Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 October 7
2009 October 9 >

8 October 2009

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

GW Patriot (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

SoWhy redirected to GWU the issues presented in the Talk section have been fixed and we would like this redirect removed. The GW Patriot is notable due to its popularity among undergraduates at GWU. It also has received significant coverage as can be seen from the data presented in the new citations added to the page. There was no large consensus in Talk to delete and with the new citations and content added we have fixed the issues presented in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GW_Patriot. GWPatriot (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nom's misleading sig fixed. Ikip (talk · contribs) redirected the article, not SoWhy. Message left for nom re:username policy. Tim Song (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. Someone has restored the article already, and I removed the AfD tag since AfD was closed by Ikip. Nothing else DRV can do here. No prejudice to a second AfD at editorial discretion. Tim Song (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Tim Song, in fact there are quite a few other things DRV can do here. By convention DRV has wide latitude to amend the results of an AfD, and I see two matters of concern in this case.

    The first concern relates to sourcing. I can see a lot of citations, but they do not seem to lead to independent reliable sources that are giving non-trivial coverage of the subject. Blogs are not a reliable source, Wikimedia Commons is not a reliable source, and the other cites are to the subject's website itself. This is a matter that should receive full discussion at AfD, and either better sources should be found, or the article should be deleted.

    The other matter of concern is that an end-run around the AfD process has been performed here. The closure states that by everyone's agreement a redirect was the outcome, but hey presto, we have an article rather than a redirect occupying that namespace. This is not okay.

    I think DRV needs to do three things here:

    1) List the article at AfD on our own motion, stipulating that there should be seven days of discussion;

    2) Revert that article back into a redirect while the AfD is in progress; and

    3) Protect the redirect until the matter is decided.

    This would be fairly vigorous action for a DRV, but I think it might be warranted in this case. It's DRV's role to see that AfDs happen in good faith and the resulting consensus is implemented.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • The first AfD was closed when the nom agreed to redirect, with no other comment whatsoever. I would treat this as a withdrawn nomination, and the subsequent redirect an editorial action.

      Since I do not consider the redirect to have been performed in furtherance of an AfD close, I see no end-run. On your specific suggestions:

      1) We can, of course, send this to AfD nostra sponte, but you can simply nominate it yourself and it will be faster.

      2) and 3): Interpreting the first redirect to be an editorial action rather than one performed in accordance with an AfD discussion, I consider the revert to be a normal application of WP:BRD, so I do not think we should either redirect again or protect it.

      Of course, if the first AfD ran its full course, and more than two editors participated, I'd likely support your suggestions. But here I see no reason to go that far. Tim Song (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close Nothing to do here. Hobit (talk) 02:44, 11 October 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.
ERC (IRC client) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

SoWhy closed this as no concensus when the concensus was delete. "linux.com article indeed is more than non-trivial coverage but unfortunately for the keep !votes, this cannot suffice on its own." shows that the concensus was delete. Joe Chill (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin's comment: (sorry if I do something wrong, it's my first DRV as the closing admin) The user requesting review has left out the rest of my rationale so it might not sound correct but there really was no consensus. The arguments were evenly split (in strength, not in numbers) between those who argued that the subject is notable (and provided non-trivial sources to establish it) and those who argued that the sources are not enough to establish notability, so there was no consensus on the matter of the article itself but such an AFD result does not bar the possibility to merge/redirect afterwards in case further improvement indeed proves impossible. Once could even argue that as the delete !votes have failed to take into account policies like WP:PRESERVE (i.e. that information should not be deleted if it can be kept anywhere else) so there really never was a valid reason for deletion instead of simple merging/redirect-editing instead anyway. Regards SoWhy 21:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You said yourself that only one source showed notability. If you thought that the concensus showed that it could be merged, you could have closed it as merge and I think that someone most likely would do the merging. If the concensus isn't delete, I would think that the concensus was merge per this comment. Joe Chill (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please keep in mind that "no consensus" is not the same as "keep". It can still be merged, redirected or anything. That's what editing is all about and as I said, the result does not forbid it. It just says that there is no consensus what to do at that AFD and that is what this was. There was also none to merge for the same reasons. There could be, it needs to be discussed, but that does not mean that the consensus at this particular AFD was merge. There was no consensus, simple as that, for nothing. Regards SoWhy 21:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This DRV slightly pains me, because I can see both sides of it.

    From Joe Chill's point of view, the editorially correct outcome is "delete", he pointed that out, and when the debate didn't lead to the editorially correct outcome, he's brought the matter to DRV. Hard to argue with that.

    But from SoWhy's point of view, he's (quite correctly) judged the debate rather than the actual article. There really wasn't a proper consensus at the debate, which means we can't really censure SoWhy for closing as he did.

    This is a problem we get from time to time at DRV: cases where the consensus itself was simply wrong. What we normally do is endorse the closure (because closers shouldn't have to take crap from DRV when they've implemented the consensus), but relist the article at AfD in the hope of a more satisfactory discussion. Let's do that here, so we can have a proper debate and the article can properly be deleted.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. There was no way to close that discussion as delete, nor should it have been deleted. A merge is, IMO, the right outcome and SoWhy could have closed it that way, but I don't think was such a consensus at the AfD even if I (and I think he) believe it was the right outcome. I'd actually recommend just endorsing this, doing the proposed merge and redirect and calling it good. I really don't see the need for this DrV (or the original AfD). Just merge it and be done. Hobit (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse- I see no consensus to delete in that AFD. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, as there was indeed no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I see no clear error in the close. Tim Song (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. When the !votes split 5/6, it's really hard to fault a finding of "no consensus," and the closer's reasoning, ignored by the editor who raised this DRV, is more than reasonable and takes the applicable policy arguments into account. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I was the lone !vote who thought a possible merge might be the best option until more sources were found. I just so happened across such a source in the form of an article from LWN.net that gives coverage to ERC [1] while searching for additional sources for Konversation. Given the LWN.net article in addition to the Linux.com review [2] and Linuxlinks.com article [3] perhaps an overturn to keep is in order? --Tothwolf (talk) 09:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I am in no way faulting the closing administrator, but at the same time I cannot believe this article was kept despite the glaring lack of non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable publications. JBsupreme (talk) 23:20, 13 October 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.
Naim (chat program) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

SoWhy closed this as no concensus when the concensus was delete. "Yarcanox and Dream Focus both correctly point out that this subject has been the subject of coverage in multiple references, although they are only passing mentions" which shows that the concensus is that it doesn't pass WP:N. "But they point out that improvement might be possible and the delete !votes are not convincing since they do not address those references at all, only the lack of them, which can be addressed through editing rather deletion." This again shows that the concensus wasn't keep. A delete !voter doesn't have to reply every time that an editor brings up sources that they think is trivial. The lack of them has nothing to do with regular editing. It has to do with finding sources that make the article pass WP:N, which only trivial mentions were found. I didn't contact the closing admin because I think that it doesn't matter. Like 90% of the time, the admin doesn't change his or her opinion Joe Chill (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin's comment: No, consensus was not keep. And I have not closed it as keep. But unfortunately for the user asking for review, the default outcome of AFD is not delete. It's actually keep because it's the burden of those !voting delete to argue that the information needs to be removed from Wikipedia instead of its location or article changed (WP:PRESERVE) and at least that improvement is not easily possible (WP:BEFORE). Both the deletion and editing policy favor keeping information if at any way encyclopedic and possible. None of the delete !votes have addressed these requirements but seem to have been cast with almost equal wording on a large number of related AFDs (spawning, I have been told afterwards, from a quite long ANI discussion apparently). Both sides had valid arguments, no doubt about it and in the end it came down to "improvement impossible" against "improvement possible". These two arguments are by their very nature incompatible, so there is no way they can end in consensus acceptable for both sides, so the only correct close in my eyes was "no consensus". The requesting user should keep in mind that per aforementioned policies such a close does not bar a merge/redirect to a better place or a new AFD if improvement is indeed not possible. Regards SoWhy 21:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but relist exactly per my remark at the very similar DRV immediately above this one.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and recommend a merge per my comments in the above DrV. Hobit (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- as with above, I see no delete consensus to delete in the AFD. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as there was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 9 October 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.
John B (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

included missing information and independent references Zakkerone (talk) 03:56, 8 October 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.
Physics (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Information was a minor addition, completely informative, providing a link, not opinionative, and gave a short balanced analysis, much needed for this item, which should be included under unexplained phenominon. It is an important item for wiki to include a link for. Any contributor would be likely to write it up the same way. You may edit, reduce, or omit the name from the reference if preferred.Peter Jackson53 (talk) 17:23, 8 October 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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_October_8&oldid=1142604951"