Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 17: Difference between revisions

Back to the Future timeline (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back to the Future timeline (3rd nomination)

This was closed by User:Haemo as "The result was Merge to Back to the Future trilogy", but "merge" was only suggested by one of the twenty participants in the discussion. It appears that merging is Haemo's personal solution, and not a neutral or proper interpretation of the consensus represented in this discussion. There's no possible way that merge can be interpretted from this discussion. Haemo has clearly stepped over the line here. Except for the one merge !vote, the discussion was divided strictly between those who wished to keep and those who wished to delete, with the keeps prevailing either directly or defaulting to keep via no clear consensus. I'm baffled by Haemo's closing of this deletion discussion as "merge". The merge should be overturned and the list kept as per the real consensus. The Transhumanist    21:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the page still unsourced ? Nick (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My closure was not based on merely the bolded !votes — it was based on the arguments made, and their basis in policy. The strongest policy-based argument made was that this article has insufficient 3rd party sources to demonstrate notability — as such, most of the article was some form, or degree of original research. The strongest argument in favor of keeping the subject was that renomination was premature — the "sources exist" argument was not compelling. As such, I found that the consensus of the discussion was that the article was inappropriate. No editors contested the deletion argument, while the keep arguments were roundly contested. However, nearly all of the "delete" arguments argued the content was better dealt with briefly in the articles on the respective films, and that it was the concept of the timeline as being independently notable that was the issue. Consensus clearly indicated that there was some plausible place for the material in other articles — since the clearest suggestion for which article was to Back to the Future trilogy I settled on that.

Your statement that Keep was the "correct" consensus is wrong. AFD is not a vote, and if I had gone merely by the strongest bolded recommendations, this article would have been deleted. Instead, I opted to actually read what people recommended, and decided that consensus was in favor of this content in some form — just not as a stand-alone article. --Haemo (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of For Better or For Worse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

An article which clearly completely fails a standard policy WP:NOT#PLOT, but was kept. Not only does the article contain plot summary, it is nothing BUT plot summary. Given the recent RfAR on fiction, where editors described WP:NOT as "disputed", this could set a precedent. Black Kite 20:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete. Article clearly fails WP:NOT#PLOT, which was the whole point of the nomination, and the Keep votes in this AFD do not answer this. It seems the closing admin just counted noses. This was a terrible closure. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. Although there was no consensus to delete (and at the very least, the AFD should have been closed as "no consensus" rather than as "keep"), no one in favor of keeping the article presented any argument that it is not a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. Rather, the "keep" arguments were based on the article's being "useful" and the fact that it was previously removed from the main For Better or For Worse article. Frankly, neither of those arguments outweighs the fact that the article is a policy violation. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion [this is a typo, see below], based on what the AfD closer had to work with. A good close, by those means. If the "history" of this particular comic strip is "notable", I don't see why it can't be included in the parent article, as expressed by those in the original debate. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean endorse closure? It wasn't deleted. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree the place for this is in the parent article, except that this is far too long and detailed, and a useful summary of the important plot points already exists there. Black Kite 20:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's of course what I meant. Too many AfDs and DRVs. Here is my revised statement:

• Endorse closure' as keep, based on what the AfD closer had to work with. A good close, by those means. If the "history" of this particular comic strip is "notable", I don't see why it can't be included in the parent article, as expressed by those in the original debate. However, the closer followed what the discusssion seemed to want. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete. Unsourced, nothing but plot summary, utterly misconceived. This isn't what Wikipedia is here for. Perhaps someone could put it in Comixpedia; it doesn't belong here, though. Nandesuka (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure' as keep - the community has decided to keep this, which provides the opportunity to fix it. If it isn't fixed in a reasonable amount of time, it can be nominated for deletion again. In the meantime, we should respect the consensus. There is no procedural point upon which the AfD should be overturned, and therefore it should be upheld. The Transhumanist    21:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's clearly procedural - "The community" doesn't get to rewrite policy, and the AfD should've been closed in line with policy - which it wasn't. If it was WP:BLP that was the issue here, there would be little argument - why is WP:NOT different? Black Kite 21:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure as keep, there was no consensus to delete that article and DRV is not AFD round 2. If necessary the content can be merged back into the For Better or For Worse article (since it was spunout in the first place). WP:PLOT doesn't even belong in WP:NOT, it belongs in WP:WAF. And Angr redirecting the article after the AFD was over was disruptive. --Pixelface (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darren M Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

If you ignore the extra keep vote by User:Diamonddannyboy, the multiple comments by him, and the comment by the single purpose ip of 90.208.51.74, then there is indeed a consensus to delete. Furthermore, nearly all of the keep votes admit that there are no reliable sources for the subject of the article. RogueNinja_talk 17:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The original editors who put it up for deletion even came to its rescue, it has five keeps by indepentent editors, not to include those by User:Diamonddannyboy but five from others, notablity was proved under WP:ATHLETE17:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The above comment was added by User:Diamonddannyboy - RogueNinja_talk 17:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• On the AFD entry page there is Five keeps indepentent of daidannyboy and four deletes and one weak delete. why is put up again for a review. This again due to it being part of the Romany project. 17:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamonddannyboy (talk • contribs)

• As the closing admin, I endeavored to clean up various repeated comments by Diamonddannyboy (talk · contribs) and sort these things out, I obviously missed one bolded keep, but that didn't affect my close decision. My close was based on a few things...I don't count votes when I close AfDs, but I can't help but notice there are six different editors that registered some form of a "keep" comment and five going the other way. If I was a countin' type, that's a no consensus for sure. As noted in my brief closing comment, "Keep working on WP:BIO sourcing", I was aware of the general concerns brought up and sympathize with the arguments that the current sourcing is gray-area for notability guideline purposes. I took that into account as I viewed the large changes that occurred over the course of the AfD (compare: before/after and the addition of several references). These changes, and the comments from later in the AfD leaning towards keep (weak or otherwise) indicated to me that there was a trend of improvement within the article that merited a no consensus decision to allow further progress. I stand by my close, obviously, and also add that reference and notability tags may be appropriate for the article, and an AfD renomination--after vetting the new references--is a perfectly valid option (though I would hope substantial improvement time will be allowed). I would, naturally, have explained all this to RogueNinja if it had been brought up to me first... — Scientizzle 18:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sustain keep a reasonable close;; the article was improved during the afd, and most of the keeps followed that improvement. DGG (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this should be revisited. One of the keeps, for example, argued: It seems to me that an unfortunate combination of an underground sport and a long-repressed ethnic group requires sketchy sources. In fact, information from this secretive people is so rare that Mr Jackson must be notable for even courting attention this far into the mainstream. That could be read as countering systemic bias, or it could be read as "keep despite failing core policy because it's hard to cover this subject otherwise". Yes indeed, bare-knuckle fighters are not widely covered. Neither are fighting dog breeders or cock fight promoters. Do we take whatever we can find in order to cover these subjects, or do we simply decide that they are too much of a niche for us to be able to cover without violating policy? Guy (Help!) 20:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I argued for a weak keep of the article after making changes to layout and trying to track down references. Still, in spit of that bias, I would argue that the article started off as unsuitable for Wikipedia, and after the work of several editors during the AfD it reached a point where it is worth giving it more time. My impression of the AfD debate was that most commentators had moved to that point as well - not that there was a strong desire to keep, but instead a belief that the article had been improved sufficiently over the course of the AfD to warrant keeping for now. As recommended by Scientizzle, I'll continue to chase down and verify the remaining references, and if they can't be verified (or aren't sufficient), and if no other support for the article is found, I expect to see the article renominated in a couple of months. - Bilby (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rnb (edit | [[Talk:Template:Rnb|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The template was deleted without any prior discussion or voting about this template. There was a voting about the project page connected to it, but NOT about this template. If there was any discussion about this that I didn't notice, please inform me. This request also concerns the subpage Rnb/button. Freestyle 16:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a previous deletion discussion which was closed as "Userfy" - that is when material not suitable for the main namespaces (article, template, wikipedia etc) is moved to the userspace rather than being deleted. The Random Button was deleted because the creator moved the template back into the Wikipedia namespace. The nominator was well aware of this prior discussion - he took part in it, after all, but for the benefit of others Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Random Button. I'm also a little disappointed this was brought to deletion review by the nominator without any discussion, I was never asked to undelete or explain the deletion first. That's just not cricket, I'm afraid. Nick (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template was deleted also without giving me (one of the main contributors) any notice or a chance to give my opinion prior to deletion, so I recognise this disappointment in a way, although you didn't quite put hours of work in deleting this template as I did making it. Still I do agree with you that it would've been better if I'd came to you before starting this request. Sorry about that.

As I said the discussion that took place earlier was about removing the project page connected to this template. I can see that having a project around a template would be not wanted, but deleting the project page does not grant the right to delete the template alltogether. At least I was not aware that the discussion was about the project page and the templates. This should have been made more clear by the nominator at the time, and I seriously doubt this was clear to all other voters. I think this unclearness might even be the reason why it has been put back in the first place. Freestyle 19:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia:MFD#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Random concludes with the project being kept, I'll restore the random template into your userspace. Nick (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]