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)

I think that a merge or redirect close here would be a forced compromise and a "super vote". There's no mention of a relevant character list. All participants are responsible for considering and proposing compromises and alternatives – I disagree with dumping that on the nominator or closer. Flatscan (talk) 04:57, 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)

• Wikipedia:Deletion process#Speedy keep for banned nominators allows the AfD page to be deleted, which should not be done after good-faith edits have been added to the page, as those edits need to be available in an edit history.  Wikipedia:Deletion process#Procedural close is used for closing due to "circumstances of the deletion nomination rather than the merits of the page being discussed."  Unscintillating (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• So it is proper to point out that this whole process could have been stopped on 17 September 2010 with a procedural close less than 24 hours after the AfD launched.  Note that the closure of the AfD on 23 September 2010 failed to refute this misstatement or explain any basis for ignoring the abusive nomination, so this may be evidence that this AfD was not properly closed.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to specific sections (corrected link: WP:Deletion process#Procedural closure). Why did you ignore However, if subsequent editors have added substantive comments in good faith, the nomination should not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision). (basically the same sentence as in WP:Speedy keep)? Why should Procedural closure, which does not mention banned nominators, supersede Speedy keep, which describes this situation exactly? Flatscan (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't a mis-statement. It was 100% accurate. What about it do you think was wrong? Nobody participating in the AfD had any idea the nominator was a sockpuppet of a banned user at the time, and gave their opinions in good faith. Since you started commenting in this discussion, all you've done is try to get people's opinions ignored, thrown out or declared invalid. Just because you disagree with an opinion does not give you the right or the ability to get it thrown out on some bullshit technicality. Reyk _YO! 08:14, 24 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)
  • Would you point out specific comments or diffs? I think that this AfD was pretty tame. Mathewignash seemed understandably upset, but he was able to look for new sources, mentioned in a later comment. Flatscan (talk) 04:57, 23 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 AfD delete, the banned nominator was identified and accounted for, no substantial procedural flaw to justify an overturn. Weak keep deleted per my previous comment, sources are improved, but still insufficient. On a side note, the closer recommended DRV a few days ago and may not have seen this, so I left a link on his talk page. Flatscan (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I support reevaluating AfDs influenced by sockpuppetry and overturning when it had substantial impact. I did the legwork to overturn an AfD from delete to no consensus at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Leanne/AfDs affected. Flatscan (talk) 04:47, 24 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)
      • Because I only suspect it. That discussion had enough problems a relist is reasonable. Plus a merge might actually make sense here. Hobit (talk) 09:09, 23 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)

• I have a great deal of sympathy for JClemens' view. Banned sockpuppets shouldn't get their way. But on the other hand Wikipedia certainly doesn't need any more articles about Transformers (or Pokémon, Power Rangers or anime or manga of any kind either).—S Marshall T/C 07:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I certainly don't think it's a valid arguement to delete an article that we "don't need more articles" in the same subject. It shows a bias against the subject area by the editor. You're not showing an opinion based on the article itself based on it's merrit, but one your dislike for the NUMBER of articles in the subject. I certianly should be ignored if I voted to delete an article about a Christian Saint, and my reasoning was "we don't need more article about Christianity on Wikipedia!" Serriously, where do you get the authority to declare Wikipedia "completed" on a subject? Mathewignash (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sure, I have bias. My bias is that when serious encyclopaedic topics like Flora of Europe or Agriculture in the United States of America or Forestry in Canada or Education in Queensland are still redlinks, then I think we have more important things to worry about than fill pages with articles about Transformers and Decepticons. But we also have more important things to do than delete them, which is why I didn't use the word "endorse" anywhere in my remark.—S Marshall T/C 01:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• You are seriously saying we can't write articles on cartoon characters until articles on "important" subjects are written to your satisfaction? Who died and made you the wiki-god? Guess what, I'm not going to write Forestry in Canada orEducation in Queensland any time soon, it's not something I know about. Am I supposed to wait for your approval that all the "important" articles are done before starting the less important ones? Mathewignash (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse per Tarc. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment  We are here to build an encyclopedia, IMO the callings of an argument "dumb" are examples of procedural irregularities that weigh against the force of reason.  So I think that closer should now consider both the new procedural irregularities in this deletion review, as well as the procedural abuse that spawned this entire process.  One, I would recommend that closer procedurally disregard this and this as not worthy of consideration and in doing so discourage such comments going forward, and two note that the existence of these new procedural irregularities reinforces the position that this article should be restored WP:IAR without relisting in order to discourage such abuse of process going forward.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

  You: We should restore this article because nobody but a banned user wanted to nominate it.

  Tarc: I would have nominated it, and will renominate it if it is restored.

  You: SILENCE HIM!!!! THIS OPINION IS VERBOTEN!

  I really don't think any closing administrator is going to disregard an editor who responds to a dumb argument by flatly contradicting it. Reyk _YO! 21:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

[Insert starts here]

Since I have been misquoted, what I said was,

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.

Because of the abuse by the nominator, we will never know if someone else would have nominated it.  We can also state with certainty that no else but the abuser nominated it.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

[Insert ends here]

• In order to illustrate the point of the "abuse" Unscintillating is talking about, it's not like this is an isolated event. Just the last week nearly a dozen articles have been discovered to be nominated for deletion by sock puppet attacks of banned users. One of the things people might not is that some of us put a lot of TIME into rescuing articles when they get nominated for deletion by the LEGITIMATE nominations, trying to find any legitimate sources people overlooked. If we have to deal with both the legitimate AND illegitimate nominations, we have to split our research finite time, and articles might get deleted simply because no one had time to look for good sources. No need to reward people who are breaking the rules, and make more work for ourselves. Any article found to be nominated by a banned sock puppet should IMMEDIATELY be ended. Let a human being nominate it (with no bias) if they want. Socks don't get a vote. Mathewignash (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

  You're simply trying to invoke policy to get your way, honestly. The real heart of the matter though is just because a banned editor does something, what said person did should not be automatically invalidated just because of who he is or what he has done in the past. It's somewhat of an ad hominem, where you're ignoring the argument and instead going after the arguer. Unscintillating is much more blatantly practicing this logical fallacy as he vainly tries to invalidate my opinion on the matter. As my pops used to say, "build a bridge and get over it". Tarc (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

  Why does the "bridge building' have to fall on the side of letting attacks of Wikipedia stand? To make you happy? You seem to have decided that banned users attacking Wikipedia shoudl stand, as long as you like their edits. Mathewignash (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

  Hold on a second. Let's forget who nominated it. Look at the content of the article itself (which is instead now a redirect, but should be in the history of the page location). Would you agree that the article stands on its own merit? If so, then perhaps you may think a relist is needed. If not, then forget who nominated it. CycloneGU (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

  Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it, yes?  If there are no consequences to abuse, and not only are there no consequences we congratulate the abuser by complying with his nomination, we encourage more abuse, yes?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Meh Banned editors' edits are supposed to get reverted (WP:BAN), and this article's afd probably should have been closed with no action as soon as the nominator's status was discovered. In general, whether to afd a poorly sourced article is a matter of editorial discretion (it's not obligatory), and per JClemens, banned editors are not entitled to exercise such discretion. Since it went to completion for whatever reason anyway, and since Tarc plans to renominate it anyway if restored, there's a NOTBURO case for letting the existing closure stand. Tarc is entitled to renominate, but probably would not have encountered this article at all if it weren't for the afd/drv, so the banned editor has influenced WP content no matter what procedure is used. We can't completely prevent the influence.

  Mathewignash, I sympathize with what you must be feeling, since trying to rescue an article during an afd is a stressful experience that I've seen people impose on themselves several times in the past. It's better to let the afd close, and (if deleted) ask the closing admin to restore the article to your userspace or the incubator so you can keep trying to source it at your leisure, for later reinstatement once you have enough sources. You can of course also instead download a snapshot of the article while the afd is in progress. Keep in mind also that as much as DRV's are supposed to be purely procedural, the reality for something like this is DRV participants do notice if the article appears to be cruft.

  I know that a lot of Pokemon, Transformers, etc. projects have opened up at Wikia and are doing pretty well (Wikia doesn't have notability requirements) so you might be happier with this type of article over there. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the comment about Wikia. I try to help out with the Glee articles and see all sorts of things over there (the Glee Wikia) that do not have any role in Wikipedia. Typically, their relevant sources are Twitter accounts of the stars on the show saying things like, "So glad to be back with my regular castmates" and such. Not good for Wikipedia, but strangely legitimate for Wikia. CycloneGU (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Mathewignash did get this article userfied, the move can be seen in User:Mathewignash/Warpath (Transformers)'s history. Flatscan (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment  Mathewignash, I've noticed a deletion spree account also, what is going on?  This user started an account and four days later started on a deletion spree.  Within three weeks he/she was posting at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents here.  These are not the actions of a newbie account IMO.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Is a Checkuser in order? CycloneGU (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)