Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 30

Manuel Rosa (closed)

File:M-Energy Drink.jpg (closed)

Chronology of the Harry Potter series

I don't feel that there was a clear consensus in this case either way. This should have only ended in a no consensus. Even when you eliminate the !votes there are only two arguments that have disagreement. Outback the koala (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that I did contact the closing admin regarding this, also I had requested to userfy the article after the Afd was completed, but did not receive a reply. Outback the koala (talk) 07:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Consensus for deletion, backed by appropriate arguments, was present. There is no reason that this material should not be added to the parent articles, but consensus that this should not stand alone as an article justifies the close. Alansohn (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
overturn But for AGF, I'd think this resembles repeatedly nominating an article until it has a consensus to get deleted due to the random fluctuation of who has shown up. If something has gone through multiple AfDs, it should take more than a borderline consensus to delete. Given that multiple of the delete arguments carried no substantial commentary (such as just claiming that it was "unencyclopedic" which is a synonym for IDONTLIKEIT), the consensus is even less strong. While there was also not many secondary sources in the article they do exist outside (for example, Duriez's "Field Guide to Harry Potter" among others) which could be easily incorporated into the article. (And yes, I know that this last argument is more appropriate at AfD but it wasn't brought up then and is relevant because it constitutes new information). JoshuaZ (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with you that this is nonsense, it is repeated nomination until desired outcome is achieved. Spot on. However, the AfD itself is pretty clearly in favor of delete, and admin was within discretion to close as they did. Seems we are in need of a new policy? How about WP:REPEATED?Turqoise127 18:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately such a move is directly against the general principal that consensus can change. The deletion discussion prior to this one seems to be 18 months or so ago, so it's not like it's every week. It'd also have to go both ways, no keep recreating in the hope that you'll get a different outcome this time (I note the first discussion ended in delete). Realistically wikipedia has changed, articles which once were featured may no longer meet minimum standards etc. BLP jas come along, and the overall makeup of the community changes. There will always be articles on a borderline where some believe firmly they should exist, other believe otherwise. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - As the keep calls amounted to "keep I like it" and little more. While I am a fan myself and could likely rattle off some of these dates from memory (i.e. Dumbledore opens a can of whoop-ass on Grindelwald in 1945), this is just fancruft with no real-world applicability or notability. Tarc (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as incorrect reading of consensus. Furthermore. a 5th nomination is almost always an attempt to rely on the randomness of results at AfD--If there's a 10% error, 5 or 6 nominations will result in a delete about half the time regardless of the merits of the article. This should not be permitted without some indication that consensus on the general issue has changed. (the same is of course true of 5 or 6 attempted recreations, but we would ordinarily salt an article after the 3rd time or so, specifically in order to prevent this, and require a prior deletion review before unsalting. The same should be required here--the AfD should have been speedy closed as an attempt to game the system. As for the merits, the complexity of the events,and the fact that the successive books describe many of the key events retrospectively, and not always reliably, makes the article necessary for understanding. It might not be worth bothering with an ordinarily important book, but this is way out of that class. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. First, your opinion on repeated XfDs is not relevant to this DRV. If you wish to change how repeated nominations are handled, then an RfC is probably the better venue to attract a broader discussion. You aren't going to change it within this DRV. Second, there is no such thing as an "incorrect reading of consensus". If you yourself would have read the consensus differently and arrived at a different conclusion, that is not a valid reason to overturn an other administrator's decision. That is, in principle, little different from wheel-warring. Tarc (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I humbly disagree, the opinion IS relevant, because it is AfD #5. Wow. How can you not see that? There without a doubt CAN be an "incorrect reading of consensus". If we have 10 policy based votes and 1 SPA vote for delete yet the admin closes as "delete" then that is incorrect reading of consensus. How can you not see that? Incidentaly, your comment to the above editor verges on rudeness in its tone, I would try to be a little nicer. (Pot calling the kettle black)Turqoise127 01:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A decision at DRV is not wheel warning, or anything like that. In fact, even single=handedly reverting another admin's decision is not wheel-warring, though inadvisable in most cases without some amount of discussion. It would be the first admin reinstating it without discussion that is prohibited, because then we need ANI or an analogous process. Pages like DRV exist to review administrative acts. Saying in good faith that a close is wrong for whatever reason is always in order here. Saying in good faith that IAR should have been used is always an appropriate reason. (of course, having given such a reason, it's necessary to convince the other people.) There is fairly general consensus on too often, though it's been hard to specify it exactly. One of the accepted ways of changing policy is changing gradually what we actually do by changing our interpretations of guidelines and policies--the effective policy on proper deletions is deletions that will be sustained at DRV. There is very much such a thing as incorrect reading of consensus--in fact, that's the usual reason for reversal here, that the admin did not properly judge the consensus. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The admin did not properly judge the consensus" is entirely your opinion; you do not get to use DRV to substitute your own opinion over that of another administrator. Period. It is high time that you and others be prevented from abusing deletion review in this manner. Tarc (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a completely uninvolved bystander, I'm curious: if this kind of opinion is not allowed to be posted at DRV, what is a valid argument for DRV? If there are no possible arguments and closing admin is always right no matter what, then why DRV exists at all? Ipsign (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see user:DGG using or abusing this deletion review. I asked for the review, user DGG did not participate in the original Afd or even work on the page, to my knowledge. I see this as a personal attack that is not on topic. This is a DRV, not a discussion on them. Outback the koala (talk) 07:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the DGGs statement as overly problematic nor an abuse of process. His first "Overturn as incorrect reading of consensus." is a perfectly valid reason to overturn a deletion, however it's much like a bald assertion of "it's (not)notable", gives little context so any one closing the debate should weight it accordingly. No need for anyone to be prohibited from saying stuff, just let the closer look at the overall discussion and act accordingly. If you feel it's weak or irrelevant argument then feel free to flag it as such since that'll highlight it to the closer and/or allow DGG to expand on the argument. Surely this is exactly the way it's supposed to work? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I don't think that's a fair reading of the repeated nominations. This is not an article that has had repeated consensus to be kept; it's one that's escaped by the skin of its teeth through "no consensus" twice in over two years. It has not had a keep consensus since 2007, when our requirements regarding sourcing and original research were much worse than they are now, and so I don't think it's fair to try to misrepresent a good faith application of WP:CCC as a bad-faith attempt at re-re-re-re-rolling the AfD dice. Reyk _YO! 00:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse- In my opinion the delete !votes were well grounded in policy, and the closing administrator did right in not allowing WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL to trump necessary core policies such as the requirement for reliable sourcing and the ban on speculation. Reyk _YO! 00:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Regarding the previous AfDs, the recent ones seem to have been closed with little more than a "the result was no consensus" with no further explanation. These closes shouldn't prevent further AfDs: (a) consensus can change, especially "no consensus"; and (b) if the closing admins haven't taken the time to give reasons for the close the closes are not really worth much. The closing admin in this case, on the other hand, clearly found one side objectively more persuasive by reference to core policies (like OR). There's no reason why this close shouldn't be allowed to stand.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

agreed there, consensus can change. Local consensus at a particular time may also be unrepresentative. The way to figure out which rule we should go by is to discuss the actual merits of the case at hand. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the last thing Wikipedia needs is yet another article summarising the plot of the Harry Potter movie series, the "delete" consensus in that debate is not entirely clear and DGG's arguments about WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED strike me as well-founded.—S Marshall T/C 11:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have some sympathy for the keeplisting argument, I can't see that it applies fully here. The article has apparently been listed 4 times prior to this one, deleted, kept, no-consensus, no-consensus. I usually take no-consensus closes to mean there are problems or potential problems which need to be resolved and we believe they can be resolved. If they aren't resolved in a reasonable timeframe after that it does reasonably suggest we were wrong and those issues can't be resolved (or there is no will to resolve them) so relisting is reasonable. The latest debate is a fair distance over the previous, more so given it seems to have been raised by someone not involved in the previous debates. i.e. I don't see this as an individual crusade. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I agree with the comments made by the closing Admin - I note 7 !votes for delete, 4 for keep including a keep because 'I like it', and a merge. The closing Admin decided that the policy arguments supported deletion. It isn't the case that a few keep votes mean an article can't be deleted. And I'm a fan, by the way. Dougweller (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that no consensus closes should not prevent renomination, but DGG does have a point that many keep supporters from the previous WP:Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Harry Potter series were absent from this AfD. Flatscan (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see where DGG has a point at all, no. If editors are interested in a particular topic or or article, then they can keep things on their watchlist, it isn't anyone else's responsibility to keep them informed. If fact, I'd say in some cases of repeated noms it may be better if old hands missed out on the next round of discussions, as sometimes a fresh set of eyes is what is needed to objectively assess the matter. There is far too much "it was kept before so we gotta keep it now"-isms out there, users with WP:OWN issues, and so on. Tarc (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Isn't this culture of WP:OWN entrenched in DRV, though? I mean, closing admins get really quite hot under the collar if they aren't approached about a decision on their talkpage. There's a feeling that the closing or speedy deleting admin "owns" the decision and is entitled to be consulted before the DRV is opened. Why does that apply to administrators but not editors? Why aren't article creators, for example, required to be notified of AfDs on anything they write?
    I do agree that it's necessary to watchlist any material that you create. It's not enough to write a decent article, you then have to defend it from good faith but mistaken editors, and brainless prats, for the rest of time.—S Marshall T/C 17:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think your broad brush characterization of "good faith but mistaken editors, and brainless prats" is helpful. Sure there will be times when there are nonsense listings for deletion and hopefully these survive regardless, especially where there is a reaonable level of participation. Many articles get deleted because they don't meet the standards, cases like this with a delete, keep and two no consensus by nature suggests there is a reasonable amount of disagreement on, labeling those who think it needs to be delete in that way is inappropriate (I'm sure your point is broader, but in the context of this debate it would have to be applicable). On the issue with notification of closing admins there is a substantial difference (1) often the issue can be resolved without bringing it to DRV, I've seen plenty of case where discussion makes the person interested "happier" that the result was correct or the admin reconsiders and updates the result/reslists (2) Unfortunately some people come to DRV with a battlefield mentality, "that evil deletionist admin was out to get my articles, I'll show them...". It's more about getting even than about the result as such. It shouldn't be like that, mistakes happen and we shouldn't be scared of that, there should be no reason for an admin to be defensive of their close. With article creators, I don't see the same attitude, the article being deleted isn't the same combative approach. Not to mention that informing article creators isn't as easy as it sounds, I create a one line stub, 20 other editors over a period of time bulk it out signficantly, finally it's deleted, why inform me as creator? the vast bulk of content and effort was nothing to do with me. If we start making complicated rules about who to inform it becomes a nonsense, and notifying anyone who touched the article is probably not too useful either --82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Marshall, your framing of the situation is a bit off the mark. I don't think a closer thinks they "own" the decision, its more like when an admin blocks a user...another admin that reviews the unblock request usually does the courtesy of consulting with the blocker first. It's just a basic courtesy of "why did you decide this the way you did?" IMO it should be a requirement like AN/I notifications are, but I fully realize that that debate has been lost. Article creators are a whole different ballgame, as the IP noted above when there are many, many contributors to an article. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Getting a little bit off topic here, but let's follow it up and see where it goes. First off, I was speaking more broadly than purely about deletion; I was talking about my experience of defending what I've done on Wikipedia and explaining the reasons why I've done it.
        I've very little personal experience of attempts to delete my material. Nothing I've written has ever gone to AfD. I've encountered CSD—back in 2009 someone nominated an article of mine for speedy deletion in the same second as I started it (here), which was very annoying and speedy deletion taggers have stood pretty low in my esteem ever since—but that's about it. (Either I'm such a good editor that I've never written an inappropriate article, or else I've been lucky enough to never seriously annoy a member of the article removal cabal; which you believe depends on your personal level of cynicism.) However, I can tell you that whatever Wikipedia policies might say about it, I feel a very strong sense of ownership of (say) Agriculture in the United Kingdom and I'd be upset, angry and fairly sarcastic if it was subjected to a major reorganisation or tagged for deletion without any attempt to discuss the matter with me. In short, I'd react like an admin whose deletion decision had been challenged.
        And in fact, the whole context of GAN and FAC is all about ownership; there's an expectation that the nominator will be the person who's written the material and that the nominator will run around fixing issues pointed out by the reviewers. It's a rare reviewer who'll undertake any major fixing for themselves.
        In short, it's natural to take responsibility for, and feel ownership of, one's writing or one's decisions on Wikipedia and there's a conflict between our policies and our conventions.—S Marshall T/C 17:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Having pride in your work is not a bad thing, and I don't think WP:OWN intends to disuade that. As already mentioned informaing admins here isn't about ownership of the decision (or shouldn't be) it's about expedient dealing with deletion disputes, no one will know better the underlying reasons than the closer - I'll also note that some admins couldn't care less about the discussion with them first - something I disagree with on the same basis. Interesting that you bring up GAN and FAC (not everyone agrees that these are good things BTW, their standards for what makes an article "good" differ), although you are right to a point it's also contradictory, it involves criticism (hopefully constructive) of "your" work, the fact that "you" may do all the fixing rather than someone else shouldn't make that much of a difference. You also refer to the "article removal cabal" in line with your comments here about those seeking to delete this, whereas your direct personal experience seems to contradict such a problem, I haven't reviewed your work but I'd suggest you assume it's because it's been done to a good standard. Rather than wander even further away from topic, I'd suggest most people listing stuff for deletion do so in an effort to do what they see as improving the overall quality of the encyclopedia, not merely for "fun" --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus per DGG, and because a significant share of the delete !votes and arguments (particularly with regard to sourcing "independence" requirements) would be inconsistent with consensus-accepted practice if applied generally to articles incorporating in-universe content of fictional works. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what? Now matter how important something is in-universe, it is just that; in-universe. Finding reliable sources independent of that is a basic requirement for establishing notability, and many of the delete calls are quite in line with that. Just what are you trying to pull here? Tarc (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Keep arguments did not address the problems with the article and merely avoided the policies and guidelines with arguments claiming it to be useful and popular, that because the books are notable therefore the article was notable enough, arguing that Wikipedia does Fandom or making comparisons with other articles without validating the individual merits of this article. More importantly, there was a consensus in favor of deleting the article. Jfgslo (talk) 06:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I do not see consensus in the AFD. In this review I find two editors' arguments particularly persuasive. User:DGG persuades me that overturn is appropriate here. User:Tarc even more strongly presuades me that his type of endorse argument is not helpful to the encyclopedia. Thincat (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
QQ more, pls? What I endorse is the notion of administrator being able to make a reasonable judgment call when closing a deletion discussion, and not have that judgment overturned by simple-minded second-guessing. Discussions are not votes. Discussions are not head counts. Discussions are where opinions to keep or delete an article are made, and these opinions are weighed by the closing admin. Sometimes, regrettably, even consensus can override this, i.e. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 17, the plane crash incident. Even though the keeps in that AfD were IMO profoundly asinine, the close was correct. In cases like this though where the keep/delete ratio is narrower, then the strength of argument gets more attention. Just because another admin may have closed ti differently does not give them the right essentially overturn another's close. Short of something egregiously and explicit wrong...a policy unambiguously misapplied, a close opposite of a crystal-clear consensus, etc...I rarely support overturns in this forum. "I disagree" is not a valid reason. Tarc (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]