Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2012 November 7
2012 November 9 >

8 November 2012

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
UFC on FX: Johnson vs. McCall (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was deleted because of WP:FUTURE and notability issues. WP:FUTURE no longer holds. The event was notable because it was the UFC 2012 Flyweight Tournament Semifinal. The event also had lasting effects on a number of notable fighters' sporting carriers. The AfD stated that the event was only covered by UFC itself or specialized MMA web sources. That is not true. A quick search shows that it is covered by general sports sites such as Bleacher Report, Fox Sports, SB Nation as well as other news agencies (Postmedia News). Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC) The event's results are notable, but they were lost when the page was deleted. At least they should be kept in a summarization page (like UFC on FX, UFC events in 2012, ...). But there is no such page. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could someone please give an example of what sorts of sources you intend to use to meet WP:EVENT and WP:GNG? I think we need to ensure that it goes beyond routine coverage. When I deleted in October, well after the event had happened, it had nothing but MMA fan sites--no indication of the notability required to meet WP:GNG or WP:EVENT. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it meets all WP:GNG criteria. But here are some decent non-MMA-specific sources that could be used:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oskar Liljeblad (talk • contribs) 13:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have any particular horse in this race, but what special occurance can you point to that justifies an individual event article? There's hordes and hordes of MMA event articles. Like it or not, there are some that don't meet the notability of an individual article, and therefore it might be a better idea to have a redirect to a secon on the UFC on FX article that describes the highlights of the article. Just a suggestion, but I'm willing to bet that my suggestion will be jumped upon by a swarm of MMA SPAs who will point at the suggestion as a call to destroy all the MMA coverage on Wikipedia. I'm not bitter, just realistic about what kind of reaction this suggestion has had previously. Hasteur (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a criticism of the OP, because he appears to be a productive account. But basically, practically none of the hundreds of articles on individual events are notable. A parallel, for example, would be that Wikipedia had an article on every single Premiership soccer match, or every single NFL game. Yet the articles are utterly impossible to delete because every time they are sent to AfD, a group of MMA fanboys shows up, usually including a parade of sock and meat puppets, and votes to Keep them. For extra bonus points, they usually abuse anyone who disagrees with them (example [1]). They've even AfD'd "2012 in whatever" type articles which were meant to contain the information about such events, so that they can re-instate their individual, non-notable, articles. I've given up with this abuse of Wikipedia, since it shows the community is incapable of actually removing material that violates our guidelines. To restate - these articles are not notable - they fail WP:NOT#NEWS amongst dozens of other guidelines. Having news coverage does not equal notability. UFC is notable - every event is not. Black Kite (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to point out that the analogy with soccer matches is not entirely correct. As I said before, in Premier League there are 20 teams, and 380 matches a season. In UFC maybe 30 events a year. So you should compare UFC events to team-seasons instead. In fact many teams already have one page per season, like 2012–13 Arsenal F.C. season. Also compare Formula 1, with one article per race since 1980. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly my point. The few Premership games that are independently notable have their own articles. But equally, all the UFC events which are not independently notable (i.e. most of them) should be merged to aggregate articles. Black Kite (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generous lists of reasons why these events are not analogous to singular matches have been provided to Black Kite and several others here numerous times in the past, so it's unlikely re-iterating them yet again will make any difference given reasoning seems to have no effect on the repetition. Agent00f (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having sufficient news coverage does equal Wikipedia notability as in WP:GNG. However, having sufficient news coverage does not equal importance/significance as in WP:NOT. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Black Kite. Reyk YO! 23:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Before this becomes ridiculous, could we please, for the love of all that is holy, not re-debate the "are individual MMA events notable" issue again? While many like myself find this to be ridiculously obvious (no, of course not, not now and not ever), but the community has spoken pretty clearly on this and it's time to move on: if there are non-MMA-centric sources which go beyond mere results reports, the general consensus is that the page should have its own article. We simply cannot have this debate every single time on every single article. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, I like to avoid using the "per xyz" but in this case I could not say it any clearer than them so Per Black Kite and will add that none of the sources listed come close to non-routine coverage, some even fail the WP:RS test. Mtking (edits) 06:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The AfD close noted WP:N, but such events usually receive enough coverage from which to write a stand alone article. I think it is reasonable to say that every professional sporting event receives enough coverage from which to write a stand alone article. Even if WP:N is met, you still need to look at WP:NOT, particularly Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The delete arguments in that AfD were unified on that point, which the keeps never sufficiently rebutted. By closing as delete, the closer of the AfD interpreted the debate correctly. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to be a stickler on this, Uzma Gamal, but you're not answering the right question. The OP is asking to recreate the article with sources that were not in the article at the time; further, the user is asking to recreate it now that WP:FUTURE no longer applies. The OP isn't arguing that the original decision was wrong; this DRV is only being done because the article title is salted. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the original AfD no longer holds any relevance. I'm almost tempted to say, given the list of sources provided above, that the appropriate step would be for the OP to create a new draft in his or her user space, then have an admin move it to mainspace, and then run a new AfD. Again, part of me hates myself for saying this, because I'd rather see no articles on MMA events, but, community consensus rules here, not my own personal preference. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. I would like access the original article's contents, so that it can be incorporated into another article if not noteworthy of its own. But I guess the deletion has to be overturned for that to be possible? Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless:I agree that the original AFD is only marginally relevant and the article could be restored, but, as others have noted, there's no reason to believe that the result would not violate sections of WP:NOT again. I'd need to see someone demonstrate a reasonable probability that a suitable article could be built.—Kww(talk) 19:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will build such an article if necessary. It will be hard to read and even harder to edit - it will be a 100K+ page with some complex tables and hundreds of references - and the WP:MMA community (including myself) won't like it. But I could always refer to this discussion that it was necessary... Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that's a sign that the level of coverage you are seeking would violate WP:NOTSTATSBOOK?—Kww(talk) 20:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 10K's of hits these pages get each month well after the events are over makes them enduring by definition. It's unclear how NOTSTATS applies given here are plenty of words on the pages which should be plain to the literate. Agent00f (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Question: I was unaware of the disputes regarding these articles until recently. Previously as both a user and an admin I saw a similar situation of merge/delete/single article debates occur regarding professional wrestling pay per views. As near as I can tell there isn't much difference between the two situations but the outcome has come out the opposite in this case. Is there a technical issue regarding these articles existing in any form that I am unaware of that contradicts the already established near identical situation regarding professional wrestling event notability? –– Lid(Talk) 04:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving for a second the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, the issue is with policy here, WP:NOT is quite clear on what we do and do not cover as far as events are concerned, they need to demonstrate enduring notability, most sports events, most PPV TV events just don't get that, they get coverage in the sports pages of newspapers, on sports websites etc, but once the event has finished the coverage finishes. You are right that a large number of WWF events also on the face of it fail WP:NOT and if they were nominated at AfD for failing that they should be deleted. For example having a look at Over the Limit (2010) it appears not to demonstrate any enduring notability, most of the sources are from the period of the event, just looking at the list of sources in the ref section there is nothing from any mainstream source they all appear to be to specialist wrestling sources (in summary would fail WP:EFFECT, WP:INDEPTH, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and WP:DIVERSE section of WP:EVENT). I suspect in the past editors have confused the issue of passing GNG means yes the article can be written (as there are RS to use to write the article), without considering that as an encyclopedia is the event of encyclopedic note, for that the NOT policy needs to be consulted. Mtking (edits) 05:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Other crap exists" was not my point, that this exact debate has occurred before but has had a decidedly opposite outcome was my question. Do not think this as a side by side vendetta, I'm just witnessing the same debate occurring twice but with different outcomes both in the user groups and in the deletion approach. You address this by referring to editors but I am referring to that the edit debates raged, the same way this did, to the point of admin involvement (on these very pages if I remember right) with an entirely opposite outcome involving non-involved editors, admins and policy. –– Lid(Talk) 06:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: I am heavily questioning the way MMA events have been treated on this site. Random recent MMA events have had their articles deleted. This has been done without any attempt to replace them with something that's still easily navigibile. Further, all the previous Fight Night cards are still up. Those shows were certainly less relevant as a part of the UFC than the shows now, due to the UFC being more PPV-focused then and having less weight classes to have fights between champions and top contenders.

There has also been no effort to establish a standard as to what does or doesn't make an event notable, as some of the FX and Fuel cards are listed while others aren't. What exactly would make an event notable? The ranking of fighters fighting at the show? What effect the event might have on future events? Would an event having a very popular fight and/or a very impressive knockout/submission make it more notable?

More relevantly to this page itself, this event was part of the tournament that determined the inaugural UFC flyweight champion, and also settled a controversy that happened with a draw at the previous UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byuusetsu (talk • contribs) 00:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "establish a standard as to what does or doesn't make an event notable". This rather assumes that there's any interest in creating a usable and consistent reference of human knowledge for this sport. At this point, it's just dragging out over a few years these deletions of hundreds of well-linked pages. Hardly productive and completely against the purpose of wiki, but that line's been crossed long ago. Agent00f (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2012 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
UFC on FX: Maynard vs. Guida (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was deleted because of WP:FUTURE and notability issues. WP:FUTURE no longer holds. And notability can be argued. The event had lasting effects on a number of notable fighters' sporting carriers. I would like to continue editing the article and add references to show its notability. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC) I argue that MMA events in general are not routine. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability/Archive 7#UFC_events_notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oskar Liljeblad (talk • contribs) 11:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is nothing on which to judge this clam of notability, so unless you list sources this should be just closed. Mtking (edits) 06:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The AfD close noted WP:N, but such events usually receive enough WP:GNG coverage from which to write a stand alone article. I think it is reasonable to say that every professional sporting event receives enough coverage from which to write a stand alone article. Even if WP:N is met, you still need to look at WP:NOT, particularly Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The delete arguments in that AfD were unified on that point, which the keeps never sufficiently rebutted. By closing as delete, the closer of the AfD interpreted the debate correctly. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Star Wars Episode VII – redirect endorsed The DRV discussion here has produced an approximately 2:1 majority for endorsing the redirect, and it is well-founded in the WP:NFF guideline that reads

"Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun."

Since there has been no principal photography of the film yet, Episode VII does not yet meet the guideline's criterion for a separate article. Of course, this is a guideline, not a policy, and as such it could be overruled if there is a consensus for that, but with the majority here for leaving the redirect in place, the consensus needed for making an exception here is lacking. An argument can be made that there was a clear majority for "keep" in the AFD itself, and having looked at that discussion, I am not sure if I would have declared the result in the same manner as jc37 did (maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't) but since this DRV discussion is more recent, and has what approaches a consensus for endorsing the original result, I see no grounds for overturning the AFD based on this DRV.

Some of the people who want an article on Episode VII may be disappointed that the AFD and DRV have ended with this result, but I will remind them that this setback is only of a temporary nature. If and when the film comes to fruition, the criterion for a separate article will be met at some point. – Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Star Wars Episode VII (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Page was redirected by an overzealous moderator who did not give considerations to the notability of the movie and overrode the wishes of the majority of the community. The discussion was not settled and it makes a whole mockery of this site and needs to be reversed.Þadius (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment We appear to have a policy that covers this particular circumstance and it supports the action taken by the closing admin so allegations of malfeasance and overriding the majority of the community are overblown to say the least. Perhaps the nominator can try for a less strident tone and look for a policy based reason for the DRV rather then just relying on raw emotion? Spartaz Humbug! 02:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Note: The bright line guideline applying here is at WP:NFF, mentioned many times in the discussion, and it should have been mentioned in the close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If WP:NFF is a bright-line rule then please explain why the closer:
  1. Did not mention it
  2. Did not delete the article
  3. Did not delete Star Wars sequel trilogy too, as it is more of the same
That's the way that bright-lines work, isn't it? Why are you endorsing his clear failure to observe WP:NFF? Your position seems illogical. Warden (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(1). NFF should have been mentioned in the close. I believe that the close should be amended to include mention of NFF.
(2). These are "stand-alone-article" rules and do not necessitate deletion when failed. A merge target is almost always preferable. Content forking under a non-offensive (eg non-NPOV violating) title should almost always should result in a merge and redirect. I read this as a consensus in the AfD.
(3). That's a good question, but outside the scope of the close. You or I may do the merge and redirect at any time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There were a zillion Keeps in that discussion but the closer failed to respect these, contrary to WP:DGFA. The closer is himself a member of the Star Wars WikiProject and so was clearly involved rather than impartial. The close was therefore an obvious supervote contrary to WP:OWN and so should be discounted. As the article was not deleted and the topic is likely to develop continuously as production advances, the close should not bind ordinary editing development. Redirection to a supposed sequel trilogy is unsatisfactory because the new owners are now likely to keep cranking out Star Wars movies as long as they make money. The supposition that they will follow a trilogy format seems even more contrary to WP:CRYSTAL than just having an article about the next movie. When looking forward in cases of such franchise properties, we usually just have the next one in the sequence and so our common practise will be best served by maintaining a focus upon the next movie only. Warden (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The INVOLVED point is a reasonable call for a re-close by another admin. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    AFAIK, being part of a WikiProject (a facility for collaboration) does not disqualify someone from closing a discussion. (Not even getting into how long it's been since I actually helped out there. I should do something about that...) - jc37 19:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean to comment on the substance of the INVOLVED allegation, just that the appriopriate remedy for a mild case is to ask for a re-close by another admin, or to ask another admin for a second opinion much as this whole DRV does, but that it is not a case for an "overturn". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that the previous time that Jc37 closed an AFD was in 2008 — over four years ago! But Jc37 has edited Star Wars topics more recently than that. So, to recap, the evidence is that the closer is a card-carrying member of the Star Wars project and has edited Star Wars topics this year. But they have not closed an AFD discussion for over four years. It therefore seems apparent that the closer's intervention in this case was not disinterested and impartial. As they closed the discussion contrary to the general wish of those contributing, it further seems apparent that their extraordinary intervention was made to ensure an outcome which was not otherwise likely. This seems a clear case of a supervote. This seems especially disgraceful as, unlike most AFDs, the discussion was well attended. We now have many editors who see that their views are held in contempt and that such discussions cannot be relied upon to be closed in a fair and impartial manner. Tsk. Warden (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ABF, aside, if all that were true, wouldn't one presume that I would be supporting it being kept? And in that your ABF logic falls apart. The close was done the way we are supposed to weigh all closes. I realise that you (someone who has a history of full throated support of anything inclusionistic - nothing wrong with that, to be sure) want it kept, and are merely attempting to attack the closer as a means to that end. But that doesn't change that the close was per the discussion, and per policy. I hope that, should the film be made, you will spend at least as much exhuberence building the new article : ) - jc37 19:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was kept. There's a crowd here who talk as if the close had deleted the article but their position is illogical. The outcome was to keep the article and then force the content into an even larger article which discusses the next three Stars Wars movies, not just this next one. As for my own position, I don't much care about the outcome. I looked at the discussion when it was occurring, rolled my eyes and didn't bother to join in because it's a big waste of time. It seems quite apparent that there will be another Star Wars movie and so it is just a matter of time until this nonsense is made irrelevant by the facts. My comments here arise because I don't like to see a claim of consensus being made when it is so clear that there wasn't one. It's a matter of standing up for honest and impartial administration. Warden (talk) 10:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This isn't rocket science, it fails NFF pretty handily. If the film goes ahead, it'll have its own article, and if it doesn't it won't. Meanwhile, all the sourced, relevant and useful information is quite easily accessible in the redirect. Black Kite (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse NFF lists the criteria, can't see how the close could have gone any other way, if it had it would have been listed here much sooner, being a member of a relevant WikiProject in and of it's self does not exclude an admin closing a discussion on an article in that projects area. Mtking (edits) 06:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I added significant details to the Star Wars Episode VII article from sources dating from 1999 to 2011 regarding the development green-lighting history and some film treatment (potential plot) info. (The AfD close apparently avoided addressing the approximately 70% of the article that was sourced to 1999 to 2011 reliable sources and instead focused on the approximately 30% crystal information in the article.) In any event, after the Episode VII announcement, what currently is poping up for the most part is people positioning themselves to be part of the cast (Pre-production) Harrison Ford ready to reprise Han Solo role. If you look at all the available reliable source information on the Star Wars Episode VII topic, that information really doesn't yet fit well to where the Star Wars Episode VII film itself can be written as the main topic of a stand alone article. Basically, the 1999 to 2011 green-lighting history is the different ways Lucas said no to a Star Wars Episode VII over the years and the fans not letting up on the idea, until Disney bought the rights in October 2012 and said yes. I don't think you can say that information would be sufficient to justify a Star Wars Episode VII film topic. So far, the best fit for that information seems to be Star Wars sequel trilogy topic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I feel the closing admin made the correct judgement, given the majority of the "keep" !votes were unqualified, and along the lines of "of course it's a keep, it's Star Wars", demonstrating an unfamiliarity on the parts of those editors with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It's a perfect example of what WP:NFF was written for, and the closing admin seemed to recognise this, even if it was not mentioned explicitly in the closing statement. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Overturn and overrule'
Apparently Wikipedia is not a Democracy. 89 votes for KEEP. And with the stroke of the pen, the decision of the People is overturned in favor of some obscure policy of Notability and crystal of which both policies should be absolutely scrapped at once. I believe this is one of the many reasons why Academia will NEVER take Wikipedia seriously. I am absolutely stunned that a Moderator could overturn the will of the People with a stroke of a pen. Who is to play judge here? Who is to say who is Qualified who is unqualified? Geee I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia for EVERYONE, not for a few at the top. Shame on Wikipedia! Magnum Serpentine (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NOTAVOTE. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, well-reasoned close, every new information could be easily added to the parent article Star Wars sequel trilogy and when/if the film will be finally produced a separate article will be created. I cannot imagine a different outcome for this. Cavarrone (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. Obvious supervote close. Now, I thought the closing admin might get away with it, and I wasn't sad about that, but the close was in no way in accordance with the discussion. There were more than sufficient keep votes arguing policy based WP:GNG and otherwise to keep, and also more than sufficient delete rationale to prevent any consensus from existing.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree - Here is why I disagree. The admin did not make the decision based on NFF. The admin, in their decision, wrote the topic did not pass WP:CRYSTAL. However, to quote that: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The topic is notable and that was not a point of contention. As for the second part, there is no evidence at this time that it would not take place. It was the central focus of a takeover of Lucasfilm by Disney, and both the principals of Lucasfilm and Disney stated there would be an Episode VII in 2015. There are no obstacles to the take-over. I would not expect any 'shysterism' from the proponents of the film. That would be completely uncharacteristic.ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. No reason to overturn NFF. "there is no evidence at this time that it would not take place" There is no evidence that I will not win the lottery this week. Therefore, I will? And NFF is basically CRYSTAL anyway, maybe he thought it was redundant. And an unmade movie was certainly not the focus of the deal, it's not worth $4bn. That is just what the fans are focusing on. Barsoomian (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, mock me, but it almost goes without saying: there is evidence that the movie will be released. A story was written prior to the sale; Disney stated that the future Star Wars films were critical to the sale; including the 7-9 story treatments. They even stated that earnings will be negatively impacted until the release of 7 in 2015. At this point, it's going to be made. If it is cancelled, at that time it would be appropriate to redirect anyway. Not based on the evidence AT THIS TIME. If the decision was based on NFF, then we could debate the merits of that argument, but right now we are debating the merits of the decision as written up, which was CRYSTAL. It was a judgment call and I think the admin went the wrong way, based on the evidence. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
you assert the existence of the movie. Does the movie exist? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said elsewhere, we had an article on the Microsoft Surface tablet well before it was released. No precise release date was given. In fact, the second version's release date is still unknown. Why are we applying a different standard here? Do we trust Microsoft and not trust Disney? No-one objected on wp:crystal grounds. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The essence of NFF is that the film has passed a major hurdle towards a defined, definitive existence. If principle photography has not commenced, then the film does not yet have substance, it is only plans and preparation, and it may yet change substantially. There is, admittedly, a degree of arbitrariness in that choice of hurdle, but it is a major hurdle due to the costs of principle photography that are sunk if there are subsequent changes, sunk costs such as actors' fees. The hurdle is not "release", and so a direct comparison with the release of the Microsoft Surface is invalid. I don't know if there is a similar definable hurdle for a piece of hardware technology, but it may be physical construction of the prototype, or testing and review of multiple working models, or some other hurdle past which it is very likely that the product will continue to be as described.

The DRV suitable comment here would be: the appropriateness and applicability of WP:NFF was not criticised in the AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date.

  • Closer comment - First, I was not notified of this discussion. I'm also wondering what "new information" has appeared or what "procedural error" which is considered to justify a DRV. Anyway, For those asking about NFF, I mentioned (though didn't name) that several policies/guidelines had been noted in the discussion; and note that NFF makes clear that it's based on WP:FUTURE. And if one looks, they will find that WP:FUTURE leads to the same section of WP:NOT as WP:CRYSTAL : ) - If there are any (civil/collegiate) requests for clarification of the close (besides "how dare you not count votes"), of course I would be happy to. - jc37 18:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you choose to ignore that there was no consensus to delete? Instead you did a super-vote as noted. The proper decision would have been to simply note that there was no consensus and move on. There are relevant exceptions in both NFF and CRYSTAL, and I feel that you have failed to accept the good-faith objections as even worthy of debate. Often editors use short-hand, sort of the basis for WP:ATA's pet peeve list, but it doesn't seem to be in decline, and should not be used to mock person's points. If you point out a topic (Star Wars) that is the focus of a Wiki project, surely that is merely a point-out that the topic passes GNG on the basis that Star Wars has already passed GNG to the point that it is the focus of a project? The whole deletion go-around is somewhat harsh. People are merely repeating their own objections. How could -any stub- grow if we force up-to-the-minute scrutiny? I would have rather let the article grow, we find out if it is truly lacking or valid, then decide. There are obviously lots of article police here, so it would not have put Wikipedia in any bad position to let it exist. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to "no consensus" Sorry but I cannot agree with jc37's close since he based it solely on WP:CRYSTAL which has been shown to simply not apply to this subject since it "is notable and almost certain to take place". Actually, jc37 failed to write a detailed closing statement that considers and debates the arguments made in a way that others can understand as to why he came to this decision. Just saying "But no argument ever appeared to get past WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, which held the most weight in this discussion." is imho not sufficient unless you also explain a) why WP:NOT#CRYSTAL is applicable in the first place and b) why all arguments against it were incorrect. Also, the closing statement contains no mention of WP:NFF despite the fact that this was the second-most used argument in the discussion. As the closing statement is deficient, this close needs to be overturned. Personally, I don't see a consensus in this discussion, so I'd advise overturning it to "no consensus". Regards SoWhy 19:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment WP:CRYSTAL clearly says "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content". This is the case. Currently all wwe have about Star Wars VII is an announcement and a few speculations and rumors about the plot. And they could be easily (and, in fact, already are) merged in the parent article. When (and if) there will be a Star Wars VII with a director, a screenplay, a cast and possibly a release date a separate article will be start. It is not even a question of policies and guidelines, it is first of all a question of common sense. Cavarrone (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As you quoted correctly, "short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate" (emphasis added). This was not an article consisting "only" of the announcement information, so your argument is incorrect. Whether the content was sufficient to warrant a standalone article is another question but it's not one decided by CRYSTAL. Regards SoWhy 14:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, and the announcement was the only verifiable thing in that article. " Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content" (emphasis added). Cavarrone (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying "the story might be..." or "X or Y might be part of it..." is speculation - saying "X is definitely not part of it despite many people thinking he would be" is not. The article contained some speculation, true, but it also contained things like negative confirmations (like mentioned above) which are not. But then again, DRV is not AFD round 2, so even if you were correct, it would not matter for the outcome of this discussion. Regards SoWhy 20:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn Essentially per SoWhy. The primary point of CRYSTAL is to deal with things where we have a lot of speculation but little in the way of genuine reliable sources. That's not the case here, and the consensus of the discussion reflected that. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you may be confusing something concerning the references. The article isn't Declaration to make the film Star Wars VII. It's Star Wars VII -the film itself. And so, while the notice/notification/declaration of intent may have many references (because the notice/notification/declaration exists), the film itself does not, as yet, exist. So it would be difficult for you or anyone to find references concerning the existing film, as it, as mentioned, does not yet exist. Hence, those in the discussion never managed to "get past" the policy WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. (Or NFF, for that matter, as many also noted.) - jc37 05:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry to say this but you seem to misunderstand what WP:CRYSTAL actually says. As I quoted above, the policy allows articles about future events (and thus subjects created in the future in general) if the subject "is notable and almost certain to take place". It explicitly does not require that any part of the subject already exists (for example, no part of the 2020 Summer Olympics has taken place but we still can have an article about it because we know it's almost certain to take place). The fact that WP:CRYSTAL does not have such requirements is also why WP:NFF was created in the first place and while the subject discussed here might or might not qualify under that guideline, it does not fall under the scope of WP:CRYSTAL; as such closing the AFD based on it is simply incorrect. Regards SoWhy 09:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe I am misunderstanding "what WP:CRYSTAL actually says". But let me ask you a question, do you think that Star Wars VII is or is not a "product"? - jc37 10:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a product in the sense of the word as it is usually used on Wikipedia, since policies and guidelines clearly differentiate between products (i.e. stuff you can touch) and artistic works, which is why we have different guidelines for artistic works than we have for other products (WP:NMUSIC, WP:NFILM etc.) Regards SoWhy 14:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Product - This is how the word is used on Wikipedia. And here is the wiktionary definition (wikt:product): "Any tangible or intangible good or service that is a result of a process and that is intended for delivery to a customer or end user." - Sounds an awful lot like what we're talking about here.
    And I'm sorry, but just doing a quick search, references don't appear to support your belief either. For example, the Mona Lisa is described as a "product of Da Vinci's genius". What I think you may be conflating (in reading your comments in this discussion) is that the premier of the film is an event (as also may be subsequent showings). The film itself isn't an event. But the showing, displaying, presenting is. So the "events" are showings, displayings, and presentations. (One could even say that the completing of the film is an event.) But the film itself is an object. A product. And incidentally, speaking of the premier, there appear to be doubts in the references whether the film will be released in May as previous films had been. So we don't even reliable sources on when the event is to take place. And so, again, CRYSTAL applies.
    But applicability of "product" aside, a closure is about the strength of the arguments, not head counting. And, as I said, the policy WP:NOT#CRYSTAL had the most weight, and, as far as I saw, wasn't adequately refuted in the discussion. "IWANTIT because it's Star Wars" isn't a policy arguement. - jc37 23:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said above, while it's certainly a product in the sense of the word as it's usually used, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines do judge works of art different from other products and thus the arguments re products are not always applicable to these subjects. As I stated earlier, my problem with your close is mostly that you failed to actually explain it, instead opting to simply state that CRYSTAL is applicable and leaving it at that. Only now, after this has been brought here, you have shown willingness to explain the reasoning for your close in detail. I'm fully content to accept it if the consensus is not what I think it should be but I do require a closing admin for a long and heated debate to show that they have weighted all arguments. Your closing statement neither mentions the WP:NFF argument nor does it explain why you thought consensus was in favor of applying CRYSTAL, a policy that was actually designed to avoid clear-cut no-information-availble-just-speculation-articles. On a side note, because this is not AFD v2, Ep VII now has a writer (Michael Arndt) and pre-production has started. Regards SoWhy 12:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. Reasonable close grounded in policy, and I commend the closing administrator for weighing arguments appropriately. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, XFD is not a vote, and mob fiat doesn't override policy (unless it does). All that being said I expect events will render this discussion moot in a couple months, but all in good time. Mackensen (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. There's a grey area between "weighing the arguments according to their merit", which closers are supposed to do, and "weighing the arguments so as to engineer a close that's consistent with guidelines", which they aren't (even policies have their exceptions on Wikipedia). Contrary to the extremist statements being made on both sides of this debate, in fact there was nothing obvious about this close, and it did fall into that grey area. Where we stand on this depends on how far we believe closer's discretion can prevail over a lack of consensus in debate. I have not found this point easy to determine. But there must be a limit to the closer's discretion, otherwise we might as well replace XfD debates with a Sysop's Suggestion Box. In the end, I don't think discretion stretches as far as this close, so I find SoWhy's view the more persuasive.—S Marshall T/C 12:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. If this was to be overturned to "no consensus" what would we be left with? An article which fails notability guidelines, or a redirect? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Flip comments aside, I would expect it to be put back as it was. It's not unprecedented and the sky won't fall. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No "flip" comments intended. A genuine question for an admin, which may also serve to illustrate how the closing admin made the only choice they could have, given the lack of understanding of guidelines by *most* of the "keep" !voters. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more of an issue of control on your part. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. It is hard to see a consensus in the discussion given the large number of limited arguments, but a substantial number of the "keep" "votes" are pretty clear ILIKEIT and can be discarded. What's left are arguments that this is straightforwardly covered by WP:NFF, WPCRYSTAL, WP:HAMMER, etc. and arguments that the level of coverage is sufficient to overcome those guidelines. I would opine that going with the guidelines was within admin discretion in this case. I disagree with SoWhy's claim that a deficient closing statement necessitates an overturn here. The primary issue is the result not the reasoning. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I argued to overturn it because I don't see a consensus here. The deficient closing statement is imho the result of this fact. Regards SoWhy 21:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The close was completely in line with policy. Would have made the same close myself had I stumbled upon it needing a close. -DJSasso (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Close seems to be logical given the discussion and policy.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Despite my obvious biases as nominator, I don't see any misconduct with the closure. most of the keep !votes were "but it's Star Wars". I just don't see that argument holding any weight in a policy/guideline based consensus discussion. CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 07:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a heads up but the nominating reviewer did not contact the closing admin first. CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 07:54, 18 November 2012 (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/2012_November_8&oldid=1138439319"