Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 21

21 April 2011

Warpath (Transformers)

Warpath (Transformers) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page was nominated to be deleted by a banned sock puppet, and then had popular support to keep, but the admin who made the decision to delete decided that since it lacked many sources to delete it anyways. I went through and added a number of sources, and the admin who deleted it suggested a deletion review, so I think it deserves new consideration. My new version of the article is at User:Mathewignash/Warpath (Transformers) Mathewignash (talk) 09:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Mathewignash (talk) 09:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - The keep arguments were weak, esp Norton's as the admin notes, and were rightly discarded. I see little in the new version that isn't sources to the same sorts of toy guides, fan sites, and such...i.e. the same sites and same rationales that I've noted you use in dozens upon dozens of TF-related AfDs, which 9 times out of 10, IIRC, has resulted in an article deletion or at best a redirect. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
• Restore and relist if anyone wants to relist (I assume from the above that Tarc will choose to do so). GThe main reason for me is that the close was defective because it did not consider the possibility of a merge/redirect & that's usually a reasonable option for this sort of article. A closing admin is not free to ignore deletion policy. There is also the argument that if we reject making articles by banned sockpuppets we should reject attempts to delete them also. The same rationale holds: if they can come and add things/nom articles here anyway, the ban has no meaning. Personally, I'm not sure the policy actually has much effect, but that's the rationale for it usually given and I think it has very wide support. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The closer must consider a merge/redirect even if it was never mentioned in the AfD? Your comment at WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect may have hinted at that, but I don't remember any outside support. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It is only rational to consider compromise solutions in a type of situation that has often led to them, regardless of rules or requirements--someone closing should be aware not of precedent exactly, but of typical procedures. But the position I would really advocate is that the nominator must consider merge and redirect and show why they are not applicable if its the sort of article where it might be, or it is not a complete nomination. An incomplete nomination should be completed if possible, or else rejected and done over. (BTW, I saw this AfD and decided not to participate, because I do not defend Transformer articles like these as individual articles & assumed merging would be considered. If AfDs have gotten so foolish as not to consider compromises such things I will have to go back to joining in more of them, the way I used to.) DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Clerical note - The "Warpath" link above is simply merged into "Autobots" and thus takes you there. Since Warpath is an Autobot, he technically should be merged in there. However, this is quite lengthy and heavily referenced; therefore, I'm going to say Overturn and keep/relist in the same way as Optimus Prime has an article. CycloneGU (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse- the original AfD reached the right conclusion. The article was very poorly sourced, and this was not addressed at all by those advocating keep. I have looked at the new draft, and I agree with Tarc that the sourcing is still poor; limited to fansites, toy catalogues and primary sources. I do not agree that the banned status of the nominator has any bearing here because a lot of editors made good-faith arguments to remove the article and it is not acceptable to discard those opinions on procedural grounds. Reyk _YO! 21:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment - While there are primary sources for the fiction, there are also online magazine articles cited in this article as well. Something that didn't exist in the initial article, and the reason it got summarely deleted. As these now exist, the reason for the initial deletion is invalid. 21:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• No. I see one independent online magazine, of dubious reliability, and which mentions the subject in half a sentence. We cannot overturn an AfD on the back of that. Reyk _YO! 21:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn Banned users are not allowed to influence Wikipedia content, period. If one of the AfD delete !voters want to speedy renominate, that's fine. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Generally, to be fair, I agree with this statement. However, even if the nominator is a banned user, the content of the AfD itself should be considered more than, "I kicked this guy out a week and a half ago". If you think it likely to be deleted on a relist, then that is what to consider. I'll be taking a closer look later, myself. CycloneGU (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment - That banned user actually nominated several pages, but I wasn't going to contest any of them until I wrote better versions of the articles that had better sources. He used his various socks for several deletion nominating sprees, but yes the articles had no sources when they were around the first time, and no one even seemed to attempt to look any sources up. Mathewignash (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't consider Jclemens's view to represent policy as I understand it. WP:BAN says "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban." In the case of an AfD, that would obviously mean it would be fine to delete an AfD that has had no other comments. But nothing in that policy suggests that later edits by other users that have followed a thread begun by a banned user should be thrown out; that would be effectively applying the ban to anyone who happens to agree with the banned user about a particular issue. Nor do I think it has been our practice to apply blind, blanket reversions to edits that have later edits dependent on them, since in many cases this would undo valuable work by non-banned editors. No comment on the deletion at hand other than that I don't think ban policy necessitates overturning it. Chick Bowen 00:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• This is exactly right. WP:BAN says "Edits by banned editors or on their behalf may be reverted without question". Not "must". "May". We are not compelled to undo productive edits by a banned user if we don't want to. And if undoing those edits means scrapping other productive edits by good-faith users then we definitely should not do it. Reyk _YO! 01:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• WP:Speedy keep #3 covers banned nominators. The nominator's status was discovered and disclosed several hours into the AfD and was considered by the closer. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Relist I generally prefer not to reward banned users, but even ignoring that the discussion would be better started over--there was too much heat about the nominator and not enough light overall. Hobit (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• None of the added sources looks particularly compelling to me. I support Mathewignash's right to request recreation here and thank him for following procedure. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse if this is an example of an "improved" version, then it only reinforces and reconfirms what I've been convinced of all along: that no reliable sources (by our standards) exist for these minor characters. It's also extremely offensive to suggest that perfectly valid policy-backed votes should be ignored simply because they happen to agree with a banned user. That is absolutely disgusting.Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd argue getting things right, which I suspect will result in a redirect (which is pretty clearly the right outcome), is more important that not hurting people's feelings. I certainly would hope that no one's feelings would be too hurt by relisting. In any case I don't see how a relist is "disgusting," could you explain? Hobit (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
    • A redirect is what we have now, so what's the point? Reyk _YO! 22:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Restore/relist as per DGG and Hobit. Too many questionable matters. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Restore  Need to return the article to the point before the abuse.  If there was no one that actually wanted to nominate the article, then everyone's time was wasted, and even now, the disruptor is being rewarded with this deletion review.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

  I will cheerfully nominate this fancruft in a heartbeat. In the end though, it doesn't really matter who the nominator was or what were his motivations were, as many editors in good standing weighed in after the fact. Any "overturn because of nominator" argument is just dumb, procedural wankery, IMO. Tarc (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)