overcome that doubt, are counter arguments which go ultimately unrefuted. The delete positions exist and are numerous, they are not discountable just because keepers raise doubts simply by voting, without ultimately following their arguments through. To believe that really would mean that deletion discussions are just votes. They aren't. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 13:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 *::::::I agree that unrefuted counterarguments would overcome the doubt, but I do not see that Rjanag's argument was countered at all.  Also, when you say "To believe that really would mean that deletion discussions are just votes. They aren't", I really don't think that follows.—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] [[User talk:S Marshall|<font color="Maroon" size="0.5"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|<font color="Maroon" size="0.5"><sub>Cont</sub></font>]] 14:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
+*:::::::Rjanag merely stated it has some genuine uses, but is often abused or misued, thereby already weakening his case. His only example of a genuine use, was to show how it can be used in the exact same way as {section-expand}, without saying why this redundancy is of use to anybody. I don't see anywhere else where he expanded on his keep rational that it has genuine uses, and I see plenty of rebuttals to it, both before and after. As far as I can make out, all he really argued for there in terms of action, was rolling {expand-section} into {expand}, which nobody else suggested, wuite the opposite infact. Muzemike, like many others, merely suggested this tempplate was useful, again by simple assertion, without adderessing the numerous counter-arguments made that it's use in the way he described (to highlight incomplete non-stubs) was redundant to other more appropriate and better supported systems. I will say again, I see no evidence Coren didn't weigh these opinions as given. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 14:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 **I try to avoid snark, but by your argument if I said '''strong close''' that would have somehow made my argument more important and you couldn't bring it to DRV?  I'm sorry, but when you evaluate consensus, it's the strength of the argument that counts and not how strongly it's expressed.  &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 14:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)