Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 September 30

Prophet's Day – merge endorsed – JohnCD (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kind attention: Onel5969, Caeciliusinhorto, Lfstevens, BattyBot, Jackninja5, Northamerica1000, Iqsrb722, Messiaindarain, Jonesey95, Maproom, Hmainsbot1, Sandstein, AnomieBOT, Everymorning, Worldbruce, Spirit of Eagle

Hi all! I were engage in different issues and failed to watch the discussion on the page Prophet's Day‎. Moreover, to claim for a deletation review is very new to me. Somehow, I am here to submit my demand for a deletation review regarding the page Prophet's Day‎.

Though, earlier was acknowledged about the article Mawlid, I have created Prophet's Day as a separate article because:

In the very easy form, first to say, Mawlid is a celebration that depends on the Lunar Calendar (Muslim calendar or Hijri calendar / AH) meanwhile, Prophet's Day is the celebration that observes in the aspect of Solar Calendar (Gregorian / AD). Here, the almost 11 Days of difference between a lunar and solar calendar should be considerable.

Secondly, the ceremony Mawlid has been celebrating as a National program since Hijri 4th century and as international program since Hijri seventh century. In contrary, the Prophet's day is being celebrated since 2013. Therefore, it is a quite different program.

Moreover, the Islamic Calendar did not exist at the time when Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) appeared in the worldly life. According to historical analysis, Prophet (pbuh) appeared in 570 AD (Julian Calendar Era) it means, the (Gregorian / AD) began since 769 years before his advent. In contrary, the Hijri Calendar even has never introduced by the entire lifetime of Prophet (pbuh). It has been being countdown since 17 year back from its beginning, commemorating the year of migration (from Makkah to Madina) although, initiated/ inaugurated/ introduced 7 years later than the Prophet (buph) passed away.

It clarify that, the Islamic Calendar, it-self, is not a calendar initiated by the Prophet (pbuh) own-self. Therefore, the demand of celebrating a ceremony according to the earlier calendar, the solar calendar- Gregorian is more preferable than the lunar. It is quite different.

There have much more difference between even the season/monsoon. Because of being celebrated according to the lunar calendar, after each 2/4 years, the program become observed in a quite different season. Aside, Prophet's day, as it is being observed according to solar calendar, will remain in same season/monsoon each year. Never change it. Therefore, a difference between these two programs really exists.

Mawlid as being celebrated based on the converted day 12th Rabi-I, It can be celebrated in January, March, July or any month in rotation. It was converted depending on the sustaining other calendars like Julian, Roman or more. But the Prophet's Day is being celebrated based on the really existing calendar in that era that is Julian (Presently Gregorian) so, that, it's date and time will never be changed in the ever future.

I personally am working with the subject Sufism since 1996, contributing on Wikipedia for two years. Most of my works are trusted and stable at bn.wikipedia in fact, you may watch my contribution log. Above all these are my own opinion since I have been writing on the issue and lately following the discussions behind the article Mawlid. In fact, from my perception, in the above all circumstance, both articles should remain as two individual articles holding individual identity in parallel to Father's day or Mother's day or even the Women's day (International Women's Day). However, first two articles or second two articles can be merged in one but will be improper. --- Sufidisciple (talk) 11:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the original closing decision. The above is substantially the same argument made against merging as Sufidisciple stated here: Talk:Mawlid#Discussion: Merge or Keep Separate - Prophet’s Day & Mawlid. As such, it is not significant new information to this participant in the deletion discussion. Sufidisciple edited Prophet's Day while it was proposed for deletion, and had ample opportunity to weigh in on the three-week discussion. Worldbruce (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial endorse. The close obviously reflects the discussion. New information, or new arguments, belong on a talk page, Talk:Mawlid#Discussion:_Merge_or_Keep_Separate_-_Prophet.E2.80.99s_Day_.26_Mawlid. This is not a deletion matter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Deletion review is a venue where failure to follow deletion process correctly is dealt with. Mere disagreement with the closure is not dealt with here. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus. I don't see any consensus here at all. On the headcount front, we've got 1 delete (the nominator), 2 keep, and 2 merge. Looking at the merge !votes, we've got no policy-based arguments at all. One simply says, Merge with Mawlid., and the other says, Merge with Mawlid, as per above editors. There's also a mention of a previous merge proposal (which I can't find) which failed. That's the sum total of all the arguments for merging. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of those keeps was added to the middle of the discussion today, 13 days after the closure, and in direct contravention of the "Please do not modify it" notice on the archive. The other keep was my initial position, which I modified during the discussion to say that I considered merge a reasonable outcome. My apologies if I didn't express it properly at the time, but the closer correctly interpreted my position. A merge was proposed with this edit and the merge proposal removed in this edit. No discussion pro or con took place while the proposal was open, but a month later this argument was made for keeping them separate, an argument I would liken to "Easter is celebrated on different days according to Eastern and Western Christian calendars, so Wikipedia should have two articles about it." Worldbruce (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's comment: I've now again removed the "keep" opinion that was added after the closure. This means that everybody who participated during the discussion supported either deletion (the nominator) or merging (the others). Sandstein 16:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my comment above. I'm still a little concerned about the outcome, though. Clearly, without the !vote added after the close, the close looks fine the way it is. But, we're supposed to be more about doing the right thing than about standing on process. Obviously, voting late is contrary to process, but if process isn't the most important thing, then it seems we should give some credence to an opinion, even if added after the deadline, no? In any case, I'll abstain on this one. If there really is a consensus that the merge should not have happened, that could certainly be discussed on the article's talk page and if consensus does appear to support a resplitting, it's easy enough to do later. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Piggate – Decision endorsed. Closing early per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) – Mz7 (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was a contentious and well-attended AFD. Consensus was overwhelmingly and unambiguously in favour of keeping. 50 editors indicated their support for a keep, as opposed to 22 supporting deletion. 13 indicated a merge and 4 supported a redirect. Many pointed to WP:GNG. Astoundingly, the admin interpreted this as "no consensus". This raises questions of judgement. I would like this decision overturned in favour of keep AusLondonder (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's comment: For the reasons given in the closure and on my talk page, I'm of the view that we have a majority, but not a consensus for keeping – particularly if one considers that the relatively many "redirect" and "merge" opinions are also by editors opposed to keeping the article. AfD is not a vote, and consensus requires more than a majority in favor of a proposal. Also, the distinction between "keep" and "no consensus" is largely academic, because in either case the article is kept until somebody decides to start a new deletion discussion. Sandstein 08:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the redirect and merge for now we have 50-22 in favour of keeping. Include them and it is still 50-39 majority in favour of keeping, if you presume all redirect/merge = deletion. This is overwhelming for such a contentious issue. "No consensus" is not acceptable for such a situation, especially given it is already encouraging the vocal minority opposed to this article to start further disruptive "discussions" ALREADY AusLondonder (talk) 09:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Far too many of the keep votes (especially from a suspicious amount of accounts with very few edits) were of the WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ARTICLES-ON-OTHER-SCANDALS-EXIST type. Even if we ignore that problem, 50 v 39 is "No Consensus" every day of the week. I would be very surprised if any other administrator would have closed it differently; I certainly wouldn't have. Black Kite (talk) 09:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is consensus, then? 100%? AusLondonder (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, but in a contentious discussion 56% certainly doesn't cut it, even if we count all the dubious Keeps. Black Kite (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: What makes one's opinion worth less than someone else's? Huritisho (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts with a very few edits whose first edit (or first edit for a long time) were to an AfD are always looked at as possibly being an issue. I'm not saying they all are, but when there are a number of them, the closer has to take that into account. Black Kite (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relist, for the reason that the case has evolved considerably since it was initially listed for discussion. A lot of the delete comments came in early on, before Cameron had even commented on the issue. --ERAGON (talk) 09:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the point is quite rightly made that the lasting notability is unclear, and that people saying it will or it won't are all making wild guesses. In general, immediately dragging articles to AfD which obviously meet WP:N but have unclear (either way) long lasting significance is a jackass move, for which I believe the essay WP:TROUT was written for. Ditto participating in them, except perhaps to argue close with no outcome. Give it three or six months, when it's clearer, and figure out what to do when it's more than pointless grandstanding. Wily D 09:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. Really, a deletion review to consider whether "no consensus" should have been "keep"? The default outcome is keep where there is no consensus, so it really doesn't matter. Let's move on and not waste time. WJBscribe (talk) 09:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Per the nom, reviewing the deletion discussion it seemed clear to me that a super majority (i.e. >66%) of respondents favored keep. I was a little confused when the closer chose no consensus using "headcount" as the chief rationale. That said, the actual "headcount" was subject to interpretation, largely due to some participants making "keep/merge" or "delete/merge" votes rather than pure "delete" or "keep" votes. The closer chose to interpret "keep/merge" and "delete/merge" votes in a way I think was wrong. That said, Deletion Reviews are only really called for when there's an obvious misapplication or misinterpretation of policy. That is not the case here. Additionly, as pointed out by WJBscribe and the closer, this discussion is mostly academic. NickCT (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as participant Even I opined "keep" but many of the deletion reasons offered were reasonable issues. There were many substantial arguments on both sides and many people backing them. "No consensus" I believe correctly describes the situation - David Gerard (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: AfD is not a vote and even if it was, look at Collect's "Note to closer"—about a dozen or so keeps looked very suspicious at that point in the discussion and probably should have been marked as SPAs; more keeps from suspicious accounts or IP addresses were later made. In addition, a lot of votes were based on unsubstantiated conjecture that violate WP:CRYSTAL (e.g. "Piggate may be [Cameron's] political epitaph") or argument by assertion (e.g. "it's definitely a significant story"). Disclosure: I !voted to delete the page. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 14:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, and speedy close. I haven't even looked at the AfD, but arguing over whether to overturn a No Consensus to a Keep is just pointless process mongering. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, speedy close. I read through all of it and although there were a lot of keep votes the comments and reasoning behind them when taken in total shows there was absolutely no consensus as to why we were keeping it, same with the deletes. No consensus. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Good close. That was not a consensus-finding discussion, with divergent opinions talking past each other, with reasonable "merge" opinions unexplored, and evidence of vote stacking. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Vote stacking was certainly alleged, but evidenced? Pointing to !votes and using WP:WEASEL ("looked very suspicious", "probably should have been marked") are making allegations, not offering evidence. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and speedy close - I suggest the OP read WP:AfD, WP:Deletion policy and WP:Consensus, and try to understand it. Kraxler (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I opined "keep" (and still do) but User:Sandstein was correct to offer "no consensus" as a summary. In passing, I would add that "no consensus" is not a valid reason to immediately relist the article for deletion and some weeks of quiet wikignoming are indicated to improve the Call Me Dave and Piggate articles, rather than perpetual WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED moves. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and close. I read this as 'keep', not 'no consensus', but Sandstein's judgement of it was within reasonable difference of opinion. Certainly no reason to challenge it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a reasonable interpretation of a not-entirely-satisfactory discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and snow close: each side had legitimate arguments and "no consensus" was well within the closer's region of discretion. (I would have !voted merge if I had seen it.) BethNaught (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I would have happily seen the closer go further, to suggest he went to far in favour of not keeping the article seems like the opinion of those who want to keep this very poor very recentism attack article on the UK PM.♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 00:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.