Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates |
Files |
Possibly unfree files (PUF) |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Deletion Review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions; this includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.
Purpose
Deletion Review may be used:
- if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
- if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
- if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
- if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
Deletion Review should not be used:
- because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment;
- when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
- to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
- to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
- to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
- to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
- to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests); or
- to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Instructions
Before listing a review request, please:
- Discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See § Purpose.
- Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
Commenting in a deletion review
In the deletion review discussion, please:
- Endorse the original closing decision; or
- Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
- List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
- Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
- Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}}
template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
Closing reviews
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Deletion review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest DRV log page, if the closing admin thinks that consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.
Steps to list a new deletion review
1. |
Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page. |
2. |
Copy this template skeleton for most pages: {{subst:drv2 |page= |xfd_page= |reason= }} ~~~~ Copy this template skeleton for files: {{subst:drv2 |page= |xfd_page= |article= |reason= }} ~~~~ |
3. |
and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the deleted page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~ |
4. |
Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
5. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
6. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion. Use |
Active discussions
17 April 2016
16 April 2016
Elizabeth Koch (publisher)
- Elizabeth Koch (publisher) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I'm listing this DRV for DaltonCastle, who has very politely disputed my close. He said:
Hello there! I just happened to be viewing the AfD for Elizabeth Koch and noticed you closed it as a consensus to keep. I'm a little curious how you arrived at that conclusion, since it was a 5 - 5 vote. Shouldn't it be relisted? Just curious. A comment that I think very many people overlooked on the nomination is that almost all the sources about an "Elizabeth Koch" are not about the same one as the publisher. So just one profile of her, doesn't seem to establish notability.
I replied:
It seemed very simple to me. You raised two objections to this article in your nomination: firstly, notability, and secondly, the risk that the article might be vandalised. I'm afraid the second objection holds no water and the contributors rightly focused on notability. There are a number of very weak "keep" arguments in the debate, such as the ones asserting that the article subject is notable without actually linking any sources, or the ones vaguely pointing at google searches. There are only two strong "keep" arguments in the whole debate ---- the one very pithily summarised by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, which may be short but I saw as significant, and Cunard's rather more verbose contribution in which he directly linked of the Wall Street Journal source ---- but those two strong arguments are humdingers. However, I did not close in accordance with the numbers, and if you are not confident with my close then I will be very happy to start a deletion review in which the close will be scrutinised by experienced and previously uninvolved contributors.
Did I err in my assessment of the debate? —S Marshall T/C 17:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for posting for me! I appreciate the help. I think the biggest confusion that the "Keep" voters are falling for is that there are actually two other, far more famous Elizabeth Kochs, and that most of the sources on the internet related to "Elizabeth Koch" are not about the publisher. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
14 April 2016
Donetsk bus shelling incident (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
There was no any discussion related to this article (neither merging nor deletion). But user RGloucester merged (de facto, deleted) it without consensus. Different users reverted this merging during the year, see [1] [2] [3] etc. The discussion about merging/deletion should start first. Note, four interwikies are linked, with big articles in ru-wiki and uk-wiki and many sources in it. Please restore the article without unconsensus merging. 46.211.251.46 (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Category:Non-governmental organizations by country
- Category:Non-governmental organizations by country (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I question the deletion of this category because in the deletion discussion, I do not see evidence that the people commenting were familiar with the concept of a "non-governmental organization".
"Non-governmental organization" (NGO) is a jargon term that usually is equivalent to "nonprofit organization". That point should have been raised in the deletion discussion, but was not. Some countries, like the United States, say "nonprofit organization" whereas other countries, like India, have no nonprofit sector and only have an NGO sector and "non governmental organizations". "Nonprofit" and "nongovernmental" are both defining concepts of organizations and of equal importance as concepts.
These merges recently happened
- Category:Non-governmental organizations by subject->Category:Organizations by subject (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_14#Category:Non-governmental_organizations_by_subject)
- Category:Non-governmental organizations by country->Category:Organizations by country(Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_5#Category:Non-governmental_organizations_by_country)
If these deletions stand, then probably we also need to make the following merge
- Category:Non-profit organizations by subject->Category:Organizations by subject
- Category:Non-profit organizations by country->Category:Organizations by country
Categories typically are not supposed to have intersections, but since these categories are massive (1000s of organizations), it does seem reasonable to divide them into commercial organizations, government organizations, and either or both nongovernmental or nonprofit organizations. All countries have a concept of commercial sector and government sector, but then some countries imagine a nonprofit sector and others imagine a nongovernmental sector. It is a cultural choice to call these organizations one or the other. Rarely is a country discussed in a single source as having a separate NGO sector and nonprofit sector. For example, the NFL and FIFA are both football leagues, but one is a nonprofit and the other is nongovernmental. Both have very strong ties to the governments especially for funding their stadiums and coordinating events, and both are associated with a major commercial sector. It would not be right to call the NFL an NGO or FIFA a nonprofit organization, but rather best to use NGO for FIFA (which it is) and NPO for NFL (which it is).
Nonprofit/nongovernmental are perpetually confusing terms. In nonprofit-minded countries people say, "Aren't businesses non-governmental?" and in countries with NGOs they say, "Aren't government organizations nonprofit?" The problem is that the terms "nonprofit" and "nongovernment" cannot be understood literally and they are technical jargon with a certain meaning unrelated to profit or government. Nonprofit organizations sometimes generate profit and nongovernment organizations are sometimes a part of government, but these are still widely used concepts and categorizations.
A better merge, but one that would probably be seen as prejudiced to the Western world, would have been
This merits a little more discussion. Can previous participants please comment further if you feel this merge should stand?
- @PanchoS, AusLondonder, Oculi, SMcCandlish, Crh23, Johnpacklambert, Dimadick, MER-C, Grutness, and Good Olfactory:
- @Rathfelder: - you were the only one to make any comparison between nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations. You also proposed deleting the "nonprofit organizations by x" categories. Could you say more about that?
Thanks everyone for your attention. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn (without prejudice) and merge as proposed but to alt. name Category:Nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations, or Endorse procedurally but return to CfD for discussion of proposed different merge (which ever is more processually "happy"). Merging the nonprofits and NGOs to one cat. with both names will ensure there's no ENGVAR confusion. And the hyphenation is not needed (people who actually work in this sector usually do not hyphenate it, a change that happened gradually over the 1990s, while I was working in that sector). If people want to fight to preserve the hyphens, I won't fight back, but they should be both no-hyphen or both hyphenated, not mix-and-match. The nom is right that most NGOs are nonprofits in different lingo, and vice versa; while there are some nonprofits that have strong governmental ties, especially surrounding the UN and EU (but also here and there around US and other national governments), it's OK. Our categorization system does not have to be a model of Vulcan logic, just useful enough to our readers and editors to suffice. Any org that straddles the line can be dual categorized, or we can create a quasi-governmental category for them, or whatever. I figure 95% or so of the entries in both the nonprofits and (former) NGO categories are the same kind of organization at the encyclopedic level, even the regulatory structures in which they fit are not a 1-to-1 match. So this would be a better merge than the last one contemplated. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Revised. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @SMcCandlish: I don't think concatenating two terms, with one being even more blurry and problematic than the other, helps us fix any of the identified problems that led us to do away with the Category:Non-governmental organizations by country scheme. Also, please see WP:DRVPURPOSE – your pledge would be "Overturn and rename to…". --PanchoS (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Corrected the "Support" wording to "Overturn", and revised further to clarify. Lots of categories are blurry, so we subcategorize to unblur them. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Bluerasberry: Thanks for raising your objections or concerns here. Indeed, when nominating these categories, I expected a bit more discussion, but it's unfortunately not unusual that too few people care about WP:CfD discussions. More generally, contributors often only notice all kinds of RfCs after they were concluded. That's why we have processes to reassess concluded discussions.
- Endorse deletion Now, from what I can see, the closing administrator, who happens to be very experienced with categories, didn't make any procedural error. The recent discussion was closed after 9 days without a single objection, after the preceding one had been closed after 13 days with unanimous support. Also, while it wasn't further examined by other participants, in my nomination, I did acknowledge the (partial or loose) equivalence of NGOs and non-profit organizations ("we have the widely corresponding Category:Non-profit organizations by country").
- Still, I can see your point. We are regularly facing these kinds of problems, with terms being very loosely defined or with varying definitions in distinct fields of a topic or regions of the world. In these cases our task is to come up with a terminology that most correctly describes the content, avoids ambiguity and redundancy, and allows for a consistent categorization scheme. The term NGOs may be widely used in India and some other countries, but that alone doesn't necessarily make for a usable terminology to categorize organizations worldwide.
- Now you're saying, the same case would hold for NPOs. To a certain extent that's true, with government agencies being not-for-profit (in the literal sense), too. But then again, we're talking about a rather limited number of government agencies that would always be categorized as such. On the other hand, there are way more private, for-profit organizations (companies) to distinguish from.
There are some more reasons why the definition of NPOs works better with our categorization scheme than the varying definition(s) of NGOs do: While the definition of NPOs doesn't carry an assumption about their size, influence, or scope, their efforts at lobbying, or the issue they're working on, NGOs are regularly associated with these hardly quantifiable features. Furthermore, as NPOs are tax-exempt in many if not most countries of the world, there's a clearly defined legal status for us to discriminate between different types of organizations. This German-language economics dictionary entry clearly states that science prefers the term NPO to NGO, as NGO is an even more blurry concept. There may be more, including English-language sources stating the same.
So while IMHO we had every reason to finally do away with our effectively broken NGOs categorization scheme, this doesn't preclude us from keeping our slightly less broken NPOs categorization scheme. - On a larger, transnational basis, there is a case for categorizing Category:International non-governmental organizations, as in these cases definition is rather clear and usable, see for example this comprehensive book chapter on INGOs. I would therefore propose directing our efforts at these organizations. --PanchoS (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- As someone from that field professionally, I would say: a) yes, it's complicated; b) "NPO" is not an acronym we use much if at all, unless that has become popular overnight and I didn't notice; and c) we all treat "NGO" as equivalent to "nonprofit", absent evidence that the organization is actually one of those with unusually close ties to government. No one in the North American nonprofit sector is unaware of "NGO" and what it stands for, and its usual equivalency with "nonprofit". It's a bit like "truck" and "lorry"; in US English "truck" can be used more broadly (e.g. to include pickups), but there's not actual problem treating truck and lorry as equivalent terms on WP as long as we define them in context. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- As the meanings of the terms are so similar, I would not favour re-populating the NGO categories, but endorse the merge, and keep the category pages for NGOs in each country as redirects to NPO in each country. Redirecting would be better than deletion because these category names are liable to be re-added on articles. I have no objection whatever to former contents of the NGO categories being moved into NPO where appropriate. – Fayenatic London 20:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Fayenatic london's proposal to redirect to the NPO categories.
While refining categorization on a per-case basis, if appropriately backed by sources, is always welcome, I still think it was sensible not to merge them all in. Too many organization articles are lacking proper sources that would back their legal, non-profit status. I'm sure in many or most cases it will be easy to prove the status of notable organizations, but instead of assuming, we have to prove it for every single organization. --PanchoS (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd fully support
- @PanchoS, Fayenatic london, and SMcCandlish: Yes would support this alternative. Here are all the options presented in my order of preference.
- SMcCandlish suggested renaming Category:Nonprofit organizations to Category:Nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations. I think this is the most accurate and least confusing option. All nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations could be merged into that category.
- Fayenatic london and PabloS suggested moving all items formerly in category:NGO to category:nonprofit organization. I think this also is a workable option. I expect that some people in India would call it racist or prejudiced for discounting their legal process, but if "nonprofit" is imagined as an adjective and not a legal status it is correct. I think that using this category would leave an unresolved problem that will come up again in the future but it meets the present need and the quality of data that we have.
- We might restore the NGO categories. The biggest problem with this is that there is perpetual confusion that "NGO" is a commonly used term with a specific meaning. Restoring the category would not communicate the issue clearly even though it is correct.
- I least prefer the status quo of removing all NGOs from their category while keeping nonprofit organizations in theirs. This is inaccurate and a cultural bias.
- Procedural stuff -PanchoS I agree that there was no procedural error in the deletion close. I am requesting view under the "new information" rationale. As you guessed, I did not become aware of this discussion until the category was removed from articles I was watching, so the deletion was a draw for me to enter the discussion. Thparkth Discusses below whether there is actually new information here, but perhaps if we can merge the items either into the nonprofit category or a new "nonprofit and NGO" category, then we can omit discussion of procedure.
- PanchoS - I am not sure this needs to be discussed further, but I fail to understand why you say NGOs and NPOs are only partially or loosely equivalent. For example, in India these sorts of groups would be called NGOs, and in the United States these sorts of organizations would be NPOs:
- schools, social clubs, activist organizations, political organizations, certain hospitals, religious centers like churches or temples
- In both cases, the nonprofit/nongovernmental status is granted through government registration, and in both cases, the motivation is usually to get benefits of incorporation without the requirement to pay taxes for income. I am not recognizing why you feel that "NGO" status is loose but "nonprofit status" is better defined. There is no legal nonprofit status for organizations in India, and there is no way to register as an NGO in the United States. These are equivalent legal designations in different cultures or legal systems.
- I am not aware of any rules which say NGOs have to have certain "size, influence, or scope, their efforts at lobbying". I am not sure why you raise tax-emempt status of NPOs- the same concept applies to NGOs, and many countries only offer this to NGOs and have no scheme for offering tax exempt status to NPOs. I cannot check the German language entry, but even if it says the term "NPO is preferred in international discussion", I am not sure that means Wikipedia should have a manual of style rule which forces that description on organizations which are legally NGOs but not NPOs. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think I explained why NGOs and NPOs in general are exactly this: loosely equivalent terms. You'll find tons of relevant literature associating NGOs with size, influence, scope, or lobbying efforts. Of course, wherever in a particular discourse NGO has become fully synonymous with non-profits, no differences will be made. Now that the case of India has been raised, even in regard to India I'm seriously unsure if your claim that Indian law would only recognize NGOs as such, can be upheld. According to Non-profit laws of India, the sector consists of "trusts", "societies" and "Section 8 companies", and according to the 1961 Income Tax Act, the law seems to award tax-exempt status to these kinds of not-for-profit organizations. --PanchoS (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Fayenatic london's proposal to redirect to the NPO categories.
- Endorse. I would personally have !voted against merging, but I don't see any basis to overturn the clear consensus of the discussion. Although Blueraspberry has suggested that the participants in the discussion demonstrated a serious misunderstanding of the term "NGO" (which could potentially be a valid basis for overturning the outcome), I actually note that there was some in-depth discussion of the term and its history and usage in the nomination. I disagree with some of the points made, but I don't think it can reasonably be claimed that the terminology wasn't discussed and analyzed in a competent manner. The differences between the two viewpoints are differences of opinion, not differences of fact. Given that all of the participants in the discussion argued from the same viewpoint, it's hard to see what other outcome could have been expected (other than perhaps "relist" given the relatively low participation, but that may be a futile exercise at CfD). There is no reason to consider the outcome of the discussion unsafe. Thparkth (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Confirm - it was a good outcome with the information presented. I am seeking another compromise above. Thanks for checking process. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse The closure was in line with the discussion. There is no reason to overturn it just because people did not go into deep enough discussions on the issues to satisfy the concerns. People addressed the isues at hand and clearly felt this was not the way we should be categorizing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- This reminds me of this discussion where we overturned a CFD on the basis that a poorly-attended discussion reached a conclusion that simply didn't make sense for the encyclopaedia. Here we have another case in point. For example, there are about 600 non-governmental organisations here in Britain, and to my certain knowledge a further 500 in Ireland, the majority of which will be notable. CfD's decision needs to be reversed not because of any procedural error but simply because it's produced an outcome which is too silly to stand.—S Marshall T/C 19:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- 600? What criteria are you thinking of? Any charity can call itself a NGO. – Fayenatic London 19:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- If the BBC say it's a quango, I presume it's a non-governmental organisation. E.g. here.—S Marshall T/C 20:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well yes a quango is a ngo, similarly a goat is an animal with 4 legs, but not all ngos are quangos and similarly not all animals with 4 legs are goats. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Which is true. I should of course have said that there are at least 600 notable NGOs in Britain; thanks for the correction.—S Marshall T/C 21:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, but note that the quango type of NGO is categorised in Category:Government bodies. Thincat (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Non-governmental organisations are categorised as government bodies? That's... another less than brilliant decision that we need to overturn.—S Marshall T/C 00:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, but note that the quango type of NGO is categorised in Category:Government bodies. Thincat (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Which is true. I should of course have said that there are at least 600 notable NGOs in Britain; thanks for the correction.—S Marshall T/C 21:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well yes a quango is a ngo, similarly a goat is an animal with 4 legs, but not all ngos are quangos and similarly not all animals with 4 legs are goats. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- If the BBC say it's a quango, I presume it's a non-governmental organisation. E.g. here.—S Marshall T/C 20:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- 600? What criteria are you thinking of? Any charity can call itself a NGO. – Fayenatic London 19:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse as procedurally correct. However, I would suggest that those experienced in categorisation should make efforts not use CFD nomination as a platform for polemical debate. On the off-chance this will sometimes lead to a consensus that gives an unsatisfactory outcome. Thincat (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
13 April 2016
Template:Important concept
- Template:Important concept (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This template is not meet to G6, and this is it is different from Template:Policy. Also, English Wikipedia's important concept (ex POV) has long history, with significance. The other language's concept is learned from English version. So I would like to appeal and I hope this template is kept. Thank you. Shwangtianyuan Happy Chinese New Year to everyone 03:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment from deleting admin: This template was created on April 1 by the filer, and nominated for deletion on April 3. I deleted it on the basis of this TfD, which shows clear consensus for deletion, and in which the filer's comments indicated a certain degree of inexperience with what DRV is for. It was used, apparently, to tag the "five pillars" pages. Creating the template was a good-faith effort to be helpful, but it's unnecessary, and there's no procedural reason to overturn. Shwangtianyuan, thanks for your efforts, but the English Wikipedia has a well-developed template ecosystem, especially for tags that appear at the top of high-profile pages. In the future it would be better to make the suggestion on talk pages first if you think a new tag is needed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse clear consensus to delete in the TFD. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 06:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse in line with the consensus at the TFD, but for the sake of efficient and effective logging, undelete and redelete with a link to the TFD rather than a G6 speedy deletion note. As the lister was already advised of at the TFD discussion, DRV is not a venue to re-argue the TFD; we only assess whether the process was followed correctly. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- I see an undeclared NAC by Izkala (talk · contribs). Izkala, please declare all non-admin closes you do. Deleting admin, Opabinia regalis, would you mind countersigning the TfD. It will then be a clean endorse. There does seem to be a consensus against willy nilly templates, unlike in the early days. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- I must've not got the memo on declaring non-admin closures. Izkala (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's recommended. By me, at least. It was a good close. Other little points: It would be good if you gave a little explanation in the close, not your own opinion but the gist of the discussion, as there was at least one person who didn't get it. And, maybe don't close discussions while your user_talk is tagged with "retired". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- In the interest of treating all people equally, I'd rather not mark my closures as NACs and encourage other non-admins not to either. (Which they don't, generally.) Possibly, but writing up a summary's not something that's usually done when there's a clear-cut consensus and no more than a couple hundred words were exchanged. I should've probably left a note for Shwangtianyuan but hindsight's 20/20. I don't see what the point of countersigning the closure would be. Izkala (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- SmokeyJoe, NACs at TfD are well-established common practice at this point, and are actually a majority of closures; it hasn't been routine to label them as such for a long time. There are so few DRVs of TfD closes that it hasn't really been an issue. I do usually try to link the discussion in the deletion log when processing these, though, and apparently either forgot or failed at copy and paste in this case. Stifle, I guess I could restore and re-delete with the link in the log, but I'm not convinced there's much use given that the author knows the reason and is the only person who used the template. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- It sounds like a decay from ideal standards has become the norm at TfD. In these circumstances, you should expect some dissatisfaction with process. Shwangtianyuan is not right, but is he the only one confused or dissatisfied with the process? I do recommend that Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions be well respected, including use of the {{nac}} template in all non-admin closes. This reminds all that a non-admin is playing the role of an administrator and that the NAC closer holds the behavioral standard described at Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability (aka WP:ADMINACCT). This makes it awkward to have a retired user closing discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Shwangtianyuan appears to be confused neither by my status nor degree of accountability. They are confused by process in general; and they'd have been equally confused had an admin closed the debate. Your dissatisfaction with my conduct and the conduct of other TfD closers is not apposite. Izkala (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: I've been closing the majority of stuff at TfD for a while now. Personally, I don't use NAC for TfD closes because they're not considered abnormal (alternatively, I have started using it for closing RfCs, where the expectation is that an admin will close). If anything, an administrator close of a TfD is abnormal at this point. Based on zero evidence but a lot of experience, I'd say admins close less than 5% of TfD discussions over the past several months. And I second that the confusion here is in the DRV process in general, which you can see in the use of words like "appeal" in multiple places. I tried to explain this at the TfD so he wouldn't be in for a shock at DRV, but it doesn't appear to have worked. ~ RobTalk 23:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- To add to this, the NAC process at TfD has been up and running for nine months now, involving hundreds of closes by probably a dozen or so non-admins experienced in working with templates and the TfD process. For most of that time I've been the only admin following TfD even a little, so just about every disputed case comes across my talk page eventually. Neither confusion nor lack of accountability has been a source of problems. (Low participation in the discussions has been, though...hint hint...) Oh, and you're right that Izkala should get rid of the retired template, but for reasons other than hypothetical awkwardness ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- It sounds like a decay from ideal standards has become the norm at TfD. In these circumstances, you should expect some dissatisfaction with process. Shwangtianyuan is not right, but is he the only one confused or dissatisfied with the process? I do recommend that Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions be well respected, including use of the {{nac}} template in all non-admin closes. This reminds all that a non-admin is playing the role of an administrator and that the NAC closer holds the behavioral standard described at Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability (aka WP:ADMINACCT). This makes it awkward to have a retired user closing discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- SmokeyJoe, NACs at TfD are well-established common practice at this point, and are actually a majority of closures; it hasn't been routine to label them as such for a long time. There are so few DRVs of TfD closes that it hasn't really been an issue. I do usually try to link the discussion in the deletion log when processing these, though, and apparently either forgot or failed at copy and paste in this case. Stifle, I guess I could restore and re-delete with the link in the log, but I'm not convinced there's much use given that the author knows the reason and is the only person who used the template. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- In the interest of treating all people equally, I'd rather not mark my closures as NACs and encourage other non-admins not to either. (Which they don't, generally.) Possibly, but writing up a summary's not something that's usually done when there's a clear-cut consensus and no more than a couple hundred words were exchanged. I should've probably left a note for Shwangtianyuan but hindsight's 20/20. I don't see what the point of countersigning the closure would be. Izkala (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's recommended. By me, at least. It was a good close. Other little points: It would be good if you gave a little explanation in the close, not your own opinion but the gist of the discussion, as there was at least one person who didn't get it. And, maybe don't close discussions while your user_talk is tagged with "retired". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- I must've not got the memo on declaring non-admin closures. Izkala (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- I also want to thank Shwangtianyuan for their contributions. Fortunately or unfortunately, this is how decision-making works on Wikipedia. Izkala (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Relist This is a potentially significant template, and would merit wider discussion. There is indeed a practice that non-admins should not close potentially controversial XfDs, and I think this is potentially of such sufficient potential controversy, that closing the discussion without relisting for additional input was not correct. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse (non-administrator comment). Consensus here was extremely clear. It's also unfair to put this on Opabinia regalis, who merely enacted the closure by an experienced non-admin following orphaning. The filer is viewing this as an appeal of the community's decision, not a review of the close, which is not how DRV works. ~ RobTalk 23:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Of course the deleting admin's action is being reviewed, peripherally. Endorse. The only comments to offer are advice on how to do things better. Resistance to taking onboard advice is actually the biggest concern at this point. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I wasn't the closer here, but I'm happy to take on advice. I consider the NAC template a double-edged sword. Where non-admin closures are unexpected, it can be useful, but generally, I think it just contributes to the misconception that adminship is a "leader" role that has more "authority". It is not. They just have some extra tools. So I do use the NAC template, but I try to evaluate where it's really needed. For instance, I used a non-admin template here mostly to indicate I came here by being involved in the discussion, not as an uninvolved administrator, which is undoubtedly useful information. ~ RobTalk 00:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- You have a peculiar tendency to phrase your thoughts in the passive voice. Are you an authority on whether non-admins oughta scribble 'nac' next to their name? I've listened to your advice and offered my opinion on it. Izkala (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yep, whoever pressed the button is on the hook for it... ;) SmokeyJoe, thanks for your suggestions, but I think you're getting feedback on your feedback from people who have a lot of experience in this particular little corner of Wikipedia's cobwebby subbasement and have a good sense of the practicalities. TfD is badly in need of more participation, and IIRC you've been involved in a lot of MfD stuff, so if you're interested in joining us you'd be welcome. (I made it sound so appealing, didn't I?) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Opabinia, I'm a sucker for calls for help, and hilariously guess what the first TfD I found easily comprehensible enough for a quick !vote. I have rarely ventured into TfD, possibly because all the acronyms there put me off, but probably because my impression has been that the people there know well what they are doing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm giving it a go of using the {{nac}} template. My big concern is always someone coming along reverting simply on that basis, which is against community consensus on how non-admin closes should be handled. But in all fairness, there's no sense in ignoring Joe's good faith suggestion, so I'll give it a whirl around the block and see how it runs. If I see a sudden uptick in people questioning the obvious closes I make, then I'll probably switch back. ~ RobTalk 02:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Only an admin is allowed to revert it (barring very good reason). The only downside might be that, with the RfA recruitment drive, you flag yourself as a target. An advantage is that it provides a link to helpful pages on the subject of NACing.
- NB. This is all quite tangential friendly opinion-based advice, sprouting I should say from my inability to say anything else about the close. Apart from: "good close". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Of course the deleting admin's action is being reviewed, peripherally. Endorse. The only comments to offer are advice on how to do things better. Resistance to taking onboard advice is actually the biggest concern at this point. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse. The close accurately reflected the discussion, which was pretty clear in its consensus. I don't see the NAC as being a factor here in any way. Thparkth (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
12 April 2016
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I believe this should not have been closed by a non-admin. This is the 3rd nomination, we MUST get it right this time. Apologies if I'm wrong. Regards, Aloha27 talk 12:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Recent discussions
9 April 2016
2014 Ukrainian coup
- 2014 Ukrainian coup (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Western media is biased since they typically would not favor another geopolitical rival such as Russia. Moreover, it can be seen as a coup as there were many violent individuals who occupied government buildings and attacked the Berkut. It was a coup since it was the threat of violence that caused Viktor Yanukovych to flee. It is hard for me not to see it as a "coup".
Victoria Nuland had plans to appoint a new prime minister, indicating that she had influence over the course of events.
It is correct that it is POV to say that it is coup and that this is the position of Russian state media, but it is also disingenuous on the part of Western media to largely ignore the violence on the Maidan and the role of far-right militants. Also, it is not "fringe" to say that it is a "coup", but it is a fairly unorthodox view in the West.LinkinPark (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Relist. Unless there is another RfD that I'm not seeing, the only discussion was about "Ukrainian Coup" which has potentially multiple vs. "2014 Ukrainian coup" which is clear although POV. We should probably have a redirect from whatever this event is called in the official Russian media, but that's a discussion for RfD. Hopefully with the citation of sources in English, Ukrainian, or Russian and a discussion of their reliability etc. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- endorse I think the names are close enough and the discussion at the RfD wouldn't have changed if 2014 had been attached. That said, if non-fringe sources can be found that give it this name, I'd support recreation. But I'm only finding the fringe of the fringe. Hobit (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think it is unfair that RT would be described as "fringe of the "fringe". Here are some other sources that call it a "coup":
- https://www.rt.com/news/233163-ukraine-maidan-february-timeline/
- http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/05/chronology-of-the-ukrainian-coup/
- http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2014/02/28/commentary/world-commentary/ukrainian-coup-is-not-a-revolution/#.Vwiawnq3pAJ
- http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/24/a_coup_or_a_revolution_ukraine
- I think it is unfair that RT would be described as "fringe of the "fringe". Here are some other sources that call it a "coup":
Western mainstream media is not calling it a "coup", but it is also a legitimate viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LinkinPark (talk • contribs) 21:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Those are better than I found. I'll admit to thinking of rt as nothing other than a mouthpiece of the government and so not to be taken seriously. But as much as I think Ted R.'s politics are, well, very much on the fringe, he does have a pretty big soapbox. So I think we are still down to PR pieces and fringe sources. I'm probably biased (Westerner that I am), so I've no objections to my endorse being taken weakly. Hobit (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- These are nothing more than opinion pieces, and opinion pieces are not suitable for determining notability (WP:NEWSORG). RGloucester — ☎ 13:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Notability isn't the bar for a redirect. Reasonable search term is. And if it's being somewhat commonly used, even in passing, we should have the redirect. But I don't see that anything has changed since the RfD, so net effect I agree with you on the outcome if not the reasoning. Hobit (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- These are nothing more than opinion pieces, and opinion pieces are not suitable for determining notability (WP:NEWSORG). RGloucester — ☎ 13:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Those are better than I found. I'll admit to thinking of rt as nothing other than a mouthpiece of the government and so not to be taken seriously. But as much as I think Ted R.'s politics are, well, very much on the fringe, he does have a pretty big soapbox. So I think we are still down to PR pieces and fringe sources. I'm probably biased (Westerner that I am), so I've no objections to my endorse being taken weakly. Hobit (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- There is no evidence of common use in reliable sources, because it isn't commonly used. We should not have redirects for terms that are not commonly used, except for in non-RS opinion pieces. RGloucester — ☎ 15:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Overturn speedy, more plausible search term, not sufficiently identical. That said, I am not confident that the original, undated redirect should be restored (and there's no request to do that) even though the consensus to delete it was rather weak. Specificity is good here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse, G4 deletion was correct, DRV is not RFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Relist at AfD. 2 years ago is long enough for another axfd to be appropriate for an event of this sort. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- I must add that what I am requesting is equivalent to the redirect of "Liberation of Saigon" to the article "Fall of Saigon". Of course, the West likely sees the world from the latter instead of the former, but at least Wikipedia acknowledges the former. Also, I think this is appeal worthy because it seems to me that the reasons for deletion in the prior RfD was not sound as there are some credible sources that refer to the event as a "coup" and to believe it is a "coup" is a reasonable belief. I do not think it is "fringe" to say that the culmination of the Euromaidan protests was a coup, any more than it is "fringe" to say that the People's Army of Vietnam "liberated" Saigon. LinkinPark (talk) 10:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Nonsense comparison. "Coup" is a word with a stable definition, i.e. a sudden violent overthrow of a government. This is objectively did not happen. Purposely misrepresenting facts to cast this event as a coup is propaganda, nothing more. "Liberation", on the other hand, does not have a stable definition, as what is a liberation is inherently different based on who is the subject of the liberation. There are a many people that could validly construe the "Liberation of Saigon" as the "Liberation of Saigon", but no one could validly construe the Ukrainian revolution of 2014 as a "coup". Regardless this is all WP:OR. We follow reliable sources, and WP:RS do not call this event a "coup", and neither do we. It seems that you are content to drag Wikipedia into an information war, and this is not something that is ever in the interest of the encylopaedia. We do not need to create a false balance here (see WP:BALASPS). RGloucester — ☎ 13:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- There was a violent overthrow of the Azarov government. Do you deny that there were violent "activists" who were discontent with the compromise Yanukovych offered and threatened further violence if he did not resign? This violence caused Yanukovych to flee. Unlike the Revolution against Marcos, for instance there was considerable violence here. Even the word "coup" does not have a "stable" definition, since "bloodless" can be an adjective for "coup". LinkinPark (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- There was no violent overthrow of anything. The president fled the country of his own volition. No one had "threatened him with violence". Talk about WP:OR in the extreme. RS scholarly sources do not call this coup. RGloucester — ☎ 15:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- This is from the article in question:
- Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh rejected the agreement, saying, "We have to state the obvious fact that the criminal regime had not yet realised either the gravity of its evil doing." He noted that the agreement did not include provisions for the arrest of Interior Minister Zakharchenko; the punishing of Berkut commanders alleged to have been involved in the murder of civilians; the removal of the general prosecutor and defence minister; a ban on the Party of Regions and Communist Party; and guarantees of safety for those involved in the opposition. He called for the "people's revolution" to continue until power had been completely removed from the governing authorities.[176] Euromaidan leader Andriy Parubiy insisted that elections be held as soon as possible and reiterated that one of the main demands of protesters had been the resignation of President Yanukovych.[196] Automaidan also announced that it would not accept anything short of Yanukovych's resignation.[197]
- There was no violent overthrow of anything. The president fled the country of his own volition. No one had "threatened him with violence". Talk about WP:OR in the extreme. RS scholarly sources do not call this coup. RGloucester — ☎ 15:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- There was a violent overthrow of the Azarov government. Do you deny that there were violent "activists" who were discontent with the compromise Yanukovych offered and threatened further violence if he did not resign? This violence caused Yanukovych to flee. Unlike the Revolution against Marcos, for instance there was considerable violence here. Even the word "coup" does not have a "stable" definition, since "bloodless" can be an adjective for "coup". LinkinPark (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nonsense comparison. "Coup" is a word with a stable definition, i.e. a sudden violent overthrow of a government. This is objectively did not happen. Purposely misrepresenting facts to cast this event as a coup is propaganda, nothing more. "Liberation", on the other hand, does not have a stable definition, as what is a liberation is inherently different based on who is the subject of the liberation. There are a many people that could validly construe the "Liberation of Saigon" as the "Liberation of Saigon", but no one could validly construe the Ukrainian revolution of 2014 as a "coup". Regardless this is all WP:OR. We follow reliable sources, and WP:RS do not call this event a "coup", and neither do we. It seems that you are content to drag Wikipedia into an information war, and this is not something that is ever in the interest of the encylopaedia. We do not need to create a false balance here (see WP:BALASPS). RGloucester — ☎ 13:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Vitali Klitschko apologised to the crowd on Independence Square after shaking hands with Yanukovych.[198] Protesters there responded to the deal by booing opposition leaders. Activist Volodymyr Parasiuk warned from the stage that if Yanukovych did not resign by 10:00 the next day, an armed coup would be staged.[199] Oleh Lyashko echoed the demand, saying, "Either he resigns, or we take him away." Outside of Kiev, it was later discovered that the summer home of pro-Russian politician Viktor Medvedchuk had been set on fire.[200]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- By late afternoon, hundreds of riot police officers guarding the presidential compound and nearby government buildings had vanished.[195] Radosław Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister, described the withdrawal of forces as "astonishing", noting that it was not part of the agreement.[201] The riot police had begun withdrawing early in the morning because they feared that Yanukovych's government would pin the responsibility for the violence on them, and because they feared being attacked after protesters stole around 1,200 pistols and Kalashnikov rifles from the police on 18 February during the occupation of government buildings in Lviv.[195] [emphasis mine] — Preceding unsigned comment added by LinkinPark (talk • contribs) 16:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Wikipedia is not a reliable source. In the event, an armed coup was not staged, no matter what one singular activist said at a time prior to the event. No reliable sources say that an "armed coup" took place. Furthermore, we cannot verify this so-called "activist's" statement, as the article it comes from isn't in English. Furthermore, The New York Times article says that there has been no evidence of any of these "stolen guns" having been used by anyone, or of them even having been sent to Kiev. It does not say anything about a "coup" either. Again, total WP:OR. Regardless, this is total speculative rubbish. No reliable scholarly sources say anything about a coup, and those are the only sources that matter here. Speculation on your part about what does or doesn't constitute a coup does not justify a redirect supported by no reliable sources. RGloucester — ☎ 17:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- By late afternoon, hundreds of riot police officers guarding the presidential compound and nearby government buildings had vanished.[195] Radosław Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister, described the withdrawal of forces as "astonishing", noting that it was not part of the agreement.[201] The riot police had begun withdrawing early in the morning because they feared that Yanukovych's government would pin the responsibility for the violence on them, and because they feared being attacked after protesters stole around 1,200 pistols and Kalashnikov rifles from the police on 18 February during the occupation of government buildings in Lviv.[195] [emphasis mine] — Preceding unsigned comment added by LinkinPark (talk • contribs) 16:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Endorse – "Ukrainian coup" does not exist as a plausible search term. No one calls this event a coup (and it isn't a coup by any definition), except for a fringe that is not relevant to Wikipedia. We do not endorse neologisms and political catchphrases merely because someone uses them in one editorial. That'd be giving WP:UNDUE weight to a fringe theory. RGloucester — ☎ 13:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse. Although I would have called "no consensus", "delete" was within admin discretion. Personally, I find the POV cries overblown, and "Ukrainian coup" is demonstrably a functional search term. On the other hand, the Wikipedia search engine was improved years ago, and these redirects are no longer needed to assist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
6 April 2016
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
User suggested speedy delete with claim that this category is a duplicate of a previously deleted category Israeli companies operating in the occupied territories. The previous category concerns companies operating in a location. The category I was working on relates to organizations effected by an ongoing public event. Each company in this category already has matured content, not contributed by me, that clarify that specific company relation to the BDS event. I felt it would be generally useful for a category to exist that list all companies effected by this event. I did not see this issue address in the claimed duplicate category or its discussion. I'm perfectly okay to be told I am wrong. I would also find it completely reasonable to suggest a consensus be built but I would request this take place in a separate discussion from the older (6 year old) unrelated Israeli_companies_operating_in_the_occupied_territories category discussion. Note: that I have spoken with the administrator that eventually approved the speedy delete, whom has been helpful in pointing me to different Wikimedia guidelines to help me better contribute to the wiki community, including suggesting that I could request a deletion review here. Cyphunk (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
5 April 2016
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
AJ Lee and Kaitlyn (wrestler) are both obviously individually both very notable (AJ having longest cumulative Diva's title reign, Kaitlyn having also won the title) but I believe their team is notable too and I don't think it got due consideration in 2016. It seems strange that it gets retained on Spanish Wikipedia while removed here. DJ8946 mentioned feuds which I think were prematurely dismissed. Feuds with other teams are not entirely what a stable is about, either. Bella Twins for example got much of their exposure simply by being arm-candy for Daniel Bryan and Raw GMs for a couple years. For example Kaitlyn and AJ re-united their team in 2011 as "Mo Sistas" seen here to promote prostate cancer awareness. Ranze (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
4 April 2016
Graffiki
User:Abstractmindzent/Graffiki was moved to Graffiki (move summary- "move to mainspace to subject to AfD to test notability- claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying", deletion discussion- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graffiki, and quote- "Users claim GNG can not be tested at MfD so bringing here for discussion.") A user moved content from the userspace to the mainspace, then subsequently nominated it for deletion. That is something that wouldn't be done if one believed the content was suitable for the mainspace (i.e. meeting the core content policies), which is required for the move. They also stated, as shown in the above quotes and links I provided, that their intent was to thwart the standards of another deletion forum (WP:AfD has higher standards than MfD which would have been the proper forum to seek deletion for a userspace page) and the opinions of others within the community. That is GAMESMANSHIP. This deletion review should in no way reflect on the deleting administrator, as their actions were completely reasonable, and backed up by community consensus. The content should be restored to User:Abstractmindzent/Graffiki. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse There is no reason to think the article was going to be improved. If the subject is not notable then why keep it around? If anyone wants to bring this article up to standards they can do so, but the original author is unlikely to come back. Drafts are for making articles, if we are not going to make an article from it then why are we trying to save it? HighInBC 03:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Also the nom made it clear that the move happened, a consensus to delete formed with the knowledge available, and an admin closed based on that consensus. There was not end run, or tricking anyone, the voters were informed. HighInBC 14:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn We don't move someone else's draft into mainspace to "test notability" or because other things are "too annoying". Hobit (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Closer's comment: I don't think this is properly a topic for DRV, because what is sought is in essence a review of the move from draft to main space. That would be something for WP:Move review, or other dispute resolution. DRV reviews only deletion decisions, not what happened before the decision to nominate something for deletion – and as the filer writes, the deletion decision was consistent with consensus in the AfD. The argument that the prior move should have been an impediment to deletion is a valid argument against deletion that was in fact brought up in the AfD, but did not find consensus. It is not, in my view, a procedural defect of the AfD itself that would warrant its review here. Sandstein 11:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'll claim that the argument someone else's work was moved to mainspace for the purpose of deletion is a _really_ strong argument and should have overcome all but an extremely strong numeric consensus to delete. Instead what we have is only the mover and one other person even discussing the issue, the other 2 focused on GNG. Northamerica1000's !vote happened before the issue was even discussed, so pinging. Hobit (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Hobit: That ping to Northamerica1000 didn't go through, you accidently used "["s instead of "{"s and linked to ping. Pinged them for you. Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'll claim that the argument someone else's work was moved to mainspace for the purpose of deletion is a _really_ strong argument and should have overcome all but an extremely strong numeric consensus to delete. Instead what we have is only the mover and one other person even discussing the issue, the other 2 focused on GNG. Northamerica1000's !vote happened before the issue was even discussed, so pinging. Hobit (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn and restore to its original place. Legacypac is doing good work identifying viable articles among stale userspace drafts, but has a problematic attitude to unsuitable ones: there is a clear consensus not to delete solely for being stale, and he is deliberately attempting to defeat that consensus by propounding a theory, held by nobody else, that mainspace standards apply in userspace. When this is not supported at MfD, he is moving drafts into mainspace with the express intention of getting them deleted - see the edit summary "claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying" quoted above, and more recently "It is exceptionally hard to get them deleted at MfD especially for lack of notability, but in mainspace A7 etc can be applied." [4] These persistent attempts to defeat consensus are becoming disruptive, and should not be allowed to succeed. JohnCD (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn the AfD and move it back into userspace. Moving something into another namespace just so you can apply some deletion criterion is disruptive gaming the system. I would go further in saying that moving something to mainspace when you know it isn't suitable for mainspace is acting in bad faith. I don't see why we can't just follow WP:STALEDRAFT for it. Hut 8.5 20:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I've temporarily restored the contents so people can see what is being discussed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- But bear in mind that this discussion is not about the content of the page, but about whether it was properly deleted after Legacypac moved it to mainspace and nominated it for deletion at AfD by mainspace standards, because he thought it "too annoying" that likely consensus at MfD meant he would not be able to get it deleted there. JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- That's one view. I understood HighInBD's comment to be related to the content itself so I think that is needed for context to others. People can endorse or overturn just on the procedure or not. Otherwise, I'm staying out as I'd rather someone put all of the conduct together and do it as a wholesale reversal rather than bit pieces. Are you opposed to restoration? Ricky81682 (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn, not the fault of the AfD closer, but the page was an appropriate use of userspace for personal drafting or records, and, for any experienced Wikipedian, was obviously not suitable for mainspace. The userspace to mainspace move was disruptive gaming, openly done to avoid clear community consensus that the WP:N standards are not for applying as deletion reasons for userpages. WP:DRV is well-used to review more general abuses of the deletion process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion this was a clearly stated test case for another way to handle stale unsuitable drafts after several editors were voting to keep all kinds of nonsense - indefinately - regardless of it's value to the project. It was hardly a surprise either - I said I would do a test case. Other test cases at MfD have shown that when userspace garbage [5] is exposed to a wider range of editors (from an ANi link for example) there is resounding concensus to delete. Faced with various arguments that stuff labeled a draft does not need to pass GNG, V, or any other standard this article was picked as an example to take to AfD instead of MfD. There is no policy that says a person can't move to main and AfD and despite attempts at ANI by Godsy and a couple others to have me sanctioned for moving this article, there is no consensus that the move was not permitted by policy. The lack of policy against the move is confirmed by JohnCD's recent attempt to draft such a policy. Bringing this to DRV is just forum shopping after they failed at ANi to demonstrate a real problem. This should be closed with the disruption by Godsy noted. Legacypac (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Obviously I disagree, but a couple points of clarification: Your actions were brought to AN/I by another user, you proceeded start a different section questioning my cleanup of page moves you preformed that were clearly inappropriate (I can clearly show a large group of the moves were inappropriate upon request). If the latter boomerangs against you, it is your own fault. This is the proper forum for a review of the deletion, I never joined in on the call to have you sanctioned, and I've clearly demonstrated problems with several of your moves (as I've done with the one in question here above). Many of your moves were in clear violation of WP:STALEDRAFT.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- You actively sought and failed to get sanctions against me at ANi. I find your attempt to restore comtent that should be deleted to be stupid, wrong headed, disruptive, and totally WP:NOTHERE for you are not trying to improve the encyclopedia but enforce your preferred version of bureaucracy. I repeat this DRV is just forum shopping and an attempt to attack my work yet again. Legacypac (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Obviously I disagree, but a couple points of clarification: Your actions were brought to AN/I by another user, you proceeded start a different section questioning my cleanup of page moves you preformed that were clearly inappropriate (I can clearly show a large group of the moves were inappropriate upon request). If the latter boomerangs against you, it is your own fault. This is the proper forum for a review of the deletion, I never joined in on the call to have you sanctioned, and I've clearly demonstrated problems with several of your moves (as I've done with the one in question here above). Many of your moves were in clear violation of WP:STALEDRAFT.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- The fact that there's no policy explicitly saying something is unacceptable doesn't mean it is fine. There's no policy saying I can't delete any article I want by moving it to my userspace and then applying WP:CSD#U1, but I would expect serious consequences if I tried that. Hut 8.5 07:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn although this is not to criticise the closer. I am completely unconvinced by arguments that a page would be properly deleted if it were in a different namespace and so I am sure that cross-namespace moves can be abusive. Hut has boldly suggested one abuse (which I have seen used) and there are several other ways of disappearing pages you don't like. I can see that many of Legacypac's moves have been helpful but this one was seriously harmful. Sadly, I think in future closers will have to inspect to see if such a move has been made before they delete - sometimes the page will need to be restored to its earlier place and relisted. I doubt whether WP:Move review would be effective for a deleted file - I expect they would kick the matter here. Thincat (talk) 09:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn, that's an end-run around process if ever I've seen one. Move back to userspace and MFD if desired. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturnand restore to draftspace. Out-of-process. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn and move back to user space (and, optionally, relist at MFD). I can't fault the close, since it reflects the discussion, but the whole thing is just wrong. As I've said before, I see no harm in leaving stale userspace drafts around forever. But, that's not the real issue here. The real issue is that moving a user draft to mainspace just so you can apply a different rule and delete it is gaming the system. And, to go back to the first issue, I really don't understand this war on user drafts. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not play stupid wiki-lawyer games. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Some people, namely Ricky81682, assisted enthusiastically by Legacypac, want to clear the list of apparent abandoned drafts. Tens of thousands. This includes the admirable tasks of cleaning out NOTWEBHOST violations by noncontributors (CSD#U5), and moving mainspace worthy material to mainspace. The problem is their impatience with things in the middle, drafts with potential but not currently mainspace ready. MfD is not happy to delete them. Consensus is clear the WP:N is not a deletion reason in userspace. The case is not made that anything should be done with old userpages containing draft material with possible potential. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-
Inappropriate comment struck, withdrawn and collapsed. Apologies for the heated response. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC) |
---|
|
-
-
-
-
- Someone asked for a quick history.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Were you, or were you not, working, within Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts as the biggest encourager, towards the elimination of the abandoned draft list, including userspace? Deletion of the crap, great, promotion of mainspace-ready stuff to mainspace, great. The problem was, and is, no allowance for the pages not in either group.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Have you not encouraged Legacypac in WP:GAMING, by suggesting WP:GAME strategies directly to him? "Enable" was a carefully chosen word, I consider it appropriate and accurate. Sorry you don't like it, but it effectively called out the behaviour, and subsequently the behaviour has changed. It is a nuanced word that does not necessarily imply actual wrong doing.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- At MfD you are indeed special. Especially late 2015. In the WikiProject, you encouraged processing of the 50K list of pages to delete or promote, you were dong most of the MfD nominations, you were agitating against "no consensus" due to no participation defaulting to keep, and then you began indiscriminate relisting effectively pushing your agenda that MfD must deal with these borderline valuable drafts on your time scale. Relisting is a waste of time, messes up the review process, but at least the subsequent relisters don't have a background agenda. And I have dropped it because there was a much worse game afoot.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- "nonsensical conspiracy theories about massively coordinated organized plans to destroy all of userspace"? There is a clear objective at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts, with minimal coordination, to work down a list to eliminate all userpages of Wikipedians on long wikibreak. This is true, setting aside the diversion of the set of crap pages (agreed, a large set) and the set of pages worthy of immediate promotion. Since calling out this reckless WikiProject outcome, the behaviour has changed, borderline things are now being moved to DraftSpace.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The one exception to a pleasing change in behaviour is Legacypac refusing to admit that moving an unsuitable for mainspace page to mainspace to have it tested by the tougher requirements of AfD over MfD is not OK. That directly relates to this DRV discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Comment People keep saying they can't fault the close, but that is what we are here to review. We are not here to decide on deletion practices, we are not here to settle the underlying move/delete debate. We are here to decide if the closure was correct. So if you can't fault the close then don't overturn it. I will point out that the XfD mentioned the move, and there was still a consensus to delete it. Nobody was tricked into voting delete, it was clear as day in the nom. I expect this to be closed as overturn given the numbers, but I think it will be a reflection on an outside issue rather than an examination on how well consensus was measured. HighInBC 14:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Self-endorse but relist. After consideration of the above opinions, I think I should say explicitly that I'd endorse my own closure, purely on procedural grounds, because I don't see on which basis, consensus or policy, I could have closed the discussion differently. If we are of the view that moves in order to change the deletion forum are improper, which I think I broadly agree with, then we'd need to clearly codify that as a policy or guideline, because only that would allow an administrator to override a "delete" consensus in circumstances such as this. If we don't do that, then this argument needs to be brought up in every AfD, and must convince the participants of the AfD, like every other argument for keeping or deleting.
But this is now in essence a new discussion on the merits about the "keep" argument that the prior move was improper. Because DRV isn't supposed to be AfD round two, that discussion should take place at AfD. Therefore I suggest relisting the discussion, which was in any case sparse and could benefit from additional input, and let a probable consensus to keep emerge from the proper forum. Sandstein 16:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- No opposition by me to relisting as suggested by Sandstein. HighInBC 21:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- AfD is the wrong venue. It belongs at MfD. What would be the right venue if someone moved an article to their user space and then deleted via U1? Are you claiming because that's not specifically prevented, it's okay? Hobit (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- At the same time, you can vote at AFD to userify the draft so why is that wrong? In MFD, we can vote to mainspace the draft. Why (a) overturn, (b) move and (c) relist when a relisting at AFD is the same? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, the option to re-userfy was available at AfD, but that is not the opinion that gained consensus. HighInBC 21:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- At the same time, you can vote at AFD to userify the draft so why is that wrong? In MFD, we can vote to mainspace the draft. Why (a) overturn, (b) move and (c) relist when a relisting at AFD is the same? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- AfD was the wrong venue. The move to mainspace was not OK. Yes, it could possibly be argued to be a matter within scope of WP:Move review, but as a WP:GAME directed at deletion, it is squarely within scope of DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Sandstein: if you self-endorse, does that mean you would act in an identical way if this situation recurred? If not, and considering your opinion above ("moves in order to change the deletion forum are improper, which I think I broadly agree with"), what would you do differently? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I can't speak for Sandstein, but as an admin I could not have closed that AfD any other way. There was a clear consensus and those who participated were aware of the circumstances. To have closed it another way would have been disregarding consensus. HighInBC 15:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- It was hardly a clear consensus, if you look again at the AfD. Out of the two delete voters, Northamerica1000 and SwisterTwister they were clear that the content did not belong in mainspace, but they did not indicate in their reasoning that they knew the article had been moved to mainspace 3 minutes prior to the AfD being opened. The one editor who was aware, A2soup, commented appropriately and following that, I suggest, would have been the common sense route to closing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Common sense does not work well in situations where people are split on how things should be done. When that is the case the common sense of an admin has the danger of becoming a super vote. The fact is people don't agree on this, therefore the sense isn't common. HighInBC 16:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- It was hardly a clear consensus, if you look again at the AfD. Out of the two delete voters, Northamerica1000 and SwisterTwister they were clear that the content did not belong in mainspace, but they did not indicate in their reasoning that they knew the article had been moved to mainspace 3 minutes prior to the AfD being opened. The one editor who was aware, A2soup, commented appropriately and following that, I suggest, would have been the common sense route to closing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I can't speak for Sandstein, but as an admin I could not have closed that AfD any other way. There was a clear consensus and those who participated were aware of the circumstances. To have closed it another way would have been disregarding consensus. HighInBC 15:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment as others noted, there was no trickery here - the move was disclosed. If someone was unhappy with the move they had a whole week to participate in the AfD. This should not be AfD round 2. No policy based reasons have been given to overturn and no one thinks the content has any value. Legacypac (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Have you read Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy? This comes to mind. Hobit (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- It was hardly hidden. HighInBC 04:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Have you read Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy? This comes to mind. Hobit (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- If Legacypac's actions are justifiable (by the result), then doesn't it mean that nominations to delete drafts should go to AfD all the time. The main advantages to this I immediately see is that [:Template:Find sources AFD] is always used, and the usually understanding that the deletion decision applies to the topic, not to the current state of the page, and that the decision is sort of final. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Interesting points SmokeyJoe. MfD is good for clear cut cases that don't clearly fit a CSD. AfD might be better for borderline cases, especially since some editors refuse to consider N and V and even BLP at MfD. The world will not end if something borderline sits in mainspace for a week with a deletion discussion tag on it. More eyes at AfD and a pretty definitive result could be a good thing. Legacypac (talk) 06:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with not wanting to consider WP:N at MfD. Only a banned troll 166.x.x.x has been arguing WP:V is unimportant. Unverifiable topics are obviously bad drafts, WP:V is much easier to test than WP:N. Anyone arguing against applying WP:BLP at MfD has not read WP:BLP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn and return to original location per Hobit and others. User:Sandstein, you're really deserving of a trout for the reasoning... or lack of sufficiently nuanced reasoning. You've been around long enough; I know you know better. 1) We don't enumerate as prohibited every possible way to game the system per WP:BEANS. 2) Admins are expected to do the right thing absent specific policy guidance or previous community input on a matter. Legacypac's disruptive actions should have been stopped sooner and more forcefully by an admin willing to say "No, that's not a good faith reason for a move. Don't do it again." which could have--and likely should have--been you. So yes, this close does belong at DRV, because here is where we bring issues where the closer got it wrong, although this will have been the first time I think I've ever recommending overturning an AfD close because the closing admin failed to appropriately quash an attempt to game the deletion process via page move. Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Well, I disagree. This is a dispute mainly about user conduct regarding an issue that has to my knowledge not yet been settled through community discussion and consensus. It's definitively beyond my pay grade as AfD closer to authoritatively resolve that issue by overriding a consensus to delete. Otherwise I'd be justifiably accused of casting a supervote. My job as closer is only to determine consensus based on weighing arguments in the light of existing policies and guidelines. And unless consensus to disallow such moves is codified in a policy or guideline, I'd have to close another discussion with the same distribution of opinions in the same way. Sandstein 10:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- To the extent the issue was about the user conduct, then yes, it was indeed not your job as AfD closer to weigh in on the nominator's user conduct. And yes, I agree if you'd closed it as "keep" and left it in mainspace that would have been an inappropriate supervote and you would have gotten flak for that. What I am saying, however, is that those were not the only two options: If you had decided to move it back to its draft location without a redirect, you would have honored the numerical consensus, which no one here disagrees with, that the article in its current state is not suitable for mainspace, while at the same point rebuking the mover/nominator for GAMEing the system. Note that moving the article to mainspace removed it from the NOINDEX protection, solely for the purpose of FORUMSHOPing a deletion discussion. If you think you don't have the authority to fix that as an admin, I suggest you go read WP:IAR again. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- The afd close was correct on all counts. The article's unsuitable for mainspace, and condemning the move into mainspace doesn't mean we have to preemptively userfy it. If the original user or anybody else wants to try to salvage this, they can get a totally drama-free userfication or emailed copy at WP:REFUND. —Cryptic 13:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree with the WP:REFUND suggestion. Look at this from the point of view of the user. They do some work here, leave the project for a while (perhaps years), and come back to find the work they started is gone. They're not going to know that WP:REFUND even exists. All they're going to know is what they left here is no longer here. I agree with the triage idea. Stale drafts can be divided into three broad catagories:
- Those that violate some core policy, such as being a copyvio, wp:blp, wp:notwebhost, etc. Those are actively harmful, and should be removed. I don't see anybody objecting to that.
- Those which can be improved to the point where they can be moved into mainspace. That's clearly a win, and should be encouraged.
- All the rest, which are the contentious ones. They may have little or no value, but they also do no harm. We've got two camps here. One camp emphasizes the little or no value part, and wants to delete them. The other camp (where I am), emphasizes the do no harm part, and wants to just let them be. Sadly, no wide consensus on this has emerged in either direction, so we continue to have battles about it. It's wasteful that so much effort is going into this battle; consensus building isn't always pretty or efficient. But, this idea of moving a user draft to mainspace so you can apply a different set of rules to it crosses the line. That's no longer engaging in honest debate, and that's what's got me worked up. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Except in that 3rd case where people disagree we normally have a deletion discussion, like we did here. Then we close it based on the consensus found, like we did here. A consensus was reached but people disagree with it so we are having AfD #2 right here. Instead of looking at the validity of the close, we are instead rehashing arguments that should have been made at AfD. It bugs me when people don't pay attention to AfD then get upset at the results. HighInBC 15:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- If, against all odds, this deletion review ends up being closed as endorse, or (only a little more likely) it goes back to afd and gets deleted again instead of being userfied, it was my intention to leave a note on User talk:Abstractmindzent explaining how his draft got caught up in internal wikipoliticking and how to get it back. My point is, correcting the behavioral issues is a matter for the discussion at WP:ANI, where - as is par for the course there - nobody's commenting except those already party to the dispute and those who've taken only a very cursory look at its surface. Here at DRV, we have to be concerned about what's best for the article, and we don't userfy articles deleted at afd "just because", we do it when someone intends to improve them. Most of the comments above seem intended primarily to reprimand Legacypac and to reuserfy the article solely to spite him. That's not productive. —Cryptic 14:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I could not agree more. It seems like people are using whatever means to stop Legacypac rather than actually considering the content of the articles. The crap being defended here has no place on Wikipedia, the article will never meet our requirements and frankly I think politics are being put above the projects quality. There is a debate on the user talk policy page and that is the correct way to be advocating a position, not by trying to overturn a specific AfD in which everyone was aware of the situation. The recent ANI shows that there is no consensus this is against policy. HighInBC 15:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree with the WP:REFUND suggestion. Look at this from the point of view of the user. They do some work here, leave the project for a while (perhaps years), and come back to find the work they started is gone. They're not going to know that WP:REFUND even exists. All they're going to know is what they left here is no longer here. I agree with the triage idea. Stale drafts can be divided into three broad catagories:
-
-
-
- It's not a case of wanting to spite Legacypac, but of making clear to him that his tactic of doing an end-run around MfD by moving pages he wants deleted to mainspace where tighter conditions apply is gaming the system and not acceptable. He says above that he considers this "a clearly stated test case for another way to handle stale unsuitable drafts"; if the page stays deleted, he will consider himself vindicated and his test successful and will carry on doing it. JohnCD (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Actually the extensive discussion at ANI has failed to find a consensus that it is inappropriate. You will also find at the user talk policy page there is a discussion where people are disagreeing with your interpretation too. Perhaps a consensus will form in this area but it has not yet. HighInBC 15:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Endorse Having just read the text, it's a glowing endorsement of an utterly non-notable individual, created by a user with exactly one (1) edit, to wit, the creation of this endorsement. Apart from WP:PROMOTION, WP:NOTFACEBOOK and notability, this could easily be construed as a potential invasion of privacy and WP:BLP works in user-space, too and is not only applicable to the subject of the page, but also the people and bands who's names get not so casually dropped. (P.S. I don't give a rats ass about how it ended up here, but here it is.) Kleuske (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- To be honest, until just now, I hadn't even read the text of the original article. And, now that I have read it, I agree that it doesn't belong here, even in userspace. But, as several people have noted above, this isn't really about the article, it's about the process. This was set up as a test case of It's OK to move user drafts to main space in order to run them through the main space AfD process. If we endorse the AfD, we are endorsing the process, and that's what I don't want to do. It is valuable (and deliberate) that we have different standards for deleting things out of main space and user space. By endorsing this test, we would be removing that distinction. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Except that there is no process or rule that says this cannot be done. When looked at specifically at ANI no consensus formed it was disruptive, right now discussion is taking place on the user talk policy page and there is disagreement about how to address this lack of policy. Endorsing an AfD does not endorse a process because we work on consensus not precedent. Processes get accepted through discussion on policy and guideline pages. HighInBC 16:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- When somebody specifically puts something forth as a test case for process, then yes, endorsing the outcome does endorse the process. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I disagree. This DRV will not settle this issue regardless of how it is closed. This is supposed to be a discussion about one deletion, not the process. The result with surely not be binding. HighInBC 20:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Where the rules are not clear, policy tends to get established by precedent. If this DRV returns the page to userspace, the result of his "test case" should be clear to Legacypac: the route to deletion he wanted to use is not available. I would hope he would not then try it again, but if he did the resulting debate should be a good deal shorter than this one. JohnCD (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I think you will find that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS makes it cleat that this tiny little DRV is not going to settle a major policy debate. This is already being discussed at the relevant policy talk page, and I find the rehashing of it here to be redundant. If you really want to influence policy then the policy page is the place to do it, not at DRV. This is supposed to be about the merit of the close. HighInBC 03:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- @HighInBC: WP:STALEDRAFT describes how inactive drafts in the userspace should be handled. Unless you think the content was suitable for the mainspace (which would justify the move), it says "if of no potential and problematic even if blanked, seek deletion" pointing to MfD. Is there a reason those rules from that guideline do not apply to this situation?—Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- That guideline is doing exactly what it is supposed to, giving guidance. It is not an exhaustive list of all acceptable ways of going about business and it never claims to be. "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Nowhere does it prohibit other activity, nor does it claim to be the only way of doing things. It is not policy, it is a guideline. People are allowed to be bold and find other ways to improve the project. Perhaps instead of using the guideline as a limit, we should be adding this new idea to it. HighInBC 03:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn and relist at MfD after moving it back to its original location. ~ RobTalk 17:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- That's three steps essentially: (a) overturn AFD; (b) move back to userspace and (c) relist at MFD. Is there a reason why we couldn't just do this via another AFD? People do vote in AFD to draftify or userfiy and that can just be stated in the discussion to give a complete history. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Because relisting this at AfD would be endorsing the gamesmanship behind its being listed there in the first place.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. As RoySmith says above, we intentionally have different standards at AfD for deleting mainspace articles and at MfD for deleting userspace drafts. LP's game is to try to get AfD standards applied to things he can't get deleted at MfD. JohnCD (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes but you could argue to userify at AFD. The standard isn't deletion then. It's a different crowd of editors but the policies don't differ. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Notably, this is how A2soup did vote in the original discussion. Was that treated as wrong? Is there any reason other people couldn't do the same thing? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes but you could argue to userify at AFD. The standard isn't deletion then. It's a different crowd of editors but the policies don't differ. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- That's three steps essentially: (a) overturn AFD; (b) move back to userspace and (c) relist at MFD. Is there a reason why we couldn't just do this via another AFD? People do vote in AFD to draftify or userfiy and that can just be stated in the discussion to give a complete history. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment There is no GAME by me here and I did not even have to IAR. JohnCD (by trying to create a policy against such moves) has proved there is no policy or rule I broke. The never ending accusations at ANi have failed to show this move was forbidden. All we have is opinion that some people don't think it is a good idea and others see no problem with it.
Every current rule and process on the site was created or modified by someone trying something and starting a discussion. I was only trying out a potentially innovative solution to the issue that a handful of editors were voting Keep on absolute crap that it became pointless to send crap to MfD (due to low participation). AfD participation is much higher and harder to GAME. Maybe MfD is too much of a backwater and is too easy to manipulate so should be merged back into AfD?
WP:STALEDRAFT gives a range of options that each require discretion, and the options are not exclusive to those listed. "If X condition is met do Y" does not necessarily mean "If X condition is not met don't do Y+Z" The argument against a Move to Main+AfD boils down to "It's not in the guidelines" Well, go search the guidelines for something that even recommends a third editor request restoration of a junk deleted article back to userspace that they have no intention of working on (like this DRV). There is also no rule or guideline that says that Godsy should move pages on notable topics from mainspace to the userspace of long gone users instead of improving the articles, only to spite me (he could care less about the thousands of other unsourced articles in Wikipedia).
When an action is not specifically forbidden, we should ask if it helps the encyclopedia or not. We are here to help people, not host junk or give people a space to promote themselves. Legacypac (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Textbook wikilawyering. I reverted your inappropriate moves of content clearly not suitable for the mainspace per BRD.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- For a policy against what you are doing, see WP:FORUMSHOP: "It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want." JohnCD (talk) 09:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Textbook wikilawyering. I reverted your inappropriate moves of content clearly not suitable for the mainspace per BRD.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't really care about what procedure we use in the end. It is clear that we do not need this page, it is clear that its author did not stick around, and that it is not a live draft that needs to be kept around indefinitely. It is also clear that it was causing little or no harm in its original location. Blanking would probably have sufficed, but now that we are here, I suggest we continue abusing process and delete as WP:CSD#U5. Note that I oppose moving back to user space before deleting. —Kusma (t·c) 15:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn and return to draft or userspace, without prejudice to a future MfD. Or just blank it and leave a courtesy note for the user. This whole debacle was caused by the disruptive actions of one user trying to game the deletion policies. Minor trout awarded to the AfD closer for not applying some common sense and administrator discretion, which could have resolved this much less painfully. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- When people are divided on an issue like this then what you call common sense I call a super vote. The ANI discussion shows no consensus that this is gaming or disruptive, the policy talk page shows plenty of disagreement about how we should fill this lack of policy. It is hardly the place of a closing admin to take sides like that. For there to be common sense the sense must be common, when people disagree about something and then it ceases to be common sense and becomes taking a side. HighInBC 15:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment a relevant RfC has been opened at Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring. See particularly item B3 which is directly relevant to the issues raised here. JohnCD (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn and restore to userspace, without prejudice against a subsequent MfD discussion. Admonish Legacypac that this was a violation of WP:GAME and that a repetition will bring consequences. DES (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- @DESiegel: This happened at least twice, User:Kemdflp/richard d'anjolell (log) → Richard d'Anjolell, deletion nomination, restoration per User talk:Malcolmxl5#Richard d'Anjolell.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Overturn and restore to userspace. There is an appropriate notability related argument to use at MfD, which is that nobody is ever going to be likely to improve the article enough to pass AfD. If people agree, the draft can be deleted; if people don't. it remains. Even for G13 I am not really comfortable deleting unless I can also say something like: "and not likely to be improved" and I will adopt anything I think I can possibly rescue and work on it from time to time. There's a significant gap in our search system: people who might want to write an article cannot easily search to see if one has been deleted by G13 and can therefore be restored on request in order to be improved. While this remains the case, the bias should always be in the direction of retaining drafts, not deleting them. DGG ( talk ) 08:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Restore, I think is the phrasing I would prefer. "Overturn" has a whiff of disapproval about it which I don't think is appropriate here. The closer made no procedural error that I can point to, but as a result of an unusual sequence of events the process was circumvented in this case. Restoration gives us certainty that it will be followed.—S Marshall T/C 08:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note to closer: the RfC at Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring has still some time to run, but at sections B3 and B4 a very clear consensus is forming about the main issues discussed here. JohnCD (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
3 April 2016
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Deleted by Anthony Bradbury (talk · contribs) under WP:CSD#G2 (Test pages), which "does not apply to pages in the user namespace"; upon pointing this out, it was restored and immediately re-deleted under WP:CSD#G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion), which again does not apply as the page was not "exclusively promotional". Attempts to discuss the matter were not concluded to my satisfaction, see this thread. Redrose64 (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I do not see consensus for merge and redirect; the discussion was closed by a non-administrator who did not bother to give any explanations. Not a valid close.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Ymblanter (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
What is with the personal attacks again? Legacypac (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
- @RoySmith: I accept the trout, and feel free to remove my !vote if you think it wasn't allowable during a close, but I don't think you should be bringing up whatever I wrote on my user page about my expertise or lack thereof, just because I failed to remember that I am no longer in CET (UTC+1) but in CEST (UTC+2) due to recent introduction of daylight savings. I'm sure there are systems programmers who have committed graver sins. LjL (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Archive
2016 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2015 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2014 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2013 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2012 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2011 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2010 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2009 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2008 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2007 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
2006 | |||
January | February | March | April |
May | June | July | August |
September | October | November | December |
|