Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 17:48, 9 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Administrator instructions

< February 3 Deletion review archives: 2009 February February 5 >

4 February 2009

[edit]
  • User:TonyTheTiger/Obama's_first_100_days – Overturned to Barack Obama's first 100 days. There is clear consensus that, given that the AfD was very short and the article has improved (though many issues remain), that AfD should no longer be considered binding. There is no consensus at all that the article should continue to exist in this level of depth, in this form, or even at this title. Rather than relist it myself with a generic nomination, I will allow someone else to list it for deletion, which can be done at any point, with a nomination that refers back to this DRV but also summarizes the issues to be debated. I fully expect that someone will do so within the next few days if not sooner. – Chick Bowen 23:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.


User:TonyTheTiger/Obama's_first_100_days (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD))

When this was in article space immediately prior to the inauguration, this page was challenged at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama's first 100 days, there was widely varied opinion on whether the page should be kept, deleted, or merged into Presidency of Barack Obama. It was defacto merged and userfied because at the time all content could be easily merged without overspill. Now, the current article demonstrates types of detail that the general article does not contain and probably should not contain. The detail is encyclopedic but not necessary for a general Presidency article. I detail contentious confirmations and media comparisons with other president's. I would go in to greater detail on policy and legislation if I had time. Soon after the AFD closed, there arose issues on what level of detail should be kept in the general article and Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama developed. This article was discussed at AFD and kept after initial sentiments seemed to want to delete it. I think this article also presents a way to facilitate a repository for detailed encyclopedic content on his presidency and that the initial thoughts were made without complete understanding about how much content would be at issue. I think each main section of the Presidency article should have a detailed subarticle. This is the one that should be built for the first 100 days. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn delection - Hasty action based on article that was, rather than on "article that could/should be". The topic is plenty notable, even while watching the boundaries of WP:NOTNEWS (of course we'll have a better sense of what really mattered to the "First 100 days" in a year, or five years, but that's just the regular process). LotLE×talk 19:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion Misinterpretation of NOT NEWS, which does not refer to major events,or groups of major events, ot significant periods in national affairs. At most, it does refer to individual routine presidential actions, which can normally go in the article for whatever the subject is. Once a bill is passed and signed, then it becomes acceptable to write an article about it, in which earlier stage can be discussed. Non-routine major ones pass NOT NEWS because they will be part of the historical record. That's the main criterion, and it would be possible to argue that most things a president does of a public nature is part of the historical record.DGG (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Google searches of variations of this title prove beyond doubt that many publications are covering this as a legitimate topic separate from the rest of his presidency. Things like cabinet nominations and tax concerns deserve little space in Presidency of Barack Obama in the grand scheme of things, and are only mentioned piecemeal and very briefly in the timeline, so a thorough accounting of this opening period would be welcome. And not to be crystallball about it, but considering the media is already pushing this narrative, you can be sure that there will be plenty of articles and op-eds in a few months evaluating how the first 100 days went. Good work on the userfied piece so far. (As for the NOTNEWS debate, every action he takes as president will become part of a historical record and will be regurgitate numerous times in biographies, etc, which one can't say about the 11:00pm local news) Joshdboz (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be unnecessary to add, but as much as I personally find the "100 days" trope a little bit silly, this same time frame has been singled out for each presidency of the last 60+ years. Obama might do something especially important on his 101st day, but the 100-day chunk of time is well established in political discourse. LotLE×talk 20:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I would strongly argue that this is not appropriate per WP:NOT#NEWS (and a dollop of WP:CSB), but the early closure of the debate was a failure to follow process. Stifle (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The first 100 days is just one of many constructs studying the history of office of a president. Has it remained historically notable for any president since FDR? Conversely, is Obama the first president since FDR to have their first 100 days compared to the 100 days principle during those 100 days? It's really telling that even FDR's first 100 do not have an article of their own. It's just an arbitrary boundary on a series of properly-notable events. Ultimately, it's the issues which will get their own articles, and the 100 days thing will become a mention when it's relevant to these subjects. By all means undelete this article but know that it almost certainly won't outlast Obama's term of office. Bigbluefish (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There is significant coverage of the concept of the first 100 days of Obama's presidency and the above userspace version has demonstrated how a good article can be written on this topic. IMO this clearly does not fall under the routine news coverage WP:NOT#NEWS talks about. Davewild (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion The article is well referenced. If time shows the articles scope to be limited it can later be merged elsewhere. It is a big subject. Chillum 05:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AFD closed faster than it should have, but that is not the issue the nominator here is posing a question on. Looking at the AFD, and the article of the time,[1] I conclude endorse closure though would relist with Stifle if that was the issue in question. What the nominator here is really asking is whether we should now have such an article. We are writing an encyclopedia. That is our standard for coverage, not newspaper reporting. Editors using newspaper reporting as a benchmark should be working on wikinews, not wikipedia. Unambiguously, the most important first 100 days, and the one that created the idea for later political journalism, was that of Franklin D. Roosevelt. That first 100 days does not have or merit an article, it is instead one of twelve sections of our article on the New Deal. No reasonable editor would think that we have any basis today for considering Obama's first 100 days more significant than FDR's. Nor, despite the media coverage of the first 100 days of all the Presidents I can remember (not all of whom are living), do any of them have a first 100 days article. If we were to have a well written series of articles on first 100 days, we would start with FDR's and then write those that can be written from a historical and encyclopedic perspective - which probably doesn't yet include Clinton or either Bush, never mind Obama. So the material should be merged somewhere. As all the material since the AFD was written by TonyTheTiger, he can just write it in whatever article is appropriate. I also endorse deletion. GRBerry 18:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn RE: "We are writing an encyclopedia. That is our standard for coverage, not newspaper reporting." Why do so many editors have a 20th century notion of what an encyclopedia is. They seem to fondly remember the 24 box set of dusty encyclopedias in the basement, and think wikipedia should be the same way. They think, every Pokeman character wasn't in encyclopedia "P" when I was growing up, and it shouldn't be on Encyclopedia wikipedia either. Ikip (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 article above. Please do not modify it.

User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD))

NOTE: If you do not wish to read the full reason for this DRV below than, 'in a nutshell':

  1. Based on the existing policy and guideline wording how long does this "preferred version" get to sit in userpace before it does become a "long-term archival" version of an article "meant to be part of the encyclopedia"?
  2. Did the closing admin ignore WP:DGFA guidelines? (But you will have to read to the discussion for that)

This DRV is NOT to overturn a "keep", it is to ask that the MFD be reopened to address valid issues raised about "how long"
(NOTE: The above summary was placed by the editor who brought the nom. It was removed by the closing admin as "biased" but has been restored) Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At first I was not going to take the to DRV however in talking to the closing admin I now have serious concerns about the closure based on that discussion. I want to start off by saying this is not to overturn the "keep", it is to address the failure to answer "how long" in the discussion and also a seeming failure by the closing admin to read the arguments and comments and to simply "count votes", not fully following guidelines at WP:DGFA. ("Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.") I asked the closing admin to reopen the discussion, not in hopes of getting "delete" but allowing editors to answer a "how long" question. I also asked the admin to expand on their generic "The result of the discussion was Keep" closure summary as several of the "keep" arguments seemed to be based on mis-reading or mis-understanding of the policy and guidlines that do contain a time limit. Part of their first response was that a "how long" question was "abstract" and that I misunderstood what deletion discussions are for. The admin, I now feel, oversimplified the process saying any deletion discussion is only to answer one question "Should the page A be deleted now?". The admin further stated to me that "All participant substantiated their votes with rather persuasive arguments" but failed to address directly some specific examples that I had asked about that, to me, seemed to be a mis-reading of policy or mis-understanding of the issue(s). One "blatant" example I asked about was a users "keep" that was followed with the argument that an MFD was a "breach of one's privacy". With no answer I again asked the closing admin to please show me 1> Where there is a policy or guideline that says MFD's are an "breach of one's privacy" 2> or why that editors "vote" did not fall under "Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." and 3> how the admin felt that argument was "rather persuasive". Instead of answering me I was told, 'in a nutshell', to "try your luck on DRV". (To read the full conversation see User talk:Ruslik0#Closure question - comment). To be clear - While my argument of "delete" at the MFD was based on, because this is clearly a proposed article that is intended for mainspace, the facts found in the edit history, comments made by the user/author, and comments on the talk pages, that this subpage is falling under: "Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." I am not asking for a "delete" overturn here at this DRV. This DRV is to ask that the MFD be reopened to address valid issues raised about "how long" because:

  1. The article was created in userspace March 2008 with the last "significant" edits being June 9, 2008 when one line was removed (May 2008 - June 2008 dif).
  2. Several "keep" comments are based on the notion that no policy or guideline contains any time limit (i.e - "how long") and the assertions by some that no policy or guideline mention user pages and time limits. (One of the items under "Please familiarize yourself with the following policies" is "Wikipedia:User page — our guidelines on user pages")
  3. The user, and main author, has suggested that work is going to be a while in coming (via comments such as "When I am fully back editing Wikipedia...", the article is "doing no harm sitting there waiting for me to either stumble upon more reliable sources...", "...let me get back into the swing of things...").
  4. User:Kww's opinion to "let this one bake for a bit"
  5. User:Redfarmer's unanswered question of "No one has yet to define how long this should be given. It has already been given a year. How long do we let this exist?"
  6. My unanswered follow up question citing guidlines which do suggest time limits (see: Disallowed uses of subpages and "What may I not have on my user page?" - subsection "Copies of other pages") and asking for a clear answer how phrases such as "permanent content", "long-term" and "indefinitely" translate into "how long" for this subpage.

While my opinion was "delete" I see no bad faith in my asking, or anyone asking, "how long" in a situation such as this. I am also doubtful anyone who reads the entire discussion would feel asking "how long" in the context of the discussion would feel it was an "abstract question". And I also simply want to point out the talk page contains comments from other editors, who did not participate in (nor were given any "courtesy notice" about the discussion. While not required the MfD "How to" says "While not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics.") the the discussion, that add some perspective to concerns raised in the MFD. While the "votes" at MFD seem to be in favor of a "keep" I am not so sure that if one looked over the "history" of the article and the comments made over the year lead to the same conclusion. However, if everyone accepts "keep" and reads the talk page, the comments in the discussion and the cited guidelines there is an indicator that "how long" should be answered in relation to this "keep". Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse I endorse my closure. The result was clear-cut, in my opinion. There was strong support in favor of keep. The discussion was closed after 7 days on MFD page in accordance with recommended time limits for MFD discussions. I also want to note that all !votes in the last several days of the discussion were keeps, and nobody was willing to support deletion. Ruslik (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also want to note that all !votes in the last several days of the discussion were keeps, and nobody was willing to support deletion.
So, Ruslik, are you admitting that, in violation of WP:DGFA, you counted votes rather than weighed the quality of the arguments? Redfarmer (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't unreasonable for someone to look for trends in a debate. Later commentators have more information and more ideas available. If all the later commentators are strongly going in one way it is evidence that the consensus is going that way. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...So even if the later votes are not based on policy and, in one case, even based on a straw man, we ignore that fact and go with illogical arguments? Redfarmer (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. We take the trend into account. Please don't construct strawmen. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not constructing strawmen. What you just admitted completely contradicts WP:NOTAVOTE and this now concerns me greatly. This clearly says that arguments are to be taken into account rather than the shear number of people who vote a particular way. If admins are closing based on number of people for a position, they are in violation of this guideline. Redfarmer (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Read NOTAVOTE again. Read what I wrote. See the difference? There's a distinction between taking numbers into account in some fashion and going by a vote. Moreover, in this case we aren't going by numbers but rather by the trends of opinion. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply/comment:So what you are saying is that the "trends of opinion" currently support the argument that all MFD's are a "breach of one's privacy"? Outside of this MFD I have never seen that before, certainly I would never get that from reading policy or guideline, however the refusal by the closing admin to answer my direct question, three times now, about this leaves only your response to Redfarmer on the issue. I, for one, would love for you to point out the discussion where this policy or guideline has been established. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what? One editor made the privacy argument. It is obviously not at all a good argument. I fail to see how a single editor making that argument is relevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the risk of sounding bitey towards you - I was following the conversation and responding to your answer to the question. Do you need a quick 'in a nutshell' review? My point of this DRV was to address some unanswered questions including the WP:DGFA section that tell admins that "Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." One of the "later" arguments was about MFD's being a "breach of one's privacy". That was one of the specific issues I raised however it was not answered. THe failure to answer that raised other issues because not only did the closing admin "count" that "vote" and they also indicated "all" the arguments were valid so I again asked the closing admin to please explain where there was a policy or guideline the supported that specific argument. Rather than answer I was told to take it here, to DRV. I asked again, via the reason for this DRV. The closing admin again ignored my questions, and even failed to respond to the reasons for taking this to DRV, instead saying the "Votes" showed a "keep". When you commented, Redfarmer asked you a question based on what the WP:DGFA says: "So even if the later votes are not based on policy and, in one case, even based on a straw man, we ignore that fact and go with illogical arguments?" You clearly responded to that question saying that "in this case we aren't going by numbers but rather by the trends of opinion" And I responded to that. So you're failure to see how that is relevant seems to indicate a focus on different things. But not all is fully lost - based on your current, very direct reply, lets now accept the the privacy argument is bad - would you say that is a "trend of opinion"? Is so shouldn't that "keep" be "discounted"? I will ask about another "later" comment I also have specifically mentioned - the user stated there were no guidelines or polices that indicated any form of time limit so instead the cited an essay as backing up their "vote" keep. For this overall "lack of time limit" concept I concur with seresin's comment below but will add on, about this specific comment, if it is now a "trend of opinion" that when one can not find a policy or guideline to support their "keep" (or "delete" for that matter) argument to use essays? Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the AfD would likely be identical without the privacy argument. It just isn't terribly germane. The argument is bad enough that it can be simply ignored. The general trend observed holds without that user. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist as original nom. While I do acknowledge that, by counting votes, there were more keep votes than delete, we are not supposed to be counting votes. We are supposed to be looking at the quality of the responses which, after reading the closing admin's comments to Soundvisions1, I do not believe was done here. The quality of the keep arguments here were horrible: there was never a privacy concern and, according to guidelines cited, there is indeed a time limit on how long we will host a person's OR before we consider it self publishing or being used as a web host. There are also some questions of how long that need to be answered. Even after being nominated for deletion, the user has not worked on the page; they merely came back and begged for it not to be deleted. How long do we give this user for what most acknowledge will be an attempt to create their own original thesis and publish it on WP? These questions all need to be fleshed out. Barring an overturn, I would suggest a request for comment on the issue is needed. Redfarmer (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure The community here applied WP:UP to permit the maintenance of the material upon the averrment of a longtime editor, in whose good faith it hadn't, I gather, any reason to doubt, that she would attempt at some point to migrate parts of the material into mainspace; that construction of UP is not unsound on its face (in fact, many MfDs have reached the same conclusion; the community, the text of certain parts of UP and WP:NOT notwithstanding, have demonstrated a disinclination to press established contributors to move material into mainspace or delete it from userspace where those editors continue to profess that they will do something with the text at some point, such that our practice, from which policy is to follow, has been to answer "How long?" with "indefinitely"), and so neither relisting nor closing other than as "keep" could have been justified here. Joe 19:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know that I can accept your assertion that this interpretation of WP:UP is as uncontroversial as you make it out to be. I point to this MfD I participated in, where the essential reason most people went keep was that the user had not been given enough time. I was instructed to give the user some more time and then come back if he had not improved the article, implying there are users who would now support the deletion of this article as the user has not worked on it in nearly a year. (For the record, yes, I jumped the gun on this particular MfD. I was a bit of an overenthusiastic spam fighter and I still believe this article is blatant WP:SPAM and has numerous WP:COI issues.) Redfarmer (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a surprising argument. The result of that MFD was a sound keep like in the MFD under discussion here. And, most surprisingly, the page still exists (after 10 months of inactivity)! That MFD is actually all I need to justify my closure. Thank you for an excellent precedent! Ruslik (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised you think that supports you. I brought that to MfD after only a few days. This one wasn't brought to MfD for a year after creation. I brought that one up to point out that several people in that MfD seemed to think there was a time limit on how long to give a page before you delete it. The reason it was keep was that time limit had not been reached. One user thought giving the article four months would be reasonable. Redfarmer (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I point to the comments of seresin, the admin who speedy deleted and userfied that particular article: Give him more than a few days to work on it. We have userfied articles that have gone months without work. If he had left this in his subpage for a long time without working on it, that would be one thing. But it has been a grand total of five days, and he has indicated that he intends to work on it. This admin seems to believe that there is a time after which it is no longer reasonable to assume a user will work on an unsalvageable article. Redfarmer (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That is very interesting. Looking at the edit history it does clearly show no significant work has been done on that article since March 2, 2008. On March 14, 2008 Redfarmer sent it to MfD and the discussion does indicate the nom was made too soon. However the important point being made is that good faith was assumed to allow more time for the article to be worked on. Without any of the asking "how long" it was freely offered - from the slightly open "Give him more than a few days to work on it. We have userfied articles that have gone months without work. If he had left this in his subpage for a long time without working on it, that would be one thing." to the more specific "Leave it a month...". Clearly now it has been much longer than one month and the assertion that "he intends to work on it" proved false and this article had (and has) far less discussion on it's talk page (i.e - none) than the subpage in discussion now has about it's "usefulness" on Wikipedia. I will add that the "If he had left this in his subpage for a long time without working on it, that would be one thing" comment to the included list of oft used phrases that need to be made more clear in deletion discussions - "long time without working" equals what exactly? If it is the same as "indefinitely archive", "long-term archival purposes" and "permanent" users may equate it to "no set time limit" and than ignore it. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep How long is a matter of judgment, since there is no fixed time, and the MfD had sufficient participation to represent a consensus, and the consensus was rightly judged. Given the widely fluctuating standards in the area of FICT, it is reasonable to hold articles a longer while than normal in user space, as consensus not only can change, but in this area it frequently does. A reasonable course if one thinks an article in user space is going nowhere & is potentially important, is to help the use develop the article. DGG (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • attmept to clarify - DGG has also chosen to use the argument that "there is no fixed time" and that is the exact reason I brought this here. Where is that reflected in the guidlines I explicitly cite? Even if participants there and here choose to ignore the guidelines as written than you still can look only at the deletion discussion and see Kww's "keep" and their comment of "let this one bake for a bit" implies a time limit be set. Why it is so hard to understand how, or why, the question of "How long are we supposed to give it?" came to be? Further more, when that is not answered, and another user voices a "keep", followed by the argument of "There is still time to enhance this further" the question is again asked - "No one has yet to define how long this should be given. It has already been given a year. How long do we let this exist?". And following three more "keeps" (including the accepted, "persuasive", MFD's are a "breach of one's privacy" argument) which indicate "There is no deadline" and "I can't find any policy or guideline this violates..." I not only ask "how long" but clearly cite these supposedly non-existent "fixed times". Again - the DRV is to reopen to establish "how long". It simply boggles my mind how asking for a set time frame on this is so controversial. It is very simple - based on the existing wording how long does this "preferred version" get to sit in userpace before it does become a "long-term archival" version of an article "meant to be part of the encyclopedia"?
But if we need to go the "Clear consensus" route than, as I indicated, look at the talk page which seems to have been "conveniently" overlooked. This not a "strawman" so please don't even go there, but the fact is one must look at this to establish why we are asking "how long", This is just a small look at some of the comments: "If you want something like this on Wikipedia you should read WP:OR" (Canterbury Tail), "Hate to say this, but I'd deep-six this project." (SchuminWeb), "This article, at present, appears to be a list of trivia that will likely meet with deletion if it enters the article space" (Chardish), "but what exactly are you trying to achieve here; this looks like an article on I Love Lucy spinoffs -- what does that have to do with something like The Practice?" (Rfwoolf), "You've got a mixture here of genuine spin-offs, inside jokes, pop culture references, and downright nonsense. It may be fun, but it's never ever gonna be encyclopedic." (Orange Mike), "I'm afraid I have to agree Orange Mike, I don't see how this could survive an AfD if it became a mainspace article" (Dougie WII), "i also dont see the importance of this article in the scoop of an encyclopedia. i moreso just see a big page full of trivia, and that is discouraged in wikipedia. you probably need to attach this attempted article to an appropriate wikiproject and see what the project has to say about it, although i am not sure what project would be interested a crufty article such as this." (-ChrisisinChrist), "It doesn't matter how thorough your original research is- we still can't use it. See Wikipedia:No original research." (Friday), "I find the connections you make fascinating, but this is not for an encyclopedia of any sort; it's for a fan site." (Billbert12) and the most recent (January 13) one - "But as a userspace-hosted hotbed of discussion this seems dangerously close to violating WP's userpage policy - and WP is not a blog or web hosting service for personal research on pet theories and fannish hobbies." (SMcCandlish). Oh there are more, but one needs to read it all. When the main editor has asked some of these users for help the responses vary but most don't want to help - Orange Mike says "No one wants to help you because the underlying assumptions are false, and it could never become ready for article space. We've been trying to explain that to you for some time" and Dougie WII said "I think people are just trying to be helpful giving you their opinion that this subject matter itself just doesn't seem encyclopedic. No matter how much work is put into it, it will probably be deleted if added to the article mainspace." The main point is this article is "advertised" all over asking for help - the "consensus" seems to be that this article will never be ready for mainspace and even the creator admits they have run out of things to say but holds out for help ("I am hoping that some other editors would be willing to help me find them as I have reached the limit of my search capabilities"). The arguments at the MFD, and now, is that, as there is no time limit and as it is not in mainspace so, as the closing admin said to me, the only quesiton is "Should the page A be deleted now?" So thusly "keep" - period, end of story. Saddly it is not the cut and dry - If MFD's can not be applied to userspace because they are a "breach of one's privacy", if we can not apply the criteria found at WP:USER to actual userspace unless the material is on mainspace and if "No set time limit" is another way to invoke WP:IAR that why bother to have any user criteria or MFD's for user space at all? And sure we can "wait a few months" before sending to MFD again, but that in itself is answering "how long" - but not at the actual MFD. If there is a "consensus" here to "wait a few months" I would ask for clarification: will that be a valid reason to then "delete" even if the "votes" suggest "keep" for "no time limit" at that discussion? Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this DRV is closed as endorse, the section on the userpage policy proscribing indefinite hosting of content in userspace will be removed, as it will clearly no longer describe community sentiment, and we're not even pretending to enforce it at MfD. The userpage policy is a policy; consensus is always based on policy. The article would absolutely be deleted at AfD because it is entirely composed of original research. In order for this content to be put in mainspace, it would have to be fundamentally and totally rewritten, with legitimate sources. There is no chance of the content, as it stands, of becoming a legitimate article. For this reason, the content is not being hosted with the purposes of the enyclopedia, and enough time has been provided to demonstrate otherwise. Since the userpage policy requires that content be hosted only to be actively improved, and that can be made into an article, the policy aspect of this MfD is clearly on the side of deletion. Numbers of people voting directly against the policy does not change the policy-based consensus. seresin ( ¡? )  00:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, seresin. What people are essentially saying in this MfD is they no longer support that particular clause of WP:UP and are willing to WP:IAR. If this is new consensus then we need to establish as such and go on. I would also hasten to add that this is a dangerous route to go down because we are essentially saying that userspace is, in most cases, untouchable. Redfarmer (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep close of MFD. Wikipedia does not have a dealine, especially for articles in userspace. Plus, aspects of the article can be verified in published books and as such it is without any doubt improveable. Maybe I'll even help work on it if I have a time as it is one that I find interesting and helpful in understanding the relationship of various television shows. These kinds of articles provide part of the appeal that makes our project worth checking out and engaging. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 05:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you are essentially choosing to ignore the clause of WP:UP that does not allow indefinite hosting of content? For what reason? See also: WP:INTERESTING. Redfarmer (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • See also WP:IDONTLIKEIT. What matter is there really if someone has something in userspace that she wants to work on? It's no big deal or detriment to our project if she believes she can improve it when she gets around to it, even if it took a couple years, so what? And there's no urgent rush to force her to do so. And if that is an WP:IGNOREALLRULES, then okay, because I simply don't see why this could actually bother anyone. The time spent trying to delete this userfied article could and should be spent working to improve articles. If anything, we should all be helping her improve it, or move on, letg her get to it whenever she can, and work on something else. And yes, nothing is stopping us from changing the wording of WP:UP to allow for this as people edit the policy and guideline wording all the time as is. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've never argued WP:IDONTLIKEIT (truthfully, I do find the thesis fascinating and probably would read it were it on a fan site, but that is neither here nor there). I have argued that this is unsalvagable WP:OR based on an original thesis the user is attempting to prove through synthesis that will NEVER be ready for mainspace by its very nature. If the user wants to do research and publish a book or article on the subject, then it will not be OR. For now, however, it is OR. It is the same as my work in my chosen field of work, philosophy. I am writing a philosophy article right now attempting to prove an original thesis. That article is not suitable for WP because WP does not publish WP:OR. If it is published, then, if it is notable, someone can write an article on me and/or my work. However, until that happens, it is not suitable for the project just as this user's thesis is not suitable for the project. Redfarmer (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure WP:OR doesn't apply in userspace. It's quite common for OR to be found in articles in progress simply because the writer hasn't found the time to reference it yet; that's the whole reason you should start articles in userspace instead of mainspace. With no time limit set in the policy and guidelines, I see no reason to assume this is a page the user is attempting to keep in userspace indefinitely, so it doesn't break any rules. - Mgm|(talk) 11:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Nobody - you asked "But when is that deadline?" and if you do look way up at the top that is the bulk of why I brought this DRV. Why vote to keep the MFD closed if you are asking the same thing? Or,if you have a solid opinon, which it appears you do, that the MfD should be reopened for a few days - you can says somehting like you dave said here, the the article should be kept "years" and that is fine. The MfD was in progress - legit questions were asked about "how long" but could not be answered because of the close. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's clear that the majority of users have completely missed the point that there is a guideline that says there is a time limit. Therefore, I have initiated a request for comment on this issue at Wikipedia talk:User page#Deletion review regarding indefinite hosting clause to determine new consensus on this guideline. Redfarmer (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. From WP:USER"Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion" Also per seresin: "the content is not being hosted with the purposes of the enyclopedia, and enough time has been provided to demonstrate otherwise". --Kbdank71 16:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    From the same guideline The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. In addition, may be deleted means that it may be deleted and may be not. It is up for the community to decide, not for the closing admin. And the community in this spoke againts deletion. Ruslik (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus among the handful of people who vote in a given discussion can fail to be in line with the greater consensus and precedent behind Wikipedia's project goals and guidelines. --Kbdank71 19:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why AfDs are anti-logical. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is not my intention in this discussion to remove the general requirement that articles moved to user space have some potential for improvement in a reasonable time. I agree with that requirement, and if it ever came to a poll, I would very strongly support keeping it. I don;t think it really right to consider a decision on a single article a referendum. Looking at the history of this article, I see it is had bee substantially worked on, and that a title has been suggested under which it might well hold at AfD. The activity had slackened off, so I think the appropriate course would have been to remind the author to get back to it, and to consider asking for its return to mainspace. I do, however, endorse a flexible idea of the limit in general, and I think in general we do now follow a fairly liberal practice here, perhaps more than when the user policy was written. I would not want to propose a fixed rule on times, for it would depend on the article and the editor and the good faith. My argument is only that in this particular case the article should not at present be deleted. DGG (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • DGG, did you ignore the fact that the article is a complete synthesis of sources, that it smacks of original thesis, that the majority of work was done in three months at the beginning of last year, that the user has repeatedly scoffed at all concerns regarding the article on the talk page, and that they don't understand the difference between finding a source supporting the article and bringing many different sources together to form a thesis? 149.160.35.200 (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, that comment was from me. I was at a public computer and forgot I wasn't signed in. Redfarmer (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Information: This is an FYI that relates and should be considered. There was a long standing (August 29, 2007) paragraph that was removed, on January 2, 2009, from Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators that came to my attention a few days ago. The paragraph has now been restored by another editor. This paragraph explicitly says that the closing admin "must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions." If this is the case, irregardless of the eight 'keep' opinions, or even 'delete' ones, the closing admin must look at policy, which would include WP:OR, and determine if "an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy". If it is "very unlikely" that the article could exist "without breaching policy" than the policy trumps the "votes". And this goes back to the articles talk page which has been building comments for 11 months, much longer than the MfD of 7 days. The topic of WP:OR has been raised many times and this paragraph would mean that even defining "how long" does not matter because, if, the article violates a key policy and, based on 11 months of ongoing discussion, it is "very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy" there is only one outcome, no matter what the "rough consensus" may show. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The page in question is not an article (it is not in the mainspace), and the OR policy does not apply to user space. So this sentence from the guideline is irrelevant (as well as the talk page). Ruslik (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Does the article isself not clearly indicate it is meant to be a mainspace article?
2. Has the creator not clearly indicated they hope is will be a mainspace article?
3. Does the above section not clearly state that "where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy" then the Policy, not the "votes" come into play?
Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which article? There is no article here. What we have is a page in the user space. Hopes and intentions of the creator do not matter. Ruslik (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lady Aleena comments

It was not my intention to cause any trouble when I wrote this article and told so many about it. I genuinely thought that this was a good start on the subject and kept as neutral a point of view as possible when I wrote it.

  1. Time: I need a lot of time to work on this aritcle as my resources are limited to what I can find on an internet web search. Most publications do not have long term storage of their articles online. If they do have long term storage, one most likely would have to pay to read the article, and my finances do not allow me to do that either. Also, if the resource is not freely available, I am hesitant to use it as a source for the article. There are no libraries in the town in which I live with the closest available library closing too early for me to get to it in time to do any serious research there. I will add to this article as the information is found, so do not delete this just because I haven't found the information. Other editors may also need time to gather information as they become aware of this rough draft.
    1. Long term storage: I am not using my userspace as a place to store this article indefinitely, I am keeping there until I can find resources to more fully flesh out the article. This article is also on the back burner as there are more pressing issues that I would like to work on first. I just ask that this be left so that when I finish with these other issues, I can come back to this when I need a breather.
    2. Lack of edits: Of course there has been a lack of edits recently because I took several months off from Wikipedia editing completely. I came back to Wikipedia to participate in the MfD and slowly start getting back into the various projects that I left unfinished. I will need to reestablish myself on my other projects and see where they stand, I will then come back to this. Prior to that I can blame the paucity of online material related to the subject and my poor researching skills.
  2. Privacy: I do not know why this was brought up at the MfD, but I am not worried about my privacy as I fully realize that this is a place where everything is public. That is the beauty of Wikipedia unlike other places.
  3. Article placement: This article has never touched mainspace. It was written in my userspace from the beginning. I have not made any attempt to move it to mainspace.
  4. Not OR: This article is not original research. Everything in the article is verifiable in the primary sources. The article was writen to show the connections between the series in one place rather than having all of these connections scattered throughout the 150+ or so articles on the individual television series. I would rather read this quick article on all of the crossovers than have to trudge through 150+ articles tracing them. That is time consuming and tiring. Placing this in the general crossover article would just over burden the general article. Crossovers have been happening for a while now. That all of these crossovers create relationships between the series is not a hypothesis or a theory, it is a fact which is verifiable in the primary sources.
  5. Not a private copy: This is not a private copy of this article as nothing is private on Wikipedia. This is an article that I will work on as I can find information. It is hoped that others will find this draft and help me make it better. I placed a link to this article on the talk pages of all the relevant series to garner attention to this article in hopes to get somn help. Instead I got a lot of people who for some reason decided to be the opposite and just sit back and talk about how bad it was instead of improving it. In my opinion nothing is unsalvageable.

I hope that this clarifies a few things. I never thought that something that I wrote in my userspace which has never touched mainspace would ever get this much, unfortunately negative, attention. LA (T) @ 23:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions:
1) Why do you believe this article is needed given that List of crossovers in fiction#Television already exists and can be improved on?
2) What sources are there that establish all these series exist in the same universe as I Love Lucy. And please don't repeat your statement that primary sources exist that show these shows crossed over. That is not and has never been in dispute. Showing that shows crossed over and showing they are all part of the same universe are completely different things. For instance, even though Law & Order: Criminal Intent crossed over with In Plain Sight, this does not necessarily place either show in the same universe as Arrested Development, since John Munch has not appeared on CI. The only connection is an indirect one (Lennie Briscoe and Ed Green, two characters from the original Law & Order, appeared in both SVU, a show Munch is a character on, and CI) that must be traced back several series, constituting synthesis, constituting OR. Redfarmer (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is, LA, that you continue to beat a dead horse - for almost one year numerous editors, including admins, came in because you asked for help in any television related area you could find and most all indicate it is synthesis - a variation of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. They inform you it will never be ready for mainspace and have issued you 'warnings' about the articles scope and validity. Others have tried to help with information such as "Chi McBride's character from Boston Public (Steven Harper) made an appearance on Boston Legal. Both shows are by David E. Kelley." Yet though all the discussion on your talk page, and now, you maintain this is not any sort of original synthesis on your part, that somehow a person watching The Wire or Heroes somehow will arrive at the same conclusion you do - that is is a spin off of the I Love Lucy show. While not directly related, this is the type of thinking we are against when it comes to articles on people - that is, in general, notability by association is not cause for inclusion, nor is merely being true or useful. But that is not my key issue with brining this DRV, it is the "how long" issue, because if editors insist this article be kept, based on the last year, how long are you going to need to get this ready for mainspace? They may choose to ignore the last 11 months however I don't and during that time you indicated you had no more resources, that you had "nearly given up on this article in despair" and have pleaded for others to help. You indicated now you took a "few months off" and came back to participate in an MfD about your article and to "slowly" work on "various projects that I left unfinished". In breaking down the wording of a guideline that includes "Long term storage" you say this article does not fall under that but yet you state you are storing it "until I can find resources to more fully flesh out the article" and go on to also state you have put this on the "back burner" and imply you have no immediate plans to work on it until you "finish with these other issues". When that is combined with your other comments on the talk page, in the MfD and now here, including the "time" needed, where you indicate "I need a lot of time", I don't see how there could be any argument from anyone that, at this point, you are, really, simply using your userspace as a storage area for something that is going to be there "indefinitely". That is the key issue you and others are overlooking. And your reading of "private" in relation to the current user guidelines (While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion.) is wrong. If you remove everything else and use only the word "private" you are correct that "This is not a private copy of this article", however in the context of it relating to Policy - Wikipedia is not a free web host nor is it a place to publish your own thoughts and analysis. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is the problem - consensus did not set a deadline even though it was asked for. Only thing that came close was the comment of "let this one bake for a bit" and frankly, that is no more help than than the time frame contained in the definitions of the webhost policy of "indefinitely archive" and "long-term". Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse-- What's the big deal? "Rules derive their power to compel not from being written down on a page labeled "guideline" or "policy", but from being a reflection of the shared opinions and practices of many editors", WP:WIARM. --J.Mundo (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 article above. Please do not modify it.


List of FIFA World Cup finals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

The page is listed at WP:FLC where it has been said that the page is a content fork. Since FLC isn't the correct forum for deciding that and WP:DEL#REASON says AFD is, I put it up for a deletion discussion. The AfD was closed less than an hour after it was opened, clearly not enough time to seek any kind of consensus. The closing admin said "Nomination closed -- no actual nomination for deletion ... But this is really a nomination for keeping which does not need to be taken to AfD". When asked, he stated that a "keep" result may not have any bearing on the FLC, only one person said it was a Fork (now at least two), and that AfDs shouldn't be opened by nominators wishing to keep the article, and refused to reopen the AfD nom. It's true that keeping the article may not affect the FLC, but that is not a reason to close. It's true that only one person said it was a Fork, but if that one person had nominated it, would it have been closed so quickly? It's true that I opened the AfD wishing to keep it, but WP:GD says "Nominations imply a recommendation to delete the article unless the nominator specifically says otherwise" suggesting that a "keep nomination" is allowed. I'm seeking for the AfD to be relisted, the result could have a serious affect on many lists, and many that are listed at WP:FL. See also Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Content forks. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is supposed to decide what is a content fork and what isn't? And where? Apparently it's not AfD, contrary to what WP:GD and WP:DELPOL says, because if the result of an AfD is "Keep", FLC can still decide it is a content fork and oppose it being featured??? Based on which FL criteron? Content forking isn't one of them (although meeting all other general Wikipedia criteria is). Any page that can be throrougly verified using secondary sources, is comprehensive, and professionally written has the potential to meet the FA or FL criteria. Any page that meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria that isn't throrougly verified using secondary sources, is comprehensive, and professionally written, 'but could be, has the potential to meet the FA or FL criteria.

If a page is deemed to be a content fork, it should be deleted. If you're telling me that it's FLC who decides that, fine. Would you like us to make the decision over articles too, or just lists?? Perhaps the AfD guys would like to dump all nominations that violate BLP on us too? And while you're at it, give WT:MOS all discussions about images that violate fair-use policy. I guess we need to rewrite the criteria again, Tony!

I find this completely contradicting, confusing, and exasperating.Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • No one. There is no place that issues binding decision on Wikipedia content that have any standing in another place. No one can keep an issue from being discussed or preempt consensus by declaring certain topics out of bounds. The open nature of Wikipedia simply makes it impossible. The decisions reached in each discussion forum are limited to question at hand. No one makes final judgments about any facet of the article but instead makes a contextual judgment based in large part on the question at hand (e.g. whether to delete or promote an article). Eluchil404 (talk) 05:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you want the article deleted or not, Matthewedwards? Stifle (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure. The AfD could also have been snowwed in and closed that way. If you want comments on an article take it to WP:RfC. If nobody wants it deleted it probably doesn't belong in AfD and if somebody does (but hasn't listed it) - link to their comment as a motivation for listing and then vote against yourself in the first comment row. Usrnme h8er (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Antisemitic incidents alleged to be related to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict – Overturned as no consensus – Obviously, this was a lengthy and difficult DRV following a lengthy and difficult AFD. A preponderence of comments here describe MZMcBride's closure as substituting his own judgement for consensus. I agree with this... but I feel the need to say that the AfD was deeply unsuccessful on many levels and I feel the MZMcBride's response was certainly a reasonable choice... the issue of content forking is serious and demands immediate attention, so a verdict of "no consensus" is obviously something that ought to be avoided if at all possible. The issues with the debate are:
  • Vague declarations of content forking. It seems quite clear that this article was meant to have in-depth coverage of this aspect of reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. Other articles contain some coverage on that but are overburdened. So the content forking argument in this respect is weak, and many on the other side argue that a split is needed per WP:SUMMARY.
  • Concept was a moving target. This article had several different titles; "Antisemitic incidents related..." "Antisemitic incidents alleged to be related..." "Antisemitic incidients occuring during..." This renaming happened during the debate, at least to some extent. Plus, there's a title vs. content problem: some of those arguing for deletion rightly point out that the link between the conflict and many of the incidents is speculative, and that a line is being blurred between antisemitism and anti-Israel protests.
  • Low-engagement participants. For a lengthy debate, surprisingly few people had substantive, detailed comments. A lot of comments were "clear POV fork" or "looks too content fork-y to me" or "Needs some improvement but well sourced and not a POV fork" -- which amount to judgments to delete or not delete without debating the key points.

So there was no consensus, but there was also almost no real discussion. That said, though, there are common threads that we can take to heart.

  • Many delete comments, and the closer, have a problem with the article's title and its intended concept, which seems to aim to list incidents regardless of substantive links between them and the conflict. This is a well-placed concern, in line with WP:OR. Some keep comments acknowledge room for improvement, too.
  • Several keep comments defend the need for an article that deals with this aspect of the reactions to this conflict, per WP:SUMMARY.

In light of this, I do appreciate that MZMcBride's closure was, I think, meant to compel editors to find a workable concept for the article before trying to write it. If I felt that I could compel such a discussion, I would, but I think this DRV indicates such an idea would fail. Plus, progress seems to have been made in improving the article through normal Wiki editing. So I suppose, that's the best way to move forward. Mangojuicetalk 20:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Antisemitic incidents alleged to be related to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Closer disregarded discussion Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Prefatory comment: the somewhat silly name is a result of the nom renaming the article immediately before nomination). The deletion nomination created a very lively discussion, which, unfortunately, did not reach anything resembling consensus. The "head count", for those who care, was 13 keep, 12 delete, 4 merge, 1 conditional merge/keep, and 1 rename. Generally, those supporting delete argued that the article was a POV-motivated content fork, and those supporting keep disputed this, maintaining that the article dealt with a real phenomenon and that it was an application of WP:SUMMARY. The article was deleted by user:MZMcBride with no reference to the discussion, and with only a link to WP:NOT for an explanation. Clearly the 30+ editors in the discussion did not consider the article to fall under WP:NOT, since not one of them, even of those who supported deletion, argued that. It seems that the admin did not merely misunderstand the discussion, he disregarded it. For lowly editors like myself, such actions send a message saying "don't even bother participating in the deletion discussion, since the outcome won't matter". Jalapenos do exist

  • Overturn deletion. Closing admin based the deletion contrary to the consensus on the vague WP:NOT, while stating "it's clear that this article does not belong on this project." I requested further elaboration at his talk page, and he said that it should be deleted per WP:SYNTH, which is not a subpart of WP:NOT. If one thing is "clear", it's that the deletion was a mistake.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - A closing admin who places a a greater emphasis on the substance of the opinions rather than a head count should be complimented, rather than second-guessed. WP:FORK and WP:SYNTH, among others, are rather clear here. Tarc (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. AfD is not and never should be a crude head count. I suggest that editors should look at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus, which states: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." MZMcBride's closing decision clearly alluded to that principle and identified the policy basis on which his decision was made: "This is one of those cases when we're reminded that AfD is not a vote, it is a discussion. Ultimately, we must look at our core principles of inclusion. When doing so, it's clear that this article does not belong on this project." WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought is presumably the relevant section, given that a number of the AfD contributors highlighted the WP:SYNTH issues with the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was not aware of this discussion and thus my voice was not heard, but the "consensus" seemed to be more in favor of the article than not based on Jalapenos do exist's summary 13 keep, 4 merge, 1 conditional keep, and 1 rename, (19) vrs 12 delete. While what ChrisO has put up is relevant wiki policy, it would appear that the arguments presented were not in fact considered. According to Jalapeno, WP:NOT was given as the delete reason by the closer, not WP:Synth. There also seems to be a bit of confusion between ChrisO's interpretation and Jalapenos' regarding the arguments presented, in that Jalapenos claims that "those supporting delete argued that the article was a POV-motivated content fork, or an application of WP:SUMMARY", while ChrisO is claiming that those who supported deletion mostly argued it was an issue of WP:SYNTH. If it is true that the closer used WP:NOT as his stated reason, and that was not in fact argued by the participants, it would appear that the closing admin would have come to his own conclusions, rather than basing his conclusion on the arguments given by the participants. I don't think that is intended by WP policy, or there would really be no point in having AfD's at all, rather appoint admins to make the decision without asking for input. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn As no consensus. This article began as a crude POV fork, but developed to a better shape, and there is a clear WP:SIZE consideration in the parent article. There are certainly WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK issues in this series, but this was a good WP:SUMMARY.--Cerejota (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was in the merge camp (oh shit! I used the word camp in a discussion about anti-semitism!) and then later favoured this article being renamed to become a sub article of the international reaction article. It could then cover all racially motivated attacks to mitigate content forking since that giant article covers this issue and needs to be split anyway. However, I have no idea whether anyone saved all the info in this article before it was deleted. We can't lose this info so I support Overturn deletion in as much as presence of information is better than absence of information. The editors need to be given a chance to do something with the info. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.
  • Comment - This discussion puts into sharp focus the limitations inherent in the rules of engagement for Wikipedia discussions. On the one hand, Jalapenos do exist is right that this deletion was in spite of a majority of participants in the deletion debate, who based their arguments on Wikipedia policy. Moreover, McBride deleted the article without an unambiguous reference to a policy supporting his decision. ChrisO's assumption that the violated policy is WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought is contradicted by McBride himself, who, when pressed, wrote on his talk page, "I was speaking broadly about our inclusion policy, which is embodied in the WP:NOT policy. (see here).
On the other hand, McBride's thinking was, in my opinion, right on. This was one of many, many articles, written by both sides of the Middle East conflict, which have turned Wikipedia's coverage of this topic from a reliable source of independent information to a cheap propaganda war. The articles on this subject are so slanted, so bad, and so numerous, that they reflect on the credibility (or should I say credulity) of the entire encyclopedia.
No one is to blame for this state of affairs: all the editors are working in good faith trying to present well-sourced accounts of the conflict in a way that is faithful to the truth as they see it. The problem is that there is no truth; there is no NPOV in this war zone. This fundamental reality - that each of us is looking at Middle East issues through his or her private pinhole - is accentuated by this dicussion on my talk page.
Should this article be deleted? I can't say. But I do hope that this discussion will lead to a broader discussion of how Wikipedia covers issues of contention. Our current policies clearly do not work. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and a (too large) section in the main article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Antisemitic_incidents

there is no need to duplicate (triplicate?) this information again. also at issue is the verifiability (from reliable sources) that all of these incidents were A> "anti-semitic" and B>related to this conflict. the article that says antisemitic incidents have risen 300% also states that there were 80 incidents this time last year. so, it appears to be synthesis for editors to determine that every incident that is reported is related to this conflict. Untwirl (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's an argument for a merge with a redirect. I would likely support such a merge but that's not something that gained substantial support at the AfD. If we want to do that we should have it undeleted and have a merge discussion on the talk page. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Definitely no consensus for deletion in that discussion nor can I find any policy argument made in the AFD that was not argued against by at least of those arguing for keeping. The closing admins closing statement does not seem to be refering to any particular argument made in that AFD but instead rolling all the delete opinions together and putting his own opinion that the article was a policy violation above those who contributed to the AFD. If this stands then basically it becomes a race to see who closes an AFD first - an admin who believes an article is a policy violation and closes it as delete or an admin who does not and closes it as no consensus or keep - because that is the situation we will end up if decisions such as this one are allowed to stand. If an admin such as Ynhockey (who argued the article was not a policy violation in the AFD) can reasonably believe an article does not violate policy then the closing admin should respect the views of those who contributed to the AFD and close the AFD appropriately - in this case as no consensus. Davewild (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse sound closure, altogether too much soapboxing about these events, this is an encyclopaedia not a political protest site. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Rereading the discussion there was no consensus about what to do with the article, and many suggestions were made. The closing admin not only disregarded the community lack of agreement, but substituted his own,and, more unusually, said he was doing so: He based his view on "the core principles of inclusion"-- he;s right about that being the basis for deciding, but he's not the one who gets to judge what they are or how they are to be interpreted. He should have joined the discussion. What he did was an example of exactly what an admin has no business doing--setting his view above the community, and making decisions for them. if we wanted admins to do that, there would be no need for a non-consensus close at all--whenever there was no consensus, some admin would decide independently. Given the 1600 admins with very different views, we'd have chaos. This is not a comment on the merit of the article, about which I myself have no clear view. DGG (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Closing admin stated that AfD is not a vote, and he was deleting based on "core principles of inclusion", obviously forgetting the core principle that a clear lack of consensus does not mean deletion. Perhaps merge in future - regardless, this was a flawed process that needs to be redone. Joshdboz (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Per Kari Hazzard. Admins may not make up their own reasons for closure, and may not go against consensus (or lack thereof) without careful thought (and explanation). IronDuke 00:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, obviously, after a first glance at the closure; and consider sanctioning the closing admin for his high-handed disregard of deletion policy. I, personally, would probably have advocated deletion on account of violating WP:NOT#NEWS, but closing admins must not simply substitute the outcome (or lack thereof) of a discussion with their own unreasoned opinion about whether an article violates WP:NOT.  Sandstein  20:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, for the reasons above (those reasons in favor of endorse closure). Yamanam (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Several of the participants in this discussion have been arguing as if this were the deletion discussion, pointing out problems they have with the article. I'm referring specifically to Untwirl, Brunte and Guy. The question here is whether the closure reflected the outcome of the deletion discussion, and comments that do not address that question should be discounted. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary As someone who supports overturning the deletion, I want to try to summarize the discussion from my perspective and rebut arguments endorsing the deletion.
    Generally, this seems like a no-brainer. Whatever one's opinion on the merits of the article, it is clear that the AfD discussion did not reach consensus, rough or smooth; and it is equally clear that the closure must reflect the outcome of the discussion, with the added caveat "when in doubt, don't delete".

Arguments in this discussion endorsing the deletion, and rebuttals to those arguments, were/are as follows:

  1. No argument (Stifle, Yamanam). No argument - no rebuttal.
  2. Arguments to the merits of the article (Untwirl, Brunte, Guy). The place for those arguments was the AfD discussion, which did not reach consensus. The question here is whether the closure was appropriate given the outcome of the AfD discussion.
  3. Within admin discretion (TS). No explanation was given as to why this was within admin discretion.
  4. Admin should focus on substance of opinions, not head count, and opinions of those who said delete per X were more substantial (Tarc, ChrisO). This argument relies on a straw-man characterization of the other side; while it is true that a head count would lead to closing as keep, nobody ever said that the admin should conduct a head count; rather it was argued that there is no way to see the discussion as having reached consensus, since many experienced editors offered good arguments for both positions. More importantly, though, the closure could not have focused on the substance of opinions in the AfD discussion, since the closing admin's statement did not refer at all to that discussion, and since the reason given for closing as delete (WP:NOT) was a reason not brought up by any deletion supporters in that discussion. ChrisO's attempt to interpret the referral to WP:NOT as NOT#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and thus akin to WP:SYNTH, which was argued by some of the deletion supporters, smells of rationalization after the fact, and, as pointed out by Ravpapa, is contradicted by the closing admin himself.

In closing, I'd like to point out that since the deletion, many more news articles have been written on this topic, and many more media outlets, heads of state and international organizations have acknowledged it. The subject of the article is anti-Jewish backlash to the recent Israel-Gaza conflict. Much of the opposition to the article, both in the AfD discussion and here, seems to stem from suspicion that someone is trying to create an issue when there wasn't one in order to push a POV. A simple google news search for, say, "Gaza"+"anti-semitism" or "Gaza"+"Jewish" will show that that article's subject is a very real and widespread problem, that it is taken seriously in many countries, and that it receives much media attention. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Googling for such terms turn up little but blogs and ridiculously unreliable sources (e.g. pajamas media and joe the plumber), many of which have little to do with the actual, current subject matter. Tarc (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try Googling "anti Jewish backlash Gaza" and see what happens. I get BBC, Reuters, Yahoo News, JP and more on page 1. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, that is only partially correct. If you do a general Google search, you indeed come up with mostly blogs. But if you search Google News, you get 3,069 results, including articles from Reuters, the Guardian, the NYT, BBC, PBS, Herald Tribune, Pravda, and many more relevant and reliable sources.
I hope my remarks - and Jalapenos's citation of my comments - do not give the impression that I support overturn of the deletion. I don't (nor do I support its affirmation). I just think we have to be fair. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume you are talking about when you said "Policy says that AfD closures should reflect the outcome of the discussion". The outcome is based off consensus, consensus is not a vote. Each opinion is valued based on its demonstration of understanding and adherence to the policies consensus has decided on. A small group of people thinking one thing in an AfD cannot override the larger consensus of policy. An opinion given at an AfD contrary to policy is likely to have little weight, even if lots of people make it. The arguments of those seeking to keep did not seem to address the articles violation of the core policy content forking.
  • The outcome is based off the outcome of the discussion, but not as interpreted as a vote. Chillum 15:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess it just goes to show that no matter how clearly you say something, someone who doesn't want to understand - won't. If we wanted to have a single administrator decide AfD's based on policy, we would do that. That's not what we do. We have a discussion within the community based on policy. This one did not reach consensus. All you're saying is "I think the people who argued for delete in that discussion were right". Others thought they were wrong. We already had that discussion. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 08:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion has gone on long enough. Everyone's position is pretty clear. Except for mine - I don't really have a position. But I do have a suggestion. Much of the discontent with McBride's decision was that it completely ignored the points raised in the discussion - both pro and con. I think a lot of the participants here felt that this was being contemptuous of their views.

So I suggest that any administrator who decides to close this discussion take the time to write a concise summary of the arguments, with affirmation or rebuttal, and a reasoned conclusion referencing relevant Wikipedia policies.

And then we can all get back to writing articles about Ignaz Schuppanzigh and Walter Willson Cobbett. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I second that and not just because Wiki coverage of chubby fingered artists is so poor. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ravpapa, this isn't about feelings. This is about policy and about procedure. If the deletion doesn't get overturned, what it basically means is this: an article can get deleted by a single admin who didn't even read it or its AfD discussion, because the title (which was written by the deletion nom) "shows... something". Why should I work hard writing an article about some obscure artist? It could get deleted on a whim, and the deletion review would basically be an argument between editors who like that artist's work and those who think he was crappy and doesn't deserve an article, with some nods to WP:RANDOM_POLICY for show. This whole dismaying affair has raised my wikicynicism several notches, and I doubt a summary of the opinions of the admin who happens to close this discussion, whatever they may be, would help. I think Sandstein's comment above summarizes the whole thing, but how many people (will) actually read it? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 08:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is nothing new Jalapeno, we have always based the closing of AfD's on policy, and never have closed them by votes. This is not some sort of new precedent, but this is how admins are expected to close AfDs. I certainly do think the closing admin read both the article and the AFd, I see no reason to assume otherwise. Just because people are disagreeing with you does not mean they are disregarding you.
Even if 80 out of 87 people suggested that we violate WP:NOT, WP:FORK, WP:NPOV, or WP:OR, we are still not going to do it. Chillum 15:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop misrepresenting my comments. You imply (yet again) that I or others advocate closing AfD's based on number of votes; no one in this discussion advocated that. You also imply that I claimed that someone disregarded me, which I did not. I argued that the closing admin disregarded the AfD discussion, since he made no reference to the discussion in the closing comment, and since he closed using a single argument that was not advanced by anyone in that discussion. To clarify: I am not worried that your implications will lead anyone who has carefully read this thread to misunderstand my position. I simply take personal offense at my views being misrepresented. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is who decides if the article violates policy and how do they make that decision. Are you saying that the closing admin can just make a unilateral decision on that, regardless of the views of the contributors to the AFD, even if there was no consensus that the article violated policy? If so then it either becomes a lottery or a race to see which admin closes the AFD. I cannot see how there was any consensus on whether there was a policy violation in this case and I do not think this article was a clear policy violation and so would not have closed it as delete. As shown above there are other admins who agree. By closing as delete the admin is putting his own view above the communities view. If it is clear that an article is a policy violation then fine the closing admin should delete, but if they delete when it is not clear regardless of the views expressed in the AFD then there is no point in having AFDs in the future. We might as well just have a new speedy crieria "any article that any one admin thinks violates policy". Davewild (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, it shows no such thing. If 13 have an opinion of 'keep', but the rationales for the keep opinions are not considered valid (e.g. flavors of WP:ILIKEIT, citing WP:RS when that isn't the actual issue, "it is widely reported") by the closing admin, then they will largely be disregarded or given less weight. If the 12 calls for 'delete' are found to have made their case convincingly (e.g. WP:OR, WP:FORK), then those will be given more weight. This is the essence of AfD, that a simple roll call of votes is not considered as important as the content of each user's argument. Tarc (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well then could you tell me how this view "Needs some improvement, but well sourced and not a POV fork." is any less valid than this one "There are far too many POV forks". Or how "feels too content fork-y to me" is more valid than "obviously notable material which needs to be split from the reactions page per WP:SIZE. (N)POV has absolutely nothing to do with it, and there's nothing inherently POV about either the article's title or its content". I would love to hear how the delete opinions are so much more valid than the keep opinions (and how they relate to the closing admins closing statement). Davewild (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Er, that's kinda what we have all these administrator-type people around here for. It is a judgement decision, weighing the strength or the weakness of each post in the AfD. DRV is not AfD Part II. Just because you disagree wit the outcome is not a good reason to overturn. Tarc (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So if I had come along and closed this as no consensus you would have supported my judgement? Davewild (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather devote time to discussing events that have actually taken place here, rather than suppositions and what-ifs. Tarc (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Category:User nb – Overturned. There's a lot of discussion here about whether the distinction between these language codes is enough to have a separate babel template, which is an issue best considered at a new CfD, if someone wishes to file one. The only question here is whether crucial information was missing at the original CfD. That appears unequivocally to be the case--by the admission of the person who closed it, participants at the original CfD did not understand why the separate templates existed. Thus, the closure is overturned. No prejudice against a new CfD to consider this issue in all its nuances; such a CfD can be started at any time by any editor. – Chick Bowen 22:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Category:User nb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)) Restore User:nb language categories. This will actually be a reversal of the modification done in 2006, when they were deleted (in practice: confused with no). For consistency with ISO 639, and to achieve some degree of consistency across Wikimedia projects, nb should be used for Bokmål, nn for Nynorsk and no as a generic reference to Norwegian. All three category sets should be kept as some are more competent or comfortable editing in one of our written standards (Bokmål and Nynorsk) than the other. This system is in place on nn.wiki, pt.wiki and probably many more. I shall propose it on no.wiki.

It seems the fact that no.wikipedia is in bokmål induced contributors to make a mistake in 2006. The debate was here: Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/October_2006#Norwegians Please note that some projects, such as no.wikinews, are open to both nynorsk and bokmål. I believe this restore is correct whatever the outcome of the current vote on no.wikipedia regarding the possibility of moving to nb.wikipedia.

It will also be necessary to removeA consequence might be to consider removing the mention of Bokmål from those User:no categories or Babel boxes that have one, and to set nb-boxes to display nb rather than no.--Gamlevegen (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: The native language categories no and nb seem fine. The numbered ones, Category:User nb-1 /2/3 and so on need restoring to distinguish nb properly from no. While I believe this proposal to be consistent with guidelines and what is in place on Meta and one of the Norwegian Wikipedias, I doubt if it will be introduced on the other one. Still, I believe this proposal is the one generally recommendable across Wikimedia projects.--Gamlevegen (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gamlevegen asked me to come over and comment, since I closed the last discussion. That was a long time ago, and I'll stand by my ignorance of these conventions. If knowledgeable people support the change back, then as Delbert said in O Brother Wherefore Art Thou, I'm with you fellers.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge nb and nn into no and use a system such as Category:User en-gb to let contributors specify written norm. If you seek a person capable of verifying a Norwegian text it is a safe assumption that a person that can read bokmål can also read nynorsk or the other way around. Taemyr (talk) 06:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That assumption is not as safe as one might think. It depends a bit on exactly why you need a Norwegian speaker. If I recall correctly, I've seen nn-2's and even an nn-1 among the native nb people. Making that statement about oneself is not exactly volunteering to be consulted about Nynorsk. As a native speaker I do suspect that some of them exaggerate, but only slightly, and we can't very well decide for them. Nynorsk and Bokmål are to me in some aspects as different as some other pairs of languages with seperate identities, codes, and wikipedias. Bokmål and Danish spring to mind, but there are others. Besides, what you wish to achieve is already in place: The nb's and nn's are automatically shown in the no category as well.--Gamlevegen (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that Nynorsk and Bokmål is at least as mutually intelligible as the different variates of English. I would suspect that those nb people who give nn-1 or nn-2 are judging their ability to write Nynorsk rather than their ability to understand it. Taemyr (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And there should be an opportunity to do the same for nb, with clarity, for natives and non-natives. --Gamlevegen (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True. nn: and no: are both different from this wiki and each other. There's no point waiting for them to adopt a common system or one that is strictly logical. At no: there will be no consensus for it. I have asked. We have the two written standards with both common and seperate Wikimedia projects. We have the codes for all of that. Let's keep the categories available.--Gamlevegen (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_4&oldid=1138435330"