Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 15: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:08, 16 September 2009

< 2009 September 14

Deletion review archives: 2009 September

2009 September 16 >

15 September 2009

LG15: The Last

One attempt had been made to address the notability issue but the user didn't notice the article had been edited to change the reference numbers I was referring to in the nomination. Several references which were either primary/unreliable one-off mentions making the original nomination still apply. No other attempts were made to address the notability issues (but there's plenty of bad faith drama not related to the issue at hand thanks to the fans of the article). Admin SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) speedy closed it citing WP:SK 2.3 which I don't think applies considering the previous nomination got flooded by fans of the article thanks to off-site canvassing, but it looks like most are here to stay as shown by this afd.

The admins response on their talk page seems to show that articles failing multiple guidelines isn't a good enough reason to re-nominate and that if there's enough people against it, multiple guidelines can be ignored. So I request this be relisted, or re-opened, to actually allow a discussion to take place, and to give the fanatical fans and other users a chance to show how it passes our notability guidelines. Otterathome (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Two AfDs in as many months? God. Tim Song (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was justified considering it still failed guidelines before and after both afds, and the lack of outside input.--Otterathome (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Whether some, none, or any of the people arguing for Keep in the first AFD were fans is irrelevant. As the notavote template you are so fond of placing on AFDs states, "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes." Obviously the first AFD would therefore have been based on the merits of the arguments, not on the fact that fans liked it. You then took the article to a merge discussion with the exact same arguments, which was also closed as keep. You then took the article with the exact same arguments to a second AFD, which was closed as Speedy Keep "per SK reason 2.3" which states "making nominations of the same article with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected." Therefore, it would seem that the closing of the AFD in that manner was completely within bounds. --Zoeydahling (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing discussion on WP:COI

Note: Zoeydahling is a fan, and if all the users who participated in an afd were fans of the subject, then the outcome would be obviously only go one way, so it is relevant; see WP:COI. It wasn't the exact same argument as the article had changed since then, the month had given editors to fix the article up.--Otterathome (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being a fan of something does not mean you have a COI. See the What is a conflict of interest?/examples section on WP:COI. And since arguments are counted on the merits of their policy claims, it is completely irrelevant if someone is a fan or not. --Zoeydahling (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, it's the same as writing an article about a web forum you are registered on, But in this case it's a web-series you are a fan of. It especially applies if they are canvassed off-site, which has happened in this case. My original policy based arguments still held true, but the closing user of the first afd wanted to give editors a little more time to the editors to address the problems.--Otterathome (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otterathome, I think you have an incorrect understanding of WP:COI. Could you please review it and then tell us what part of it supports your above assertion that you can't write about a forum you're a member of? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This group of fans have been in contact with the people who created the show, so I think that's close enough.--Otterathome (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that's the question I asked you. What part of WP:COI supports your contention that you can't write about a forum of which you're a member?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contact with the creators and people related to the subject is covered under Wikipedia:COI#Close_relationships.--Otterathome (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. That specifically refers to a "high level of personal commitment,..." etc. And that's still not answering the question.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Gentlemen, DRV is explicitly a drama-free zone. Please stop. Tim Song (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drama is unavoidable when there are a number of upset fanboys and fangirls on the scene.--Otterathome (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can start by stop calling others "fanboys" and "fangirls" and instead respond to the merits of their arguments. Tim Song (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to dismiss contributors based on the fact that they like the subject matter is cheap at best. Are you proposing that only people who hate the subject of the page have the deletion discussion?

Are you saying that it's standard on Wikipedia that people only edit pages on subjects they don't care about?

I would also like point out that Otter has yet to prove any "off-site canvassing", and that it is strongly suggested on WP:AFD that interested editors are notified of AFDs, something I'm not sure he, as the nominator, has done for the LG15 AFDs.

~ Renegade - 80.171.128.47 (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both of yous, put a cork in it. MuZemike 19:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse

Otter's unproven, throw-away allegation of "off-site canvassing" and the like are a bad faith attempt to gloss over several other issues with the nomination, including, but not limited to:

He was the only one arguing for deletion
He had already unsuccessfully tried to get the page deleted last month
He had already unsuccessfully tried to merge the page away afterwards
He himself admitted the nomination as it stood was wrong, due to his broken references.
Parts of his nomination were based on personal opinion, especially about the PR-future of the show
Parts of his nomination were just plain wrong.
Parts of his nomination lambasted the sources given on the page for not including information that was only available a month after they were written
He insisted we look up the outdated revision he nominated on, and failed to show that his nomination applied to the current state of the page as well

After pointing these issues out in the discussion, I invited him multiple times to update his nomination in order to discuss one that was factually correct and applied to the page as a whole, not just an outdated revision of it. Instead of doing that, he firmly refused updating his nomination, insisted that we instead dig up the revision he nominated on for discussion (going so far as to condescendingly linking me to the help page for the history, implying I was refusing because I was too dumb to look it up), and, initially, even tried to make me hide the comment in which I pointed out the flaws in his nomination.

As you can see above, in this review, he is attempting the same argumentation: He insists on only discussing supposed notability issues with the page, but refuses to point out the exact notability issues based on the current revision of it, rather than an outdated one, and tries to gloss over the massive flaws of his nomination and the fact that, purely on basis of last month's two attempts to get rid of it, his renomination as a whole was frivolous anyway.

He tried to AFD last month on notability concerns. He tried to merge away last month on notability concerns. Both times he failed. Now he nominated again over notability concerns. WP:SK 2.3 says SK are applicable in case of "making nominations of the same article with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected".

Two failed attempts to get rid of the page on notability concerns last month should be strong enough.

~ Renegade - 80.171.128.47 (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my fault if you are unwilling to use the page history feature.--Otterathome (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my fault your nomination only applied to the history, not the current version.

~ Renegade - 80.171.128.47 (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: In brief, and devoid of drama: The question is whether "the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly," as DRV is to "correct closure errors in the deletion process and speedy deletions." DRV requestor is simply rearguing "reasons previously presented" which have now failed twice --Milowent (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Milowent (another one of the lg fans), no error? You mean apart from the only people taking part in the discussion are fans of the series. Right.--Otterathome (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In your view everyone knowledgeable about webseries is a "fan"; again, this is rearguing what has already failed.--Milowent (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close of AFD2 as a speedy keep. No new argument for deletion was presented, no significant support for the old reasons was present in AFD1. GRBerry 20:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You did read the part about "got flooded by fans of the article thanks to off-site canvassing", right? Nobody else took part, the issues weren't addressed, so there was good reason to nominate again.--Otterathome (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close as no new argument was presented. Billbowery (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure your first DRV edit has nothing to do with my nomination of your article does it.--Otterathome (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frustrating as it is, sometimes, on Wikipedia, you've just got to accept that the consensus is against you and do something else. Endorse.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 06:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A bunch of fans of telling somebody they want to keep an article isn't consensus.--Otterathome (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The AfD was clear. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 day long afds are clear?--Otterathome (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No longer able to WP:AGF regarding back-to-back AfD noms. No new arguments provided. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not grounds for a personal vendetta. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming bad faith, and saying no new argument was provided isn't a reason as the issues were never addressed.--Otterathome (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a really good idea if Otterathome replied to every single "endorse" !vote.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If your not going argue your point then don't bother giving one and refrain from adding useless comments.--Otterathome (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joachim Cronman

Article was deleted before full period for comment and was closed against consensus by an admin supervote Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relist – enough with the bad-faith accusations already and discuss the article's merits and not the nom's. MuZemike 14:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Richard, can you say in what way the article passes WP:CSD#A7? Being a commandant is no indication of importance, and being the father of a notable person is only an extremely weak one. Amalthea 14:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the deleting admin seems to have done so against consensus on CSD ground A7.
I don't agree that A7 applies given that the article cites its sources. Effectively, by citing sources, the article is asserting that the subject's notable on the grounds that people have noted it. If there were only one or two sources, the A7 call might still have been made, but not in this case. Further, using CSD to delete the article while an AfD was in progress with a unanimous keep !vote apart from the nominator is excessively bitey behaviour that falls seriously below the standards one expects from an admin.
Overturn the A7 speedy deletion, with prejudice, and relist for a proper seven-day debate.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. A borderline case, but A7 should be, and is, narrowly circumscribed. A weak indication of importance is still one and should be sent to AfD, especially in light of the number of sources (some appear irrelevant to the person at hand, but the number of relevant ones is sufficient). The AfD should be allowed to run its full course. It might be better to relist from scratch here. Tim Song (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stand behind my close, being a colonel in the Swedish Army who died, is not a claim to significance/importance. That being said if this is overturned, I don't have a problem... but my question is, is there a legit claim to importance/significance? If he can provide ANY reason why this guy is significant, I'd willingly change stances. But this guy clearly is not notable. Also, note that none of the sources provided provide substantial material, most are geneologies and those that are not are not about this person, but rather other people. In other words, the references appear to be nothing more than "Col Cronmon was a colonel in the Swedish Army who had kids and their names were ABC." My foreign language skills are rough, but even at that level I can make that much of these refs.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - At best, this would merit a relist for not having enough of a discussion take place in the AfD. However, Balloonman was right: there is nothing here but a genealogy, and no assertion of notability. The only two responses in the AfD were WP:ILIKEIT and an accusation of bad faith. An A7 seems perfectly valid to me, given no assertion of notability. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist so that the debate can be properly completed and the article properly deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Relist Why won't admins allow actual editors to determine consensus at XfD, rather than ramming through their own preferred answer as a supervote. Consensus was to keep and the closing admin closed the AfD prematurely. I'd like to see more about the Colonel, but there is a claim of notability supported by reliable and verifiable sources here and no evidence of anything proper in the close as performed here. Alansohn (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Overturn and Relist Clear misunderstanding of admin responsibilities. Even if this is a borderline article between speedy and afd, if it reaches AfD, the discussion should be allowed to continue. He might in fact actually be notable--he was commandant of a major fort, a/c the article. This is not purely genealogical information. DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aside: it can often be appropriate for articles to be speedied whilst on AFD, especially if they have been nominated by a user who is not familiar with the existence of speedy deletion. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It could even be appropriate to speedy something over a unanimous keep !vote; but you'd need something decisive, like evidence that it was a copyvio.
But I think DGG's point is that there is no way it could be appropriate to speedy over a unanimous keep !vote under A7. I don't understand how Balloonman could have reconsidered that and decided it was still appropriate; that's definitely a case where DRV needs to deliver a reality injection.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is decided by rough consensus, not by headcount. The nomination made a policy-based argument for deletion. One response opted for a procedural keep (bad faith nomination, unsupported). The other was "non notable to you maybe", lacking anything to support the assertion of notability. If the full seven days would have passed with that, a close as delete would have been correct. Consequently, ignoring those two statements is appropriate if the article matches a SD criterion. Amalthea 17:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, Amalthea, have you looked into why it might be called a bad faith nomination? Suffice it to say that remark was not unsupported.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist A sufficient claim is having been the fortress commander circa 1705 that lost a significant fortress. That is enough to send to AFD. (The genealogy doesn't help the article any.) Our article on the Great Northern War is poor quality, and other articles on related topics are also poor quality. This article is also currently of poor quality. So it is hard to tell, but we hope that the editors at AFD will be take the time and effort to make a researched decision. Given the original AFD nominator's history, WP:CSK also applies to the nomination, and a new nomination by a neutral nominator will be more useful. GRBerry 20:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Endorse. I was a person that voted speedy keep on this. The nom was in bad faith, but the person was [[WP:NN}} nevertheless ("Joachim+Cronman"+"Great+Northern+War"+-wiki see for yourself). While I think that the full seven days should have been given, "if an article is speedily deleted for the wrong reason (not one of those listed in the criteria for speedy deletion), but doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving deletion through the normal article deletion process, there's no sense in resurrecting it and forcing everyone to go through the motions of deleting it yet again." TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this amounts to saying that "it won't be kept at AfD is a reason for speedy," never mind the actual rules. The rules are narrow, and one of the purposes is decreasing the need for appeals from them. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist in a seperate nomination, sources and comments on the AFD were in my mind enough of an indication of importance to not speedy delete, we should allow a full AFD discussion with a neutral nomination to consider the article. Davewild (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (keep). Our "inclusion criteria" (WP:N?) were never intended to apply harshly to distant historical figures. Not only did the closer resort to a supervote against consensus, he did not accurately cite policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec)WP:NOT#Genealogical entries exists as a counterpoint to people attempting to document their own families probably without the use of reliable sources, and does not apply to a documented person who died over 300 years ago, i.e. the citation of policy (WP:NOT) was erroneous. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite a shred of evidence that some articles are exempt from WP:N on the basis of the age of their subjects? Otto4711 (talk) 08:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - closing admin clearly explained the outcome which was in line with WP policy. Commenters in the AFD failed to address WP:NOT. Claims of a "supervote" are spurious, offered to advance a pro-inclusion agenda, and are rightfully ignored. It seems that recently, any time an admin arrives at a conclusion that certain editors don't care for they cry "supervote" in the hopes that it will fool enough people to ramrod their viewpoint through. Otto4711 (talk) 08:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion of genealogical entry on a non-notable person. Drawn Some (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Boazman, Sally Traffic

I don't want the whole DRV treatment. The previous article was deleted after a 30 minute AfD, and for what reason I do not know, the redirect was edit protected. This should not require so much effort to simply have a re-written article moved from my userspace but I'm not getting any help. New article, impeccably sourced to a few dozen RS, written without ever seeing the deleted article at User:Miami33139/Sally Traffic. Please also fix the redirect at Sally Traffic. Miami33139 (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that Black Kite comes here to explain why he protected this redirect (and I note that Miami33139 did, correctly, leave a message for Black Kite, on 11 September). If he does not, then my !vote is unprotect, per the third pillar. This is a wiki.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: User:Black Kite did reply on User talk:Miami33139, saying that the subject has contacted WMUK and desires the page to be deleted. See this for further background. Tim Song (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note I've seen that, given it due consideration and my !vote remains "Unprotect because this is a wiki".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Keep If the article that was speedy deleted matches in any way the version in user space, there is a clear claim of notability and ample reliable and verifiable sources to support this claim. That the subject, who appears on national radio and is quoted in various articles, does not want to appear in Wikipedia is worth considering but is not enough to grant her (or any admin) veto power over an article. There was nothing proper about taking this abusive and disruptive shortcut to bypass determing the matter based on community consensus. Alansohn (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, the article I wrote in my userspace has nothing to do with what was deleted. I do not know the style, tone, or worthiness of what was deleted. In fact, I assume what was deleted was complete trash. I am asking for the edit protection on the redirect to be removed so my article can be placed there because what I wrote is not trash. Miami33139 (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation This is a reasonable userspace draft and certainly an improvement on what was there before deletion. If anyone still feels it needs deleting after restoration they are free to nominate it and a full AFD can be held to let the community decide. Davewild (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit and allow recreation Given the subsection entitled "Stalking incident", it would appear there is reason for the subject of the article to have privacy concerns. None of the artice's sources is primarily biographical. So I think she is marginally notable, and the section entitled "Personal life and pasttimes" should thus come out of the article. I can't see the prior article to compare, but I trust Davewild's assessment. GRBerry 00:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Overturn We do not delete at the subject's request unless the community decides to endorse it at AfD or a noticeboard, or if it is so obviously necessary that OTRS will honor it. I do not think it the least obvious that it will be deleted--she was apparently the presenter of her own program on the BBC main network. It certainly does not qualify for speedy. If there's material that is not appropriate ,we can delete that material. DGG ( talk )
Overturn - Someone with their own program on a major network, not to mention their own own book by a noted publisher, is not candidate for speedy deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation per DGG. Without prejudice to AfD, etc., of course. Tim Song (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 71: / Line 71: @@
 *:Assuming bad faith, and saying no new argument was provided isn't a reason as the issues were never addressed.--[[User:Otterathome|Otterathome]] ([[User talk:Otterathome|talk]]) 15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 *I think it would be a [[WP:SARCASM|really good idea]] if Otterathome replied to every single "endorse" !vote.—[[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>]] 17:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
+*:If your not going argue your point then don't bother giving one and refrain from adding useless comments.--[[User:Otterathome|Otterathome]] ([[User talk:Otterathome|talk]]) 18:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 ====[[:Joachim Cronman]]====