Mkativerata (talk | contribs) m →Catahoula bulldog: tweak] |
Mkativerata (talk | contribs) m →23 August 2019: tweaks |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:{{DRV links|Catahoula bulldog|xfd_page= Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catahoula bulldog|article=}} |
:{{DRV links|Catahoula bulldog|xfd_page= Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catahoula bulldog|article=}} |
||
The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RoySmith&diff=912017651&oldid=912016084 closer] suggested bringing it here, and has been notified. In the closing statement, the closer pointed out, “The article as it currently stands is woefully lacking in WP:RS, and has been tagged as such for three years.” Exactly. The reason it lacks RS is because the subject is not notable which was stated as the reason to delete or redirect in the AfD - it is a fictitious breed based entirely on anecdotal reports and fails WP:GNG and WP:V. There simply are no RS to cite to establish notability. Members of [[WP:WikiProject Dogs]] have spent a great deal of time researching and trying to find reliable sources. Normal procedure for article creation/acceptance is [[WP:V]], [[WP:NOR]] and widespread coverage in secondary and third party sources to establish notability, not to create an article and then spend 3 years trying to find RS to justify keeping a non-notable subject. The delete/redirect/merge arguments were strong. [[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D"><sup>Atsme</sup></span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Atsme|<small>Talk</small>]]</sub> [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 12:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC) |
The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RoySmith&diff=912017651&oldid=912016084 closer] suggested bringing it here, and has been notified. In the closing statement, the closer pointed out, “The article as it currently stands is woefully lacking in WP:RS, and has been tagged as such for three years.” Exactly. The reason it lacks RS is because the subject is not notable which was stated as the reason to delete or redirect in the AfD - it is a fictitious breed based entirely on anecdotal reports and fails WP:GNG and WP:V. There simply are no RS to cite to establish notability. Members of [[WP:WikiProject Dogs]] have spent a great deal of time researching and trying to find reliable sources. Normal procedure for article creation/acceptance is [[WP:V]], [[WP:NOR]] and widespread coverage in secondary and third party sources to establish notability, not to create an article and then spend 3 years trying to find RS to justify keeping a non-notable subject. The delete/redirect/merge arguments were strong. [[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D"><sup>Atsme</sup></span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Atsme|<small>Talk</small>]]</sub> [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 12:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC) |
||
*'''Overturn to redirect-without-deletion''', to [[Louisiana Catahoula Leopard dog]]. It is not correct to identify four different outcomes in an AfD (delete, keep, redirect, merge) and require consensus for any one of them. In this case there is a consensus for one important thing: that no separate article is warranted. There are five editors who argued for an unconditional keep: Nomopbs, Krtimi991, Hal333, AvalerionV, and SpinningSpark. The second, third and fourth of those !votes were cursory and should be given less weight. On the other side, six editors argued to get rid of the article, either by deletion, merge or redirect: Atsme, Montanabw, Ched, AReaderOutThataway, Cavalryman and The Gnome. All six gave good reasons. We then have Andrew D who was happy to keep or merge. Had the six editors I mentioned above all said '''No article''', and then given their reasons, their reasons would have been substantively the same. When the AfD is examined in that way, as it should be, there is a rough consensus |
*'''Overturn to redirect-without-deletion''', to [[Louisiana Catahoula Leopard dog]]. It is not correct to identify four different outcomes in an AfD (delete, keep, redirect, merge) and require consensus for any one of them. In this case there is a consensus for one important thing: that no separate article is warranted. There are five editors who argued for an unconditional keep: Nomopbs, Krtimi991, Hal333, AvalerionV, and SpinningSpark. The second, third and fourth of those !votes were cursory and should be given less weight. On the other side, six editors argued to get rid of the article, either by deletion, merge or redirect: Atsme, Montanabw, Ched, AReaderOutThataway, Cavalryman and The Gnome. All six gave good reasons. We then have Andrew D who was happy to keep or merge. Had the six editors I mentioned above all said '''No article''', and then given their reasons, their reasons would have been substantively the same. When the AfD is examined in that way, as it should be, there is a rough consensus for "no article", based on numbers (6:5), strength of arguments (definitely, given the three cursory keeps), and support for arguments (clearly). The best close in this circumstances is a redirect without a deletion. That means (a) we give effect to the consensus that we shouldn't have an article, (b) we allow for the merger of content to take place from the history of the article, at editorial discretion, and (c) we allow for the redirect target to be changed at editorial discretion. Outcome (b) even brings a seventh editor, Andrew D, on board with the consensus. --[[User:Mkativerata|Mkativerata]] ([[User talk:Mkativerata|talk]]) 20:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC) |
||
====[[:Tomi Thomas]]==== |
====[[:Tomi Thomas]]==== |
Revision as of 20:28, 23 August 2019
- Catahoula bulldog (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The closer suggested bringing it here, and has been notified. In the closing statement, the closer pointed out, “The article as it currently stands is woefully lacking in WP:RS, and has been tagged as such for three years.” Exactly. The reason it lacks RS is because the subject is not notable which was stated as the reason to delete or redirect in the AfD - it is a fictitious breed based entirely on anecdotal reports and fails WP:GNG and WP:V. There simply are no RS to cite to establish notability. Members of WP:WikiProject Dogs have spent a great deal of time researching and trying to find reliable sources. Normal procedure for article creation/acceptance is WP:V, WP:NOR and widespread coverage in secondary and third party sources to establish notability, not to create an article and then spend 3 years trying to find RS to justify keeping a non-notable subject. The delete/redirect/merge arguments were strong. Atsme Talk 📧 12:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Overturn to redirect-without-deletion, to Louisiana Catahoula Leopard dog. It is not correct to identify four different outcomes in an AfD (delete, keep, redirect, merge) and require consensus for any one of them. In this case there is a consensus for one important thing: that no separate article is warranted. There are five editors who argued for an unconditional keep: Nomopbs, Krtimi991, Hal333, AvalerionV, and SpinningSpark. The second, third and fourth of those !votes were cursory and should be given less weight. On the other side, six editors argued to get rid of the article, either by deletion, merge or redirect: Atsme, Montanabw, Ched, AReaderOutThataway, Cavalryman and The Gnome. All six gave good reasons. We then have Andrew D who was happy to keep or merge. Had the six editors I mentioned above all said No article, and then given their reasons, their reasons would have been substantively the same. When the AfD is examined in that way, as it should be, there is a rough consensus for "no article", based on numbers (6:5), strength of arguments (definitely, given the three cursory keeps), and support for arguments (clearly). The best close in this circumstances is a redirect without a deletion. That means (a) we give effect to the consensus that we shouldn't have an article, (b) we allow for the merger of content to take place from the history of the article, at editorial discretion, and (c) we allow for the redirect target to be changed at editorial discretion. Outcome (b) even brings a seventh editor, Andrew D, on board with the consensus. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Tomi Thomas (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
It seems the closer did not want close against a large number of "Keeps." Close like this disincentivizes thorough research of sources and claims, because whatever you do, if there are a large number of empty "Keeps" that will amounts to nothing. And in converse, this promotes "joining the trend" so as not waste your time doing a research that no one cares to read.
Even though I made a detailed analysis that shows how the article was built on more than 10 utterly unreliable sources and user-generated contents (which none of the "Keeps" reliably refutes), the closer felt that since they 'disagree' (without evidence) with my analysis then the consensus was to "Keep." The sole source he based his reasoning republishes WP:DAILYMAIL articles [1] and claims no journalistic professionalism [2]; this shows you can simply circumvent DailyMail ban by finding vanity sites like these that republish them.
I am bringing this close for a review. I discussed it with the closer and he agreed. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Endorse but with leave for immediate renomination. It wasn't the administrator's job to decide who won the argument. Administrators are not adjudicators. It was the administrator's job to decide where the consensus lay. Ammarpad: you might have had the better arguments, but you didn't have anything approaching consensus. After the maximum number of re-lists, the closing admin had no choice but to close the discussion as "keep".. Part of the difficulty you faced was that you didn't start the AfD, and it wasn't started well, with a nine-word non-sequitur nominating statement. So... I suggest allowing Ammarpad leave to re-nominate the article at any time, which would ordinarily be discouraged following a "keep" close. A good nominating statement that lays out the sourcing problems from the outset might result in an AfD that takes a different course. In my view, the keep !votes were so poorly considered, and the sourcing problems so obvious, that here at DRV we should exercise our supervisory prerogative to say "do it again".--Mkativerata (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- It seems you're equating "consensus" to "majority." It's not. Consensus is determined by strength of arguments and conformity to overall Wikipedia fundamental policies and guidelines. Deletion discussions are not done in void, they must to conform to the Wikipedia-wide consensus/fundamental standard; WP:RS included. Even if 100 people come to AfD and say they "agree" to use the unreliable sources, that can't trump the established site-wide policy, nor can their large number means "consensus." No, I won't renominate it, there's nothing that I can say more. I spent several hours analysing each and every sources, and posted analysis (that no one refutes up to now). Some people decide to say, just that does not matter. To me, it matters, but if the consensus here, is also it does not matter, then there's nothing to pursue further. Perhaps, I am a bit pedantic for insisting only sources with proven reliability can be used to build biography of a living person. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)