Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 77.92.95.13 (talk) at 19:18, 27 May 2010 (→‎CozyCot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 2010 May 20
2010 May 22 >

21 May 2010

List of most popular cat names (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I feel the closer did not really attempt to evaluate the comments for consensus in an unbiased manner. Despite the fact that Deletes outnumbered Keeps 2 to 1 (I fully understand it's not a vote, but I'm just making it known), the closer initially closed the AfD as Keep with a nonsensical closing statement, which indicated to me that the closer was going to close this as a Keep regardless of what the Delete !voters' rationales were. After 3 editors commented on the closer's user talk page, the closer struck his original closing comments and replaced them with comments which, while more reasonable, still do not reflect the consensus of the editors in my opinion. At the very least, this AfD should have been closed as No Consensus. The result would have been the same (i.e. the article would have been unchanged), but future AfD's for this article would not have the benefit of looking back in time and noting that there have already been two AfD's that ended in a Keep. I, for one, cannot find a rationale in the !votes that overwhelmingly supports a Keep decision over a Delete decision, to the point that we can say that a consensus has been reached among editors. I respectfully request that this AfD be changed to either No Consensus or Delete. SnottyWong talk 20:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse My first reaction when reading the closing statement (both of them) is to spit chips. As for the first: participants in the AfD debate come up with reasoned arguments and ought to be given a reasoned closing statement. As for the second, using the first AfD as a ground to close the second as keep has no basis in deletion policy: consensus can change. And the statement betrayed the closer's obvious personal preference for one side of the argument. Arguments on both sides of the debate were policy-based - neither side was overwhelmingly weak or strong by objective measure, so that should have been recognised with a no consensus close. But there wasn't a consensus to delete and the difference between "keep" and "no consensus" is one of semantics. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The article was vastly overhauled, hence many of the early !votes were less pertinent by the time of the close. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete—there were delete !votes right up until the end, so the argument presented above by Quiddity (talk · contribs) doesn't hold water. As far as I can tell, all the references which were added over the course of the discussion were unsubstantive, and included at least one self-published source. I agree that "the closer did not really attempt to evaluate the comments for consensus" (my italics). ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 21:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep or possibly no consensus on the basis of the arguments and state of the retained article. The majority of the sources are from mainstream media, and there's obviously been substantial coverage of the topic of the popularity of cat's names. The deletion arguments based on WP:OR and WP:POV, "not encyclopedic" and "not useful" are extremely weak; many of the arguments seem to be more about disliking the topic and finding it trivial than having any basis in policy. Also note the number of !voters switching from delete to merge or keep, which suggests that the changes made after nomination were substantial and that if other delete !voters had revisited the debate they may have changed their minds. Fences&Windows 22:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep How completely silly. Towards the end of the AfD discussion period, I came upon the article and radically restructured it, adding a good amount of new sources. My additions countered some of the "delete" statements earlier in the discussion by meeting their objections. In those situations, closing admins are supposed to discount !votes because they become outdated due to new sourcing. WP:DGFA#Rough consensus: If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant. Since the AfD, I added even more sources -- various newspaper articles. The article is armor-plated. Get over it. In a few months time, I'm sure Snotty will come up with an argument not already used, and see if it will fly at AfD. Good luck with that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm approximately with F&W, except that I think it really ought to be a "no consensus" rather than a "keep". There's not much practical difference. I'm amazed that someone apparently thought this list was the most urgent thing to write on Wikipedia, and I'm equally amazed that someone apparently thought this list was the most urgent thing to start an AfD on.—S Marshall T/C 22:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse in spite of the wording of the closure. I interpret the phrase "based on previous AfD keep" to mean "based on the arguments in the previous AfD keep". It is still not really an appropriate thing to have said, for if the closer thought those arguments necessary and non-duplicative, he should have instead contributed them to the AfD. (among them was my comment that "148 books on cat names in worldCat ", which I think greatly clarifies notability, but which I neglected to add this time). But otherwise I think there's enough to close as keep. Considering the many books, I'm not really amazed that people chose to write on this in WP. DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As the closing Admin I stand by my decision to close as a Keep. Whether or not that was the wisest decision in this case remains for this DRV to decide. I again apologize ( I think this is the third time) for the initial frivolous closing comment. However, in the interest of WP:RS, I must say that the nom in this case has been somewhat liberal with his interpretation of time. While I respect nom’s vigor in which he is pursuing this, especially his claim that it took three other editors to force me to strike my original closing comments: After 3 editors commented on the closer's user talk page, the closer struck his original closing comments and replaced them with comments which..., one wonders what motivates that claim? Would my initial comments have been any less damning if only one editor had called me on it? Which in fact was the case. At 09:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC) User:Thumperward respectfully made note of my frivolous close on my talk page [1]. When I read this, I respectfully did two things. 1) I struck my comments and 2) rewrote the close [2]. Note the time was: 12:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC). The actual time of my striking my initial comments was: 06:37, 18 May 2010 (MST). Now, both ThemesfromSpace (15:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC) and SnottyWong (01:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)) did indeed second Thumperward’s position, but only 3 and 16 hours after I had already changed my comments. I even responded to Snottyward’s comments [3] in what now appears to have been a feeble attempt to explain myself. This DRV will decide the fate of this article and the judiciousness of my close. That said, it really only took one editor to point out my initial frivolous comments, not three.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Under the authority granted to me by the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation (under circumstances I have sworn never to reveal, so you'll just have to take it on faith, and I will continue to deny that story about the long game of Never have I ever in that bar in the Tenderloin), I hereby grant you complete and utter wiki-absolution, my son. Go forth and wiki-sin no more. Now that we're done with that, can we get to policy-related reasons why the AfD result was so wrong that this perfectly fine article needs to be deleted from the encyclopedia? Or brought up at AfD so that we can discuss it for another week? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I really don't think Mike Cline should be closing list-related AfDs, and I have told him this in the past. He has shown an interest promoting these article and as such I don't feel that he is biased with these closures. This is especially the case when he goes out of his was to close only list-related AfDs. I think if a noninvolved admin would have closed this it most definitely would not have been "keep". Not only this, but the closing rationale reads more like a personal opinion than a statement on consensus. Mike should vote himself in these debates if he feels a certain way, but he most definitely should not close them if he has an agenda in mind. I think the best solution would be to relist the debate to have an uninvolved admin close it. ThemFromSpace 03:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The close took proper account of the significant improvement of the article by JohnWBarber. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist per Themfromspace. A perception of bias is no different from bias itself. Stifle (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse on balance. It's not a great article and the closing rationale is awful, but since there clearly wasn't a consensus to delete it actually reached the right outcome. Perhaps it could be relabelled as No Consensus, but I really can't see why a relist is necessary considering the large amount of participation. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as keep The closing administrator explained his reasoning. DGG made a compelling case, this something with notable references confirming the information. Those who said delete seemed to have ignored that, and just been trying to destroy something they didn't like. Dream Focus 23:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This exactly what closers are supposed to do. By simple vote counting this is delete or possibly no consensus, but if weighing the strengths and weaknesses of the !votes and discounting those not based on policy then case for deletion has not been made. Closing as keep might be pushing it, but is within discretion. Yilloslime TC 23:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I'm a firm deletionist, as I was after ten minutes of new page patrolling, but I think this is an example of an article that belongs in Wikipedia. In its present state, at least, it's well-researched and informative. The administrator who decided to keep this article exercised sound judgment. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Norway relations

Cyprus–Norway relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closer used a supervote to express their opinion against consensus on the theory that the article was synthesis. No new conclusion was reached which is the definition of synthesis. This person should not be closing bilateral articles, they should just be another !vote Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Overturn-With all due respect, I believe this close sucked balls. It did not reflect consensus, no matter how idiotic the consensus of wikipedians may be in the eyes of a closing admin at any one time. I understand that the admin's role is to "assess the discussion and make a decision to Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, or Transwiki the article based on a judgment of the consensus of the discussion". Its clear there is no consensus regarding this particular article, indeed the same applies to many of these bilateral relations AfDs (which I have been learning the history of this week). The !vote count was 13-7 to keep, and while that of course is not dispositive, I didn't even bother to !vote on this one because I found it to be an obvious no consensus close--most editors simply don't have time to opine on every AfD. On this article, this is a legitimate debate as to whether the sources are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG, and since its not even a BLP, a default no consensus to keep would be the only fair result. I started this comment to post on the closing admin's talk page, but couldn't even finish it without the DRV being started. The DRV is going to waste a huge additional amount of editor time with no benefit to the project. What needs to happen (among those who want to participate) is more collaboration on how these bilateral AfDs should be treated. Cheers.----Milowent (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to be under the misapprehension that AfD is a vote. And to be honest, it doesn't even matter, because a No Consensus close will inevitably lead to another AfD on such a topic that doesn't actually exist in the real world. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "I believe this close sucked balls," – well, at least you're taking a constructive stance on this. +what BlackKite said, it's not a vote and the consensus was clearly explained by the closing admin. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 19:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The admin explains why he rejected the lack of consensus. But there was no consensus to delete, as I tried to emphasize in the rhetorical style of master debater Vinny Gambini.--Milowent (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to be under a misapprehension as to my apprehension. I do not claim AfD is a vote; its a determination of whether consensus exists. The closing admin shepherds along the messy democracy of wikipedia and is not a benevolent dictator, even if having benevolent dictators would be preferred. As to whether this topic "exists in the real world," I do not purport to be an expert in foreign relations, I simply am responding to the sourcing, content, and opinions I saw in this AfD.--Milowent (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as Keep Wikipedia is based on the consensus of participants, not on the supervote of admins as occurred here. Alansohn (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you care to justify your claim that there was a consensus (not numerical majority) to keep the article? ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 21:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Most !keeps were not based on policy, and were rightly disregarded by the closing admin. Claiming the nomination was in bad faith--even if true--is not a valid !keep argument. Yilloslime TC 20:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. This would have been an honest reading of the debate, but instead the closer appears to be partisan. Two of the 'deletion' arguments also mention the possibility of retaining the information in other articles (which is not a deletion argument) and the closer neglected to consider this when closing. If editors who are not SPAs believe that the sources do support notability of a topic and others disagree in equal measure, it is incorrect to take sides when closing. The information was all verified, so there was no reason under policy to delete the article as there was no rough consensus on whether the topic was notable. Fences&Windows 21:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus I really really want to endorse this close because I strongly agree with the outcome. But the consensus just wasn't there. Shimeru correctly disregarded a number of !votes but there remained enough reasonable policy-based arguments on the keep side to stand in the way of a consensus to delete. I find the delete arguments persuasive too, but the community-at-large, as expressed in this AfD, didn't. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus Per Fences and windows and Mkativerata. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Nothing wrong with the closure, clearly explained, and describes the actual weight of arguments presented. 'No consensus' is not a get out of jail free card when you've failed to give any persuasive, policy backed, reasons to keep. My vote was 100% delete, anyone worried about lost info can seek userfication. MickMacNee (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know what? When it comes to X-Y Relations articles, for all X and all Y, I can already predict (a) who will participate in the debate, (b) how they will !vote, (c) which user will bring it to DRV if it's deleted, (d) which user will bring it to DRV if it's kept, (e) which members of the ARS will show up at the DRV to "overturn" (if deleted) or "endorse" (if kept), (f) which members of the rather more loosely-organised but still distinctly recognisable Article Extermination Squad will show up to take the exact opposite position to the people at (e), and (g) that the "note a vote" argument will be repeated ad nauseam by the side that won the AfD in this particular skirmish. I see we're getting a slightly more sarcastic flavour of snide remark this time round.

    It's been, what, a year since these articles were created? And we're still going through this process of discussing them one at a time, because we can't agree on sensible guidelines about which should be kept and which deleted.

    Like all X-Y Relations articles, that debate was thoroughly defective and gave almost no help to the closer in deciding what to do. A less defective debate would have found that Cyprus-Norway relations are not notable, so this topic does not deserve its own article, but that there were reliable sources in it that should be retained. This less defective debate would then have considered the possible merge targets and decided where the reliable sources ought to be preserved.

    All in all I think it best if this debate is relisted so that can be achieved, and I also think it best if the participants in the last AfD and this DRV, including me, should recuse ourselves on grounds of lack of objectivity about X-Y Relations articles. However, if the closer of this DRV finds that a relist on those terms would not be productive, then my !vote is "overturn to merge, with no reflection on the closer, per WP:IAR."—S Marshall T/C 23:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse- the closing admin explained their reasons pretty clearly and the grounds for disregarding certain votes, and I found them reasonable. Reyk YO! 23:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion AfD is not a vote (indeed, it became AfD because VfD used the word 'votes'). Not all arguments are created equal, and the closing admin laid out his rationale very clearly. Textbook close, he read consensus instead of vote-counting. Hear hear. --Mask? 23:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep. The arguments made in the closing would have been more appropriately made in the discussion--that's where the detailed analysis of a source should go, and then someone else will judge . FWIW, I did not participate in the AfD because I thought from the first few !votes and the strength of the article it would be an obvious keep. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This idea that "any sufficiently noisy AfD has to be a No Consensus" seems to have gained traction amongst certain elements recently. The first task of any closing administrator should be to draw a big red line through any bogus comments in the discussion, which was precisely what Shimeru did in his closing comment. This is in fact a textbook good close of a messy AfD, and it compares very favourably indeed to some other recent examples which didn't get such an honest close. For those making the argument that they didn't contribute because the outcome seemed certain to them, this could be seen as a personal failure to have properly evaluated the existing comments. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem for a closing administrator is seeing if one can tell apart the pure irrelevancies from the arguments they disagree with. The ones in the first class are to be disregarded in the close. The ones in the second class are not--the only way the closing admin can express his disagreement is by joining in the discussion. If his argument is good enough, it will convince people. If not, he shouldn't be using his position as admin to establish it. Except for what is and is not policy, the opinion of an admin has no more weight than any other established editor; for example, Chris, in an AfD discussion or any other content question, my opinion has no more intrinsic weight than yours. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • So let's get more specific here. Of the comments that Shimeru discarded, which ones do you believe were discarded because he disagreed with them rather than because they were weak? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • My guess would be all those which claimed this met WP:N explicitly or otherwise. That is a very strong argument, if true, and no one in the discussion really explained why the apparently reliable sources found in the article were somehow deficient. The closer felt they were not, but no one had an opportunity to counter than argument in the AfD. That is why closers shouldn't close on the basis of their reading of the material unless it's really really obvious. Hobit (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the argument hinges on a claim of WP:SYNTHESIS, it is incumbent on the closer to look at the article. AFD is not a vote. Abductive (reasoning) 21:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              1. 1 I've no clue at all what that has to do with what I wrote. Certainly they can, and sometimes should, read the material. But if the issue is one of notability (which is what I'm saying the keep !votes were claiming was met and that the closer discarded because he disagreed with them) his view of notability shouldn't trump others. Chris asked which !votes appeared to be discarded because the closer disagreed with them. I answered. As an aside, I find "synthesis" arguments in this case to be really really weak and well addressed in the AfD. It was never made plain where the synth supposedly was. Is the claim that they have relations synthesis? Something else? I can't tell from the discussion. Hobit (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep quite obviously. It was a strong article, with good sourcing, and the close is a complete disgrace, disregarding both consensus (which was in favour of keeping) and keep arguments (which were well grounded in policy and guidelines). It looks like a reasoned close, but it isn't. The closing admin simply disregarded what he/she didn't like and got the result preferred. --Cyclopiatalk 00:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you honestly consider a keep comment which consists of "passes GNG with flying colours" to be a strong argument? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is kinda obvious that it passes GNG, and what else we need to keep than passing GNG? The problem is that in this case strong arguments shouldn't have been needed -the article spoke for itself. And in fact consensus was for keeping it. The delete close is a disgraceful surprise. --Cyclopiatalk 00:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • See, this is just gainsaying. You haven't further explained yourself so that your comment would be given more weight; instead, you've simply repeatedly yourself more forcefully. While it may be obvious to you that it passes the GNG, without any further clarification your comment shouldn't be given much weight, especially given that you evidently have a lower-than-average notability threshold. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Chris, sources existed in the article. So saying it meets GNG is, in fact, a darn strong argument. Do you feel "doesn't meet GNG" to be a stronger argument some how? If there are apparently reliable sources, those arguing they are insufficient need to explain why. If there aren't sources in the article, those arguing to keep need to either provide them or make darn strong arguments that they probably exist. In my experience that's how AfDs generally go. The nub if figuring out if it meets WP:N given those sources (in addition to other guidelines and policies etc.) If the arguments are largely "yes it does", "no it doesn't" then unless the !vote is really heavily leaning one way, no consensus is the only reasonable outcome. Hobit (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I expect that if someone is challenged on an argument that sources do or do not count as reliable, secondary, and non-trivial, that the editor in question provides some evidence based on those sources. I do not expect them simply to repeat themselves more forcefully. The editors arguing that the sources are not sufficient have done so by explaining what the sources cover and how they're related to one another (the answers being "mundane news", and "not at all"). Therefore, a counterargument would seek to refute that. In fact, Cyclopeia's argument in reply to MickMacNee above was essentially that he disagreed with WP:SYN. Therefore, the closing admin rightly discarded assertions of notability without proof, while considering arguments of WP:SYN in the subject matter because they did have proof. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • No argument for deletion did anything other than state that the sources weren't enough. As they are secondary sources which cover the topic in a non-trivial depth, I'd expect that those arguming for deletion would explain why the various sources weren't enough. I think we are basically arguming "whose job is it to walk the sources in an AfD?" In my opinion when sources are provided that on their face meet WP:N those arguming for deletion should do so. Or, perhaps, those who are on the losing side of the !votes. But here neither side did. At the very least we then need to close as either NC or (perhaps) on the side of the !votes if one side has a massive majority. As neither side adressed any of the sources directly, I don't see how the discussion can be said to have reached a conclusion for deletion. Hobit (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't think that's an accurate characterisation of the delete comments. The point is that it is not the references which have to meet the GNG, but the subject of the article they are referencing. Several of the delete comments pointed out that the sources don't do that, and that while they may be reliable for the purpose of the "independent factoids" that they cover, they do not give any significant coverage to the subject of diplomatic relations between the countries. Furthermore, the exact number of comments on either side is completely irrelevant, as is their ratio. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn to no consensus As it is obvious there isn't any consensus about what to do with such articles. Can people _please_ get a set of guidelines together for these articles? Pretty please? Like others, I'm sick of seeing these here and the !votes pretty much break down the same way each time. The sources seem acceptable to me, though certainly on the weak side. If the !vote were split down the middle, I could maybe see a delete. But not with the !vote looking like that. The key questions are: Does this meet GNG? The consensus appears to be yes and that's not an outrageous reading of the sources. Is there a strong enough IAR !vote to delete? And here the answer is clearly no. I don't believe any reasonable reading of the discussion could therefore result in deletion. Hobit (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse of deletion. a bold close but a correct one. the best way to argue for keep in any AfD is to prove significant coverage in reliable sources exist. most of the keep voters simply play the "disruptive nomination" card which of course is a masquerade for keep. Most of the keep voters made zero attempt to find sources nor addressed now coverage was more than routine or trivial. LibStar (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There was certainly not a consensus to delete, even roughly. Slap the closer for supervoting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't understand why the closing admin is being accused of using a supervote. He clearly rationalised his close. If he'd just closed it as Delete with no explanation you might've had a point, but he didn't. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that the issue comes down to exactly what the keep/delete ratio means. Many of us believe that that ratio should play a major role in determining the result of the AfD. Certainly after ignoring or discounting (to an appropriate degree) !votes not based in policy, weakly based in policy, based purely WP:IAR, or factually wrong. But when the issue (as it is in this case) is subjective, the !votes count should play a significant role. You'll notice DGG and I both !voted to overturn a keep (me just to NC) when an admin again ignored the !vote count in favor of their own reading of the material.

        I'd think we'd all agree that 9 JNN/unencyclopedic !votes should trump 1 based on WP:N. WP:N is a guideline and WP:IAR is a policy. We've certainly had closures like that before (I think there was one on Larry King's hair or something like that which clearly met WP:N but would be ludicrous to have an article on in the opinion of most). We figure those cases out, that is where common sense trumps guidelines, by the !vote count. In any case, in this instance if WP:N is met or not was the issue and a majority felt it was. This wasn't _factually_ incorrect though reasonable people could disagree. But the place to disagree was in the discussion, not the close. Hobit (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There were appropriate disregards. Disregarding Meco’s !vote is not OK; that sort of opinion is the purpose of having debates. If his opinion is to be disagreed with, it should be disagreed with in the debate (it wasn’t), but not disagreed with administratively. It was not a WP:ILIKEIT !vote, but a reasonable, broad, philosophical position.
“After reviewing the sources, I find these arguments persuasive…”. This is not the role for a closer. The closer is supposed to close based on the content of the recorded debate. If he has to do further research, then the debate is not finished, and his interpretation of that research amounts to his !vote.
What I don’t understand is why “merge” options are seriously considered where there are obvious merge target articles. WP:N arguments don’t automatically make for deletion arguments where merging the limited content can be done. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meco's vote is a perfect example of one that can simply be discounted in the first round of eliminating all opinions which have zero grounding in policy. And as for the idea that a closer should not be looking at the article? Seriously, wtf? His statement is a record of how he wieghed the debate, simple as that, and anyone who is doing that has to look at the article and the debate. He hasn't come up with any new angle or interpretation of the article that was not already raised in the debate, this was not novel research in any sense of the term. MickMacNee (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"a closer should not be looking at the article? Seriously, wtf?". No, of course the closer should look at the article. I read from the comments that he needed to freshly load and read the sources for form an opinion that he used to close; that it was not a simple weighing process. If that opinion was already in the debate, then I'll give MickMacNee his point. The discounting of Meco's vote is something I disagree with. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Using WP:Synthesis and recruiting people to "rescue" articles at AfD can't succeed all the time. Abductive (reasoning) 13:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus. Using either vote count or policy/guidelines to view this discussion, there were very strong arguments on both sides of the divide made by multiple users. Even disregarding the less convincing Keep comments, there's no way there was a consensus to delete. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a vote count, period, and simply stating 'passes GNG' or 'reliably sourced' are not strong arguments, especially when they are not expanded into anything that remotely resembles community consensus or detailed policy wording. MickMacNee (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please explain how this, this, this and this are not strong arguments? Alzarian16 (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    [4]
    • "apparently there are reliable sources discussing Cyprus–Norway relations in detail" - please show me where a single source discusses their actual relations? Not an aspect of them, not a detail of them, the actual relation as a topic. And let's not even get onto the use of the word 'apparently'.
    [5]
    • "Well sourced and useful article" - pure assertion, WP:USEFUL.
    • "There is nothing novel about suggesting these two nations have a relationship" - of course there is if you cannot present a single source that discusses the relationship as a topic, let alone in significant depth. You can probably find a google result or two for every single bi-lateral relation possible, but precedent at past Afds has already rejected the idea that they are inherently notable if you can just prove they exist.
    • "for bilateral relationships, serious non trivial discussions invariably refer to concrete diplomatic events such as agreements and treaties" - a suggestion that you simply only need evidence of treaties or agreements to declare the relationship notable - again, this is not something that has ever found much support while attempting to draw up a bi-lateral relationship notability guideline. Maybe if there was some detailed reference made to the actual agreements detailed in this actual article, but there isn't.
    [6] (your own rationale)
    • "Meets WP:GNG." - basic assertion, the weakest argument possible. When all you do is throw up the acronyms, it is not persuasive that you really understand the content of the actual guideline - this is why explaining yourself in full is explained as the right way to go about giving Afd rationales.
    • "The fact that the coverage is spread over a number of only loosely connected events has no impact on whether the topic is notable" - totally wrong, and flies in the face of other principles like WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT#INFO. The GNG exists precisely to distinguish the difference between collation of random Google hits, and evidence of an actual, notable, and noted, topic, by demanding significant coverage of that topic. The deleted article was effectively a collection of examples of the relation, with zero content about the actual relation. Some people would go so far as calling that listcruft, but simply 'not worthy of inclusion for being not-notable' pretty much covers it too.
    [7]
    • "Well referenced" - totally insufficient as a strong argument, we can and do delete 'well referenced' articles all day every day, because the quality of referencing is not the be all and end all, not by a long chalk. Maybe if he had expanded his argument, but he hasn't.
    • "enough information for a standalone article" - totally vague, doesn't even attempt to addresss the reason for deletion, and suggests that size alone is our bar to inclusion - patently this is just a non-starter as a keep rationale, especially when there are severall detailed and policy backed reasons given to delete.
    MickMacNee (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How about this one? A reliable source covering the relations as the topic in detail. Your objection to the first two votes was based on this sort of source not existing; do you have another one? Alzarian16 (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That was already in the article. It's a primary source, which very briefly says 'relations are excellent', says that Sweden acts as Norway's representative (without even explaining why), and simply lists two agreements. That is not significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, by any stretch of the imagination. MickMacNee (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Quote: "you cannot present a single source that discusses the relationship as a topic". And another: "show me where a single source discusses their actual relations". The source does both of those. If you wanted a secondary source you should have asked for one. Of course it isn't enough to meet WP:GNG, but it is enough to prove that WP:SYNTH is not an issue. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was quite obviously talking about sources that meet the GNG, I should not have to clarify that every time, the notability of the 'topic' is the entire theme of this debate. If you already know this source doesn't meet the GNG, then what exactly was the basis of your "Meets WP:GNG." vote? MickMacNee (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The close was not based on WP:GNG but on WP:SYNTH. This isn't an issue for the reasons eloquently set out by FeydHuxtable, so the close was wrong. Then there's the fact that several reliable sources cover what in effect are aspects of the relationship (such as this one and this one). So we have secondary sources covering aspects of the relationship in detail and primary sources covering the relationship itself, so neither WP:GNG or WP:SYNTH is violated. Therefore the article should have been kept. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The closure cites SYN and the GNG, they are both relevant, but not in the odd way you are interpreting them. The novel conclusion under SYN being produced is that this 'well sourced' collection of factoids means that there is a notable topic here, meeting the GNG. The deleters rightly said this was not correct, a borderline nonsense interpretation of both guidelines, and the closer outlined pretty clearly that this is the position that carried most weight, once all invalid votes were binned, and so he closed it accordingly. It doesn't matter in the slightest to SYN whether the factoids are secondary or not, and it still matters to the GNG that there is no secondary sources for the topic, whether you have found reliably sourced factoids or not. MickMacNee (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at WP:SYN, the first line reads "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Where in the article did that occur? As yet I have yet to see anyone give a specific example. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The existence of the article is the novel conclusion. This is what the GNG is all about - do not create articles on non-notable topics. Period, This is not rocket science, it's not even Wikipedia 101 frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So to clarify: if a source shows that the topic exists (which one does), and other sources talk about aspects of the topic in detail (which more than one do), that violates WP:SYNTH? I thought mine was supposed to be the novel interpretation! Alzarian16 (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it does, when the assertion being made is that you have found notable topic as defined by the GNG. I've said this now, what, about four times already? What's not to understand here? Instead of cherry picking which bits of posts you do and don't want to reply to, let's try a different tack. How about you give me a plausible example of something else where this combination of a primary source on the general topic, with secondary sourcing of disparate aspects of it, comes up with something that passed the GNG. Preferably something a bit more convincing than Colonel Warden's effort of 'recycling', and even better, an article with some prior evidence that it has ever survived an Afd on notability grounds, and is not just some out of the way unnoticed cruft. MickMacNee (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I had tried to avoid using this argument because of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but since you ask: try First Student UK. 29 sources: seven primary talking about the topic as a whole, five more discussing aspects of it, and seventeen secondary sources also talking about aspects of the topic (usually local area operations). There was a proposal to merge this and two other related articles, but the discussion ended with a consensus to retain separate articles. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (de-indent) First Student UK (or rather 'yellow First buses in the UK') has been covered as a topic as a whole, I have personally read at least one whole article in the UK trade press on it before, and plenty of other significant coverage of it as an entity in its own right too. But I can also see there is a very real case for that article not needing to exist, and for the referencing to be shared between a generic UK school bus article, and the actual First subsidiary companies or independent contractors operating these buses. It can even be seen as a rather blatant NPOV violation, or even borderline spam. Where can info about the other groups running yellow buses here, such as Arriva and Go-Ahead, be found? That is where a generic article would be better. The coverage of a single operation, Pegasus, is a clear distortion of the notability of the topic as a whole - something which only happens when people take this attidue that articles are mere dumping grounds for related material. If you are arguing that it is a notable topic based on its current referencing and those discussions, then I'm sorry, but that article, in terms of its current referencing, makes a bloody poor job of including sources to that effect. I only know of its notability through my own knowledge, anybody not knowing the subject has every right, in Wikipedia policy, to call that article severely dodgy. And I really don't think those discussions, between what? six people? has actually given a policy backed answer to the question, 'is this brand notable in of itself'? And based on the article, your guess is as good as mine as to whether First have actually incorporated a UK Student subsidiary, so large parts of that discussion, somehow based on it being a separate company, is on very shaky ground. The closest it comes to featuring a defence, is NOT PAPER, which has got zero mileage for these relations articles in the past. So, in summary, yes, you found a crappy article that meets your dodgy definition of 'existence by factoid', but if it came down to it, and somebody Afd'd it on notability grounds, I would, if I really wanted to save the article, go and find the evidence of its notability which would support a defence that it shows it would satisfy the GNG (and I still have my doubts it would not end up being merged/split). The same cannot be said of Cyprus-Norway relations, because we have just had the Afd, and nobody brought anything to the table. I half think that nobody has put that First UK Student article up for deletion yet because, even though it isn't backed by an on-point reference, the actual text makes a stab at asserting it is notable as an overall topic - on the very real wiki-principle that if people write such assertions that are blatant bollocks, they usually get removed. The idea that 'First operates a nationwide fleet of yellow buses which people have taken notice of', is not a whacky fringe idea. The same cannot be said of Norway Cyprus relations, which is why the article is pretty unconvincing in that regard. MickMacNee (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Cyprus-Norway relations are not a "wachky fringe idea" because the countries themselves openly talk about them (see the primary source you argued so strongly against). First definitely have a UK Student subsidiary becasue they say so (see here),so that objection is invalid. Pegasus makes up only ten of the sources; that still leaves seven talking about other aspects of First Student UK. Arriva and Go-Ahead run no dedicated school bus operations except for a small Go-Ahead joint venture in the US (see Google results) so wouldn't be mentioned in a generic article anyway. At the discussion six users opposed the merge, mostly based on policy, and two supported it; you claim this is not a consensus, but also claim that the AfD for Cyprus-Norway relations reached a consensus to delete when this was the minority view. For a minority view to be a consensus the argument has to be very strong. The argument you have given takes two policies (WP:SYNTH and WP:GNG), joins them together and uses them to endorse a viewpoint that neither states. If it were an artice it would be deleted for violating WP:SYNTH! Alzarian16 (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As ever, you just ignore half of what is being said and come to your own conclusions of what was being said and try and answer that, it seems. The whacky idea is not their existence (whether you measure that by "they say so" method, or a rather more encyclopoedic approach), it is their notability. I frankly don't know what you are talking about in terms of policy and consensus anymore, you seem to be making it up now, that discussion does not show that brand/operator/comany, or whatever the hell it is, is notable in any way in terms of an actual notability guideline, and you just seem to be really really confused on what notability is, and what policies those notability guidelines stem from, and you keep trying to wrongly pretend that the only issue here is whether relations exist, or by analogy, whether First Student UK exists. And on a tangent, if you don't think Arriva and Go-Ahead would be mentioned in UK school bus article, I don't think you are know what you are talking about. They both operate yellow liveried school services on the exact same legal basis as First, the only difference being whether First does it as a properly separate O-license, and whether they are still using specially specced buses. That is a distinction which wouldn't matter in the slightest for a generic article on the topic. Anyway, I'm done here, I am wasting my life with this crap, if you don't get it by now, you never will. This relations article violates SYNTH by asserting that coverage of it meets the GNG through the article's (not the relations) simple existence on wikipedia. It's as simple as that, and so far, that's not a position which has been countered in any understandable way from where I'm sitting. MickMacNee (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, when you've been reduced to throwing accusations that don't stack up (my favourite is the "making up consensus" bit), it's probably time you stopped - if only for the sake of the people who agree with your view, whose case you are doing no favours. Your argument has changed so many times that it's bgecoming difficult to know what I'm meant to be responding to. Let's just wait and see what the closing admin says. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My argument has changed? What absolute and total bollocks. You are the one who started out with 'meets GNG', then went on to admit the refs don't actually meet the GNG, but that doesn't matter because it was deleted under SYN, and now, I really have no clue what your argument is. And not once have you even really listened or even understood what I've said. If you think the First Student discussion is a consensus, more fool you I say. I think most editors not editting in that area know full well that a consensus of people who are not referring to policy, is not a consensus at all. Those articles don't usually find this out, because nobody cares about them enough to even bother with them. I've been through that First content at great detail with you, you on the other hand, well, I still have no clue what your argument is that that article proves its notability based on the factoid collection of refs it includes. MickMacNee (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus. Closing admin discounted most of the Keep votes, but then the same could have been done for most of the Delete votes. That has not happened, despite most of the delete votes simply asserting that there is no coverage in reliable sources, without demonstrating these claims. Pantherskin (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How exactly do you demonstrate that then? Bearing in mind all you said in the Afd was that "apparently there are reliable sources discussing Cyprus–Norway relations in detail". MickMacNee (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was no consensus to delete. The closer did not seem to follow the guidance of WP:DGFA: respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds rather outdated. The Wikipedia of 2010 is not the place where everybody's feelings are respected. We have clear set of policies and guidelines now, and a terrabytes of Afd precedent. People whose Afd rationales do not even come close to resembling policy, or who cannot defend their positions beyond vague handwaves to the GNG, really should not be molly coddled. Common sense is common sense, and consensus is about weight of arguments, not feelings. MickMacNee (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guideline is clear - the closing admin should respect what the participating editors say. This is also common sense - there is no point in a discussion which then results in a biased judgement based upon the preference of the closer. The closer must not insert their own opinion of the facts of the matter but must respect the judgement of the participants. This is the essence of consensus-building. To do otherwise would be petty tyranny. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • He did not insert his own opinion, he did not say anything that was not already in the debate. Wiki is not a free for all, not everybody's opinion is equal - respect, and therefore weight, is only due to those who can demonstrate that they do infact have a proper grasp of policy and common sense. Wikipedia already is a tyranny in some places, or have you missed the last few developments in the field of BLP / Flagged revs etc? Everywhere else, it relies on one simple thing - clue. MickMacNee (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closer most definitely did insert his own opinion. He stated clearly that he reviewed the sources himself and so formed his own opinion of them which he then used to determine his close. Such behaviour lacks clue as the community will tend to strike down those who assert their superiority using force majeure. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the main disagreement centers on the question of whether the sources are sufficient, then it seems to me that it's precisely the responsibility of the closing admin to review those sources. Closing any discussion whose result is not crystal clear pretty much demands a review of the article -- and checking the clear ones isn't a bad idea, either. More than one article with an overwhelming 'keep' majority has ended up being speedied under g12/copyvio. Shimeru (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • He reviewed the sources in order to confirm the already stated deleted opinions were infact more cogent and valid than the weaker keep votes, which when you discount the invalid votes, were not as numerous as people are making out to try and claim a 'no consensus' was even desirable (leading to an Afd again in a year). This is what any cluefull closer should do, as plenty of people have said is clearly what happened. Do not confuse 'showing your workings' with 'exercising your own opinion' as a 'super vote', that analysis simply does not stand up, much like the handwaves to the GNG in the Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • He cited a weak source, not a strong one. This indicates either selective bias or inadequate sampling. And he failed to allow for the possibility of further improvement. Articles are not expected to be perfect at AFD. For example, nothing had yet been added to the article about Norwegian sponsorship of the UN resolution regarding UNFICYP peacekeeping in Cyprus - a matter for which there are numerous good sources. In looking only at the current state of the article rather than considering its potential, he did not properly allow for the reasonable doubt which WP:DGFA requires to be considered. Furthermore, his reliance on the collection of factoids argument was not policy-based. When we have a general article, it is quite normal and necessary to bring together disparate facts about various aspects of the topic. So, the close seems a tendentious justification of an improper disregard for true consensus-building and so should be over-turned. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • People have 7 days to prove an article has potential at Afd, that's a non-argument for not closing as delete. The collection of factoids angle is perfectly policy based. Unlike the catch all much misunderstood guideline that is the GNG, we have actual principles and policies, concrete ones, against merely collecting any old facts into articles, just because we can. If you can give me any example of a similar article on a notional topic, where the references were so obviously unconnected with each other, and unreprepresentative of a discussion of the actual notional topic, I'd frankly be amazed. Infact, I'd put it up for deletion, so let's see it. The UN resolution example is, like everything else in the article, a poor example of notability for, or notice of, this actual topic. It's beyond weak infact. Our own UNFICYP article doesn't even mention Norway, so arguing that the pedia is missing something by not having this bucket for it to be dumped in, shows how this obsession with these articles is such a blatant mixing up of priorities. These are not general articles, and they make useless 'I wonder if' indexes. These are by definition extremely narrow intersections, where the relationship is unarguably trivial, and frankly non-existent, in most cases. In the cases where notability is asserted, then it absolutely needs to be obvious it exists as a topic, over and above a few factoids. MickMacNee (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That the factoid argument is not policy-based may be seen from the fact that no policy exists to describe this. I clicked random article a few times to pull up a general topic which, by its nature, tends to ramble all over the place - see Recycling. Such articles tend to be composites of numerous sources and it's a matter of editorial judgement how we should balance and scope them. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you smoking if you honestly believe recycling is not covered as a general topic in sources? This is not an argument, and neither is 'no policy exists'. We have NOT#INFO for a starting point principle. And as long as people aren't making assertions like you just did, which I cannot quite believe you just did, that recycling is just like Cyprus-Norway relations as an example of an 'unsourceable topic' as a whole, then the GNG actually already covers this whole indiscriminate collection of refs issue quite well, as to whether that is notability or not. You of course won't see a policy if you don't understand the ones we already have. Man alive, there are entire books, huge great volumes, written solely about the topic of Recycling. Norway-Cyprus relations? Notsomuch tbh. You probably could not have picked a worse, or more astounding, example if your tried. MickMacNee (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOT#INFO says nothing about factoids or anything like it - that's just your imagination, not policy. And while recycling is obviously a more notable topic, the point is that that article is a ragbag - a collection of factoids about different sorts of recycling supported by different sources. It does not represent the settled view of an external authority - it is a composite which has been composed and selected by ourselves. It is normal and necessary for us to write in this way because if we were just to parrot some particular source then we would add no value and risk breach of copyright. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not say it covered it, I said it is the starting principle, from which people are supposed to exercise common sense and clue. Or have we really got to the stage where editors are incapable of doing this? NOT#INFO states: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, "..merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Now, you can stand there and try and argue that because they are the result of a Google search for the keywords Cyprus and Norway, that the collection of subsequent refs is not indiscriminate, but please don't pretend that "NOT#INFO says nothing about factoids or anything like it", you might aswell align yourself with the camp that asserts all relations will automatically meet the GNG, for all the credibility that has. Your recycling example is bad, period. It has no resemblence to the deleted article, and your idea that we would have to violate copyright to use general sources is ridiculous. Infact, you seem to have just missed the point entirely, which is not that a collections of varied sources are not used in other notable articles, it is that we do not consider notable, subjects where it is evidently impossible to find a source about the topic as a whole. And one that is sufficient to meet the GNG, before I end up getting taken down that circular road again. I will withdraw my endorsement of this deletion as soon as someone turns up here with a single, credible, GNG compliant source covering the topic Denmark-Cyprus relations. MickMacNee (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CWhat matters is the WP:SYN assembly of off-topic mentions and random news items into a topic. WP:NOT#INFO says, in point 4, "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting...". Since there are no sources that address the non-topic of Cyprus Norway relations, the Article Rescue Squadron is violating that guideline by stringing together news articles and inventing stuff out of whole cloth. This behavior is disruptive. Abductive (reasoning) 21:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:SYN is not applicable because there is no novel thesis presented by such articles. I've not followed their development closely but my impression is that they have arisen as a natural form of completism. We have articles such as Australia – New Zealand relations and as they grow in number, it occurs to some editor(s) to fill in the gaps in a systematic way, so that our coverage of international relations is complete. Naturally some of these skeleton articles are stubby but this should not be a problem as they are quite harmless and provide a sensible framework for additions. But some contrary-minded editors decide to take these articles to AFD and then the matter turns into a silly inclusionist-deletionist pissing contest. The blame for this sorry state of affairs hardly rests with the ARS as they didn't invent these articles and their involvement is at least tertiary because the articles first had to be written and then proposed for deletion. Now when a particular case of this sort is settled that should be an end of it as we all have more important and useful work to do. What seems particularly disruptive is to renominate a vexatious case of this sort so that the cycle may be repeated. This is my interest in this case - it seems important to stamp on the practise of vexatious renomination as it is such an unnecessary nuisance. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My recollection is that a single editor took a look at some of the few valid articles we had, decided every single combination was automatically notable, and set off on a cookie cutter stub creation spree. Then when people rightly tried to get rid of them, the ARS got involved, and we ended up with factoid articles like this. Nobody in their right mind can tell me that deciding to create this rag-tag collection of refs would have been the result of someone correctly identifying Wikipedia was remiss in ignoring the notbale relationship between Cyprus and Norway, and deciding to create the article. MickMacNee (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it seems we agree on how we got here - that the article's basis is a structural one, not a particular one. The thing is: notability is not a policy and so it is legitimate for editors to ignore it if there seem to be good structural reasons for creating a general class of articles. We see this in the case of places and athletes, for example. It does not seem unreasonable that the relations between sovereign countries might be considered sufficiently weighty that we should have a framework for them too. Norway and Cyprus have a direct financial relationship of some 5 million euros and this seems comparable in objective importance with a professional footballer or a small village. If editors feel it is worthwhile for us to record such stuff then there is no policy which forbids it and so we're good. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, and if that were remotely true, List of examples of Cyprus and Norway having relations, would be speedy closed as keep at Afd. But it isn't, because you know full well that this pie in the sky view ignores huge great swathes of other core policies, namely WP:NOT, if you really want to pretend that most people here are not arguing that it did 'meet GNG'. And for the record, I really don't give a toss about footballers or villagers - WP:OSE is seemingly now just the latest in the long line of weak excuses being made to overturn this decision to no consensus (and FYI, 5 million Euros doesn't even buy you a Premier League, or even a half decent Championship level, footballer these days). MickMacNee (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - In the absence of overriding issues such as BLP, for a sourced page to be deleted requires a clear consensus. That didn't exist, here. I would add, as a general principle, it is for the commentators to assess the sources. Whilst it is appropriate for the closer to review that evaluation, it would not be correct to substitute the closer's judgement for that of the participants. TerriersFan (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is exactly why the closer's statement matches the argument made by deleters. I could understand if the closer has clearly invented another angle on the debate, but he clearly hasn't. And as for 'clear consensus', when you strip out the clearly invalid votes, and weigh the remainder, it exists, it's not rocket science. These Afd's are going to re-occur year after year, unless people realise that this is what cluefully divined consensus actully looks like for articles where a rag tag of urls can actually be found, but need to be looked at beyond their mere existence, because existence is not notability or worth, not by a million miles. MickMacNee (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. Though I can't see the article, many of the keep votes indicate that it was adequately sourced in independent, reliable sources, meeting the GNG. The closing admin did reject many of the arguments make for keeping (personal attack, etc.) which, even if true, do not allow disregarding the proper keep votes that claimed it met our General Notability Guidelines. The closing admin also addressed this, saying that the article appeared to be a wp:synthesis of multiple sources. Again, I can't see the article, but different aspects of the relationship can be discussed from different sources in the same article without running afoul of sp:SYNTH. Buddy431 (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: forgot my conclusion: there exists reasonable disagreement about whether or not this meets the GNG. Reasonable, legitimate disagreement = "No Consensus". Buddy431 (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could always request temp undeletion and be sure. The only disagreement I saw was whether you have to actually explain how something 'just meets the GNG' by virtue of being 'reliably sourced', or whether enough people saying it enough times is enough to be able to ignore all the people who say the exact opposite, while in some case even going further and explaining why. And p.s., as per Warden, examples would be nice, I for one am having a real hard time envisaging this strategy working for anything other than these relations articles, which seem to be the only topic where there doesn't have to be any evidence of a topic. MickMacNee (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I remember being neutral on the first AFD here; when the article was eventually kept I added some material to make the article a bit more comprehensive. Norway's relations with Cyprus are not a high priority in my opinion, because most relations are fairly light. There is some economic activity and rivalry when it comes to shipping, but not anything which makes the article a "must keep" as "Norway-Sweden" is. But to evaluate the closure, I think the rationale given is a poor one. The main problem with the closure is that it falls into the trap of evaluating each argument individually, discounting everything which appears to fall into one of the WP:ATA categories, and then closing based on the numbers of what is left behind. The result is ignoring the voices of many users who actually support valid arguments even though they do not explicitly write them out. A much better way to close the AFD is to see if there are valid arguments on both sides of the discussion, and then see what level of support they have. If one side is absolutely being unreasonable on arguments, then closing against the numbers is valid, but otherwise you should stick with the consensus, and declare "no consensus" if no such consensus exists. I also feel that the closing rationale cherry-picks some of the poor "keep" arguments in order to dismiss their entire case. Several arguments were dismissed based on not reading the entire rationale (For example: Dream Focus is ignored simply because he thinks that repeated AfDs are disruptive; the fact that he referred to the financial connections is utterly ignored). Since I see reasonable arguments on the "keep" side which enjoy significant support, the article should not have been deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Seems like a good close to me. As a side note, will it ever be possible to dispense with the fiction that adding "strong" to one's bolded !vote will actually add to it any extra weight? Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. There was clearly no consensus to delete. Dream Focus 14:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Nominator is well aware that he is supposed to discuss issues with the closing admin before bringing them here, and has persistently failed or refused to do so. Closure was entirely within admin discretion. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that said admin had stated in his close that "I can already see the DRV coming" I'm not sure there was much to discuss. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I know that this isn't AfD part 2, but I'd like people to consider this issue anyway. I'd like to ask: What is the benefit that excluding this article does the encyclopedia? It is not an hoax. It is not made of unverifiable information. It is reasonably NPOV. It collects several segments of verifiable information, but it doesn't arrive at conclusions that can be deemed WP:SYNTHESIS. That's exactly what an encyclopedia article is for: collecting and structuring information on a topic from reliable sources. Nobody here denies that the bilateral relationship, no matter how weak, exists and nobody denies, more importantly, that sources have covered individual facets of it, even if they perhaps didn't cover the relationship as a whole. I think it passes WP:GNG very well, but even if it is borderline on this, then it is just a technicality that prevents us to have a completely reasonable article, for the reasons above. Before deleting (or including) one should ask: What is the benefit of this action for the encyclopedia and its public? I would love answers on this subject, from both camps. --Cyclopiatalk 20:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder why you even bother to pose the question, I know you know the answer, Jimbo summed it up pretty well for you on his talk page in your recent conversations. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for the entire world's collection of verifiable information, just because it exists. What is the benefit of deleting articles like this? It tells the world that our standards of notability actually mean something, that we are a credible encyclopoedia, and that articles they will find here in a 100 years time, will, or rather should, reflect topics the rest of the world gave enough of a shit about to take notice of as a topic, and that Wikipedia did not, through its own weird ways, decided to cobble unconnected sources together and define something as being notable. If readers come away with the same impression I did when I read this excuse of an article, then you can bet your life Wikipedia's credibility goes down every single time an article like this is kept, on the flimsy basis that it 'meets the GNG' (no further explanation or expansion deemed necessary, inspite of abundant evidence of clear and present opposition to that view). If you keep making these various pronouncements, sooner or later, someone really is going to get their teeth into the GNG and make sure this kind of stunt can never be pulled again. Becuase it is pretty clear it is wishfull thinking that a bi-lateral guideline is going to get approved. MickMacNee (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for the entire world's collection of verifiable information, just because it exists.. Agree completely; in fact I am talking of sourced verifiable information.
If readers come away with the same impression I did when I read this excuse of an article, then you can bet your life Wikipedia's credibility goes down every single time an article like this is kept - To me, credibility of WP goes down the drain every time an article like this is deleted. I use to think of a credible encyclopedia as a resource that is as thorough as possible, that structures and summarizes every facet of human knowledge. An encyclopedia which relies on subjective standards is not a credible one. I bet that in 100 years time, people would thank us of having "cobbled unconnected sources", instead of letting them do the same work from scratch. Imagine if the Romans did the same, how many things we would know that now are lost forever. Your approach reminds me of this quote from the New York Review of Books: Still, a lot of good work—verifiable, informative, brain-leapingly strange—is being cast out of this paperless, infinitely expandable accordion folder by people who have a narrow, almost grade-schoolish notion of what sort of curiosity an online encyclopedia will be able to satisfy in the years to come [8] --Cyclopiatalk 11:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, this isn't supposed to be another drama board. Please take philosophical arguments to the talk page or another venue rather than crowding the DRV itself or you'll both probably be ignored. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Admittedly I don't know if it should be "No consensus" or "keep", but "delete was not appropriate. The reasoning and the interpretation of WP:NOTE of the "keep" arguments, which were very strong, were simply disagreed with by the closer. We don't have to agree with consensus, but we should follow it.--Oakshade (talk) 05:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse more caterwauling over not liking the result rather than a legitimate admin action concern, especially over this topic. Tarc (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This DRV is not here because of the result, but the closing admin's decision not to adhere to it.--Oakshade (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The DRV was initiated precisely because the initiator did not like the result. The "supervote" angle is a tenuous crock of shit. Tarc (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of proof above that the closer incorrectly disregarded some votes focusing on their weak aspects and ignoring the stronger ones. It seems also clear by the closure that the closer decided on the basis of its own opinion on the sources, not on the basis of consensus. --Cyclopiatalk 13:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? "Its"? Shimeru (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The supervote angle is the opposite of a "tenuous crock of shit". If you prefer "disregarding community consensus like an evil dictator who hates humanity" instead, so be it. Is this DRV over yet?--Milowent (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Plenty of proof" perhaps to those who arrive here seeing what they wish to see, per usual. And yes, I hope this is over soon as well. Tarc (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be laboring under the mistaken belief that majority == consensus, which i'll freely accept your apology for once you go read WP:CONSENSUS, particularly the part that reads The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority. To paraphrase a wikipedian of yore, it's ridiculous that people think they can get around policy and core values if only they yell loud enough. --Mask? 01:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Glaysher

Frederick Glaysher (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)


I am appealing the decision of Wikipedia to delete the article on me, “Frederick Glaysher,” in April of 2008. Because of the dominance of Baha’is of the largest Baha’i denomination on Wikipedia, I believe my appeal can not and will not receive a fair hearing through the normal procedure. Because of the increasing importance of Wikipedia during the last decade, and the Haifan Baha’i determination to keep any article about me off Wikipedia, I believe they have severely damaged the recognition and growth of my career, as a poet and writer.

At the time the “Frederick Glaysher” article was under debate in 2008, Wjhonson observed, "The attacks imho are religion-based as this person is a vocal critic of certain Baha'i institutions. There is no evidence that his works are vanity-press publications. The article is fairly new and deserves new eyes to expand it, instead of this pressure by a vested group or a few individuals to suppress it. Wjhonson 4 April 2008" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frederick_Glaysher

Wjhonson had also stated,"Their only purpose is to attack Glaysher. This del entry should be voided on that basis solely...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_4#Frederick_Glaysher

In addition to Wjhonson, other Wikipedia participants also had misgivings about how the discussion and deletion were conducted. Please refer to the Wikipedia database for details. The record of my being a “vocal critic of certain Baha’i institutions” can be found on my website The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience, Documenting censorship and suppression of free speech and conscience within the Baha'i Faith since 1998: http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship

Wjhonson created a Wiki page for me on his County Historian Wiki at http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Frederick_Glaysher The “Frederick Glaysher” article there has had over 6,500 hits on it during the last two years, which I believe demonstrate there’s significant interest in who I am and my career, both as a poet and literary critic and as a reformer within the Bahai religious tradition. During the last two years, significant new material has also made its way onto the Internet about my work as both a poet and Bahai reformer.

In order to help Wikipedia understand the ferocity and deception involved in the treatment I have received from Baha’is who dominate discussion of articles that they perceive to be related to their interests, I believe it is necessary to describe in a few paragraphs the Bahai religious conflict that is taking place behind the scenes on Wikipedia, and which led to the deletion of the “Frederick Glaysher” article.

I have been publicly attacked by Baha’is and slandered in many venues, on and off-line, and as an “apostate” by Moojan Momen in a leading British academic journal: ‘Marginality and Apostasy in the Baha'i Community’" in Religion 37 [2007] 187–209. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%237135%232007%23999629996%23674070%23FLA%23&_cdi=7135&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5b99f6924a55e2c8a71092082ec219a3

My published “Response to Takfir” (denunciation of infidels) appeared in Religion 38 No 4 2008: http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/archives/A_Response%20_to_Takfir.pdf Original journal source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%237135%232008%23999619995%23701138%23FLA%23&_cdi=7135&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b476fc231c4982240a933b11582a5375

Since the Reform Bahai Faith has often been attacked and slandered in the past by the larger denomination of the Baha'i Faith located in Haifa, Israel and Wilmette, Illinois, as have several other Baha'i denominations, I must point out that I believe the Reform Bahai Faith has also been misrepresented and suppressed on Wikipedia, by the Haifan Baha'is. As documentary evidence of the harassment that several Bahai denominations regularly experienced from Haifan and Wilmette Bahais, please visit the website of the Orthodox Bahais who are currently being sued by the dominant Baha’i denomination in the US Court of Appeals, along with two other small Bahai denominations. Contempt Motion by Wilmette NSA against Orthodox Bahá'í Faith: http://trueseeker.typepad.com/true_seeker/court_case.html

On February 20, 2009, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals of Northern Illinois vigorously questioned the Haifan Baha'is on their harassment of other denominations, including Reform Bahai. Judge Diane S. Sykes stated that their conduct "Clearly raises some Constitutional concerns." A brief 3-minute official court recording of the proceedings may be listened to at http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/archives/US_Court_of_Appeals_2-20-09.mp3 A link is provided on the following page to the original 30-minute US Court recording from which the 3-minute excerpt above is taken, should you wish to verify its authenticity: http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/USCourt_Appeals09.htm

The Reform Bahai Faith is a peaceful, open, universal interpretation of the spiritual teachings of the founder Baha'u'llah. Knowing that the Reform Bahai Faith has been misrepresented on Wikipedia, when not completely suppressed, I ask you to consider our own understanding of who we are and what we believe, if necessary. About the Reform Bahai Faith http://www.reformbahai.org/about.html

All matters Baha’i aside, my career as a poet and writer is being adversely affected, and I appeal to Wikipedia on that basis for an impartial evaluation and decision. I wish to note that my two books of poems received over twenty-five reviews, several of which are available on the Internet. Many poets on Wikipedia have had nowhere near that number of reviews, including my other citations, for instance, in an interview with the Nobel Laureate Saul Bellow.

If Wikipedia consensus does choose to permit an article on me, I request that consideration be given to “locking” or handling it in some way that will prevent future abuse of it by continuing Baha’i fanaticism directed against me out of religious hatred.

Thank you for your careful consideration of my appeal.

Frederick Glaysher Books, poems, essays, reviews, interviews, blogs http://www.fglaysher.com

Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience Documenting censorship and suppression of free speech and conscience within the Baha'i Faith since 1998: http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship

Reform Bahai Faith http://www.ReformBahai.org |}

  • Endorse deletion—there was absolutely no procedural malpractice in the closure, it seems perfectly sensible to me. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 18:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion-while the article was deleted over 2 years ago and is long gone from google cache to verify, the closing admin seems to have properly judged the consensus of the discussion, and closed the matter as delete. Since its been so long, if a new editor wanted to create an article on this subject in their userspace and solicit opinions as to its chances, I would be willing to opine. However, as the appealer here is the subject of the article, I am not comfortable with the subject creating his own article.--Milowent (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation. Not overturn, because the article at the time of deletion did not really show notability. I've restored the article for this discussion. I not the original article did not even mention Baha'i, except for the list of external links in the this version--which had been removed just before the AfD nomination. I don;t think doing this and then nominating is a good idea, for if the links are inappropriate, it can greatly help clarify the reason for removing the article by showing just that in the AfD. Given that a good part of the notability currently claimed is religious, I suggest an article emphasising that be written, and then it can be sent to afd again if it is still thought inadequate. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse while noting I participated in that discussion. Nothing presented amounts to either a genuine change in the notability of this person, or a flawed process. That the subject himself is appealing and using this process to launch ad hominem at those opposed specifically, and at a religion in general, bespeaks of an intent to WP:RGW and fail to WP:AGF. Deleting the article in the first place was the community's application of some WP:SOAP. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Untertitel.jpg

File:Untertitel.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Admin Pascal.Tesson deleted this image. The Admin wrote, "This article or other page provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. It is patent nonsense (CSD G1)." I could not find a discussion to delete it, so I'm guessing the Admin speedily deleted it. I do not know why the Admin called it patent nonsense. The text in the image was in Swiss German. From the userbox on the Admin's userpage, I see this Admin is able to contribute with a basic level of German. Perhaps the Admin did not understand the German in the image?

I could not find who uploaded the file, however, I found that GreyCat split the article in which we use it, Subtitle (captioning), from Subtitles, and I found that Andreas -horn- Hornig, added the image. From the userbox on the user's userpage, I see this user is a native speaker of German. I did not see that the Admin notified Andreas -horn- Hornig of the image's deletion. This either means Andreas -horn- Hornig is not the uploader or (gasp) the Admin notified no one of the image's deletion! I hope the latter is not the case.

In either case, would someone please undelete this image, as it is still currently, and always has been, in use in the article, since the day GreyCat created/split it? Taric25 (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not sure where you see the deletion reason, the image itself never appears to have been uploaded here. I can however see something on Commons [9] where the image seems to have been deleted as a copyvio. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I see now. You've seen the images talk page which was deleted by Pascal Tesson as patent nonsense back in October 2007, they didn't delete the image itself. The image was on commons and not deleted until August 2009 as being a copyright violation. Not sure why you didn't try discussing this with Pascal Tesson first (as indeed the instructions here direct) you'd probably have found this out a lot quicker and without the need to jump to conclusions. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at the file history, it looks like there was never a file here under that title. The only deleted edit is the nominator posting a link to this DRV on 21 May. However, a file by the same name was deleted on Commons as a copyright violation: [10] Jafeluv (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CozyCot

CozyCot (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I don't know the previous content and the entire history of all creation attempts of this article (five of them, since November 2007), the first four ones having as reasons "blatant advertising", "very short article providing little or no context", "doesn't seem to be notable. Most of the references are primary sources, and the two news are not specifically about CozyCot.com". The last one got an Afd. However, I find notable the subject of the proposed article, with significant coverage in reliable sources, independent of the subject, being one of the most popular websites from Singapore. I posted at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CozyCot a sourced content that I want to propose for review.

  • Restore I'm not overly familiar with the sources used, but they appear to be reliable and some of the articles are solely about CozyCot. Hobit (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, for the record, I agree that the previous close was perfectly solid. But the new draft appears to be above-and-beyond what's requested by WP:N. I certainly see no fault on the part of the closer. Hobit (talk) 06:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse For the same reason given in the AFD - nothing about CozyCot on Google News (beside company PR). Three of the sources on the article are press releases by the company, another one is apparently an ad which appeared in The Strait Times. I couldn't check the two other ones but all in all, the website doesn't appear to have received significant coverage. The sources in the article proposed above are not better - the editor just stacked up dozens of unreliable sources to give an appearance of notability. Most of the sources I checked don't address the website directly in details as required by WP:N and those that do are company press releases. Laurent (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • [11] looks like a real article and not a press release. I can't tell exactly what this site is, but it seems reliable. [12] covers a number of websites, but has a few paragraphs on this one. Is there something wrong with those sites I'm missing? Hobit (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user Laurent has been asked at the Afd to mention which are exactly the press releases, if they really exist. At this moment, the proposed draft includes 5 reliable sources specifically about CozyCot ([13][14][15][16][17]), one with significant coverage [18] and other 4 ([19][20][21][22]) to give an idea about the way CozyCot is cited in Singaporean media when it's about netizens' popular opinions. This if by reliable sources it is understood media with current Wikipedia article. But I think that also media like Media Asia should be considered reliable, they are not yet properly covered on Wikipedia. Most of these sources are from the last month (I just added few moments ago another source (the interview on 938LIVE). Probably they give an idea about the usual coverage of CozyCot in East Asian media. Sources exist, but they are not easy to find, I see that Google News does not show most of them, being already archived in order to remain available only for paid subscriptions, and they can be found on webcaches, article hosting on Asiaone etc. It looks like the previous content of the article did not respect some Wikipedia rules, but the subject being notable, the content should have been just bettered, not deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.92.95.14 (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per WikiLaurent (talk · contribs) and the fact that the verdict was very clear indeed. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 18:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can someone explain why is this subject not considered notable, although it fulfills the notability guideline, requiring significant coverage in reliable sources, independent of the subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.226.35 (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse 17th May deletion as a true and accurate reflection of the consensus at the time. As an entirely separate issue, permit creation of an article based on the AFC page. The salting was necessary in the past because of repeated creation of inappropriate material, but now we're dealing with what seems to be good-faith material written by a good-faith user.—S Marshall T/C 23:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly endorse deletion and strongly support keeping the page create-protected. Per my comments at the AfD, this is likely a paid-editing job. This page has also been deleted five times in the past. Notability is borderline at best and Wikipedia is not a place to promote your website. I note that the above IP 79.112.226.35 comes from Bucharest Romania, the location of the IPs of the editor User:Desiphral, who originally created this article and has since been banned by using an army of sockpuppets to create paid-editing adverts. ThemFromSpace 18:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I detect some structural problems here. I'm sure you checked my IP and you found I'm from UK. I initiated the AFC and this debate, but you did not mention me at all, because this would have invalidated your claim. I'm not sure about the Romanian IP, however, the Wikipedia article about Romania says this country has about 22 million people... It's a matter of good faith supported by bad faith arguments. Anyway, I'd like to repeat the reason for which I started this discussion. I consider notable the subject of this proposed article, CozyCot is one of the most notable Singaporean websites, it receives frequent coverage in Singaporean and East Asian media. I already gathered enough sources only from media articles of the last few weeks. The last one covers CozyCot as one of the websites "putting Singapore on the global map" (Net Winners jpg, May 26, 2010, The Straits Times). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.92.95.13 (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you're on the subject of good and bad faith, it might be an idea to use your normal Wikipedia account; that way you can't be in violation of WP:Sock puppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternate accounts, Avoiding scrutiny. Brumski (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Serious question: what is the official policy on paid editing? My understanding is that it's generally acceptable but I may be out of date. I am unaware of it as a reason to delete, but I don't tend to pay attention to such things. At the moment the topic appears to meet WP:N (plenty of sources though I guess they could be reprinted press releases, I don't see any evidence of that) so I think an article is a reasonable thing, but again I'm pretty open minded here... Hobit (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment No one seems to be arguing that there aren't reliable sources that meet WP:N at this point. The draft, as far as I can tell, addresses the issues raised at the last AfD and no one seems to be disputing that. Nor, as far as I can tell, is there any reason to deny the creation of a fairly neutral article because of problems in the past or claims of COI. Therefore I'd say that the right thing to do is to endorse the closure and move the draft into mainspace without prejudice to another AfD. This isn't speedyable as a recreation. Does anyone object to that plan? If so, could you explain why? Hobit (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed that the AFC looks to have enough sound sources establishing notability, which is all we really need here, but I'd rather that it underwent some review (especially to remove the Rescue Squadron-style non-references which make only the most trivial of mentions to the subject) before it went live. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Great! If you have specific references you have issues with, could you either just remove them or enumerate them? Hobit (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wet paint sign

Wet paint sign (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Reasons given for deletion are mostly classic examples of arguments without arguments and do not make use of policy, guidelines, or essays. They are as follows: 1.) The nom's reason is nothing more than the words "not notable" (see WP:JNN) 2.) WP:UNENCYC (unencyclopedic). While this is considered to be an argument to avoid in general, one participant gave it as the reason to delete. This person said the article sounded "silly" and cited another unrelated AFD in progress at the time, but gave no actual policy stating why this does not belong. 3.) One participant said it should be deleted because a previous AFD had a non-administrative closure. Once again, this is not a policy favoring deletion. 4.) Another said "does not really explain why it is notable" (just another way of saying "just not notable") 5.) Another participant gave some barely coherent explanation saying why articles on other signs exist or not. Once again, this was not policy based. 6.) Others supporting deleting just said so per others in the discussion.

Reasons favoring keeping were as follows: 1.) Plenty of non-trivial sources do exist, therefore this meets the general notability guideline. References can be found in many places, including books. 2.) Many arguments given in favor of deletion are classic examples of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 3.) The nomination offers no new evidence from the past one this should be deleted 4.) In all, these arguments are policy- or essay-based, not just personal opinions.

Additionally, the "keeps" outnumber the "deletes" 9:6. Shaliya waya (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse- a quick read of the AfD page confirms that the delete arguments were not just "votes without arguments"; they were mostly well argued and grounded in policy. And I can do no better than to echo the closer's rationale that if, after two years, two AfDs and a rescue drive there's still no proper sourcing then that's good evidence that there's just no way of getting an encyclopedia article out of this mess. My opinion is that this was well within the closing admin's discretion and that they made the correct decision. Reyk YO! 05:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer's comment: Shaliya waya, you dismiss all the "not notable" arguments, and claim that there are "plenty of sources out there". Could you indicate which of these sources provide "significant coverage in reliable sources"? None of the sources in the article at the time of the nomination or at the time of the closure of the AfD met this requirement, making all "not notable" arguments rather strong, despite an essay claiming that they should be ignored. All references were just passing mentions, using "wet paint signs" as a short example of something else (e.g. the first source,[23], and this one[24]). Fram (talk) 06:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. A poorly sourced article about a non-notable topic got deleted because even though there were fewer delete !votes, the keep !votes were weak and not as policy based. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A bold close but, given the strength of the delete arguments, it was within the closing admin's discretion. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I liked the article, but policy overrules that. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Stitching together many passing mentions and claiming that these constitute analysis of the topic in secondary sources is what the Article Rescue Squadron does wrong. It muddles the meaning of secondary sources, debases debate and wastes everybody's time. I hope against hope that the ARS gets the message and quits it with the WP:OR. Abductive (reasoning) 16:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, obviously, per all the above. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 18:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Are we just deleting all the cool articles now? I would have closed as no consensus, because there was not consensus to delete. Oh well, perhaps someday a better version will be created by someone that will withstand scrutiny and rejoin Wet floor sign. The worst !vote, perhaps, is the final delete, by Abductive, which says "I had high hopes that the Article Rescue Squadron could find real sources on this one. As it turns out, they failed." Looking for sources is every editors' responsibility, if only the pariahs in the ARS are doing it, the project is going down the tubes!--Milowent (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked for sources myself. My comment was meant to demonstrate that in spite of many neurons in many heads doing many searches, good, on-topic sources were not found. I wanted the article to be kept if sources could be found, but they weren't and so it was rightly deleted. I argued to merge Wet floor sign since I felt there was an appropriate merge target. Abductive (reasoning) 12:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everyone would welcome a recreation of this article with reliable sources which indicate notability properly. That multiple users tried and failed to find them is a very good argument against having kept it, and "no consensus" does not mean "there are good arguments for deleting, but these five or six guys all showed up saying 'strong keep' so it would be awkward". Strike the non-arguments and there's a pretty good line of unopposed reasoning for a delete here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent reason why we need WP:BEFORE to be required. Let the deletionists look for sources, and the inclusionists look for poor quality hopeless articles of which there are many--as I well know, for, though an inclusionist, I have deleted many thousands of articles at speedy or as expired prods, many more than I've rescued. In my opinion, only someone who recognizes that there is actual junk can judge what is not junk, and only someone who recognizes that articles can be sourced and improved can tell what is hopeless. Many of those who are generally deletionist do work honestly and hard on sourcing articles, and i consider it adds greatly to their credibility. There are many approaches to doing things right here, but they all involve work. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're perfectly within your rights to insist that we raise the bar such that editors are prohibited from questioning the existence of an article without proving that they spent a given amount of time looking for sources, but this is presently a fringe notion and certainly isn't to be paid any attention to in an AfD. And yes, everyone knows that you've deleted scores of articles which don't meet your personal notability threshold (and WP is certainly better off for your having done so), but it's entirely irrelevant when it comes to articles which meet your criteria but not that of the community as a whole (which is demonstrably rather higher and has been for years). As for the appeal to the authority of the "rescuer", how good a grasp of article potential one has is orthogonal to how many little life-ring icons one has on one's user page, and this argument strongly implies that "deletionists" do nothing but look for articles to AfD all day while never considering articles to be worthy of improvement. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is more or less what happens, Chris. Last example: On my last PROD patrolling I deprodded an article because I found several RS about its subject, and linked sources in the oldprodfull. The PROD nominator asked on my talk page to add these sources to the article, otherwise it will get deleted anyway. I said "Yes, I'll do that, but why don't you begin too?". The nom answered basically that while PRODding was his job, putting sources in it's not his job. Yes, because adding a PROD tag with Twinkle is so easy, and doing a bit of WP:BEFORE isn't. So yes, there are people that look for article to delete but do zero to attempt to improve them. I am perhaps guilty of the opposite (looking for articles to keep but not helping as much as I could to improve them), but the point is that at least by keeping stuff we give the community the opportunity to improve, while by slashing notable stuff, we remove this possibility. WP:BEFORE should be mandatory before any AfD or PROD, because otherwise you don't show a will to help the encyclopedia, you only show will of slashing stuff. --Cyclopiatalk 12:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The straw man deletionist isn't a very effective argument, and anyone who uses the word "slashing" when referring to the process of nominating an article for deletion should probably get some fresh air. Anyway, this is irrelevant here; multiple users have evidently attempted to find sources and all failed, so WP:BEFORE has been satisfied. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted thousands, not scores, because they clearly don't meet wikipedia's notability standards; I use my own judgement whether they might meet them, and I tend to be optimistic, but I accept the current consensus about the standards. (At the moment I seem to be one of the few admins actually checking and deleting expired BLP prods; much as I dislike the entire procedure, I consider myself obliged to follow it.) I do not confuse my own views with my admin responsibilities.
But the articles that actually can pass the standards even though poorly written or researched should be identified as soon as possible, improved or marked for improvement, and removed from the deletion workflows. I wouldn't characterize requiring WP:BEFORE as fringe: it almost passed for BLP PROD, and came fairly near the last time it was proposed for AFD. It will be proposed again, at reasonable intervals, and it will pass in both cases. What I decline to delete are articles which don't qualify for the deletion criterion used, and for which I cannot find another. For example, I've been seeing BLP prods for people on national level football teams, which are utterly trivial to source from the team page--and where a source that they are on the actual squad is definitive evidence of meeting WP:N, not just temporarily escaping deletion. I also see such claims, for people who turn out to be on the youth squad, or the like, and they get deleted. I don't deliberately do work that I know will be rejected. Careless work of any sort makes more work in the end, for oneself as well as other people. I don't work to fix an article once I see it will not conceivably be kept, any more than I would nominate one for deletion that I know will not be rejected. The first step in responsible decision-making is not judging by appearances. DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn I cannot see how just 6 people supporting delete out of a total of millions of Wikipedia editors can be called a "consensus" when outnumbered in this original discussion alone. Only 40% of those who originally commented supported the deletion. I'm sure there are sources out there for something so commonplace, and even if they are not in the article today, someone can simply find them and add them. There is no deadline to do so. Dew Kane (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is developed over time and codified in the policies and guidelines cited in the argument. WP:V, WP:SYN and WP:N have consensus on Wikipedia, and the ideas behind them are also the consensus of most of educated humankind. The very idea that you are arguing to keep an article entitled "wet paint sign" would be laughed at by most people. Abductive (reasoning) 11:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a little strong, as it could well be a viably encyclopedic topic and I can't really see where WP:SYN comes in to play. However I'm inclined to agree that Dew Kane's comment was misguided as it seems to violate WP:VOTE. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People should tell half their real life friends that they are arguing on Wikipedia to restore an article on wet paint signs and half that they are arguing for an article on popular cat names and see which gets the most laughs. Abductive (reasoning) 12:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I generally find that describing almost any Wikipedia activity gets a laugh from non-editors. My real life friends laughed while I was writing London Country North East, and it's a GA now. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not creating an article, arguing with people. Abductive (reasoning) 14:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I helped preserve 2008 Passover margarine shortage and my family is very proud of me.--Milowent (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the deletion case seems to be stronger, but create an article on Wet Paint Syndrome. The sources are reliable but the coverage isn't about the signs themselves so this topic doesn't meet WP:GNG. However, the sources do give significant coverage to the concept of Wet Paint Syndrome so this can justify an article. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am frustrated with the DRV process. It is supposed to be here to give deleted articles a second chance, and it does anything but that. Every time I have taken something to DRV, it appears there is a gang of people who try to keep deleted articles by going "ENDORSE, ENDORSE, ENDORSE." They try to outnumber all those who want to overturn. This is an article that I feel in good faith belongs, otherwise I would never have brought it here. If a minority (just 40%) is good enough to get an article deleted, a minority should be good enough to get this deletion overturned. The DRV process is broken, and articles cannot even be edited and improved during the process. Shaliya waya (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In my experience there's a much stronger herd mentality regarding who shows up to overturn articles. But it's irrelevant, as this isn't a vote and it doesn't matter who "outnumbers" who so much as what arguments are presented regarding the close.
    It's also worth noting that DRV is not intended to be a "second chance". It's a check on administrator power which allows for a the close of a deletion debate to be re-examined purely for the purposes of checking if the close was an accurate indication of consensus; Assuming that we have competent administrators, most DRVs should result in an endorsment of the close. It's not a second AfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone often on the other side of debates from Chris, I want to say I largely agree with him here. DrV isn't a second chance, its primary purpose is to see if the close was correct. We sometimes also endorse a closure but allow a recreation or restoration of the article if sources or a draft appears which negates the issues of the AfD. I think you (Shaliya waya) are having issues with the guidelines and polices rather than with the actual closure. DrV isn't here to change the rules, it's here to enforce them, so this is the wrong venue to challenge the rules. I'd suggest you look over the rules at WP:N and WP:DEL (among others) carefully and see if there are changes you'd like to propose on those talk pages... Hobit (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way things are going here, I think the best option that I can do is to request the article be userfied (with edit history). I believe in good faith that this is notable, and with the addition of just a few references, it'll pass notability. It may take several weeks before I can reintroduce it due to my busy work schedule. Shaliya waya (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The admin didn't do anything controversial, making gerunds into articles does not confer the existence of a notable topic. AFD is not a vote, and DelRev is not AFD part 2.--Savonneux (talk) 03:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_May_21&oldid=364529864"