Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2010 November 14
2010 November 16 >

15 November 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Barts1a/discussion1 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Not following this guideline with this edit Barts1a (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the CSD tag was removed apparently on the basis of this and is now at MFD. I'm don't think the guideline you link actually supports your position - "deletion of subpages that have not had other significant contributors" or "user talk archives created by page move, may not be deleted in this way". Frankly the objection posted to deletion and your listing here suggest some underlying dispute which DRV is probably not the best place to resolve. That said I personally can't see much of a reason the page wouldn't be deleted and the MFD seems to heading that way, so why the urgency? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think MuZemike's edit may have been in accordance with the guideline, because it's a page that's received significant contributions from other users, but I'd just like to see MuZemike's version of events before I endorse. I agree with 82.7.40.7 that there looks like there's a whole background and history to this that may or may not belong at DRV.—S Marshall T/C 12:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Premature The MfD discussion has not yet closed. At this point it seems to be heading for delete, but it is only been running 4 days. This is an area where the rules are unclear, and when the rules are unclear or ambiguous, the way to resolve a situation is necessarily IAR. Muzimke's action was within the range of IAR, of going by the spirit of the rules. IAR is subject to review by the community , and the community is reviewing it at MfD. DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse continuing process. The deletion of userspace pages contain non-trivial edits from multiple editors should normally be discussed at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse use of MfD As the page technically doesn't meet the speedy criteria and speedies are generally a bad place for IAR when there is an objecting party. Hobit (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting/MFD-nominating admin – First off, thank you for notifying me of this </sarcasm>. Anyways, as far as bringing it to MFD as opposed to DRV, most talk page archives are normally cut-and-paste moves from actual talk pages (unless a user elects to use the "page move" method of archiving), which I thought this was. I was not aware that another user commented on the archive page itself in an attempt to continue discussion, mainly because people normally don't do that (at least I don't with mine, and I don't watchlist my archives precisely for that reason). After the deletion was contested, and I looked more closely the page's history, I felt that restoring and sending to MFD was an appropriate venue for something like this.
As an aside, less the two contributions by Piotrus on that page, the actual history behind this page is available at whatever talk page this came from. I think that is where some of the dispute is coming from. –MuZemike 04:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

The procedural "endorses" in this DRV have been given less weight because while (in my view) they involve entirely valid criticisms of the nominator's approach to this DRV, more editors than the nominator are seeking review of this decision and it's not at all clear why the failure to follow non-obligatory procedure (albeit on a repeat basis) should affect the outcome of this review. There are also a number of substantive !votes on both sides of this DRV that have been given less weight because they haven't added much to the discussion by way of reasoning.

This DRV is obviously very evenly balanced on the numbers, leaning slightly to "overturn" by my count. On the arguments, this DRV is also closely balanced. The contributions of S Marshall and Sandstein are illuminative and demonstrate the particular difficulty with AfDs in which the discussion doesn't deeply interrogate the relevant policies, particularly when the policies are contentious to the point of being vaguely worded. There is a consensus that the closing admin was correct to give less weight to a number of keep !votes, but there is no consensus that that lead to a delete outcome. For example, a number of editors have questioned whether the delete !votes were well reasoned. A number of editors have also questioned whether the keep !votes were disregarded to too great an extent.

There is not a consensus to overturn. Nor is there a consensus to endorse. The relevant DRV policy states If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

In the circumstances, I am treating this no consensus as equivalent to a relist. This DRV has shown - through points made by both endorse and overturn !votes - that the AfD could have benefited from better arguments on both sides. If the deletion action was not supported by a consensus here at AfD, the logical outcome is to avoid the permanently binding effect of the subpar AfD and open it up for another round. The AfD will be re-opened and listed on the first day's log. It can be closed after 168 hours. Editors who have already !voted will have the chance to flesh out their points of view, and the involvement of new editors will help the AfD reach a satisfactory conclusion.

While there is no consensus to endorse the close, I want to make it clear that does not imply that there was any real community support in this DRV for the view that closing adminstrator acted in any way improperly, by super!voting, bias or otherwise. Quite the opposite. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of statistically superlative countries (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Appears to have been closed as delete with a supervote instead of no consensus. A vague reference to WP:Info was given as the reason Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't supposed to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. You should be arguing on the merits of the case, not over your personal animus. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The merits of the case are clear: it's premature. You've escalated stuff to DRV prematurely before, such that it is clear that failure to follow process isn't a newbie mistake. BURO is not an excuse for having an honest, straightforward conversation with the deleting administrator first. Jclemens (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a discussion with user:Black Kite about the article. Can we hold on to see what happens there? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. That's an interesting deletion summary. 6 votes to keep, 3 votes to delete, with one editor not sure what to choose. Even if some keep votes have to be given lesser null weight because they are just a variation of "interesting", there are still 3 keep votes that are not about "interesting", so it is no consensus. And in the course of the deletion discussion, the article's content has been limited to include exclusively the rankings present on current Wikipedian lists (Lists of countries, Category:Lists of countries etc) or maps. Do all those lists or a majority of them fail WP:IINFO? Should the article Lists of countries be deleted too? GreyHood Talk 11:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IINFO is a confusing muddle. It's a particularly egregious example of the kind of compromise wording you get where policies are designed by committee. Policy ought to be clearer than that, and I'm not surprised that RAN found the closing rationale "vague"—which is not a criticism of Black Kite. It's not so much a problem with what Black Kite said, as a problem with the policy itself. I suspect that the substantive issue at this DRV will involve a detailed parsing of WP:IINFO.

    Jclemens is technically correct but I do just wonder whether a dialogue between RAN and Black Kite would have been productive at all; both are tremendously experienced Wikipedians who understand the issues and know the deletion process backwards, and neither is noted for their willingness to back down in the face of disagreement. I should imagine this would have ended up at DRV regardless. I guess we could insist on seeing a week-long wordy communications failure happening on Black Kite's talk page before it's brought back to DRV but that seems overly bureaucratic to me.

    I'll reserve my !vote til I've seen Black Kite's response.—S Marshall T/C 12:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse my own close for what it's worth. I was expecting this, of course. It's a no-win situation really when you're closing the "AfDs that everyone else has shied away from" as I was last night, in fact some of them were 3 days overdue. The problem is that if you merely count votes you get accused of vote-counting, whilst if you actually evaluate the strength of the comments then you get dragged to DRV anyway because you haven't "measured consensus". For what it's worth, practically all of the Keep votes were not based in policy.
  • The first one suggested how the article could be fixed, although it did not address the basic problems with it.
  • The second Keep ("the article is informative") is clearly worth little.
  • The third was basically the same, with added WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
  • The "Keep/Delete" vote can clearly not be taken as supporting either view, although it probably leans towards Delete.
  • DGG points out that "useful" can be a positive for lists, but again still doesn't address the indiscriminate basic nature of the list.
  • Dream Focus' comment does not address anything at all, let alone any reason for keeping.
  • The final comment is merely "it's interesting" and "it's notable".
  • Given that, I could not see how the claim that the article fails a policy, IINFO, specifically pointed out by Sandstein and alluded to by the other three Delete votes (including the nom), was refuted. If we are going to decide AfD by counting numbers, it'd probably make everything a lot easier as you wouldn't need admins to close them - anyone who can count could do it. And the editor who brought this DRV actually knows this very well, so for them to claim that I closed with a supervote is completely egregious. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Above rationale is a textbook example of a supervote. All !votes from opposing opinions are invalidated by wikilawyering like they were hanging chads in Bush v. Gore, until the preselected outcome is achieved. It is also like the tests given to people for literacy before they can vote to disenfranchise them. If you can't construct your arguments in a way that satisfies the people in charge of the !vote, your !vote is invalidated. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's completely ridiculous (as well as verging on NPA - "preselected outcome"? - yeah right, on an article I'd never seen before in my life. Jeeezus.). If I post a comment at AfD which merely says "Keep: It's notable", or "Delete: Not notable", I need to expect that comment to be disregarded. A closing admin is not doing their job properly if they just count votes. If editors are unable to construct their comments at an AfD so that it actually addresses the issue at hand rather than just blindly voting, that's hardly anyone else's problem. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be convinced if I saw an equal amount of effort to invalidate the delete votes, but you had not one word of criticism for them, hence it gives the appearance of a bias, even if you don't recognize the bias yourself. That is why in the sciences we use double blind methods, and that is why election districts moved to machine voting. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Equally, I would be more convinced if I was not having this conversation with an editor whose AfD track record is of !voting "Keep" on practically everything, often with little rationale. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stick to the vote at hand please, no need to stray into generalized personal attacks. You can save them all up for an ANI. Unless you can show me some statistics on my votes, your just showing your personal bias, again, as we discussed earlier. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so it's OK for you to assume bad faith in my close, which is purely an opinion of yours, but not for me to point to your editing history at AfD, which is a matter of record which anyone is free to peruse? I think you've made my point for me. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I have shown the actual statistics for your disenfranchising the keep votes. I have also shown the statistics for you showing no criticism or disenfranchisment of any delete votes in this debate. You haven't shown any statistics on my voting record to say that I "[vote] "Keep" on practically everything, often with little rationale." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I need to "show statistics on your voting record" when any editor can confirm the fact for themselves by looking at your contribution history at AfD? But since I've got a spare five minutes, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] etc. Meanwhile, you still haven't rebutted any of my points as to why the "Keep" votes were weak, presumably because you can't. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I hope we can all accept two of Black Kite's points: First, that it wasn't an easy close; and second, that the !vote count is a red herring. It's necessary to evaluate the strength of the arguments. After reading what Black Kite says I'm of the view that the substantive question is whether it was true to say that this list contravened WP:IINFO. (The other arguments for deletion suggest that this is a "list of trivia", but that doesn't withstand scrutiny. It's a list of ways in which various countries are at the top of various league tables. Some of the individual items on the list are trivia. But others are substantive. Thus, though many of the "keep" !votes may be dismissed out of hand, two of the "delete" !votes may be treated in the same way. We're left with Sandstein's point alone.)

    Sandstein alleges that the list violates WP:IINFO. DRV can't evaluate whether the AfD was closed correctly without deciding whether Sandstein was right, so we need to establish which limb of IINFO was allegedly contravened.

    WP:IINFO specifically says that the following things are forbidden: 1.Plot-only description of fictional works; 2.Lyrics databases; 3.Excessive listing of statistics; 4.News reports; 5.Who's who; and 6.FAQs. The only one of those items that this list could possibly have contravened is the third one: an excessive listing of statistics.

    Stipulating for the moment that it was an excessive listing of statistics, was that unfixable? Wouldn't it have been possible to trim it down to a relevant and non-trivial list of statistics instead?

    On the face of it, this deletion strikes me as a bit harsh. May I notify Sandstein of this debate and invite him to explain his !vote in more detail?—S Marshall T/C 15:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing to a pillar of Wikipedia "notability" and saying it meets that standard should not be invalidated as a hanging chad, despite the essay WP:Whatnottosay. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with your comment, generally. Read also my answer to Black Kite below, discussing the IINFO, and the three stronger keep votes. GreyHood Talk 15:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1st keep. Once again, I didn't merely propose how the article could be fixed, I actually implemented one of my proposals. Have you checked the changes in the article before closing AfD? The article was basically turned into an extended version of the Lists of countries, sorted by country at the top or at the bottom of a list from there. Actually, I can go right now to the Lists of countries and try inserting top/bottom country beside all the ranked lists there, and in effect that'd be the representation of the same information as in the deleted list, but in a less handy format. And I hardly can expect that anyone ever will delete the List of Lists of countries because of IINFO.
3rd keep. Therexbanner said that there is no reason for the deletion of the list of ratings which are found in other good wiki articles, unless you can justify deleting of those ratings and those articles. This is not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - this is the refuting of the claim that the list fails IINFO. It doesn't fail, and not because other stuff exists, but because this list is composed of that other stuff, this is a technical list which provides a handy access to the ratings sorted by the top/bottom country. And that's how we come to the
5th keep. The list is useful. It is included into all templates at the Category:Country list templates. From there by one simple click you can go either to the plain List of Lists of countries, or to the similar list of lists sorted by the top/bottom country - the deleted List of statistically superlative countries. Such a representation of data is handy. Look, people even create games based on the list in question.
I think that there is no good ground to disregard at least the three mentioned keeps, which puts us in the situation of no consensus instead of supervote. And I've shown that the list doesn't fail IINFO. Mind me, I've presented most of these arguments at the AfD discussion and answered all pro-deletion users there, except of Sandstein, and I'd have answered him too, if not for the closing of AfD. GreyHood Talk 15:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I don't agree with Black Kite's characterisation of the keep votes. "Useful" is a criterion for list articles, and evidence was provided for its usefulness. Assertions in the opposite direction without evidence should carry little or no weight. I like the essay WP:OSE, but it's not a policy. In list articles, notability is in practice borrowed from other articles - red links mean a presumed non-notability and blue links the opposite. It's not a clinching argument, but it shows that WP:OSE is not a universal practice. The opportunity to discuss issues of indiscriminate inclusion was, as the first keep vote stated, undermined by going straight to Afd rather than discussing on the talkpage. At the very least, given that editors were making suggestions, and one editor was cutting things down, to meet WP:IINFO objections, this should have been closed as no consensus, if not keep.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The nominator is 100% aware from dozens of previous discussions of the correct procedure to follow when he disputes a deletion debate outcome, and if he is not willing to follow it, I am not willing to consider reversing the outcome. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er, there are other people interested in this than just the one editor. Given that Black Kite has said that he expected this to come to DRV, and given that on his own talkpage in response to my attempt to have a discussion there, he said he would deal with the matter here, I don't see the point in simply dismissing the DRV now it's up and running. Are you and/or Jclemens suggesting that this one should be rejected and then refiled again? Wouldn't that be a bit pointless? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't supposed to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. You should be arguing on the merits of the case, not over your personal animus. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say jumping to DRV without bothering to discuss with the closing administrator is far more disruption. Considering you know how this process works, perhaps you should not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. AniMate 00:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elaborate your opinion please, otherwise according to the method of Black Kite your vote has no weight, just like the two previous endorsements based purely on the DRV procedure issues. GreyHood Talk 19:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately you have captured a wrong fish, and the hook is too small to hold the capture. Any of the keep votes in the related AfD discussion is more elaborate and has more arguments than your hook. And even if we take only the better argumented votes - a method that I've already accepted in my comments above - we still arrive to no consesus. GreyHood Talk 21:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What a masterful strategy worthy of Sun Tzu, except you aren't supposed to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think my attempts to enlighten you can reasonably be characterized as disruption. From now on, all of my votes will be in the form of a kōan. SnottyWong communicate 04:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The reason given for the close "the basic point that the article fails WP:IINFO has not been refuted," is not supported by the facts: But IINFO reads in summary: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and a statement of what country is leading is a particular quality of importance is not indiscriminate, but about as highly discriminating as possible. Since a list of countries in order of whatever would be routine and does not fail IINFO, a compilation of the top entries from those lists is certain not under that rule. Whether this is seen as a supervote or a summary of the discussion, it is just plain wrong. There could have been an argument that the qualities measured were selected indiscriminately, but looking at them (life expectancy, winner of most cricket world cups (and of many other major sports), people in prison, GDP, largest producer of uranium (and of many other important products), they do not seem indiscriminate. Some of them are of debatable importance, perhaps, but that's a content dispute. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although my view may be colored by having participated in the AfD, I think that both a "keep" on the numbers and a "delete" based on the arguments are defensible closures in this difficult case. To reply to DGG and others above, the list was unremediably indiscriminate because there is a practically unlimited number of verifiable country rankings on Wikipedia and the list does not have any other inclusion criteria. One can (not: should) make a country ranking about essentially every non-unique article subject. For instance - Special:Random - "country with most Huachuca springsnails" (which is the United States, because the animal is endemic to that country) would be a valid entry. On the other hand, a list of this type by type of statistic, for instance List of statistically superlative countries in the Olympic Games, would be discriminate and acceptable.  Sandstein  22:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In its last version (already implemented by the time of your vote at AfD), the article was limited to statistics found on the lists or maps with rankings present on Wikipedia, that is to the most notable statistics approved by the community. The number of verifiable country rankings is pretty limited on Wikipedia, actually most of them are already on the templates in the Category:Country list templates, and all of those templates have been very stable for a recent year with few to none additions. The list in question also didn't grow significantly for many months, despite its large viewership. And once again, the scope of the list mostly coincide with that of the Lists of countries, which is hardly an indisriminate collection of information, but a technical list of encyclopedic lists and rankings. GreyHood Talk 22:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not nice, sorry. I'm a bit tired of answering this kind of straw man comments such as claiming that the list is indiscriminate because of the possible inclusion of the "country with most Huachuca springsnails" or "the country with the longest average toenail length" (back from AfD). No such things can be included into the list according to the criteria set in its latest version, at least until the Wikipedian community approves the creation of the List of countries by number of Huachuca springsnails or the List of countries by average toenail length. This or that way, the list's scope can be limited to the most notable statistics, and the rubbish can be set aside. GreyHood Talk 23:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be very ironical if Black Kite's action is ultimately endorsed on the basis of such votes, adding nothing to the discussion but just the vote itself ;)GreyHood Talk 23:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of DRV isn't to rehash or put forth new arguments for or against deletion. The purpose is to discuss whether or not the close was reasonable or not. Reyk's comment is perfectly in line with that. AniMate 23:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that discussion of "whether or not the close was reasonable or not" includes taking into account the arguments against the close, which have been ignored to a large degree, and not just approving or disapproving the actions of the others, but specifying at least some reason for this. Black Kite actually built much of his closing summary on WP:JUSTAVOTE (broadly understood), and it looks really funny when the people start to support the close in this manner. GreyHood Talk 23:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is not the first you've attempted to dismiss as WP:JUSTAVOTE and you've been wrong both times. Furthermore, I find your sarcastic badgering of endorsers rather distasteful. Reyk YO! 01:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd just like to mention that Sandstein's reply doesn't seem to fully address what I said above. Sandstein may possibly have shown that the material as written was in violation of WP:IINFO, but the AfD should then have considered whether the material could have been made to comply via regular editing. In other words, by defining the list's scope and trimming out those parts thought to be trivia, could this have been fixed? AfD participants are supposed to exhaust the alternatives to deletion before concluding that the material needs to be removed. I don't see any evidence that any alternatives were considered at all.—S Marshall T/C 00:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please can we keep any animosity between Richard A Norton and other editors off this discussion? Even if it was wrong not to discuss with Black Kite on his talkpage first, Black Kite himself chose (as is perfectly acceptable) to continue discussion here when I went to his talkpage to discuss the matter. There are other editors besides the nominator who believe the closing was mistaken. We're here now, so let's put all that baggage away. On that note, this DRV is not (or should not be) an attack on the closing admin's integrity. This is a normal procedure when challenging a decision. Black Kite has done nothing "improper". That is not the same as saying his judgement in this matter is thereby unimpeachable. They are two different issues, as I'm sure we would all agree. Thirdly, I would ask editors not to interpret WP:NOTAVOTE as meaning either (a) all minority closings cannot be challenged (rather than "minority closings can be correct") which is implied heavily in a couple of arguments here, or (b) that head counts are entirely irrelevant. Here is what WP:CLOSE says:

Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the administrators own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The administrator is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the decider is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not select himself which is the better policy.

This particular AfD looks like a very good example of "no consensus", given that actually very few of the !votes fulfill the criteria for discarding, and any tightening of the criteria leads to !votes on both sides (e.g. "useful/not useful") being rejected. Even Sandstein says either keep or delete would have been "defensible" - which shouts out "no consensus" as the proper result. Have we abandoned "no consensus" as an outcome? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The very moment that RAN decides he is willing to follow the standard DRV procedure, I shall be willing to consider his requests on their merits. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle - can I be clear on this - you think this DRV should start all over again only once Black Kite has discussed the issue on his talkpage? This strikes me as an unnecessary waste of time now that we're all here (and given that Black Kite would plainly not have changed his mind in a more informal talkpage discussion). VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I often agree with Stifle, but in this case I don't. This doesn't need in-depth discussion because there's a pre-existing consensus (most recently here): RAN was under no obligation to consult the deleting admin before raising the DRV. It would have been polite if RAN had done so, but the consensus is that DRV shouldn't penalise him for being rude.—S Marshall T/C 12:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't care less about not being informed, but apparently it's also OK for him to assume bad faith ("All !votes from opposing opinions are invalidated by wikilawyering like they were hanging chads in Bush v. Gore, until the preselected outcome is achieved"). If RAN thinks that evaluating !votes with poor rationales is "wikilawyering", perhaps he needs to read up on our deletion processes again. Should we be encouraging stuff like this? Black Kite (t) (c) 12:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are good reasons why I've avoided discussing the conduct issues at this DRV. This page is a drama-free zone, and there are better places to deal with whatever accusations are going around (on both sides). The purpose of DRV is scrutiny of the close, so I'm focused on the evidence that policy was complied with in this specific case. That doesn't mean that I'm unsympathetic to what you say about conduct—there's an extent to which I agree with you about that—it just means that I don't think this is the place to deal with it.—S Marshall T/C 19:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, an RfC is indicated, it's just that raising an RfC on an editor whose entire AfD edit history consists of making weak "Keep" votes just seems pointless to me because the usual suspects will drop by to support him. And it's irrelevant to this DRV anyway, because he didn't comment. Wikipedia is utterly useless at sanctioning those who misuse its processes, yet can provide little to stop them doing so. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That deserves a reply but we're ranging far outside DRV's scope. I'll email you.—S Marshall T/C 20:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – After reading the AFD, the arguments for deletion were stronger and more policy-based than the arguments for retention. That is what closing admins are expected by the community when determining a deletion discussion outcome. –MuZemike 04:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC I agree the keep arguments were weak, but as S Marshall points out, the delete arguments were also generally weak. Given the numbers (and yes, counting noses does play a role here) I'd say it leaned toward keep, but NC was probably the right result. Hobit (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The closing admin clearly inserted his own opinion as his reference to WP:IINFO was the only one made by anyone in the discussion. The keep and delete camps both argued on the same general grounds and there was no consensus between them. The weakness of their arguments does not provide an occasion for the closer to provide his own. Colonel Warden (talk) 04:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn WP:IINFO is a very confusing policy, and thus, more attention, not less, should be paid to the opinion of the people who actually commented in the discussion, who clearly tended towards a keep outcome. I share the above editors' concern about the premature escalation to DRV, but now that we're here, we should discuss the merits, not the procedure by which it got here, since it seems it would've gotten here anyhow. RayTalk 06:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - More knee-jerk bloc voting from the usual gang. The "keep" calls were weak and never adequately refuted the rationale to delete. Weak opinions == less weight, well within admin discretion. Tarc (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which delete !votes did you find strong and why? As noted, I tend to agree with S Marshall that only one delete !vote had much strength and as the problem was fixable, not all that much. I'm curious how you read them. Hobit (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your rather pedantic question goes to the heart of why I detest these frivolous filings; DRV should not be used to simply second-guess, it should be used for legitimate concerns that something wrong was done. Tarc (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The question is not pedantic in the slightest, and this is not about "wrongdoing", but a review of a decision we should presume as a matter of course was made in good faith. There are editors apart from the nominator raising concerns, including a few admins. What on Earth has Richard A Norton done that makes so many people here dismiss the concerns of other editors? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tarc, you were happy to discount the keep !votes as being weak but won't address the delete !votes? Heck, I've not seen any of the endorsers really claim that the delete !votes were any stronger than the keep !votes. If the arguments are both weak, then given the numbers I'd then expect this to be a keep or no consensus close. Hobit (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Although I also participated in the AfD vote, I feel like I must explain my vote here, and also re-state my opinion. The article did not violate any of the 6 points of WP:IINFO. The only one that comes close is the "excessive listing of statistics." However, if you actually read the point description and not just the title, you will see that it refers to the readability, neatness, and explanation of the data. Unless one can prove that the article was unreadable, or not neat, there should be no argument in relation to WP:IINFO. In case a consensus emerges that the article is messy, a cleanup proposal should be made, but I believe deleting it was inappropriate. Black Kite mentioned WP:IINFO as the main reason for deletion. I'd like to know why the article (list) was deleted before a civil and good-faith AfD discussion came to a consensus.--Therexbanner (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because an AfD lasts 7 days and this one was already overdue. More to the point, IINFO has nothing whatsoever to do with readability and/or messiness, it has to do with information being indiscriminate. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Noted. Could you please define indiscriminate in this context and specfically, how the list was "indiscriminate." The "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate..." section of WP:IINFO has 7 sub-points. Which one of them applies in this case?--Therexbanner (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The point that immediately applies is 3) "Excessive listing of statistics". The point was made in the AfD that there was no criteria of notability or importance being applied to the listing of such data ("a big list of trivia", "a collection of endless trivia with no cohesion","indiscriminate collection of information in which such gems as "Best performance at Sidecarcross World Championship" are given equal importance to statistics such as "Highest Human Development Index""), and that effectively the article had no boundaries. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The problem had been fixed, but you ignored it, and you continue to ignore it throughout this discussion. Here you misrepresented my comments and activities on the AfD as just proposals and as not addressing the basic problems, while actually one of the proposals was implemented, and the basic problems, such as notability and scope, were directly addressed. The criteria were set for inclusion into the list, effectively limiting the boundaries of the article to statistics represented as ranked lists or maps on Wikipedia, which is a finite number at a given time. If that wasn't enough, we could impose even stronger criteria, there was no problem in that. The list is not unamendable in principle. Despite the persistent claims of containing the endless trivia, it was pretty much stable in size for many months, and contained mostly the notable statistics. Such gems as "Best performance at Sidecarcross World Championship" should have been excluded under the new criteria, I've just overlooked that entry while cutting the list down. GreyHood Talk 22:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not ignoring anything; I could only close the AfD on the basis of the comments, and editors could only comment on what was extant at the time of the AfD, not what could possibly exist in the future. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still hope you didn't just evaluate the comments while not checking how the article has changed during the AfD. I specifically noted it in that discussion, but you and Sandstein, judging from his straw man argument here, appear to have missed it. And obviously, editors can comment not only on a present shape of an article but also on how to improve and amend it. Do you claim the article was irrepairably wrong? GreyHood Talk 00:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, you had to close on the basis of the debate. The point being made here is that the debate itself was flawed in that it failed to consider the alternatives to deletion. Ideally, the participants would have discussed whether a trimmed version of the list with a defined scope could exist. That didn't happen. It's fair to consider that at DRV, because considering alternatives is a part of the deletion process. I don't think it would be fair to censure Black Kite personally because of it. We've agreed that it was a difficult close that nobody else wanted to make, and we're considering whether the debate (rather than the close) was defective. In the circumstances no blame should attach to BK.—S Marshall T/C 23:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have nothing personal against Black Kite, but I strongly disagree with his specific action on the discussed AfD, and his blatant obvious misrepresentation of my comments and activities on that AfD here, in this discussion. You seem to share the concern that if we start to address keep votes with especial scrutiny (a method which I'm ready to accept, though not to the point of absolute ignoring of "lesser quality" votes) we should give at least the same degree of scrutiny to delete votes. You also just stated, that the alternatives to deletion should have been considered before the actual deletion. You said at the very beginning, that WP:IINFO can be confusing muddle and you proposed its detailed parsing. Well, the policy has been parsed,"the point that immediately applies is 3)", and I've shown how the list doesn't fail this point. I fully appreciate Black Kite's emphasis on keeping the AfD procedure within one week time limit, and his attempt to bring more judgement than just a simple count of votes, but this doesn't mean that all other aspects of that AfD can be disregarded. And if we agree, that the vote was defective (from the very beginning, actually, when the nominator missed the opportunity to discuss the problems on the list's talk page), we have to agree also that Black Kite should have recognised the vote as defective and should have given more time to further discussion, or should have closed it with no consensus. GreyHood Talk 00:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Blatant misrepresentation" is a bit strong, Greyhood, and I respectfully ask that you consider retracting it.

    I agree with you on the substantive point, because as I explained right at the beginning of this debate, I also don't see exactly which part of WP:IINFO applies. I do not agree that Black Kite should necessarily have recognised the vote as defective. His job is to weigh the policy-based arguments on one side against the policy-based arguments on the other. His job is certainly not to close based on arguments that were not raised in the AfD at all—and indeed if he'd done that, he really would have been guilty of the alleged "supervote". He quite correctly restricted his close to what the participants had actually said. Overruling the debate itself is a prerogative restricted to DRV or to a subsequent AfD. It's quite right that individual admins don't get to do that.

    I also want to say that it's possible to disagree with a close without questioning the closer's competence. Questioning the closer's competence doesn't even belong here. (The right place is the admin's talk page followed if necessary by an admin recall petition or a RFC, but I definitely advise you not to try any of those.) Generally DRV should be respectful of closers and particularly respectful of the rather smaller number of closers who're willing to deal with the hard cases like this one.—S Marshall T/C 00:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, forgive me for my not so masterful usage of subtle distinctions in English language. I've changed it to "obvious misrepresentation" (it is clearly seen from the original AfD that I didn't just proposed, but actually limited the scope of the article, and I did specifically address the issues of notability instead of just saing "it is notable").
  • >His job is certainly not to close based on arguments that were not raised in the AfD at all When it comes to the merits of the article in question, I've not brought much new arguments here, I've mostly repeated old arguments from the AfD discussion, which were not refuted at that time, and which were disregarded in the closing summary.
  • >''He quite correctly restricted his close to what the participants had actually said. Well, yes, but not all what had been said appears to have beeen taken into account, and we both share concern at the procedure of weighing of what had been said.
  • >''I also want to say that it's possible to disagree with a close without questioning the closer's competence. I don't question anyone's competence, I just don't have enough information to make general statements on competence in this case. Here we question a specific action, which might have better alternatives. Everyone makes mistakes sometimes, or takes decisions which could have been better.
  • >Questioning the closer's competence doesn't even belong here. Sorry, if I made an impression of such questioning. Perhaps I was influenced by the spirit of this discussion, which obviously shows too much of background of personal issues between the nominator, Richard Arthur Norton, and other editors.
  • >The right place is the admin's talk page followed if necessary by an admin recall petition or a RFC, but I definitely advise you not to try any of those. I've never resorted to such things, and don't see why me or anyone else should resort to this in the present case.
  • >Generally DRV should be respectful of closers and particularly respectful of the rather smaller number of closers who're willing to deal with the hard cases like this one. Agreed. GreyHood Talk 01:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: This article was both an excessive list of statistics and synthesis, because it took each 'superlative' from its own source and not one source that reliably covered the subject. The closer correctly viewed the discussion as not a vote, because the 'keep' arguments were much weaker and less policy based than the delete arguments. By and large the keep votes were simply assertions that it was "interesting", "encyclopedic", and "notable" (though they did not explain why), and they addressed the nominator more by attacking him than by refuting his arguments. Quigley (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note This is not true. Only one keep !voter commented on the nominator, and unlike the persistent bickering about the nominator here, it was a mild teasing comment that did not derail discussion at all. It is not the closer's role to choose which arguments he or she prefers. It is to eliminate all arguments not related to policy, and then see what the dominant view is - that is, which policy is generally considered by "responsible editors" more pertinent in this case. As "useful" is a criterion for list pages, such !votes cannot be dismissed or ignored. As has been commented, the "delete" arguments weren't, if one applies that view even-handedly, particularly forceful either. Furthermore, sourcing was not an issue at the AfD, so should not be brought up here. This is not a rehash of the discussion. (In any case, that is not an argument for deletion - it is an argument to add sources. I presume that Quigley is not arguing that there are no sources). VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn - There are days in which I wish that people understood what indiscriminate meant. I mean no offense to the closer whatsoever, but does he really suggest that he sees indisciminate apply to the page in question? (How is this in any way comparable to a list of all the phone numbers in an area?) These kinds of statistics are incredibly common in encylopedias. And the "discussion" in the AfD was rather lacking. And one thing a closer is supposed to do is assess the "discussion" in light of the broader policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, anyone?) I just don't believe that that was done here. - jc37 05:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Whatever the reasons for deletion, they were not enough to persuade enough of the participants at the AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2010 (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/2010_November_15&oldid=1151049805"