File:Photo of AC 759 near landing on taxiway at SFO.jpg – Deletion endorsed. Or at least no consensus to overturn. It seems that we are of the view that we know better than a government agency whether an image published by them is copyrighted or not. So be it. – Sandstein 08:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I emailed the NTSB and received the following reply:
As a US government agency, all Information released to the public has no copyright restrictions, and such materials are in the public domain. Specifically, these provisions would apply to these images.
Please let me know if you have additional questions.
Is this sufficient for us to be able to use this image? CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uhg. Unfortunately, it appears we know more about their copyright situation than they do. There are indeed various times that US government agencies 'release' things that contain works copyrighted to other people. The case still seems very equivocal to me. Regardless, the image (copy available here, doesn't provide very much contextual information. Do we really need it? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think given that the image appears to be commonly associated with the incident, it should be there if it can be. I'm less clear on the copyright status. Its use here wouldn't meet our rules for using copyrighted material. Could you explain what issue you see with the release? I thought that images like this _were_ in the public domain. But I know you know a lot more about the topic than I. Hobit (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that the photographs were not taken by the NTSB, but rather by "SFO airport video" and "Harris OpsVue data". So it's not clear that NTSB actually holds the copyright to be able to release it. CapitalSasha ~ talk 19:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we aren't sure about the copyright status of an image then we should err on the side of caution and assume it's copyrighted. A response by someone who may well have no idea what they are talking about doesn't count for much. Hut 8.5 19:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hobit, I think CapitalSasha answered well. I concur with CS and Hut. While the person who responded to you (and it's great they did; so many times such people don't) was well meaning, I don't think they understand the copyright situation in full. We just don't know, and as Hut notes if we don't know, we should err on the side of caution. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that Commons and Wikipedia are basically the same when it comes to determining whether offcial US government works are PD, so I think we should consider whether Commons would accept this as c:Template:PD-USGov-NTSB per c:COM:PCP. If the opinion is that Commons will accept this, then it should be uploaded there since there's no need for a local file on Wikipedia which is licensed in such a way; on the other hand, if the opinion is that Commons will not accept this, then we shouldn't accept it locally here as PD. In the latter case, it might be possible to license the image as non-free content if the consensus is that it meets WP:NFCCP, but that's a different discussion. FWIW, I personally don't think Commons will accept this as PD, but asking for other opinions at c:COM:VP/C might be a good idea. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see that even an unequivocal statement from a US government agency that the image is public domain doesn't suffice for FFD nowadays. Whatever next.—S MarshallT/C 00:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's not unequivocal. We know the images are not the property of NTSB and they can not release rights to those images. We have no affirmation from the rights holders that the image copyrights have been transferred to the NTSB. That's the problem. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The person who sent the email was (someone who writes emails signed by) a deputy director of the NTSB. It is possible that we could write back to clarify who we could contact about the original copyright on the images, if it's deemed important enough. CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I echo S Marshall's concern. Precisely how is this situation different than something dealt with by OTRS? We have reasonable assurance that the image is PD, and even if that assurance is wrong, it's still authoritative. I see no reason why we would second guess an apparently appropriate and authoritative source: if they say it's PD, it's on them if it's not, not those of us who relied on such assurances in good faith. Jclemens (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep:- the close relies on what, in a content dispute, would be called "original research" to facilitate deleting an image that FFD finds ideologically unsound.—S MarshallT/C 12:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The last paragraph of the NTSB Website's Policies and Notices (which was cited in the FfD) makes it clear that there's a copyright problem here. It sure looks like the NTSB deputy director gave bad advice. Our goal here is to do the right thing, not to establish plausible transference of blame. -- RoySmith(talk) 12:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Directive. The NTSB deputy director is doing a fantastic job. In the Board there is tremendous talent. Don't believe Fake News. Thincat (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The formal position cited by RoySmith above accurately represents copyright law. The informal email doesn't. A few years back, a low-level Wite House official made a similar error with regard to copyrighted songs performed at White House events, but the songs themselves didn't enter the public domain. The US government can't take your copyright away just by republishing your copyrighted material. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably endorse. While I can imagine a polity where a government has the authority to put someone else's work into the public domain by publishing it (if memory serves, India's copyright law has a clause that could be interpreted in this way although I don't know of any precedent), the PD-USGov standard has always been limited to work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties which seems to exclude works made by others. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Johnvr4's userspace pages – Endorse. Ignoring the WP:WALLOFTEXT from the nom, there's strong consensus here to endorse the deletion of these stale user drafts. – -- RoySmith(talk) 12:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This material relates to Japan and weapons of mass destruction and specifically to Japan and weapons of mass_destruction #U.S. weapons of mass destruction and Japan which includes Operation Red Hat. There were numerous misrepresentation of facts in all previous deletions of this material going back to 2013 and they continue today. Recently, after ongoing and heated conversations with these editors, my drafts were nominated for deletion. The drafts contain all diffs from the original deletion (first edit of User:Johnvr4/Operation Red Hat) to the most recent versions (last edits of User:Johnvr4/sandbox or User:Johnvr4/sandbox4) for comparison. Two of the involved editors blatantly and knowing misrepresented the facts when they stated the drafts were not being edited or improved. Further, they knowingly misrepresented the facts when they stated the material was stale, abandoned, Fake, not being condensed, had the exact same unresolved issues from the last time it was deleted, or was unsuitable on the main page. The simple fact is that the majority of that draft material at User:Johnvr4/Operation Red Hat- with dozens of newer sources added since the initial 2013 deletion had been condensed by creating new main space articles or by moving it to an appropriate existing article- all of which are of main space right now where the material has been there since it was moved -and each of these editors are very well aware of it and have been for some time. Examples of those pages are available:U.S. weapons of mass destruction and Japan, 1968 Kadena Air Base B-52 crash, U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan, United States military anti-plant research, MK ULTRA, etc. Only the remainder of material that had not yet been moved to the main page was here: User:Johnvr4/sandbox. In fact, the nominating editor has repeatedly stated his motivation for deleting material not only in my the drafts but on the main page is based upon his misunderstanding of the subject as he repeatedly refuses to acknowledge what the reliable sources present and relentlessly challenges any use that does not fit his faulty understanding. Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan#Terrorist_threat_and_weapons_removed_in_1972-_Apparent_POV I have documented that behavior as well as that editors own statements that describe such behavior several times.
He previously acknowledged the value of keeping this material so here I'll just quote him, "This article requires further cleanup, and focusing on the primary topic, as well as investigation of sources. There is also an enormous amount of useful material in the previous versions that deserves to be in a wide range of other CW, BW, and Vietnam War related articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)"
"...I remain baffled about how I could be 'cutting you out' after pleading with you immediately above to edit the mainspace article. Your options are twofold: remain editing only your userspace draft, which is not really what a userspace draft is for, or actually get involved in the mainspace. Please engage with me, here or elsewhere, to tell me about well sourced issues which ought to be in the mainspace article, and we can get them in there!! Not every connected issue that you write about in your userspace may end up in the mainspace, but I can certainly see there are issues you write about which ought to be mainspaced. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC) [1]
"I've already said how I believe most of what you have left under Red Hat actually belongs under 112 (or possibly under Project Deseret), and I've laid out my reasons, none of which are invalidated by further things you've said, or by the Chemical Weapons Movement History Compilation, as far as I've scanned it so far. But never mind -- I will cut straight to the chase. Would you prefer I start a WP:MFD (miscellany for deletion) discussion on your preferred, but disputed, version of the article in your sandbox, in line with WP:FAKEARTICLE, not in six months as I had intended to propose, but now? Then we'll get this cleared up sooner rather than later. Cheers Buckshot06(talk) 15:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)"[reply]
I sincerely that hope the above exchange with him entirely clears up the total and absolute absurdity of Buckshot06's assertions in nominating this draft for deletion FIVE MONTHS TO THE DAY after his ridiculous prior threats to MfD the draft. All endorsements in support his entirely false assertions are faulty and his abuse of this MfD process (only minutes after my last edit to that sandbox) is now shamefully exposed. (bold for emphasis)
"Possibly I should have explained myself more clearly. The implied additional clause in 'The user has not condensed the material" is 'to produce an article that meets the requirements of WP:ARTICLE' etc. To produce a coherent text on a single topic. I thought that was obvious. Yes, of course you were tinkering with the draft. I could see that. Let me copy out a couple of texts from what I wrote at Mark Arsten's talkpage:...Buckshot06 (talk) 08:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
..and from PMC at the review: "the draft had not been improved such that it would be policy-compliant in mainspace." Buckshot06 (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
The absurdity of such assertions is now crystal clear.
This week he has deleted two highly reliable sources for that material perhaps because they also disprove and directly contradict assertion that two involved editors (and Others) have been making literally for years.
Each of my latest attempts to improve the draft were deleted as is described in the links below. These editors who misrepresented the facts were well aware of those ongoing efforts to improve prior to misrepresenting them to other the editors- which ended in deletion. They are also aware of my allegations about their behavior: User_talk:Johnvr4#MfD_debate and User_talk:Johnvr4#Red_Hat_content
Diffs can be compared to verify progression of the drafts vs. the 2013 deletion and the non-accuracy of their assertions. A plethora of previous conversation is available to prove my version of the facts regarding policy-based improvements in text and sources is accurate and theirs is dubious.
I provided this information to the deleting editor here: User_talk:Premeditated_Chaos#Deletion_of_userspace_material but she would not hear it and made further misrepresentations that falsely stated among other assertions: that I didn't present any policy arguments with regard to Stale or Fake articles or time components, "and has never been improved such that it would be policy-compliant in mainspace." Despite the obvious inaccuracy, that editor refused but also counter-accused me of misrepresentation of some fact but would not specify how or why she felt that way.
Enough about editor behavior. An Administrator can look at what has been deleted and the links I provided. I can also provide any further clarification wherever it is needed.
I ask that the drafts be restored so that I can finish making policy compliant improvements and in addressing valid concerns of other editors. Further, I ask that steps be taken and steps be taken to address the obviously bogus assertions put forth in the deletion nomination by two involved editors that should have known better.
All of the five justifications for restoration apply:
1.if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
3.if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
4.if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
5.if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
Please at least perform a temp restore to view the diffs and to discuss the numerous and super-obvious ongoing efforts to improve it. Johnvr4 (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request reformatted for legibility and condensed under one header. Sandstein 13:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and kudos to PMC for handling this whole process with grace. She made the right call based on the discussion, previous AfD, and policy. The MfD was closed correctly. There was not a consensus to retain the information, and there was one to delete it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the central argument for deletion here was not that the drafts were abandoned. It was that the drafts had not been improved to anything like mainspace standards and there was no prospect of this happening. Johnvr4 did make numerous edits to them, but those edits did not address the concerns which led to the deletion of the material in the first place. For example a major concern in the original AfD was the length and excessively large scope of the article, which was about 204KB at the time. None of the pages listed here was less than 211KB at the time of deletion. There is consensus that drafts which are unsuitable for mainspace should not be kept in userspace indefinitely, and while there is no fixed time limit I can't fault the participants for deciding that four years is too long. Hut 8.5 19:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note responding to Hut 8.5:
Can we recheck the size of the three pages? I feel that there is no way that those three pages- all three with three different subjects (two were condensed versions) were all the same size. I assert that they had to be three very different sizes. Yet size to my knowledge is not a Justification for deletion either- especially in a draft that was in the process of being broken up into several different articles.
The central Argument was that the drafts were stale. Quote: "At Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/OpRedHat I have nominated your stale userpage for deletion. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)"
I'd like to add that the nominating editor and I have numerous content disputes (the scope of the draft is absolutely one of our content disputes)[3]. Policy: "It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution".
Regarding the MfD, There is also no way that all or most issues that caused the draft to be deleted in the first place have not been corrected in my versions or were not in the process of being corrected this week. For example, one editor User:Moe_Epsilon at the [AFD] fabricated a concern about my editing and claimed "I cooked something up." Then that editor made all types of other ridiculous assertions that are disproved by this source (plus the ones already mentioned) which I added only minutes before buckshot06 deleted the entire sandbox4 draft just this week! The Diffs that were deleted (which I cannot see because I am not an administrator) would prove that I did not write that passage- but there is no just way to see it now since all the diffs are gone. The diffs would prove that Buckshot06 himself put that nonsense that got the page deleted right back on the main space and abused all of the sources he cited.[4] Note also that buckshot06's POV version is missing most of the majority and minority viewpoints in every single one of the sources he has cited.
That was one reason that the original deletion was unfair in the original AFD and is why assertions that those problems were not ever fixed are utterly ludicrous. That alone justifies restoration. #4.if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted;
Please stop making untrue assertions such as this one: "but those edits did not address the concerns which led to the deletion of the material in the first place." Do not base decisions on such false statements and assertions that are not remotely true. If an editor is going to make such assertions the please at least perform a temp restore and provide a specific example so I can disprove it right here and now. Leaving it Indefinately?[5]
Time: You cant fault the participants for thinking "Four years..."? Here is the fault: Editors should look at the dates on these pages to recalculate time and then please stop making the freaking misrepresentations about "the drafts had not been improved to anything like mainspace standards and there was no prospect of this happening". How can that be said with a straight face? These are main space pages are where the text from my draft was moved to: U.S. weapons of mass destruction and Japan, 1968 Kadena Air Base B-52 crash, U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan, United States military anti-plant research, MK ULTRA, etc.
Last consensus is not a vote. Johnvr4 (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to respond to the entire wall of text above, I suggest you try condensing your response into a paragraph or two. Yes, the pages were different sizes, and I never said they were the same size: one was 211,018 bytes, one was 282,555 bytes, and one was 210,990 bytes. At the time of userfication the page was 203,864 bytes. Obviously the length/scope issue has not been remotely addressed. "Editors should look at the dates on these pages to recalculate time"? The content was userfied on 11 June 2013 and deleted on 25 August 2017. That's over four years. If you want to argue that the MfD nomination was factually incorrect then I suggest you look at the MfD nomination itself and not something the nominator once wrote on your talk page. This isn't the place to redo the MfD, or to rehash content disputes going back years. DRV is here to decide if there were any irregularities with the deletion, or to consider any new information/evidence which was not considered by the discussion to see if the issue should be reopened. Hut 8.5 06:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, since I was pinged with your mention of my name. Let me make one thing clear John: I did not fabricate a concern with your editing behavior because your editing is concerning. I take a look at your contributions since 2012, which started with you editing the Operation Red Hat article, and not much has changed between now and then and you operate on the same level of a single purpose account. You have only edited a small handful of article topics and I can't look through your editing history and find an example of you making major changes to an article and then not having a major dispute on the talk page. Your contributions have either been deleted outright, reverted partially or debated upon heavily. That is concerning. I told you back in 2013 that was concerning because I took a single reference you supplied, which was used several times in your writing, and it wasn't factually accurate according to what the references said. That is a large reason why the article was deleted in the first AFD. You are more than welcome to start over, find references and provide content in the main space of the article on Operation Red Hat if it is missing by using reliable references. You don't need your old user space for it and honestly it isn't worth trying to "fix it." After five years, I trust you know how to do it better than you did at the start, so start over and let it go. Regards, — MoeEpsilon 05:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would endorse Moe Epsilon's statements. While I really do not think it's my place to comment one way or another at this DRV, the list of editors that have raised significant concerns about Johnvr4's editing includes Anotherclown and BrownHairedGirl, as well as myself. Buckshot06(talk) 05:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: not commenting on the appropriateness of the deletion at this stage, but reading through the various pages that are linked to this case gives me pause for concern. John: please consider how the language you use to characterise other users' actions can impact upon them and how it influences neutral editors reading your concerns. For instance, PMC made an honest mistake in providing you with an incorrect link and instead of accepting that and moving on, you vilified her. Equally, the way in which you ascribe motivations to other editors also concerns me. WP:AGF is part of the five pillars. I understand that you are frustrated but the way in which you are characterising other editors and their actions here is a problem. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I thank you for your comments above. Not only were the drafts different sizes, they had entirely different content on different subjects. One third of the initial draft had been moved out my sandbox in the last few months per editor concerns (especially the nominating editors concern) and there was still material enough for two or three more articles. My rough estimate of the sizes: -User:Johnvr4/Operation Red Hat had 28,000 words (36,000 words include 250 references) while -User:Johnvr4/sandbox has 20,000 words (35,832 words include 177 references). Of that: 8500 words devoted to Red hat and 9333 words devoted to Red Hat & Okinawa herbicides (with 900 words already in the process of being cut long before the nomination.
The time comment (also irrelevant to deletion policy) was about the age of my edits to move material out from my sand box and into main articles. Please look at those dates before making assertions that the draft material was not being condensed. Please let us look at the draft again if there are perceived sourcing issues or other concerns after it is restored. Buckshot06 and I have long argued about that content and the use of sources and each others motivations. We both want to improve the article but have very different versions of what those sources present which again is no reason to nominate for deletion the version I am still actively working on and that is entirely constant with majority/minority factors that come from those sources. Perhaps my comments about characterizations were misunderstood. There are Facts (either from sources or in XfD) and there are editors assertions about those facts- which are two separate things. One should look at our past disagreements in comparison to what reliable sources say. I am certain that no editor has time for it but if they did, they would know my frustration comes from Buckshot06's inability to acknowledge what the reliable sources that are cited say to determine relevance while he'll say I won't listen. This has borne out numerous times. I am frustrated but that not the excuse for requesting undeletion or in a perception of not assuming good faith. I am not good with formal processes. Any lack of respect is from long hours of senseless heated disagreement over content which according to WP policy is not a reason to delete it. I spent a lot of time on improving many articles and taking the valid concerns of other editors into consideration- especially with breaking up the draft into several articles because it was too big. That is clearly evidenced in my recent edits to those pages and comments to support each change when challenged despite each assertion to the contrary. Moe's four year old concern of "cooking stuff up in my spare time" that caused the page deleted was bogus as were those of several others. Moe accused me of inserting dubious text about night moves of chemicals that I had absolutely nothing to to with. The entire edit history that would prove this was deleted this week in MfD. If a TempRestore request were granted, the diffs would clear it up all for us. This comment may also help clarify the date and time calculation as well as the alleged intent to leave it my userspace in perpetuity. I proved that and this week provided a brand new source that addressed the four year old concern anyway. If Moe or any other editors want to take another look at the giant truckload of new sources published on the subject, newly added references or my use of them since its original deletion then I would welcome that. The new sources would disprove all concerns about relevance. If they don't then I'm am open to modifying it and I'm sure there are still many mistakes to find and fix before it is finished.
For the record BHG's concern was strictly about four year old stuff and Buckshot06 interpretation is of her statement well... Well, it's right here:[9]. PMG and I are Okay- I think. I don't think vilify was the correct word, It was entirely accidental on her part but I in fact did list and quote the guiding WP policy in previous deletion/undeletion discussions. I also spent a lot of time looking for DRV at DR which also frustrated me even more and the one link on my talk page (the one I kept clicking on and following...) wasn't fixed. If any one was offended by my comments, let us please understand there are long-standing content disputes over this material with the nominating editor that do not appear remotely resolved. I appreciate the concerns expressed above and I will try to govern the language in my assertions accordingly. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I feel able to endorse this deletion because WP:MfD does have a criterion for "they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD". However, a lot of the discussion above is inappropriate for this venue. If there are significant concerns that Johnvr4 is a single-purpose account, then there are places to talk about that ---- but they don't belong on DRV. We are here to review decisions about the deletion of content.—S MarshallT/C 17:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Going off on a slight tangent ---- am I right in thinking we couldn't have applied that reasoning to a draft? The phrasing at WP:MfD strongly indicates that the criterion used only applies in other people's userspace. Reviewing this MfD has shown me that we need much better and tighter rules about deleting drafts.—S MarshallT/C 17:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you S Marshall. That observation is not a tangent at all. For what it is worth, I provided and stated the relevant WP:STALEDRAFT policy here User_talk:Premeditated_Chaos#Deletion_of_userspace_material as the first step of Review and I also told Buckshot06 the same thing over nine months ago. "In a RfC held in March 2016, the community held the view that drafts have no expiration date and thus, cannot and should not be deleted on the grounds of their age alone. In another RfC held in April 2016, the community made the following decisions...
Should old user space drafts have an expiration date? "There is consensus that userspace drafts should have no expiration date. They can be deleted, but it should be done on grounds different than solely the age of the draft or the period the draft has not been edited."
(Also WP:UP/RFC2016 RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring)
Well, I'm sorry, but the fatal flaw in that argument is that the deleted material wasn't in draft space. It was in userspace (and thus I endorsed the deletion).—S MarshallT/C 21:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning about a "fatal flaw" as WP:USER (and WP:ABOUTSAND) policy clearly covers userspace drafts and the userspace drafts are what I am requesting to be restored. Userspace drafts and the policies that govern them are the thing we are discussing here. Again, Should old user space drafts have an expiration date? "There is consensus that userspace drafts should have no expiration date..." If possible, could you please clarify the "fatal flaw" reasoning so we can understand your position? Perhaps I am missing something. Johnvr4 (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per MfD, userspace drafts that were userfied from deleted AfD articles may be considered for deletion if "they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD." That is the argument that the MfD hinged on, not simple staleness/age. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly so. My "tangent" was to say we could do this in userspace but I couldn't see any equivalent rule that would apply to draft space; the implication being that we need to tighten our rules on draft space.—S MarshallT/C 13:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see the problem now. The flaw in that argument (and of the nominator) is that time components are not relevant to deletion, extended period of time is not defined and has absolutely no deadline in policy *Wikipedia:Drafts#Deleting_a_draft "Drafts that have not been edited in six months may be nominated for deletion under criterion for speedy deletion WP:G13 but there is a rough consensus against the alternative proposal to delete draft namespace redirects after six months." (see WP:ABANDONED where editors are encouraged "to Make use of Wikipedia:Miscellany for Deletion to search for stale drafts that are put up for deletion. MfD does not get a lot of participation, so please vote on entries." Votes are not consensus) Under G13, the drafts should have been WP:REFUNDed here: [10], Any contention that I have made thousands of edits to that sandbox draft and none of them improved it (which has been culled by 1/3 in the last few months) or that the new pages I created or updated directly from the draft material (again in the last few months) did not improve Wikipedia is simply absurd and it could not possibly assume good faith on my part. I provided examples of those pages and links to that material and diffs and the approximate word count page sizes after the moves the prove it was being condensed and moved to other main pages. Next the reasons for AfD deletion and the efforts to address them were discussed above with specific examples of an issue that caused it to be deleted at AfD was resolved with a new source literally minutes before it was nominated for deletion. WP:ATD-I has user space vs name space drafts, when to move/delete and speaks of a policy change as of August 2017 where "incubated articles require keep-alive edits every few months to avoid deletion, which is not an issue if the draft is retained in user space." Can anyone elaborate on last months policy change?
The nominator also left a message on my talk page (Reasons for deletion of your sandbox) that where he admitted his confusion that WP:STALEDRAFT applies, made the faulty Fake article assertion again where he again falsely accuses me of intending to leave each draft there indefinitely which is patently false. Per his assertion of WP:FAKEARTICLE: "When a userspace page reaches a point where it can be included as an article..." Yet he wants it deleted because it in not ready, or does meet the policy definition of article just yet and most importantly he doesn't agree with content.
Please note that he admitted to me in his recent message that the entire issue that brought this action "was disputed content" Where WP:Deletion policy is that "It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution". Johnvr4 (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request: Temprestore Johnvr4 (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request: Any editor asserting that the sandbox draft material was not being improved recently needs to state for the record that they have reviewed the WP:PAGEHIST and Diffs of the sandbox and the user page (they both started identical to each other) and of the pages listed above where the sandbox material was moved to as well as the dates of those moves. Johnvr4 (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I assert for the record that the sandbox draft material being improved- recently (1.5 hours before it was nominated for deletion). Any contention that it wasn't is false. Johnvr4 (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Buckshot06 asserts as the purpose of his (three) nominations that these three pages user pages "have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD") and WP:FAKEARTICLE He further asserts that I have not condensed the material. Buckshot06 Knows his assertions are not true.
Buckshot has lost all credibility in editing, explaining, or even understanding what reliable sources say about the material that was in and has been moved out of my sandbox. [11]
Overturn: The drafts are being redeveloped. For each reason stated above and in previous discussion as well as the links in those discussions the decision to delete should be overturned .
As Proof that my assertions are accurate: Here is the diff from between BEFORE Version of User:Johnvr4/Operation Red Hat (U.S. WMDs in Japan) (the redeveloped userfid version of around JAN 2017) and the AFTER VERSION of User:Johnvr4/Sandbox (Operation Red Hat) (current version in the sandboxes from August 18, 2017) the Diff proves each assertion that Buckshot06 made in nominating and in his comments to support it was a misrepresentation because both of those versions started out identical to each other! However, there were further improvements with edits in my Sandbox4 that he also deleted and are therefore not reflected in the diff.
The Diff is direct proof that Buckshot06 has misrepresented nearly every assertion he has made about this material in MfD and that similar assertions echoed by other editors regarding extended "lingering" with lack of improvement or condensing of size and scope or any other such concern are without merit.
Basing the deletion action on possibly misinterpreting one word in a WP policy is ridiculous. Linger links here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/linger See the 3rd definition of Linger "(intransitive, often followed by on) To consider or contemplate for a period of time; to engage in analytic thinking or discussion".
Buckshot06s assertions in nominating my userspaces for deletion are totally fabricated and he knew it which any WP editor (or administrator) can easily verify in that diff. The drafts were redeveloped for all previously raised issues including the size and Scope of the drafts. Please just look at the table of contents in those diffs if you are unable to sort out what has changed in scope!
Also: note that condensed version in my sandbox was edited by me 1.5 hours prior to buckshot06 falsely claiming that draft was abandoned (or Fake), hadn't been improved, or had the scope, words count and size condensed or moved to other places etc. before the time of his his MfD Nomination!!!
The drafts were redeveloped in my userspaces where all previously raised issues were addressed including those of the scope and size. The Sandbox is still too large and I am still redeveloping material in it into other articles. For example a new article on Agent_Orange#Okinawa.2C_Japan might be required if all of will not fit in Red Hat. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Arpita Mukherjee (singer) – No consensus because of the limited discussion. WP:REFUND remains possible as suggested in the AfD closure, but the refunding admin may then want to proceed with a relisting as discussed here. – Sandstein 09:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I had participated at the AfD discussion of the article, along with me another user have casted a delete vote. The page was Soft deleted, but now I regret casting a delete vote, The singer had won a very notable singing reality show Sa Re Ga Ma Pa, which makes the article pass WP:MUSICBIO criteria number 9, which says singer who come at the top or 2 and 3 position in a notable singing reality show deserves article.
Anoptimistix"Message Me" 15:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The closing statement says, WP:REFUND applies, so it would have been simpler to go there. But since you're here, I also noticed that Draft:Singer Arpita Mukherjee exists. That was also created by a WP:SPA, so your original suspicion of undisclosed paid editing seems reasonable. -- RoySmith(talk) 11:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Refund applies, but RoySmith also raises legitimate reasons as to why this might be better being sent back to a deletion discussion. I'd be more inclined to relist it so that it has an automatic review of these concerns rather than have it sent directly back to mainspace. Not really a !vote here more as musing. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Not abandoned. See also the talkpage. I was given a week to expand it into a mainspace stub (since I'm away from the home for a workshop). Why can they wait for a week? Why rush? Taku (talk) 09:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The speedy was incorrect because it was not one of "the most obvious cases" because it was under discussion. However when requested at WP:REFUND it will be uncontrovertially undeleted. You should have approached the deleting admin before coming here (apologies if I have missed your request). Thincat (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I went to this page to add the current controversy over ESPN commentator Rober Lee and found the entire category had been deleted. Not sure why - also noticed it was not closed by an admin. Can someone tell me why this relevant topic was summarily deleted when it appears the discussion was among three editors who were biased against the page in the first place. Thank you. 23.114.214.45 (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted because folks in the discussion unanimously considered the inclusion criteria too subjective which per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT is a legit reason for removing a category. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no other way of reading that CfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- consensus was unanimous and there was no other way the discussion could have been closed. ReykYO! 09:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, and would like some more details of the alleged bias of the editors that participated in the discussion. To my mind, Aquillion made a pretty good case as to why a category like this is always going to be a terrible idea. Lankiveil(speak to me) 12:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Overturn. Political correctness is among the very top political issues in the United States. Donald Trump relentlessly referred to political correctness on the campaign trail and public backlash against political correctness played a major role in getting him elected. The political commentator and provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos who also relentlessly challenges various forms of political correctness recently had a book skyrocket in sales despite a leading publisher cancelling its contract with him. Throughout the world, the public is distrusting left/liberal leaning press outlets more and more and the political correctness of these news outlets is playing a major role in this matter.[12][13] So given its importance as a topic related to politics, Wikipedia should make it very easy for readers to find various controversies related to political correctness.Knox490 (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you want this topic to be covered, write the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Obviously no other way to interpret consensus. This isn't the place to just continue the AfD. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:NAC clearly says non-admins are not supposed to make delete closures. However, as others have pointed out, there's no other way this could have been closed. If it will make people feel better over the improper NAC, I have no objection to a procedural re-open for an admin to close it as delete, but the end result shouldn't change. Smartyllama (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and if you really want an admin to affirm the closure I'd be happy to do so. The outcome was obvious from the discussion, as it was unanimous and the reason given was well grounded. I don't see any evidence or new arguments here which would prompt it to be revisited. Hut 8.5 15:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Norma Stitz – Inappropriate non-admin closure by KGirlTrucker81 (talk· contribs) (not the first that I can recall) overturned and article renominated. – Sandstein 13:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Speedy delete by non-admin after no real discussion. My reasons were provided here.Hillbillyholiday (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close There was no real discussion because no reason for deletion was provided. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 13:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re-open please Yes, I had forgotten to add my vote and proper reasoning. Apologies. This deletion should be discussed further. I'll reiterate my reasoning: Just because a person receives some coverage does not make them notable, nor does having big breasts make someone a suitable subject for an encyclopedia. The only possibly useable source I can see bar Guinness is Huffpo. And Huffpo is shite. Fuck GNG and PR0NNBIO. This article is an embarrassment. IAR and nuke. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure additional reasons supplied aren't viable reasons for deletion either. Meets WP:GNG. Hobit (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The nom is of course welcome to list this at AfD again. But please be sure you understand the basics of WP:DEL, WP:N and WP:JNN and express your arguments clearly with that in mind. Hobit (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Guinness Book of World Records only published information about Norma once in 2000. We do not know if she is still the holder of this "record". And there are no other first-rate sources that I can find. If people are so keen about following procedure rather than common sense, how about WP:BLP1E, the event being: she was mentioned by Guinness once. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She's also been covered in a lot of news sources, some of which are in the article. Probably not a BLP1E. But again, I'd suggest you just withdraw this DRV and open a new AfD. I don't think it will get deleted, but the arguments you are making here are much more reasonable and won't be eligible for a speedy keep. Hobit (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn meets none of WP:SKCRIT, and the subjective determination as to whether something meets the GNG based one !vote is clearly not enough for a snowball keep. I have no intent on getting involved in the PORNBIO AfDs, and really don't care as to what happens to this article, but this was an inappropriate closure. The nomination could have been much better worded, but the essential claim is that outside GBWR there is not significant coverage: that is a subjective challenge to the article meeting the GNG that deserves to be sorted out in an AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I get that and tend to not like speedy closes. But I do think it meets the first part of WP:SKCRIT: "fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection". The article has sources and even his later comment was just about how horrible the HuffingtonPost is--it didn't address the other sources or even indicate that he'd seen them. And that comment wasn't there when the discussion was closed, so the closer couldn't have taken it into account. I've no objection to a relist here, but I don't think the closer got it wrong when it was closed. Hobit (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: it was a poorly done AfD nomination, but it was basically a cruder way of saying not notable, which is also a horrible nominating statement, but I've seen administrators simply have that when they send some stuff to AfD and we don't throw those out. Trouts all around here: the job of the closer is to see any potential policy arguments behind the !votes (in this case that being noticed for large breasts is trivial coverage not meeting WP:N), and the job of the nominator is to lay out a compelling case for deletion. Neither was done, but it wasn't at the speedy keep level. Meeting the GNG isn't a reason to speedy keep, and it isn't the place for DRV to sort out the GNG arguments. Anyway, thanks for the reply Hobit. Always appreciated :) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The closure relied on WP:SK, ground 1: "Nominator fails to advance a valid reason for deletion". Strictly speaking, you could argue that's correct, but we're a collaborative encyclopaedia and I think it's implicit in our procedures that when you're dealing with good faith users, you talk to them. It would have been entirely appropriate to ping the nominator and say, "Hey, you've failed to supply a valid reason for deletion: could you come back and do that please?" Just closing it without talking to him at all is within the rules as written. But it seems quite rude. I wouldn't have done that. Maybe in the circumstances, the best way forward would be to allow an immediate renomination on condition that the nominator gives clear reasons.—S MarshallT/C 17:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the best outcome. And yes, I agree the SK wasn't the most friendly thing to do and the best way forward would have been as you suggested. Given that nothing prevents a renomination after a procedural speedy keep, I'd suggest the nom withdraws this DRV and just starts a new one with a much better nomination statement. I very much doubt this will get deleted, but fair process is important to user retention. Hobit (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that would be the least time-wasting outcome here: Hillbillyholiday, if you aren't following this, it would probably be best to withdraw and speedily renominate with a more fleshed out rationale citing policy and guidelines. You could note that the emerging consensus at this DRV was to allow for a speedy renomination. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So I get "trouted" for not following correct protocol for AfD but I should pre-emptively re-nominate without the process finishing here? It's all rather confusing to be honest. I think it best if someone else closes this review first, and then I start another deletion request later (would it be the 3rd AfD now?) --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's simple: your deletion rationale was less than we typically expect from nominations, but people here also think that a speedy keep so quickly was probably not ideal. The suggestion is that you withdraw this DRV, and speedily renominate it with more fleshed out policy-based rationale for deletion: it saves the time of more people having to comment on the DRV and allows the article to be assessed at AfD. There is no prejudice about renominating it, and if someone brings it up, you can link to this discussion (or link to it in your nominating statement). TonyBallioni (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The close here is technically valid but I suspect the nominator intended to bring up a notability-based argument which just wasn't stated explicitly. Given that they have now come up with a more suitable rationale I suggest we reopen it. Hut 8.5 21:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse without prejudice to renomination. No reason for deletion given, so a close isn't unreasonable. Might've been better to point that out and see if nom adds something, but regardless, there's nothing preventing a speedy renomination without going to DRV. It would be pretty pointless, though, as you're essentially asking for an IAR deletion. Spending 5 seconds on Google shows she easily meets GNG. The fact of her claim to fame, as always, isn't relevant as it's only an indication the sources exist -- and they very obviously do exist. There's the BLP avenue, but she's clearly a public person. We have countless articles on things that one might prefer not to be notable, but that's not the point. Even without a Guinness record, there's far more sourcing than needed to pass GNG (and, of course, what's currently cited isn't relevant to deletion). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 22:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist, inappropriate speedy keep as the nominator did want the page deleted. I expect the article will be kept, but that doesn't mean we should skip process. Stifle (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. I wish there were a speedy delete criterion that would apply to this "article". A valid deletion reason was clearly implied, the general one of NOT ENCYCLOPESIC, and the more specific one of NOT TABLOID.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 23:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. One of the few sources given in the article is the Daily Mail. Wikipedia no longer considers the Daily Mail as being a reliable source and it is a matter of public record that it has banned it as a reliable source.[14] Besides this source it has a couple tabloid newspaper sources and a Huffington Post source. This is not really the stuff of notability via a number of reliable sources. Wikipedia does have the article List of tallest people. Is Wikipedia planning on having an article entitled List of women with the biggest breasts? Of course, the answer is no to this question. It would not be encyclopedic. And as noted above, The Guinness Book of World Records only published information about Norma once in 2000. We do not know if she is still the holder of her record. A lot can happen in 17 years. The world's population has grown about 33% since 2000.[15] When the last history book closes, she will not be in it because she is not a notable person. A few tabloid articles a Huffington Post and being in the Guinness Book of World Records once is not the stuff of being a notable person. Knox490 (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. The nomination wasn't the clearest, but there was clearly an implied notability argument being made. Yet another example of why an SK is usually a bad idea and to be avoided in all but the most obvious of circumstances. Lankiveil(speak to me) 11:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Evolution Tour – Closure endorsed. The redirect target can be changed through the editorial process if required. – Sandstein 07:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
No consensus was clearly reached as to the target of the redirect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you want to happen, exactly? It would be perverse to close as no consensus on the grounds that there was no agreement about the target of the redirect, as there was very clear agreement to redirect the article. I suggest you retarget the redirect or send it to RfD if you want it to point to a different target. Hut 8.5 20:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is the wrong venue for this discussion. The AfD was clearly going to redirect this somewhere, it's just a matter of which of the two plausible targets it was going to be. Either be WP:BOLD and change the redirect to point to what you think is the better target, or start a conversation on the article talk page about changing the redirect, or ping the closer directly and ask if they would mind changing it. None of those require DRV involvement. -- RoySmith(talk) 20:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I asked CAPTAIN RAJU how he chose the target, but he did not respond. I therefore took the issue to WP:DRV. The discussion should have been relisted in order to determine the preferred target. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse no need for a DRV: switch the redirect to whatever you want per BOLD. Raju probably went off the nose count, as there weren't strong arguments for one over the other. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as said above, feel free to pick a target. I'd lean toward the album myself, but either is reasonable. Hobit (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I was the only participant in the AfD who recommended a redirect but not to the target selected by the closer. And I'm fine with the selected redirect target now. --Metropolitan90(talk) 13:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse for the reasons given by other endorsers. I also lean toward the album as far as the redirect.Knox490 (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Thank you. I couldn't do that myself, because I'm not an admin. I cannot comment on the deletion either, for the same reason. But I would be happy for the article to be re-created with those parts only. Hawkeye7(talk) 01:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou Cryptic, yes sorry the subject is clearly notable. But only with all the hardcopy books that Bwmoll3 had is it possible to determine how much of the text was a copyvio (see the top of his talk page). Happy to restore the skeleton for any user with/without a deletion review. Apologies for any inconvenience. Buckshot06(talk) 06:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The skeleton is just fine. Thank you. Hawkeye7(talk) 10:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This redirect was recreated after an RfD which was closed as delete, I initially requested it to be speedily deleted per WP:G4 but admin RHaworth recreated the redirect and fully protected it after deleting it, as well as salting the talk page. I have discussed the matter with RHaworth who has expressed that he no longer wishes to be involved in the affair. PS can an admin please add <noinclude>{{Delrev}}</noinclude> to the page? - CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hold the drama, hold the review. Special pages don't upset us. All we ask is that you let the RfD stand. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For those who didn't pick up on it, the above is a reference to a contemporary commercial from a competing chain. To remove the ambiguity, I think the RfD result should be endorsed, but have no particular objection to a relist either. -- RoySmith(talk) 19:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I understand CHEAP and all, but Really?? That is a ludicrous search term, for someone to type that in to a Wikipedia search with no spaces and no spelling errors would be miracolous(sic).L3X1(distænt write) )evidence( 16:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Striking !vote, as this appears to be a popular thing from American culture I am unfamiliar with. I do see that vorsprung durch technik redirects to Audi, but the best or nothing does not redirect to Mercedes-Benz. L3X1(distænt write) )evidence( 01:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
relist this is a really weird case. A) the RfD resulted in delete. B) the redirection and protection appear to be out of process. C) This rather long "word" really has seen use as the restoring admin notes and the RfD seemed unaware of. In fact the topic probably meets WP:N as the trademark status and use in advertising of that "word" has seen a lot of coverage in books ([16]). So I'm leaning toward relist. I'd not be shocked if it again gets deleted (unlikely search term that it is) but there is a reasonable claim that the discussion was defective (new information available), so a relist seems like the best way forward. Eh. Hobit (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd say delete as it was deleted at RfD, the restoring admin doesn't seem to have given any sort of reason and I don't think the outcome is likely to change, but I won't object to a relist. (Even if the word is discussed in books that doesn't mean anybody is going to type it into the search bar.) Hut 8.5 18:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per Hobit and per "what's the harm". There are harmful redirects, but this isn't clearly one of them, and the original RfD (like most) was poorly attended, so it doesn't hurt to revisit. Also, L3X1, I'm not sure your age or geographic location (and no need to tell me), but this is one of the most recognizable marketing slogans in the States of all time, especially if you were alive and old enough remember in the 1980s and early 2000s. I don't really care if we have a redirect on it, but it certainly isn't "ludicrous", especially considering that we have a search box that autopopulates. I was able to find this redirect on my own by simply typing "Twoal". TonyBallioni (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, the merits of the redirect aside, there has been a complete hash made of the discussion and the resulting deletion hokey-pokey. This is a good illustration of why SNOW closes and speedy deletions are usually not great ideas when a discussion is in progress. Best to just start off with a clean discussion and let it go from there. Lankiveil(speak to me) 00:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Relist to do this properly, but I would very much expect a delete outcome from the new RFD as an implausible search term. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Comment, I haven't had time to look at these sources in detail, but from what I've seen at a glance they're either articles of dubious independence in local papers, or not substantially about the camp itself. If someone has a look and thinks that the sources are better than that, I've no objection to a speedy restore to draft space in order to keep working on the article. Lankiveil(speak to me) 03:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
To help us assess this request more quickly, please can you pick out the four best sources out of what you've provided? Quality is more important than quantity. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I listed them in general order of best to least. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist two new sources from the New York Times that weren't mentioned in the AfD is enough to merit discussion: whether or not the coverage in them is enough to pass the GNG is debatable, but the place for that debate is at AfD, not DRV. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist in order to consider the additional sources. Absolutely nothing wrong or out of process with Lankiveil's close. ATraintalk 07:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to soft delete The closer had the responsibility to discount the "Just a pointing at a policy or guideline" !vote and follow the WP:NOQUORUM process. Soft delete addresses the OP's concerns which in turn addresses the community's concerns. Unscintillating (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiOriginal-9: From the relist perspectives above I think it is clear that folks think it is worth discussing these sources, so I have re-opened and re-listed the discussion. Lankiveil(speak to me) 13:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
2016 Chinese memes war on Facebook – Endorse. Unanimous agreement that the AfD close was correct. See the AfD closing statement for guidance on creating a new article at this titlle. – -- RoySmith(talk) 11:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This piece of news still has notability even now. Some people are still talking about this issue in recent months such as [41] and [42].
"Filling with grammatical errors" should never be the reason to delete an article, because grammar fix is an easy task that everyone can do it.
"Original research" is a more nonsensical reason. There were plenty of references from many famous website. Most sentences were cited. How can it be original research? The passage with heading "This section possibly contains original research" contains hundreds of citations, so how can it be original research? Yejianfei (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could we please get a temporary undelete or failing that if someone feels there is a reason not to an e-mailed copy of it? Hobit (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've emailed you a copy. I would not be comfortable with a temporary undelete as there is at least one section which looks distinctly like a BLP violation. Hut 8.5 20:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks by the way. After looking at it, I'm still not sure what we should do. It looks pretty snowy, so I'll just sit out. Hobit (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Noting as the deleting admin here that if the topic is still notable it can simply be recreated - much of the delete argument was about the poor quality of the article. Calling the !voters @Lasersharp, Metropolitan90, Alex Shih, and Power~enwiki: here. As for the temp undelete request, contains personal attacks on the parties involved implies there may be BLP issues involved but I am not getting a good grasp on this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What does "BLP" mean? --Yejianfei (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"contains personal attacks on the parties involved" is also nonsense. As I see from the webarchive [43], the article just simply recorded what happened, without any author's points of view. It didn't talk about who is right and who is wrong. Why do you think it contains personal attacks? --Yejianfei (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my delete vote. The article is of atrocious written quality and I see no claim of notability for the event, which appears to be the equivalent of a "4chan raid". Even though the BBC does have an article entitled "Pro-China posts spam Taiwan President-elect Tsai's Facebook", that doesn't make it notable enough for a stand-alone article. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since there were "tens of thousands of posts" spammed on the internet at the same time, those massive netizens and posts already proved its notability. This notability should be much higher than most of articles in Wikipedia. Ask yourself: how many Wikipedian articles can reach the notability of so massive users? --Yejianfei (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse while the topic is likely notable, it is permissible to delete an article on a notable topic if the article is sufficiently bad that to get it in acceptable shape would require it to be essentially rewritten, and I think it was reasonable to delete this article on those grounds. It reeks of pro-PRC bias, is badly written, and although it cites some respectable sources it also relies on some completely useless ones. I'm less sure about original research without digging into the sources in more depth but there is one glaring example. I suggest that anyone who wants us to have an article on this topic try writing a draft which is more encyclopedic. Hut 8.5 20:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to WP:CLAIM, there is no pro-PRC statements at all. Every pro-statement is in reported speech. --Yejianfei (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong on two levels: the article didn't attribute all pro-PRC statements to that side, and even if it did then that wouldn't necessarily make it neutral. To illustrate why the article was biased I'm going to go through one paragraph, the first of the "Background" section, which discusses a singer waving the ROC flag on a Korean TV show and stating that she came from Taiwan:
"another singer... who comes from Hong Kong remained [reminded?] her that it is Taiwan province of China, she ignored". So the article is asserting that the PRC position that Taiwan is a province of China is correct and that she should have known that.
"her nationality was also introduced as "TaiWan" but not China, even not ROC,[6] although Taiwan is not a country and cannot be claimed as the nationality of anyone" (the citation is a Google Images search). The article is asserting here that the singer's claimed nationality is wrong using original research to back up the PRC position. The article is also taking the view that any positions other than the PRC and ROC ones cannot possibly be correct, which is also not neutral.
The paragraph then goes on to note that the state of South Korea accepts the mainland position that Taiwan is a province of China. This is, again, original research to back up the PRC view. There isn't any indication that the South Korean government was involved in any of this, so their position has got nothing to do with it.
That's just one paragraph. The article is riddled with this stuff and making it vaguely neutral would require almost all the content to be removed. Hut 8.5 17:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's have a look at each sentence.
"Although another singer Jackson Wang,who comes from HongKong reminded her that it is Taiwan province of China, she ignored." What is wrong with that? That just reported that Jackson Wang himself claimed that opinion, and this claim was one of the reason of the memes war. It is only Jackson Wang himeself suppports the idea of Taiwan, Province of China. It does not mean whether Taiwan is actually a country or not.
"her nationality was also introduced as "TaiWan" but not China, even not ROC,[6] although Taiwan is not a country and cannot be claimed as the nationality of anyone", It could be modify a little, like "her nationality was also clamied to be Taiwan but not China, even not ROC, although her identity showed that her nationality was ROC."
"Republic of Korea (South Korea) and People's Republic of China established diplomatic relationship with each other on 1992 and the communique of establishment of diplomatic relationship between ROK and PRC acknowledges that South Korea admits one China policy and Taiwan is a part of China" This only showed that ROK and PRC claimed that. It did not show whether it was an acceptable idea. I don't think it is original research, but maybe this sentence is not suitable here, because it is unrelated to the article. We don't need to put a unrelated claim here. So this sentence could be removed. --Yejianfei (talk) 07:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't anything necessarily wrong with presenting the views of someone else in the article, and something like "he told her that Taiwan is a province of China" may well have been fine. However the way the article phrased it implied that it was agreeing with his position, notably the (misspelled) use of the word "reminded", which implies that Taiwan's status as a province is some generally accepted fact which she had forgotten. Representing people's opinions can still be biased though, if you don't represent opinions equally.
Your version has the same problem as the article: it asserts that her nationality can only really be claimed as Chinese or Republic of China, and not Taiwan. This is biased. There are plenty of people who think that Taiwan is or should be an independent country, and we can't state that they are wrong. Even if we had a credible source, which this statement didn't.
It's original research (specifically synthesis) because this information is not relevant to the issue at hand. The only reason it is included is because some editor thought it was relevant, using their own judgement rather than a reliable source. The fact that it's true that the PRC and ROK claim this also does not mean it's neutral to include this here. Putting in a load of statements of support for the PRC position from authorities is not neutral, even if these statements are attributed to them. Yes, we could get rid of the statement, but the point of the deletion rationale is that for this to work we would have to remove or rewrite so much of the article that at the end what you would get is a completely different article and we might as well have deleted it and started again. That's what I suggest you do if you think Wikipedia should have an article on this topic. Hut 8.5 18:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse only possible reading of the discussion. Notability is our guideline for when it is possible to include something, but being notable is not enough for an article to be kept if consensus is that as currently written it is such a failure of other policies such as those on advocacy or promotion. Users in an AfD can decide that the best outcome in these cases is to delete per WP:WHATISTOBEDONE. That's what happened here. This was a good close. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, the discussion could not have reasonably been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Objection Voting without a reasonable reason should be regarded as an invalid vote. --Yejianfei (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, any other close for this discussion would have been ridiculous. Looking at the article itself, which is pretty naked propaganda for the Beijing regime, it also appears that the correct decision was made. Lankiveil(speak to me) 00:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: Reported speech does not imply any standpoints. The passage matches the WP:CLAIM rule very well. --Yejianfei (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but I agree with Yejianfei that a considerable number of arguments put at the AFD were not relevant to deletion. However, there were some criticisms made which, if valid, would have led to removal of material possibly to such an extent that very little worthwhile was left. Despite all that, the only conceivable alternative to a delete close would have been a relist. My advice, if I may give it to Yejianfei, is that it would be more helpful to the topic if the article was started all over again, squeaky clean, with good references and no polemic. Even polemic as direct quiotes may not be a good idea. Now, I haven't seen the article (and am not asking to see it) and I admit that to some extent I am taking account of people here whose opinions I respect and who have seen the deleted text. Thincat (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Tensor product of representations – "Redirect" closure overturned. It's not clear what this discussion believes the correct closure should have been, but presumably it's either "keep" or "no consensus", and not "delete". – Sandstein 07:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
My only concern here is about the procedure. But I don't think the closure reflected the deletion discussion (e.g., no one voted for redirect. -- Taku (talk) 09:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. We need to stop this witch hunt for old drafts. They don't hurt anything. If draft space becomes an unsafe venue for works in progress, people will abandon draft space and go back to using their own private user space as protection against having works in progress getting deleted. And that would be a shame because it would reduce the opportunity for collaborative editing. For those who would point out that this particular draft hadn't been edited in three years, my response is that there is no WP:DEADLINE. I don't mind cleaning up truly abandoned drafts, where the author is no longer active, and the draft itself has zero value, but that's not the case here. The question to ask yourself is, Will getting rid of this draft improve the encyclopedia? For drafts like this, the answer is No, it will not. -- RoySmith(talk) 11:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Will this page ever get any attention or improvement short of lighting a fire under the Author? Taku spends several magnitudes more bytes defending the creations than building them in the first place. Hasteur (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This assumes there's a problem that needs fixing. Nobody has yet explained to me why these old drafts cause any harm to the encyclopedia. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It squats on the namespage address, it is a "land grab" for creation credit, it prevents a true new user from feeling like they've discovered something, and it fractures the attention away from useful and purposeful improvement of namespace. All harms that this causes. Back to topic at hand. Do you really thing this is worth retaining and not Merge/Redirecting? Hasteur (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it is worth retaining. -- RoySmith(talk) 18:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse As the nominator I suggested that it be redirected. This is only a new step on Taku's Disruptive Editing burecracy train in which they will tendentiously make every single argument rather than fixing the problem. I would love for Taku to fix the problems, but they spend somewhere in the order of 50 times as many bytes defending a topic that they created in draft space 3 years ago than actually doing something about the topic. Hasteur (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show us some evidence of Taku's disruptive editing? The user in question has a clean block log and no community sanctions that I could find. What's the problem with taking several years to complete a draft? ATraintalk 20:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also ask for speedy closure of this malformed DRV as it does not make a valid case for why the XFD was incorrect. Hasteur (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also Redirection is perfectly in the discretion of the closing administrator per WP:ATDHasteur (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the only real issue which was discussed here was whether the subject should be covered in a standalone article or as part of another article. MfD is not the correct place to have that discussion, it needs to happen on the relevant article talk pages. The other arguments raised, such as "old", "stale", "clutter", and concerns that "an admin with less tollerance [sic] to come in and start willy nilly deleting drafts that are more promising" are not valid, as they don't articulate some policy or guideline that this page's existence violates or some rational argument as to why we should get rid of it. Hut 8.5 18:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
overturn no policy based reason for the outcome IMO. Per Roy and Hut, the whole point of draft space is to have drafts that aren't ready to be articles yet. The only reason I've seen that makes sense is the "land grab" argument. I don't buy that argument as I suspect that having a starting point is more important to people than getting credit for starting the article. But if such a land grab is hurting the encyclopedia, we should discuss what to do about it. I don't think it's (yet) a policy-based reason for deletion. Hobit (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hut and Hobit: I would have had the discussion elsewhere but it would be Taku and me arguing at each other and no consensus hapening and Taku would have filibustered it to death. There's a valid reason to funneling the effort to a mainspace to spin off a subsection into a page. The only way we could compel that effort is by having a MFD. Hasteur (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hasteur, I tried to parse that a few times and failed. I understood the first and last sentence, but the middle one lost me, sorry. Would you mind trying to clarify that? Thanks, and sorry if the fault is on my end. Hobit (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobit: See the other recent MFD nomination notifications on Taku's page to see how others have been forcably redirected. We're chosing and picking our debates for the least quality ones. Ones that are ready for mainspace are promoted. Ones that are ready and are on the stale are challenged at MFD or redirected (with Taku screaming "vandalism"). If the only way we can get a result is by having these procedural exercises with forgone conclusions because Taku is being obstructionist, then we have them. Hasteur (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The proper place to have a discussion about a possible merge would be Talk:Tensor product. I don't see any edits by you to that page. I frankly don't see much point to this crusade to get rid of a few old drafts. Hut 8.5 06:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When you say, We're chosing and picking our debates, who is we? You make it sound like you're part of some organized team of people. I see you've also started WP:AN#Willfull and persistent disruption of Draft space by TakuyaMurata. Honestly, that seems a bit excessive. My take on this is that you've got more invested in this than is good for you, or for the project. I would suggest that you move on to other things. There's more than enough work to go around. If this issue of stale drafts is really a problem, somebody else can pick it up. Meanwhile, you and Taku can disengage from what appears to be a personal conflict. -- RoySmith(talk) 11:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would you rather a "Bull in a china shop" admin come in and clear cut all these Drafts, because that's been threatened multiple times and took an ArbCom case with Desysop to protect draft space. Pull back and see the larger situation where consensus has been on the force redirect side of the debate on multiple occasions yet Taku causes us to waste time having to fight over every last inch of consensus. Hasteur (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide links to those conversations, please? -- RoySmith(talk) 13:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. You're citing a 3-1/2 year old ArbCom case which didn't involve Taku at all as why this draft needs to be redirected? Honestly, I think everybody involved here (on both sides) needs to just back away. The drafts aren't doing any harm. On the other hand, redirecting them (while I don't think that's the right thing to do) isn't doing any great harm either. Everybody should just take a chill pill and find something less controversial to work on. -- RoySmith(talk) 15:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: Wow... just wow... CIR much? the Kafziel case was about a bull in a china shop admin coming in and straight out deleting Drafts because they were stale and offended him.
I'm attempting to demonstrate what the unintended consequence could be if drafts like this are allowed to remain. Taku is only showing up because they created this class of Draft pages 3 years ago and haven't done any improvements on them. I'd be more than happy to walk away just as long as Taku agrees to some form of binding remediation that results in either Draft space being cleaned up or they taking the pages back to their userspace to work on since Taku feels that they are the only ones who can judge if it's worthwhile. Hasteur (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also in the "We" I'm counting Legacypac as another editor who has been taking Taku to task for these drafts. Hasteur (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect. On one side Taku has done plenty of great work building math articles. On the other side Taku gets into a serious tizzy if someone touches any of the approx 200 stale drafts they started. I keep encountering these pages as I clean up non-AfC Draft space. I could not believe when they fought deletion of 8 words not about the topic and a link! I offered to copy the short pages and any links to User:TakuyaMurata/Drafts so the topic ideas could be preserved in one place, but that was rejected. If this user spent a tenth of the effort expanding of merging the abandoned topics as they do defending some false entitlement to WP:OWN abandoned Drafts, we would have so much more useful content. I've taken some of the shortest ones to MfD and in each case the pages have been deleted or in this case redirected. Why the heck are we at deletion review yet again? It's disruptive. Let's move these Drafts forward to merge the info into mainspace, and delete the ones that are nothing. but a topic idea. Legacypac (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, other than the "land grab" argument, I've not heard any reason why these drafts (or frankly any draft that doesn't have BLP, copyright or similar problems) are such an issue. Why does it matter to you? What is the issue you are trying to fix? You complain about Taku being disruptive, but I'm unclear on why trying to delete these isn't the actual disruption. Not saying you aren't right. Instead saying you seem to be starting off with the assumption that these need to be cleaned up but you haven't provided an argument (other than the land grab one) why that assumption is valid. If the land grab thing really is causing us to not have articles get created, I get that. But I don't know of any evidence to that effect and I tend to think people prefer to have a starting point rather than a blank slate (so I'd expect the draft articles to help, not hurt)--though I admit I have no evidence for that claim either. Are there some other arguments? Some evidence to support the land grab claim? Hobit (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobit: Please familiarize yourself with the various debates including WT:Drafts, WT:Mathematics, and WT:CSD to see Taku's WP:OWN that these pages need to live in perpituity and never be improved in the random chance that someone in the future will want to make the 99.9% effort to get them into mainspace. Fundamentally, Taku is misusing Draftspace in which there's supposed to be collaberative effort by decreeing that draft space content that will never make it to mainspace without drastic rewrites is preferable than a redirect to a very closely related topic (or section) and focusing the effort there to improve the content.
Hobit aksed me why I redirected it. Basically it is an abandoned draft. If it was abandoned and the editor was inactive I would have deleted it. I'm fascinated by the amount of discussion here and at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tensor product of representations. It would have taken less time to reference the thing and expand it into a proper article. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't really answer my question. What harm does it do as a draft? You all are assuming that we all agree an abandoned draft should be deleted. It can be in userspace if the user is gone, but it's not clear how doing so helps. How does deleting or redirecting help? It feels controlling and discouraging to editors. So there needs to be a good reason to delete or redirect. What is that reason? How does it help? Hobit (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draft space is full of truly problematic pages. These 200 abandoned math stubs add to the clutter and must be checked and rechecked as we sort out the pages that really need to be deleted. It is not even clear if these are real proper topics. the idea that Abandoned Drafts need to be cleared to ensure we can do maintenance more efficently is nothing new WP:G13. Legacypac (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that helps some. What maintenance needs to be done? Why not let draft space just have a clutter of ideas where most may not go anywhere? This is a serious question and I think I'm not the only one who is unclear on why editors feel the need to organize and control this space. I assume there is a reason, but you all aren't doing a great job of explaining it. Hobit (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Hobit Draft space should not be an ever expanding shadow encyclopedia of hoaxes, non-notable bands/business listings/piano teachers/random people/random youtubers or resumes, attack pages, personal info on minors, link building SPAM, WP:UP#COPIES, WP:U5 material, and the list goes on. There is even a few useful pages that need promotion if you can uncover them amoung the crap that needs deletion. Don't get a rose tinted glasses idea that Draftspace is just full of great ideas someone can run with to create wonderful new pages. I urge you to go to User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report and process 100 pages to get a good feel. For each one ask yourself "is this now or even potentially a good article topic? If the answer is NO, apply a CSD or MfD to the page so the next person checking it does not need to go through that analysis again. I for one am not interested in reanalysing the exact same garbage repeatedly as I sort for gems. Legacypac (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What forces you to reanalyze this article? Once we see it's not one of the issues you list, why do you need to keep coming back to it? Do we need a new page patrol for drafts (do we have one already)? Would that address the problem you have with stubs in draft space? Hobit (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When one editor comes through and can find a good quick-fail reason to move the page to deletion, they typically don't edit the page, which means the page still hasn't been edited in at least 6 months and another editor comes through to perform the exact same process of trying to figure out how to deal with the page. Your objections appear to be systemic in dealing with Draft-cruft rather than dealing with Draft:Tensor product of representations, therefore I suggest you join the discussions at WT:CSD and WT:Drafts to help form consensus of how to address these. I also challange you to deal with some of the oldest entries on the MusikBot stale draft report and see how you feel after addressing those. We'er dealing with stale drafts first partially because they've had an opportunity to be adopted by the community as a whole, yet havent and there does not appear to be any interest in keeping them. Hasteur (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To add to that, I often come across the same pages because I work the Stale Drafts (down to 5500 pages) and Stale Userspace (down to 30,000 pages) lists regularly month after month. I look at thousands of titles and I can't remember which ones I've checked before just based on title. Legacypac (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, more Takucruft. Would counsel the nominator to spend his time writing in depth about a small number of topics rather than writing one-liners about dozens of topics and then tendentiously arguing about when they get deleted. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"In most cases, the first thing to try is an edit to the article, and sometimes making such an edit will resolve a dispute." No admin tools were used here, the DRV procedure to involve the closing administrator before initiating a DRV action was not followed, and Wikipedia is not a DRV bureaucracy. As per the policy WP:Consensus#Achieving consensus, "After one changes a page, others who read it can choose whether or not to further edit. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus." Unscintillating (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In a RfC held in March 2016, the community held the view that drafts have no expiration date and thus, cannot and should not be deleted on the grounds of their age alone. In another RfC held in April 2016, the community made the following decisions:
For userspace drafts where notability is unlikely to be achieved, consensus is that they should not be kept indefinitely. However, the community did not arrive at a specified time duration.
Drafts can be moved across namespaces or submitted for AfC without the author's explicit permission if it's fit to be an article considering the user is "reasonably" inactive. Again, "reasonably" was not defined by the community.
Userspace drafts which do not meet article content standards should not be moved to mainspace in order to seek deletion.
Any editor who intends to improve old userspace drafts can move them provided the user is "reasonably" inactive.
In case a userspace draft was moved to mainspace but is not fit to be in mainspace, it must be returned to the parent location.
The closing admin wrote, "Although there has been a couple of edits since the nomination it is basically an abandoned draft." But the RfC held in March 2016 concluded, as the guideline notes, that "drafts have no expiration date and thus, cannot and should not be deleted on the grounds of their age alone".
I do not see a policy-based reason for deletion or redirection.
1. Your summary of that RFC is to narrow, and anyway this is about this draft. Given the draft creator and one other editor voted to keep, I voted Merge (implying a redirect) and the NOM said delete, a redirect close is right down the middle and very reasonable. It leaves the creator or anyone else with access to the history for merging and/or using when/if someone actually decides to build out the topic they have the material tonwork with. It was a very reasonable close and the editors complaining about it should go build an article on the topic for mainspace on the topic instead of all this discussion over a three year old abandoned page can stay abandoned before it is redirected. Legacypac (talk) 06:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
O
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I think this article passes GNG based on these sources which I don't believe were present in the article at the time. [44][45][46][47][48] I think the page could be unredirected. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you approach Winged Blades of Godric about this? He might have relisted. FWIW, I'm not sure the subject is notable, but I think a relist is worthwhile since it was low participation and to consider the sourcing. I also think that it is a horrible practice to redirect a BLP to another BLP (not Godric's fault), so if it is relisted there should be discussion of whether or not a redirect is better than deletion if it is found to be not notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Godric on Leave: if you intend to relist, you should go ahead and do that, and then we can close this DRV. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Category:Persecution by atheists – Endorse. Given the subject matter, the length and tone of both the original CfD and this review are not surprising. It is also not surprising that a large part of this review is a rehashing of the arguments from the original CfD. There is an assertion here that the original XfD was marred by WP:SPAs, which spun off into a meta-discussion about the exact definition of a SPA, and whether being an SPA is the same as being a WP:SOCK. My take-away from the entire sub-thread was to conclude that it was not a significant issue. Reading through this entire thing, several times, the only conclusion I can come to is that the community endorses the original CfD close. – -- RoySmith(talk) 12:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Partial Overturn request of the closer's decision to "rename" a problematic category up for deletion to an equally problematic category name. The close statement does not give any reasoning based on Wikipedia policy or the arguments presented during the Deletion Discussion, and instead referenced only majority, minority and "substantial number" of editors, which to my understanding is not the way to determine consensus. I've asked the closer if he would discuss his reasoning with me, but was told only that I should go ahead and file this review request. I've labeled this as a "partial" overturn, as the closer effectively (1) deleted the discussed problematic category, and (2) created a new problematic category with a slightly different name -- and it is the (2) part that brings me here. If we need to un-close the discussion until we can get a closure based on policy and reasoned argument, that's fine too. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse fair reading of consensus, there was not a consensus to completely get rid of the concept, but virtually everyone agreed that it was at a problematic name. At an RM this would have been closed by moving it to the option of least resistance which is what was done here, and I consider it appropriate. Before it is pointed out that I edit mainly Catholicism related articles, I want to state that I have no personal opinion on this particular category, and wouldn't mind seeing it be deleted or kept: I can see the arguments on both sides. The question here though is if the close was within the closers discretion and within policy, which I feel it very much was. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response, but I've been hopeful that we can steer clear of the "I feel" responses in this matter. If we are all in agreement that consensus is to be determined by reasoned argument and Wikipedia policy, rather than "virtually everyone agreed yada yada this and that", then it should be a quite simple matter to present the actual reasoning behind the decision. Ex.: "The category has been deleted because it violates WP:ZZZ Policy, while the newly created replacement does not violate WP:ZZZ; and further, Arguments #9 and #14 from the discussion, which can be summarized as "______" (and came with reliable source support), were well reasoned and strongly supported deletion, while the counter-arguments #3, #5 and #15 were unpersuasive and unsupported." I've petitioned the closing admin to let me in on his reasoning, but my request was ignored, so I am left in the dark. Since you "can see the arguments on both sides", could you shed some light on what you see as the strongest reasoning (from the discussion, not your own opinion, of course) behind such a decision? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, then let me rephrase: the close was well within the closers discretion. Policy and sourced based arguments existed on both sides. The strong argument on one side was that it was POV-pushing. The strong argument on the other was that there was some sourcing identifying it with state atheism: the view that it was Communism and not state atheism was brought up, but there was significant enough disagreement on that point to avoid a clear consensus in favour of deletion.There was a consensus that it was at least better to move the title based on the sourcing, and therefore it was moved as the path of least resistance: the current category was agreed to be inappropriate, but it wasn't clear the best way to handle it, therefore the closer implemented the move lacking a clear consensus to delete. CfD is unique from many of the other XfD types in that moves are also handled through it. In this case, I think WP:RMCI gives us at least on idea of the best way to handle things, and I think the close was implemented in the spirit of that guideline, particularly the last paragraph in WP:THREEOUTCOMES. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm not sure we're even talking about the same discussion. Policy based arguments existed on both sides, you say? Can you remind me, please, what policy-based reason was given for "Keeping" the problematic category? One side's strongest argument was "POV-pushing", you say? I know for a fact that out of 30 commenting editors, I am the only one on the "delete" side to mention "POV" or "Point of View" (go ahead, type Ctrl-F and do a word search), and I know that wasn't even part of the strongest three arguments. "The view that it was Communism and not state atheism was brought up", you say? I don't see that as an argument anywhere (and please note the closer never mentioned "State atheism", only "atheist states").I was hopeful that you could indicate the (still secret and unrevealed by the closer) actual policies and/or arguments from the discussion used to close it. Still waiting. One cannot proclaim, as you just did, "There was a consensus that it was at least better to move the title based on the sourcing...", while keeping that alleged sourcing a secret. While keeping the required solid reasoning behind that "consensus" determination a secret, especially in light of the much stronger arguments to simply delete, and several strong arguments against that specific rename suggestion. Where is the reasoned explanation as to why the closer selected that particular one of several rename options, when it still violates policy? The closer still has not shared his reasoning with us (beyond counting heads and votes), and your assertion that there was somehow a consensus to rename over simply deleting - without explaining how such a consensus was determined - doesn't advance our understanding. (I've just now re-read the comments made by all 9 respondents (of 30 total) who mentioned renaming, and I'm just not seeing where the closer found anything close to consensus.) Thank you for the links to the "Requested moves" page, but this was a CfD, and since the closer was never "clear that while consensus has rejected the former title ... there is no consensus for the title actually chosen", I find the suggestion dubious that he was following that process. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Both you [49] and at least one other user [50] made the argument re: Communists/the Soviets not atheists. Others disagreed with your views there. I'm sorry if my words re: State atheism vs. atheist states were not precise, but certainly the meaning was conveyed. Yes, this is CfD, but RMCI gives a much more detailed explanation about how the move process works, and is good practice to follow anytime you are dealing with a close that involves naming disputes. The principles behind WP:THREEOUTCOMES certainly apply to any discussion where renaming is a potential outcome, and considering it here makes sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Both you and at least one other user made the argument re: Communists/the Soviets not atheists. Others disagreed with your views there.
You've misread the discussion at the two links you provided. Neither myself, nor the other editor, made the argument that "Communists/the Soviets not atheists", and neither of us expressed our own views. What we both did was repeat what reliable sources conveyed: that it was the Soviet regimes that persecuted while trying to reach their goal of creating an atheist state. And the others responding to that point, rather than "disagreeing", gave yet another source citation confirming that the Soviet regime was the source of the persecution, and "persecution by atheists" (and now "atheist states") was synthesis. Please re-read the content at those two links and tell me if you still disagree.
... but certainly the meaning was conveyed.
That's the point, you see: What you conveyed was that you thought "one side" was arguing that the Soviet regime was not trying to be "atheist" or an "atheist state", which means you have completely misunderstood one half of the discussion. That was never argued. Since you weren't involved in the CfD, allow me to simply summarize the argument for you: "Persecution by atheists (or atheist states)" is a synthesized (WP:OR) category constructed to misleadingly convey to Wikipedia readers that atheism was the cause of persecution rather than the goal of always totalitarian (and usually communist) regimes. In addition to being an WP:OR construct, the category (including the "atheist states" version) violates WP:OCEGRS and WP:CATDEF. There certainly was not a consensus to rename a policy-violating category to another equally policy-violating category rather than simply delete it, and even at this late date, the closing admin has not shared with us policy-based and argument-based reasons to support his close decision. Even your RMCI procedures require that consensus be developed correctly, instead of this closing admin's appeal simply to head-counts and majorities. Now that you have a clearer understanding of the arguments, perhaps you can explain why you say you "Endorse" the closer's addition to create a new category that has all of the same policy violations of the old problematic category. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I should disclose before I start that I'm not neutral on this point. I'm a thoroughly atheist man. Not the wishy-washy kind who sees no evidence for a God and in the absence of evidence declines to believe: I actively have faith that there is no God. And that Richard Dawkins is the True Prophet. And Daniel Dennett is his disciple. I believe that everything evolutionary processes can't explain today, evolutionary processes will be able to explain tomorrow, and there is no need and no role for a giant imaginary beard in the sky.
And now that I've nailed my colours to the wall on that point, I should also disclose that I think that there should be a category for persecution by atheists. We can and do persecute people; and, if it's right and proportionate that we have discrimination against atheists and Category:Discrimination against atheists and Category:Persecution of atheists because a few nations do persecute atheists and have done in the past, then we also need to acknowledge that Iosef Stalin was a thing that happened.
But even though I feel the category should, logically, exist, I do have some concerns about this or any other closure based on that particular debate. It was bad-tempered and confused and acrimonious, full of accusations, and not very source-oriented. (There are good sources and some were mentioned but the debate fell short on reasoned analysis of them.) I think we need to re-do the debate, only better, so the closer gets a more satisfactory discussion to close. Don't re-open that one because by its sheer length it's well-defended against anyone new joining in. Start again from scratch, ask the previous participants to produce a condensed version of their best arguments, and put up some neutral notices in appropriate venues to attract previously uninvolved editors.—S MarshallT/C 00:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal disclosure has inspired me, so to respond in kind: I've been baptized, circumcised, attended catechism as a child, conducted Bible studies in my youth, married a wonderful Seventh Day Adventist - by a minister, mind you, not by a civil servant, and I led the recital of grace at a crowded family Christmas dinner just last year. I like long walks on the beach, and my favorite commandment is "Thou shalt not kill." With that out of the way, I'd like to address the crux of your comment: "[atheists] can and do persecute people." No doubt, because they are no different than anyone else. Some atheists also fudge on their taxes, fail to make complete stops at Stop Signs, and watch too much television. The point is that none of these actions are caused by their lack of belief in supernatural gods (their atheism). That includes the many despicable acts and persecutions by Stalin. That is according to reliable sources, even many of the few cited by the 'Keep' editors. Even your "True Prophet" Dawkins observes,
"Hitler and Stalin were atheists. What have you got to say about that?" The question comes up after just about every public lecture that I ever give on the subject of religion ... It is put in a truculent way, indignantly freighted with two assumptions: not only (1) were Stalin and Hitler atheists, but (2) they did their terrible deeds because they were atheists ... assumption (2) is false. ... What matters is not whether Hitler and Stalin were atheists, but whether atheism systematically influences people to do bad things. There is not the smallest evidence that it does. Individual atheists may do evil things but they don't do evil things in the name of atheism. Stalin and Hitler did extremely evil things, in the name of, respectively, dogmatic and doctrinaire Marxism... The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins - Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2008 - Pgs. 278; 315-316
Your "we have 'Persecution OF atheists' so it is only fair that we also have 'Persecution BY atheists'" suggestion is well-intentioned, but it is a false equivalency, not logical, and not supported by reliable sources. Persecution of atheists is a thing, while persecution by atheists is not. So how many times do you think we should argue about the "Persecution By atheists/atheism/atheist states" meme in deletion discussions? Once? (Deleted) Twice? (Deleted) Three times? (Cat determined to be Original Research ... and, ...with hindsight I would definitely have closed the CfD as delete. Perhaps someone should re-file the CfD given what has happened since. Black Kite (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)) Four times? You are suggesting a 5th discussion, starting yet again from scratch? I think the more sensible solution would be to step off this merry-go-'round, scrap the problematic category, and then develop specific "religious persecution" categories based on the preponderance of reliable sources. Thoughts? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the flaw in this line of argument is the idea that because a thing doesn't exist, we shouldn't have content about it. That doesn't stand up ---- we're an encyclopaedia; we inform and educate; users self-direct what they want to be educated about; so we need content about things that people search for. Hence the need for articles about bigfoot and moon landing conspiracy theories and, if you'll forgive the religious allusion, intelligent design. People search for stuff about atheists persecuting believers so we need content about it even if the content is purely to debunk ---- because people expect it to be there. And because of that expectation, I think you'll find that if we delete this category, it will be re-created by a good faith user, and we'll have to have the discussion again. Surely it's better to have a category? ---- I also drafted a reply to your remarks about whether atheism really does make some people persecute, which I found very interesting, but I have decided not to post it because it isn't central to my point in this particular debate. I'd welcome a conversation in user talk about that if you have a mind?—S MarshallT/C 23:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A 'thing that doesn't exist' is a concept, and a concept has a creator and a purpose/use. That is fine if all this information is there for the reader, but a category mentions neither, and I think you'll find that most articles in this 'field' don't, either, and that is a sure sign that those who promote said concept are trying to present it (as a claim) as fact/reality. Such practices are dishonest, non-factual, and have no place in any encyclopaedia. THEPROMENADER✎ ✓ 04:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those who promote the concepts of bigfoot or intelligent design are trying to present them as fact/reality as well. Dishonest people are trying to promote non-factual content about bigfoot, and yet I see that category:Bigfoot is alive and well and full of subcategories. If, as you say, this isn't true then it's still important that we tell our readers what's verifiable and what isn't. Simply put, in logic this line of argument doesn't connect with a need to delete the category.—S MarshallT/C 18:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Atheists exist, and bigfoot doesn't. So if you're right that persecution by atheists never happens, then "persecution by atheists" would be a first-order nonexistent thing, while "attacks by bigfoot" would be a second-order nonexistent thing. See?—S MarshallT/C 22:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what adding 'orders' to it changes: if it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. All there is to denote is the claim itself, the fact that it is nothing more than a claim, and the origin of the claim. THEPROMENADER✎ ✓ 00:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...the idea that because a thing doesn't exist, we shouldn't have content about it. --S Marchall
That isn't what I (or ThePromenader, I believe) was saying. Of course we can have content (read: "articles") about myths, legends, allegations, fairy tales, and other potential fictions, as long as the reliable sources exist to warrant such articles. Bigfoot is a thing, albeit probably only myth or legend. It exists as a legitimate subject, with a legitimate, detailed and uncontroversial head article, and that is why it has a category. "Persecution by atheists" is not a thing, and neither is "Persecution by atheist states", which is why they do not (or should not) be promoted with Wikipedia categories.
People search for stuff about atheists persecuting believers so we need content about it even if the content is purely to debunk... --S Marshall
No problem, and no disagreement here -- but you are talking about the creation of an article, not a CATEGORY. Categories are different from articles, in that they consist of just a couple words, located at the bottom of pages, with zero context, explanation or "debunking". Because of this, Wikipedia requires that categories must be unambiguous, uncontroversial and must maintain a neutral point of view. (See WP:CATVER for additional explanation.) There is a policy-based reason we don't have Category:Murders by black people, Category:Pedophilia by gay people, etc., even though minimal fringe sources can certainly be found to support such constructs, and the "Persecution by atheists/atheism/atheist states/(__insert atheist-related-description-here__)" is no different.
... if we delete this category, it will be re-created by a good faith user, and we'll have to have the discussion again. Surely it's better to have a category? --S Marshall
Not if this discussion we have now is closed properly. In conjunction with the closer's determination in the previous discussion that the category is a construct of Original Research, a proper close here will ensure that future good faith editors creating similar categories based on fringe notions will have their POV creations speedily deleted. Also, please review WP:CATGRS, and note that Wikipedia requires additional care and sensitivity when creating categories regarding atheism, as opposed to categories on Bigfoot. Do you think there is still a "flaw in the argument"? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I really do, on two grounds. Firstly, for the sake of argument I've been stipulating that atheists don't persecute people, and showing that that doesn't lead to deleting the category because a thing doesn't have to exist for us to have a category about it. That remains true. A thing can be unambiguous, uncontroversial, and nonexistent. We have categories for such things and I've linked them. There may well be an excellent argument for the category to exist as a redirect to category:Allegations of persecution by atheists, but I can't find anywhere in the arguments presented thus far an unavoidable pathway from "doesn't exist" to "delete". Secondly, although I've been stipulating that atheists don't persecute people I don't believe it. We do, and we have, and there's a small but genuine body of literature documenting it.—S MarshallT/C 23:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the "body of literature" does not exist. Sure, there are websites where someone with an obvious agenda writes their opinion that atheists persecute people, or really misguided accounts of history by very non-reliable sources that suggest there was some difference-in-kind between the way Soviets suppressed religious figures compared with how they suppressed all opposition. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall, it appears that the confusion here is mostly due to our understanding of certain words and phrases. When I say that "persecution by atheists" doesn't exist as "a thing", I mean it isn't a concept seriously considered by reliable sources -- unlike your examples of Bigfoot, moon landing conspiracies and intelligent design. When you say they "don't exist", I think you mean they have been "debunked", while when I say it "doesn't exist", I mean as a notable intersection or defining characteristic covered by reliable sources. As for an unavoidable pathway from "doesn't exist" to "delete", simply refer to our Wikipedia policies. Clearer now? One more bit of phrase confusion: "atheist don't persecute people". Please note that no one here says that. Anyone can persecute people, duh. What is being said here, by reliable sources no less, is that persecution is not done because of atheism (an absence of belief in gods). You've seen those 20 or so quoted sources secretly hidden under the "collapse" bar in the CfD discussion, right? Wikipedia creating a category called "Persecution by atheist whatever" blatantly violates Wikipedia's requirement that Categories Must Maintain A Neutral Point Of View. The meme that persecution by atheists is a thing, presented in Wikipedia's voice via a Category tag, is ludicrously not neutral, and also certainly not "uncontroversial". With this clearer understanding of the issue here, are there any remaining "flaws in the argument"? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be absurd. No one has argued that religious persecution hasn't occurred - it certainly has, so we should have articles about it. Plenty of sources in the far-from-perfect articles you've just mentioned convey that religious persecution happened. Or as you so aptly quipped, "Stalin was a thing that happened." Now there is a certain determined contingent of folks who insist that Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc., inflicted their depredations upon people because those people were "believers", and because the perpetrators lacked that belief in gods. You, S Marshall, have also claimed to lack such beliefs, so tell me (since we're being absurd now), have you marked on your calendar when you will be confiscating church property or exiling a priest from your country? No? Isn't your atheism compelling you to do so? Enough fun; back to our sources. Some people have read in reliable sources that the Soviets had as one of their goals the creation of a society without religion (fact), they have also read that the Soviets have imprisoned clergy (some were even executed), appropriated church lands and wealth for public use, and removed the teaching of religion from public education (fact), and they have read that many of these followers of the Stalinist or Leninist flavor of communism were atheist (fact). People have then taken these facts from these reliable sources and synthesized them into their own incorrect conclusion that the cause of the persecution must be that the perpetrators were atheist. In reality, closer examination of those very same sources revealed that the persecutions had nothing to do with belief in, or lack of belief in, gods. I can go into great detail (again), reliable source by reliable source, on what each says was the real reason and motivations behind the actions, but I'm not supposed to do so in this venue. Perhaps at a user page, as you previously suggested, if you are still interested? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I actually do advocate "confiscation of church property", in that taxes are confiscation and I advocate that certain churches should pay the same taxes as other commercial organisations. :) You're right ---- we need to continue this in user talk space and I would welcome that. I'm sure we've exhausted the DRV closer's patience by now.—S MarshallT/C 16:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there should be a category for persecution by atheists. [...] I think we need to re-do the debate, only better, so the closer gets a more satisfactory discussion to close. --S Marshall
Neither option of yours, going back to the old problematic category, or re-doing the debate from scratch, is an endorsement of the closer's decision - the rationale for which is still an unrevealed mystery. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to "Delete" with a caveat that there was discussion of a possible alternative category name, but no consensus here to do so. If this category is deleted, that doesn't stop someone from creating a new category for "persecution by atheist states", which someone else can then take to CfD to have a more focused discussion of that category. With this close, it looks like there was consensus for rename, which would therefore make nominating the new category for deletion difficult.
This was not a discussion of "persecution by atheist states," it was a discussion about "persecution by atheists", and there was a consensus that the latter is an inappropriate category to have. Rename is a viable outcome, but I think that here the rename was a result of searching for middleground, but there wasn't actually consensus for this alternative. In both this and the previous CfD, some participants talked about different possibilities for renaming, and a handful of participants engaged in detailed debate over those. However, I see no consensus to establish a category "persecution by atheist states", and in fact several of the users advocating for that were SPAs (as with the last CfD). I don't want to give the impression this was an unreasonable or supervotey close, to be clear, and want to thank BD2412 for taking on a close all but certain to be a bit messy regardless. To me, leaving it as an evaluation of consensus regarding this category without prejudice against creation of one of the discussed alternatives is the way to go. With a clear alternative title, discussion can be more focused on it. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 05:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to "Delete", but more for the (yet unclear) judgment method than for the outcome. Were we to base all judgements on vote-counting and 'proposed alternatives' without examining the quality of the arguments presented, any majority with an evidenceless agenda could push anything at all on Wikipedia. Of course those who 'must' have their evidenceless or selective-opinion-based accusation-category present on Wikipedia in some form (to make it 'truth') can always just start another category under another name (and should it be equally invalid, face opposition once again: tiring, but hey), but without a Wikipedia-administrator 'endorsement' that someone less interested in fact could (fallaciously) cite as 'precedent' in those future discussions. PS: it turns out that that cited 'move consensus' doesn't exist, no matter how one 'does the math'.THEPROMENADER✎ ✓ 07:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Side Note: Categories and article titles are claims without reference, and I see much abuse of this on Wikipedia: if one creates an even nonsensical yet accusatory category (say, 'blonde assassination tendencies'), they can populate it with perfectly factual articles (articles about X blonde assasinating X person on X date) and it would 'technically' pass all Wikipedia-rule tests, but remain a baseless accusation all the same; the same goes for article titles that are populated by verifiable data that do not directly (or at all) support the title claim. Also, categories and page titles don't mention the source of any claim they make: if the source represents only a minority in an overall larger body of consensus or evidence, the title presented as-is seems, to the reader, to be 'global, accepted fact'; this is yet another 'dishonesty loophole' much-exploited on Wikipedia. I'm not sure where to address this problem, so, although it's larger than this discussion (but still related to it), I thought it worth noting here in case it's read by someone better-informed than I. THEPROMENADER✎ ✓ 08:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename the article Militant atheism and get rid of the redirect for "militant atheism". Wikipedia very much needs a "militant atheism" article and that is the preferred solution. Chinese militant atheists in the Communist Party of China have affirmed to be in their political party you must be an atheists.[51][52] And the Chinese government is actively persecuting Christians.[53]Vladimir Lenin of Marxist-Leninist communism (Soviet Union communism) said: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."[54] The tie between atheistic communism and the persecution of the religious is strong and plentiful.[55][56]Knox490 (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pssst: this is a Deletion Review, not a venue to continue your "Keep" arguments. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. As a Pandeist, being a minority theological of you, I experience persecution by atheists on a quite frequent basis--usually through mocking misrepresentations of my beliefs. It is theoretically absolutely possible for a communist state to be theistic. The coincidental confluence of communist states with atheism means that persecution by an atheistic communist state is persecution by an atheist state. A non-state organization of atheists can choose to be equally persecutory towards another religious group where it possesses power. Anyway, since there was never any consensus formed for deletion of this category, if it was overturned, that would necessarily result in a keep of the category, and so it seems fair that the closer created a next least worst resolution. Even some folks who preferred deletion were agreeable to the resolution reached. It is telling that the only votes to overturn here come from the most strident opponents of a category in the original discussion, and not from neutral observers. Pandeist (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that people have mocked your beliefs, but that is because those people are rude (or bigoted), and not because they are atheist. (I've just checked the definition of atheist to be sure, and there is no requirement that they mock anyone for anything. Atheists simply do not believe in gods. Any "mocking" done is the result of something else; my guess would be bad parenting.) I've a friend with Pandeistic views who has been chided by a Baptist acquaintance; I've never thought to ask if it felt like "persecution". States/regimes/governments (and non-state groups) can certainly persecute anyone or any group, and I doubt anyone would argue against that fact. But even the Soviet Union at the height of their anti-religious campaign, as reliable sources and history show, didn't persecute because they lacked a belief in gods. This discussion is about a category that implies religious persecution by atheists because of their atheism, which doesn't exist, and is a nonsensical concept on its face when you consider it. You've stated, "there was never any consensus formed for deletion of this category", which is of course only your opinion - one shared by the closer of the discussion, and not shared by several other editors above. And the only way to accurately determine the consensus is to review the reasoned arguments and policies upon which the close decision was founded - but such information is thus far not being shared for some reason. (And by the way, we don't implement "next least worst" solutions if they, too, violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One friend chiding another is a far cry from a group of strangers ganging up to belittle somebody's entirely reasonable theological beliefs over the Internet. Anyway, as to the above, it is essentially a mathematical outcome. Consensus is pretty much universally defined as "general "agreement. Even our own Wiktionary defines consensus as "a process of decision-making that seeks widespread agreement among group members," or "general agreement among the members of a given group or community." This means pretty much everybody agrees, not where there is a slim majority in agreement. And so, if there is no consensus here, then we are right back to the old category. Pandeist (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely not "essentially a mathematical outcome". I can't believe so many editors have such a gross misunderstanding of how consensus is determined on Wikipedia. See the response below to 1990s'guy for the actual policy wording explaining that mathematics and majorities have nothing to do with determining consensus here. Also, your personal interpretations based on personal experiences, while moving, aren't of any use to us here. Your input here should be about whether the closer's decision is supported or not, and why. Making unsupported, dubious assertions like "Even some folks who preferred deletion were agreeable to the resolution reached", are unhelpful (and apparently this one is demonstratively false). Also, a "no consensus" here could result in relisting the deletion discussion, as clearly explained in our Deletion Review instructions. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
overturn to keep, but failing that, endorse outcome The problem I see in this is the rather Solomonic solution of trying to adjudicate the question of whether persecution by governments in the name of suppressing religion in the name of atheism counts as persecution by atheists. This collapses into the question of whether persecution by officials for official purposes counts as persecution by the holders of the stance to which they ascribe, an issue which also came up in the other "persecution by" categories. What drove the discussion, though was the assertion that the beliefs of atheists are special, so that it doesn't count when persecution occurs in the name of atheism because atheism isn't an organized thing. My impression is that the rename that ended up with is not what anyone asked for, so in that wise I have to push for overturn; but deletion of the category entirely because somehow none of the activity involved had something to do with atheism: that's a POV problem. Maybe we need to find another name for that association, but it was certainly there, and claims about the nature of atheism (which aren't representative of scholars of religion, BTW: they tend to treat it in some respects as like an unorganized faith system) aren't material. rethinking this Mangoe (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe: A minor point re: "the rename that ended up with is not what anyone asked for". Six different editors in the discussion (Renzoy16, Desmay, Omar Ghrida, Eliko007, Majoreditor, and Moataz1997) specifically asked to "Keep and Move to Category:Persecution by atheist states"; a seventh, Marcocapelle, voted to delete "with the side comment that some of the past content may be preserved in a new Category:Religious persecution by secular governments", which is pretty close to that. Two other editors, Mangoe and 1990'sguy, supported renaming without specifying a new name (though it was clear in context that they meant the rename as proposed by the others). I didn't come up with the rename out of thin air, but from the considered responses in the discussion, which represented the majority of editors voting "keep" in some fashion. bd2412T 17:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Six different editors suggested a move (while voting for an as-is 'keep' that they knew wouldn't stand to testing, thus the suggestion), and your eight total (to consider against the 14 votes for outright 'delete') can in no way be considered 'consensus to move' (with admin 'help', to boot!). And still, even after repeated questioning, you only cite (convoluted) vote-counting as a rationale for your decision without addressing in the least the validity of the content (category name) being contested. Wikipedia can do without judgments like that, because, as I said elsewhere, it allows anyone with a majority to 'push' whatever agenda they please, no matter how non-factual. THEPROMENADER✎ ✓ 22:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
bd2412 is correct that Mangoe misread the discussion: "Persecution by atheist states" was indeed offered as a category name, and not by bd2412. "Religious persecution under totalitarian regimes" and "Religious persecution by secular states" were also offered as alternative category names. I would really like to hear the reasoning (without mentioning numbers, votes or majorities) behind the conclusion that (1) consensus to rename out-weighed consensus to simply delete, and (2) consensus to chose "atheist states" as a rename target out-weighed "secular states" or "totalitarian regimes". Mangoe also misread the discussion and automatically assumed that "persecution occurs in the name of atheism", as an actual fact to be automatically assumed, when the discussion clearly conveyed that reliable sources refute that unsourced assertion. Mangoe also let slip that Religion scholars (in fact, most religionists, religion apologists, theologians, and some Wikipedia editors) "tend to treat [atheism] in some respects as like an unorganized faith system" or a competing religion to be denegrated, which is of course a mischaracterization. Creating categories to perpetuate that myth violates policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As noted previously in this discussion, there was no consensus to delete. There was, however, a clear consensus that a change to the status quo ante would be favored. Among the possibilities offered, "atheist states" was by far the most frequently mentioned, and is basically synonymous with the other alternatives, and not exclusive of them. It was also documented in the discussion that there have historically been "atheist states" (we have a Category:Atheist states, after all), and there have been instances of persecution of practitioners of religions or religious institutions in these states by organs of the state. That is a reasonable basis for a category encompassing such instances. bd2412T 23:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there was no consensus to delete (and even this description hinges on an ambiguous 'interpretation' of consensus), the very reason for the deletion motion was totally ignored. At least now you admit that you side with the category's claim, but what you have done is grant the minority opposing the deletion the 'same claim to a lesser degree' that they themselves suggested, all while ignoring the deletion-supporting majority and the reason why (and demonstrations of (lack of) evidence supporting) the delete motion was opened in the first place. THEPROMENADER✎ ✓ 00:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. I do not "side with" the category's claim; I am merely pointing out that evidence supporting the existence of the category was produced during the discussion. The fact that the proponents of deletion of the category were unable to persuade a clear consensus of participating editors—despite certain participants vociferously challenging every comment to the contrary—is not subject to remediation by appeal to the strength with which the desire for that outcome was felt. As for the interpretation of consensus, that is a very difficult thing indeed, particularly in extended discussions like the one at issue. Fortunately, my interpretation is informed by the experience of closing hundreds of these discussions. If you feel as well qualified, you are, of course, welcome to seek adminship yourself. bd2412T 00:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not misunderstand; I'm trying to bring you to understand a point, one that you've done your best to skirt so far, but we're getting you slowly there. So, that 'evidence supporting the existence of the category', did it check out? Can one find it in any mainstream reference, and does it reflect historical consensus? No? Okay, that demonstrated, does the proposed alternative name (never mind that this shouldn't even be an option) check out as well, and if it doesn't, does it at least include the origin of the claim? No? So why are you endorsing it, especially since they represent the minority opposition (with no case) in this?
The 'inability to sway' is a foregone conclusion when one is dealing with people who won't examine evidence even when they're buried in it, and the here and now is a reflection of those 'hundreds of past decisions'; it's not the other way around. No doubt I will be an admin one day, most likely during my retirement years. THEPROMENADER✎ ✓ 05:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your numbers are a bit off. There were not fourteen votes for "outright delete", but twelve. Three "delete" votes came with a caveat: Marcocapelle, "with the side comment that some of the past content may be preserved in a new Category:Religious persecution by secular governments"; Ramos1990, "Delete IF other similar 'Persecution by..' categories are removed, otherwise Keep for consistency" (the other categories have not been removed, making this a "Keep"); and Mr. Guye, "I actually agree with the current category's concept, but right now it is empty". Laurel Lodged also did not vote "delete" but voted, "Agree with Procedural proposal", which was a proposal that expressly acknowledged that "Category:Persecution by atheist states" could be made, and discussed later. I can assure you that we're not "slowly getting" to the point where you'll convince me that twelve straight "delete" votes is two thirds of the 29 who participated. bd2412T 11:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slowly getting you to address what you skipped in your 'selective' judgment, a point that you totally ignore in your answer thath seemingly tries to deflect from it, and you're the one bringing up numbers, not me: my point was to demonstrate that what you called 'consensus for a move' could not be consensus no matter how many times you repeat your 'math'. So, rather than answer my points, you retreat to selective-reality refuge-in-ambiguity square one.
And what's going on here is clear, but to make it even more so: if the claim you support were a factual one, you could just say: "look guys, it's a real thing, a term used widely in every encyclopaedia and historical consensus, so you have no reason to contest it." But you have done everything -but- that, and even ignored a demonstrable majority to give a minority of evidenceless-claim pushers what they want (and repeating your math still does not make it add up to 'consensus to move'). And, as metioned below, some of those 'keep' (but if that fails, rename) votes were SPAs, but that doesn't seem to figure into your 'calculation' (or even your writ) even now. In all, your judgment in this is demonstrably selective and convoluted, yet you dig in all the same... that is not honest behaviour. Again, it is your judgment that I am calling into question here (reminder: because even if delete passes, anyone can start a new category): Wikipedia has a hard enough time being taken seriously as a source, largely because of soapboxing agenda-pushers, and you're aiding and abetting them here. THEPROMENADER✎ ✓ 12:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that some of the votes in this discussion were by SPA's, please present evidence to this effect, and please WP:NOTIFY the accused editors. Since we have otherwise come to circular argument, I see no further point in engaging with you on this topic. The discussion speaks for itself. Cheers! bd2412T 12:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How can a discussion be circular if you refuse to address anything? Once again, you focus on but one point of my writ in ignoring all its questions. And you many-times counted these votes to justify your move (even though the total is not enough to justify anything at all). So here you ignored the majority, validated neither claim nor vote of the minority (yet granted an even fewer of these their 'back up plan' should their opposition fail), made no justification for your decision outside of a convoluted-explanation 'math' that doesn't add up at all... well, not only have you demonstrated your own bad judgement, but by refusing to address any of these points (with only partial-reality distract-answers), you've demonstrated an intellectual dishonesty (that coincides quite nicely with the contested claim's). And hey, none of my points is my 'opinion', they are a demonstration of fact: test any and all of them for yourselves. Agenda-serving 'because I say so (and damn the facts)' judgements such as yours are the last thing Wikipedia needs. THEPROMENADER✎ ✓ 14:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am merely pointing out that evidence supporting the existence of the category was produced during the discussion. --BD2412
Could you point out, specifically, that evidence? I do see a couple of attempts to provide such evidence, but those were soundly refuted (just as some almost exact attempts were refuted as synthesized Original Research in the previous closed discussion), but I don't see any actual evidence in support. Even if actual legitimate evidence were introduced now, it would only serve to elevate the issue from refuted to "controversial and contested", and Wikipedia doesn't allow controversial categories to be created that advance such a one-sided POV. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it a bit self-serving to assert that those "attempts" were "soundly refuted" when the proposed refutation is merely your own argument against those points—argument which failed to persuade the editors against whom they were made? Editors seeking a change to the status quo ante bear the burden of persuasion. That burden was not carried here. My close was merely an acknowledgement of that fact. bd2412T 13:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess we won't know until we examine this mysterious supporting evidence you claim exists -- and that you claim I (or anyone else) failed to refute. Start small and easy: just present the very strongest piece of evidence from the discussion (generously assuming there is more than one piece) upon which you supported your decision. That is why this review was opened, after all. I don't intend to re-litigate the whole damn thing over again; I just want to understand what reasoning actually supports your close decision. (Alternatively, we can skip past "reasoned arguments" requirements for now and examine your "policy-based arguments", and hear your reasoning on how your newly-created category doesn't also violate WP:OCEGRS, WP:CATDEF and WP:OR. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you are aware that your own exchanges in the discussion with Huitzilopochtli1990 and desmay address exactly such supporting evidence. bd2412T 02:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Odd that you don't mention the (quality of) the evidence itself; were it evidence of anything, it would make a case that could be repeated here (instead of vaguely asserting 'there is evidence'), no? THEPROMENADER✎ ✓ 03:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm calling your bluff, BD2412 - Reproduce here just one piece of that evidence you just said exists in the discussion (I recommend the strongest piece), that you used to support your decision. It is my understanding of those discussions that the sources produced either blatantly failed verification of the attributed points, or required serious WP:SYNTH gymnastics to have them say what desmay and Huitzilopochtli1990 wished they would say. Why all the feet-dragging on what should be an easy and routine matter to substantiate your position? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Six different editors in the discussion (Renzoy16, Desmay, Omar Ghrida, Eliko007, Majoreditor, and Moataz1997)... -- Even if the number of !votes carried weight (vs. the policy arguments each brought), 3 of those 6 are effectively SPAs, with few other edits to other subjects (and they were not the only SPAs participating here)... — Rhododendritestalk \\ 00:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even think to look (nor did the 'deciding' admin, obviously). Thanks. THEPROMENADER✎ ✓ 05:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing was overlooked here; the assertion is flatly incorrect. None of these editors fits within WP:SPA; in fact, most of them have literally thousands of edits across the various Wikimedia projects. However, @Rhododendrites: since you have made this accusation, I would welcome you to please WP:NOTIFY these editors so that they can have a fair opportunity to speak for themselves against this charge. Cheers! bd2412T 12:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's clever. Did you just cite a user essay in lieu of directly asking someone to ping several editors likely to support your position? By the way, I also recognize editors who are effectively SPAs in the CfD discussion (and no, I won't be pinging any specific editors for you either), but you miss the salient point of his comment: the number of votes you manage to accumulate to nod in unison with you is not relevant. We need to see the Wikipedia policies & the well-reasoned arguments that support your as yet still unsupported close decision. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A very well-regarded essay. Do you think that it is appropriate to make accusations against other editors behind their backs? bd2412T 13:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the venue to charge a specific editor of inappropriate behavior, and neither I, nor anyone else, has yet done so. There are Administrator noticeboards for that, should the need arise to single out editors. We need to see the Wikipedia policies & the well-reasoned arguments that support your as yet still unsupported close decision. Can we get to that now? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is highly inappropriate to identify six editors by name and say that "3 of those 6 are effectively SPAs", which levels a vague insinuation of inappropriate behavior against all six of them. This is particularly so where none of the named editors is an SPA. I suspect you would act differently towards such an insinuation if your name was included in such a list. As for the policy supporting my close decision, WP:CONSENSUS, and TonyBallioni has already pointed to WP:THREEOUTCOMES. It has also already been pointed out that the consequence of overturning my close will merely be that Category:Persecution by atheists will be restored. bd2412T 16:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to misunderstand. We are trying to understand what specific policy-based reasoning from the discussion, if any, you used to form your WP:CONSENSUS close decision. I'm shocked that the process needs to be explained to you, but here goes. Per Closing Discussion Instructions - Determining Outcome section: Many closures are also based upon Wikipedia policy. As noted above, arguments that contradict policy are discounted. Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closer must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions. As you know, the nominator of the category for deletion explained that it was in violation of Wikipedia policy. Editors in the ensuing discussion noted additional policy violations. Further, the closer of the previous CfD determined the category also violated one of our core pillar policies. You are now being asked to explain your Close Decision reasoning, based on these policy concerns from the discussion, with regard to the category you deleted and the new one you created. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no breach of policy to have a Category:Persecution by atheist states where there are atheist states and documented instances of persecution carried out by these states. The fact that arguments can be articulated against such a category does not magically make the category impermissible; the arguments must be persuasive, and here they failed to persuade the community. The desire of members of a group to prevent the existence of a permissible category perceived as negative towards that group does not overcome the failure to persuade the broader community that this permissible category should not exist - this approaches WP:NOTCENSORED as a principle. You would do well to note that every previously uninvolved participant in the current discussion has endorsed the close. When every neutral observer reviewing the matter disagrees with you, at some point you should wonder if maybe it's you. bd2412T 21:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You seem quite intent on examining/distracting from everything -but- the evidence. Where does the phrase "atheist state" appear almost exclusively? Opinionated anti-athiest hit-pieces (and here)! And the term appears nowhere in any mainstream reference...this is not evidence of anything?
I'm only a rare contributor to wikipedia these days, so you can consider me as one of those 'uninvolved', but I have a pet peeve about Wikipedia being used (abused) to present, 'endorse', 'authorise' and advertise an opinionated (and often inventive) agenda as 'truth' (and this goes well beyond this topic). Whether through ignorance, laziness or by design, you're helping that 'cause' at this point. THEPROMENADER✎ ✓ 03:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By uninvolved, I mean uninvolved in the previous discussion, not uninvolved in Wikipedia generally. Editors who frequent deletion review, but had no involvement in the category deletion discussion under review, have uniformly endorsed the close. On a lighter note, if you think that the existence of a category promotes an agenda, then you sorely overestimate the impact that Wikipedia's categorization scheme has on the real world. bd2412T 04:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Every previously uninvolved participant", you say, "uniformly endorsed" your close? Let's skip past your problematic head-counting and examine their actual arguments, shall we? Note that they all posted their "endorsement" before you typed your first word here at this review. Which means they all had zero knowledge of your reasoning and justifications, and therefore likely didn't care - they liked your end result, not your decision process, of which they were still clueless, and which we are actually supposed to be discussing here. I don't think I'd be waving their endorsements around too proudly, as it really isn't much of an achievement to get people to say "me too!" without any substantiation, if it is a result they prefer. One of your "endorsers" actually admits, "I do have some concerns about this or any other closure based on that particular debate", and wants a do-over, albeit from scratch because he finds the length of discussion intimidating. Another of your "endorsers" exclaims, "Anyway, as to the above, it is essentially a mathematical outcome." Okay, so you've found a like-minded individual who agrees that consensus should be determined by math. Facepalm You already know my (and Wikipedia's take on that). Xenophrenic (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant too (of course), and I just demonstrated that I can even take 'uninvolved' a step further. Nowhere did I mention 'just categories', as the WP:SOAPBOX problem goes way beyond that. These (strawman) distractions aside, how about the rest of what I just said? THEPROMENADER✎ ✓ 06:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not there is a problem that goes beyond categories, this discussion is about a category, which is ultimately merely a tool for organizing articles. We have, for example, a Category:Lawyers from Tulsa, Oklahoma. It may be that some people from Tulsa are aware that lawyers poll very poorly among the professions, and would therefore like to get rid of this category. Furthermore, there is no academic literature focused on lawyers from Tulsa, and it is likely that some members of the category are there merely because they 1) are in some sense "from" Tulsa, and 2) have been a lawyer at some point - even if they were only briefly lawyers, or if practicing law is not at all what they were notable for, or if they never practiced law in Tulsa at all. There is no "aha!" moment that can be drawn from the existence of the category. This is why Wikipedia has literally hundreds of thousands of categories, probably a majority being for relationships that are never independently the focus of study or examination. bd2412T 15:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"... category, which is ultimately merely a tool for organizing articles."
Yep, that is what it is supposed to be, but it is also a claim without a reference, and a few have learned to abuse that. Here, it is being used as an ('atheists are bad people who do bad things') accusation, whereas your lawyer example does not do that at all. Your example is doubly bad (and borderline disingenuous) because lawyers are a real thing that exist in all forms of reference, whereas the atheist state you moved the category name to is an inventive concept present exclusively in apologist and anti-atheist hit-pieces. THEPROMENADER✎ ✓ 17:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so you're saying that there is no such thing as a state that made atheism it official religious/theological view? Of course anti-atheists like to talk about atheist states, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. The State atheism article is well-sourced on this front, and Desmay provided several sources below -- besides, it's common knowledge that the USSR, other communist states, and Revolutionary France at some points (and some other countries, I think, such as Mexico), all officially endorsed atheism and persecuted certain religious people/groups. Of course facts can be used to attack others, but we don't censor the facts in order to avoid this. I don't think abybody here is arguing that because of these historical realities, all atheists today in the West are terrible people, just like the Inquisition does not condemn all Roman Catholics as terrible people. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, what exactly is the motive for extracting 'atheism' from these decidedly negative events in human history and presenting them under the 'atheism' banner (with no mention of the rest (the totalitarianism most of them were))? That behaviour explains itself.
No amount of sophistry will change the fact that the 'state atheism' and 'atheist persecution' concept-inventions exist only in apologist and anti-atheist opinion pieces (that are neither 'well source-able' nor 'common knowledge'). Historical consensus does not echo these claims, and Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for (demonstrably anti-atheist) 'interpretations' of history. THEPROMENADER✎ ✓ 22:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So I support a category organizing examples of persecution by states that made atheism the official religious/theological view, and now I'm being accused of having "(demonstrably anti-atheist) 'interpretations' of history"? I consider that a WP:PERSONAL attack -- attacking atheism is not on my agenda list. If you want a category entitled "Religious persecution by Christian theocratic states" or something like that, go ahead. Besides, if (as you appear to claim) not a single state in history made atheism the official religious/theological viewpoint, why don't you nominate the article State atheism for deletion as a POV promotional article that lacks any reputable sources? (and I'm being partially sarcastic -- the article has plently of good, reputable sources that have zero to do with anti-atheist apologetics -- the sources that Desmay cited are also reputable) --1990'sguy (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, this category organizes religious persecution by atheist states, so the religious descriptor (atheism) is appropriate. Of course, many atheist states were totalitarian (with the exception of Mexico and possibly a few others -- totalitarianism and state atheism are not mutually inclusive), but we're talking about religious persecution by states that made state atheism the official religion. Religion and religious viewpoints played an essential role in these religious persecutions -- of course, politics and ambition make these matters messy; I know that many people involved in these persecutions did not have promoting atheism as their main goal, but that does not detract from the fact that many officially atheist states persecuted adherents of theistic religions. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've made my point, so I'll let it stand to testing for itself. THEPROMENADER✎ ✓ 23:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that some of the votes in this discussion were by SPA's, please present evidence to this effect, and please WP:NOTIFY the accused editors. -- It's not an accusation, it's an observation. 3 of the accounts have 100-200 edits each (and the 200 had closer to 100 when he/she joined the first CfD), and few edits outside of a constellation of subjects related to this category. It's awfully unusual for editors with 100 edits to find these threads in so many different places, but an assumption of bad faith is not required -- the fact is, they are accounts with few edits outside of this subject and hence SPAs. It's worth investigating socking, but if I do make such an accusation I will be sure to notify them. Regardless, that doesn't itself mean it was closed incorrectly, but you've several times pointed to numbers and I think the fact that they're SPAs is relevant (and they're not the only SPAs in the thread). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 01:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that you say that 3 of those accounts have "100-200 edits each". In fact Renzoy16 has 16,465 project-wide edits; Desmay has 1,313 project-wide edits; Omar Ghrida has 16,096 project-wide edits; Majoreditor has 8,578 project-wide edits; and Moataz1997 has 14,917 project-wide edits. Only Eliko007 has edits in the hundreds, but they still have 252 project-wide edits, and had been editing for over a month before getting involved in the first discussion on this topic. Eliko007 is also the only editor of the group who had been editing for less than a year at the time that the discussion was initiated. bd2412T 02:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still SPAs. It's misleading to say that e.g. Omar Ghrida has 16k edits when they are all on other wikis. That doesn't change the fact that they're an SPA. They're users that don't typically edit on enwiki except to opine on this subject, related subjects, and "few or no others". If I somehow found out about a deletion discussion about this very subject (or any other) happening on arwiki and logged in there to !vote, what separates me from any other SPA who shows up there? I didn't show up because I wanted to build the arwiki encyclopedia; I showed up for a single purpose. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 03:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you had accumulated a few dozen edits in arwiki over a two year period, your participation in a discussion after that time would not reasonably be characterized as having "showed up for a single purpose". We don't deem experienced editors within the Wikimedia project as SPAs merely because they edit in other projects. Furthermore, Omar Ghrida, for example, had a few dozen edits on English Wikipedia before opining in this discussion. He certainly wasn't editing here beginning over two years ago as part of a scheme to wait for this discussion to come up so that he could opine in it. bd2412T 04:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I jump over to a Wikipedia I don't normally edit just to !vote in a CfD (and have "few or no other edits"), I am an SPA, regardless of my edit count elsewhere. SPA isn't just about experience with Wikipedia, it's about intent -- are you participating because of an interest in building an encyclopedia or for some other reason? Doesn't mean we toss out what they say, obviously, and doesn't mean it's in bad faith, but the same can be said for any SPA. The only reason I bring it up here is in response to the !vote count above. But this is already a prohibitively long thread as it is and this is turning into a tangent, so I'll leave it at that. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 05:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I took at look at Omar Ghrida's contributions, and he has edited numerous different projects. He has 549 edits in the French Wikipedia, 712 WikiData edits, 165 edits at Wikimedia, and 21 edits at Commons. He seems to focus on the Arabic Wikipedia but sometimes edits the different projects. This is far from being an SPA. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't mean they're discounted, but it means If I had a few other edits on enwiki, then I would have "few or no other edits"
Endorse closure decision to rename: in the original CfD, while most people on both sides found the original name to be problematic, there was no consensus to delete the category outright. Numerous editors voiced support for renaming the category to essentially what the current name is. The current category name solves all the problems of the original name -- we can easily track and verify acts of religious persecution by official states that officially endorse atheism without violating NPOV or any other relevant guideline. We have similar categories, such as Category:Religious persecution by communists. These categories do not imply that atheists (or communists) are inherently more inclined to violence and persecution than other religious/political/etc. groups. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1990'sguy, when you step in here and declare (as if it were actually true) that "there was no consensus to delete the category outright", without presenting the required Wikipedia policy and/or reasoned argument to substantiate that dubious claim, you are not helping to advance this discussion any more than the closing admin is when he makes that same dubious claim without explanation. In addition, your assertion that "The current category name solves all the problems of the original name" has already been shown to be false, as both names equally and grossly violate Wikipedia policy (WP:OCEGRS and WP:CATVER at a minimum), so it surprises me that you would even try to claim such a thing. Creating a category "Persecution by (__insert any variation involving atheism here__)" absolutely DOES "imply that atheists are inherently more inclined to violence and persecution". Did you think readers would not catch your denial of that? Xenophrenic (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Xenophrenic, just take a look at the CfD. There was no consensus. Many editors opposed deletion, and many supported renaming the category. Contrary to what you claim, my statement that the current category name solves all the problems of the previous name is not "false", as the admin who closed the previous CfD also made clear (and no, I highly doubt that the closing admin is some Christian apologist or anything like that). And no, "Persecution by atheist states" does not imply that atheists are more inclined to persecution than other people -- we're talking about atheist states (state entities that officially endorse atheism), NOT atheist people. We can argue all we want whether atheist states really are atheist or acting in an "atheist-like" way, but that is a different discussion than over whether states that officially endorse atheism have persecuted religious people. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus. Many editors opposed deletion, and many supported renaming the category. --1990'sguy
Now you are sounding like the closer of the discussion, which is not productive. "Many editors yada yada..." is not how consensus is determined. Wikipedia policy is clear:
Wikipedia:Consensus: consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion: Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments.
Wikipedia:Deletion policy: These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are each encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy.
Wikipedia:Closing discussions: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue.
Stomping your feet and declaring "Waaaa, there was/wasn't consensus!", without providing the actual reasoning based on policy and argument, is not helpful to us here in a Deletion Review. (And everyone knows that when you create a category that says "Persecution by XXX", the undeniable implication is that XXX is the source/cause/motivation of that persecution.) Xenophrenic (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does it look like to you that there is a consensus to delete? You demand evidence that there is no consensus -- it's pretty clear to me that there is (look at the number of editors on each side, including those supporting renaming the article), so I request that you provide evidence proving my position (and that of the closing admin, who, once again, seems quite experienced and has no discernable bias) wrong. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
... consensus -- it's pretty clear to me that there is (look at the number of editors on each side... - Really, 1990s'guy?!? That isn't how consensus is determined on Wikipedia. Please read my previous comment to you, and pay particular attention to the policy links explaining to you how consensus is determined. (Wait - are you just trolling me? Well done, you got me!) Xenophrenic (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will admit, I was rushed when writing the comment, so I did not bother to read as closely as I should have. However, this makes no difference in my point because you seem to be claiming that the other side's arguments are so bad that they cannot be taken seriously, thus making the consensus in favor of deletion. This claim is silly, as the closing administrator did not find the opposing side to have bad arguments, at least so bad as to delete the category outright without renaming it. The arguments made by the other side (my side) were reasonable, and there several editors on my side. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I knew when I read "you seem to be saying" that I was in for a novel, and quite wrong interpretation. Can we please stick with what I actually said? Here: when you step in here and declare (as if it were actually true) that "there was no consensus to delete the category outright", without presenting the required Wikipedia policy and/or reasoned argument to substantiate that dubious claim, you are not helping to advance this discussion any more than the closing admin is when he makes that same dubious claim without explanation. I hope I don't need to explain to you that categories that violate policy automatically have "consensus" to be deleted. What else did I actually say? Here:
In addition, your assertion that "The current category name solves all the problems of the original name" has already been shown to be false, as both names equally and grossly violate Wikipedia policy (WP:OCEGRS and WP:CATVER at a minimum), so it surprises me that you would even try to claim such a thing. Creating a category "Persecution by (__insert any variation involving atheism here__)" absolutely implies that's the source/cause/reason for that persecution. The reliable sources, including those from the "Keep" folks, place the blame with the totalitarian regime as the source (regardless of whether it is an "atheist state" or not) in all of our discussed examples. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
endorse many atheist states have historically persecuted people of faith in accordance with that doctrine.
Some source - "STORMING THE HEAVENS: THE SOVIET LEAGUE OF THE MILITANT GODLESS" by Daniel Peris (Cornell University Press) - The Plot to Kill God: Findings from the Soviet Experiment in Secularization" By Paul Froese (University of California Press) - "The New Atheist Denial of History" by Borden Painter (Palgrave Macmillan) - "Godless Communists: Atheism and Society in Soviet Russia, 1917-1932" by William B. Husband (Northern Illinois University Press) - The Pew Research Center which shows that after the fall of communism religious identification increased because of atheist repression of religion during the Soviet rule.-
all the historical reliable sources provided (none of which were from religious apologists - by the way - but by practicing historians), clearly relate atheists and/or atheism with goals that affected the destiny and unfortunate fate of religious people and religious institutions. The support of the state simply helped accelerate the attempts to reach atheist influenced anti-religious goals. One source, Pew, even showed increase in religiosity and decrease in irreligiosity and atheism after fall of the USSR which indicates some relief from repression since switching occured. Painter, who is an active historian reviewed such a claim a found it to be historically incorrect in light of historical scholarship.
closer examination of the numerous academic sources provided (Peris, Husband, Marsh, Froese, Painter, etc) show extensively that there were active attempts by atheists, with the help of government power, to actively persecute religious people and institutions and also to actively promote atheism to the masses (via atheist organizations, literature, legislation, teaching atheism in school, proselytizing for atheism, etc) to enforce worldview-control, not just political or economic control.desmay (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate copy&paste content
Endorse many atheist states have historically persecuted people of faith in accordance with that doctrine. Some sources - "STORMING THE HEAVENS: THE SOVIET LEAGUE OF THE MILITANT GODLESS" by Daniel Peris (Cornell University Press) - The Plot to Kill God: Findings from the Soviet Experiment in Secularization" By Paul Froese (University of California Press) - "The New Atheist Denial of History" by Borden Painter (Palgrave Macmillan) - "Godless Communists: Atheism and Society in Soviet Russia, 1917-1932" by William B. Husband (Northern Illinois University Press) - The Pew Research Center which shows that after the fall of communism religious identification increased because of atheist repression of religion during the Soviet rule.-
all the historical reliable sources provided (none of which were from religious apologists - by the way - but by practicing historians), clearly relate atheists and/or atheism with goals that affected the destiny and unfortunate fate of religious people and religious institutions. The support of the state simply helped accelerate the attempts to reach atheist influenced anti-religious goals. One source, Pew, even showed increase in religiosity and decrease in irreligiosity and atheism after fall of the USSR which indicates some relief from repression since switching occured. Painter, who is an active historian reviewed such a claim a found it to be historically incorrect in light of historical scholarship.
closer examination of the numerous academic sources provided (Peris, Husband, Marsh, Froese, Painter, etc) show extensively that there were active attempts by atheists, with the help of government power, to actively persecute religious people and institutions and also to actively promote atheism to the masses (via atheist organizations, literature, legislation, teaching atheism in school, proselytizing for atheism, etc) to enforce worldview-control, not just political or economic control.
Comment - At this point, the closing administrator, in addition to ignoring the majority's votes and presentations of evidence, and citing only convoluted math (that can in no way add up to a 'consensus to move') as a rationale for their decision (while refusing to address it), refuses to address the very reason the 'delete' proposition was made in the first place, the validity of the claim (that a category is): if it were indeed neutral, widespread fact, it would be present in most all mainstream reference and historical consensus, and this is not the case at all.
Rather, even a cursory search will show that the category (and its proposed (enforced) alternative) is a concept-accusation the invention of a very specific group for a very specific anti-other-(faux-)group purpose, and, in an overwhelmingly vast majority of cases, is presented as a 'real thing' only on pro-specific-group (and anti-specific-group) websites, publications and... Wikipedia.
I can understand how indoctrination may move some to abandon/ignore reason and evidence in their 'life-or-death' quest to trumpet their programming as 'truth', but Wikipedia is not a soapbox for that sort of abuse, yet this case exposes a perfect example of it.
Again, if this category (in any form) had a reason to exist, it would be common to mainstream reference and through historical consensus: It is not. At. All. THEPROMENADER✎ ✓ 18:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's very well established that state entities that officially endorsed atheism persecuted religious people. This fact says nothing and makes no presumptions about atheists as a whole, much less atheists in the West, just as the facts that theocratic Muslim states or theocratic Christian states persecuted those of other religions do not make any presumptions on Christians or Muslims in other places and other times, or as a whole.
I find it interesting that you view the people arguing in favor of this category (a diverse list of people which includes Christians and even atheists) of being somehow "indoctrinated" "unreasonable." I think it is the other way around -- the historical evidence is very clear which countries embraced state atheism as the official religious ideology, and it is very clear which persecutions of people of other religions occurred by those states. Those arguing against this category are ignoring this -- whether atheism itself is responsible for the persecutions is irrelevant because we are discussing officially atheist states, and NOT atheist people doing the persecutions. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if this category (in any form) had a reason to exist, it would be common to mainstream reference and through historical consensus: It is not. At. All.THEPROMENADER✎ ✓ 20:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The alternative to endorsement is a lack of consensus, not deletion: those arguing that atheism somehow had nothing to do with manifest persecution of the religious by these atheist states are not persuading anyone. The categorization is accurate enough, and I won't argue with it. Atheist states did (and still do) exist, and they did persecute believers and suppress religious institutions, and I don't see how this is deniable— unless you are willing to give up the entire category of persecution, which I am not. Mangoe (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and not to mention that with the current category name, Category:Persecution by atheist states, the question of whether the atheistic beliefs of atheist people were responsible for the persecution by atheist states is irrelevant. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect, Mangoe, as there are several available alternatives to endorsement, as the Instructions for Deletion Review explain: Endorse - Relist - Overturn - Overturn and [action] - Recreate (if new information becomes available). Also extremely relevant from those same instructions: Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process, and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Hopefully you have a clearer understanding of our options here. Now can you help me understand what you mean by "those arguing that atheism somehow had nothing to do with manifest persecution of the religious by these atheist states are not persuading anyone"? Are you talking about Wikipedia editors making that argument, or do you mean the almost 20 sources presented in the discussion making that exact assertion are not convincing anyone? I ask because the closing admin is having an impossible time locating the arguments in that discussion to support his close decision, while you sound quite assured your position is "undeniable" and not even controversial. Surely you could help him out? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
X, one ought to shy from calling another obtuse and especially deliberately so, but I should think it clear that my meaning was that a lack of consensus was the next most reasonable outcome. Surely you and those pushing your position produced many words, but when all is said and done, the sticking point continues to be that there is a lack of agreement that you can define the playing field as you have attempted to do, particularly your demand for a master's thesis as the minimal level of refutation. You are not similarly forthcoming. I do not see the issue of systematic faith/unbelief (and Marxist government as we saw it play out certainly had an entirely systematic unbelief) as being relevant. Mangoe (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (and exhausted) – within discretion. The close should not be taken as mandating the indefinite continuation of the new category. Thincat (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask you to clarify that, please? Are you endorsing the close decision to create a new category, but suggesting the new category should be discontinued? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my endorse meant I think it was acceptable for the closer to close in the way he did. No, I am not suggesting that the new category should be discontinued (or continued). I am not expressing any opinion on the latter aspect – I have not thought out what my opinion might be and I do not need to do so to contribute meaningfully to DRV. I am saying that the result of the CfD does not mean that the new category must stay there for ever. If the closer had thought that the CfD consensus was that it should be permanent, without possibility of review, he would, I think, have said so (and, by the way, I would have opposed such a close). Thincat (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing administrator of this review: This Deletion Review has now run the minimum required 7 days. I opened this Deletion Review because the closing admin expressed his decision based only on voting numbers and head-count majorities, and when I approached him and asked that he share his policy-based and argument-based reasoning with me, his only response was that I should file this review. I find this disconcerting. Am I wrong in my understanding that consensus should be determined by Wikipedia policy and reasoned argument, instead of number of votes? Was I wrong to expect a closing administrator to be forthcoming with what policies and arguments from the discussion they relied upon when forming their decision?
It is also my understanding that the closing admin is not supposed to rely on their own personal opinion about the content dispute. I find it disconcerting that the closing admin should find it necessary to express his personal bias as part of this Deletion Review: The desire of members of a group to prevent the existence of a permissible category perceived as negative towards that group does not overcome the failure to persuade the broader community that this permissible category should not exist - this approaches WP:NOTCENSORED as a principle. He just accused atheist Wikipedians of trying to censor presumably "negative" information about atheist groups. That is beyond troubling.
Finally, the closing administrator express as fact, the identical formula previously declared to be synthesized original research in the previous discussion: It was also documented in the discussion that there have historically been "atheist states" (we have a Category:Atheist states, after all), and there have been instances of persecution of practitioners of religions or religious institutions in these states by organs of the state. That is a reasonable basis for a category encompassing such instances. It is disconcerting that this closing admin completely ignored that core policy violation, and instead used it as one of his arguing points. Of course there have been ostensibly "atheist states", but the reliable sources produced by all sides in the argument convey that the source of religious persecution were the totalitarian regimes for a myriad of reasons, and not sourced to the "atheist states".
The very term 'atheist state' is an anti-atheist/apologist concept-opinion-accusation (and not a 'thing' at all), and a simple search for the term (even in Google books) will demonstrate that fact; it is a term utterly absent from secular and mainstream references. And what can one say of someone placing the acts of totalitarian regimes (that secular and mainstream references and historical consensus refer to as such) under an 'atheism alone' banner? The intent behind that is clear.
That is just as 'honest' and makes as much factual sense as using the widely documented fact that Hitler, a Catholic, would not tolerate secular schools (while stamping out atheism[1][2]) and was 'doing the work of the Lord'[3], as an 'excuse' to present Nazi crimes (and the Nazi state) under a 'Catholicism' (or 'Christianity') banner.
Wikipedia, as far as I know, is not a platform for propagagating this sort of dishonest original research strife.
Oh, and the closing admin's 'math' rationale for their decision (since they presented no other) still doesn't add up. THEPROMENADER✎ ✓ 22:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All of this simply shows that Atheists are strident in decrying the airing of their ills -- just like every other religion. And a tag team twosome haranguing every disagreeing opiner twenty times over -- almost, indeed, to the point of persecution -- is still not equal to half a dozen voices of agreement. Blessings!! Pandeist (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, putting totalitarian ills under an 'atheism' banner makes less sense, because whereas 'Catholicism' is a 'thing', 'atheism' is not': it has is no ideology or dogma; it is, in fact, an absence of one (the ideology enforced in the 'bad state' accusations was the totalitarianism). It takes only one to present evidence for testing, and not even that if reality and verifiability are actually a concern: no amount of 'vote counting' will change the fact that a claim does not stand to testing, and those promoting only vote-counting are but underlining the fact that the claim that they are 'supporting' doesn't. THEPROMENADER✎ ✓ 05:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I have to give some credit to the closer for taking on such a messy and heated discussion and attempting to be fair to as many sides as possible. The rename of the category looks like a decent overall compromise per User TonyBallioni's excellent observations here and also bd2412's comments on the closing.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
New citations have been added in the article's draft to demonstrate notability of the subject as well as some rephrasing, Zaynha (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draft is at Draft:Cleeng. Editors involved all appear to be single-purpose accounts. I've not yet looked at the sources. Hobit (talk) 03:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previously deleted by two different admins, and protected against recreation by a third. Most recent deletion was as G5, creation by banned editor--and in this case not an ordinary banned editor, but a sock of the outrageously disruptive banned undeclared paid editor, morning277. Could equally well have been deleted by G11-so clearly advertising that any possible significance or notability was not even an issue. The draft article is a recreation of e essentially the same content. The most charitable likelihood is that the company hired a different paid editor, and reused content from one of the sites that has copies of deleted WP articles. An spi is needed in case it is a return of the same sock farm. No reason to consider further. If there is any notability then a non promotional experienced editor will re-create it from scratch, not using the previously deleted content. (I point out further that reuse of the same material would be copyvio, since there is no way to provide proper attribution--so probably the draft is a G12.) DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a single-purpose account and you should stop your wild accusations without any proof. The first time the article was deleted was because it was poorly sourced. I introduced new sources. The second time, it was created by a banned user which I have nothing to do with, neither the company itself. And the third time, I'm not aware of what happened exactly. After moving it to the main space, I will work on it with an admin to address further issues raised, say claimed advertising. The first time it was deleted, the content was very different according to a Wikipedia mirror site which wasn't the problem after all as it was deleted because of the poor sources which I addressed. That draft was never in use in the main space. Again, I'm not a promotional editor and this is not your Wikipedia. Zaynha (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I found on a mirror site. Based on the history there, I think that's the content of Cleeng (1st time) and (2nd time). Zaynha (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You literally have only worked on this topic from what I can tell. That's a single-purpose account (WP:SPA). There appear to be other SPAs involved in this topic. This makes it hard to believe that there isn't some kind of WP:COI involved. Hobit (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That means that each and every Wikipedian started as a single-purpose account? I don't know about anyone else that worked on the article before. I'd like to mention there is negativity around the community here that I haven't seen anywhere before. Zaynha (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, most new accounts jump around quite a bit. There is nothing wrong with being a SPA, but yeah, it's what your account is. And most new users don't jump into creating an article on an obscure product/company that they have no relationship to. The fact that a number of accounts have done the same thing with respect to this topic makes it seem likely there there is an undisclosed COI here. Out of curiousity, what is it that brought you here to work on this specific company/product? How did you learn of it? Hobit (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a few edits if that would make my situation look more legitimate which is silly by the way. Again, I'm not affiliated with the company in any way. What brought me here is that I used their product a long time ago while in high school which to me sounds intrusive like I'm having some kind of interrogation. Zaynha (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DGG is previously involved here, as shown on the "Logs" link above, and is talking about himself without mentioning the fact ("deleted by two different admins"). The vitriol ("outrageously") raises a concern for his impartiality, although I take his point about the necessity for proper attribution strictly. As for the article, I checked on nl,de,and fr Wikipedias without seeing the article there, which seems puzzling for a company based in The Netherlands. According to bloomberg, Cleeng is not a company, but a product, and the company name is DG2ALL. Unscintillating (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
of course I'm involved--it's an appeal from my G5. DGG ( talk ) 08:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not allow recreation the draft would likely get deleted at AfD given our current standards for companies, and I'll likely send it to MfD if this DRV concludes otherwise: there is no evidence of notability here, it appears to be promotional, and the concern with SPAs make it possible that this could be a valid G5 again. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletions and oppose recreation, as the past deletions are as equally concerning as we consider anything else, including Terms of Use violations, of which are applicable in any case and anywhere. The current Draft here is no better and actually is an example of the usual promotionalism we experience without having to build onto it. As we've found before, simple sources is not an immediate negotiator against the fundamental policies. SwisterTwistertalk 22:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. We should also delete the current draft and salt the draft title, for all the reasons stated above. -- RoySmith(talk) 00:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Omri Dayan – Endorse. This should be re-created as a draft if anything, and run through WP:AFC – Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This page should be undelteled for several reasons. First of which is that I was not finished writing I just reached a good stopping point saved it with thought to continue the next day but it was deleted very very quickly. The information I was going to add included some of his past work, why he is important and some of his family history. In addition to that, I have found out today that he is creating a car show(like a meet) which just adds more reason. If possible I would really appreciate this page being restored... Javabula (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as 3 deletions closely occurring is enough to suggest the other alternative, which is a Draft at WP:Articles for creation, especially since the mainspace is not a place for works-under-improvements. The CSD A7 is a strong one and it shouldn't be reconsidered any differently here. SwisterTwistertalk 04:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- I can't fault the deleting admins. Maybe you'd be better off writing the whole article off-line or in your sandbox before going live with it. ReykYO! 07:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I took a look at the deleted text, and fully agree this was a valid WP:A7. If you want to try again, the suggestion given above about writing this in draft space and going through the WP:AfC process was good advice. Also, read WP:BLP. I'll add that while I don't know of any official policy which regulates writing articles about minors, be aware that in deletion discussions, people tend to be even more strict about applying the WP:BLP requirements to articles about minors, so don't be surprised if you find that getting this approved is an uphill battle. Also, do you have any relationship to User:Drivetribe? For that matter, do you have any relationship with the subject of this article? -- RoySmith(talk) 13:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Javabula: Please respond to my questions above, regarding whether you have any relationship with either User:Drivetribe or Omri Dayan. Also please read WP:FORUMSHOP. It's not considered good practice to pursue something in multiple forums simultaneously as you did with your Requested articles edit here. -- RoySmith(talk) 12:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: i dont know drivetribe i actually helped Omri film his latest clip and thats how i have the image i read over the guidlines and realize it is not apropriate fior me to write the article (thats why i am less active here now. Sorry about this just learning haha
I am guessing you are actually the same person who used to use the User:Drivetribe account. If so, the appropriate thing for you to do would be to put a note on your own user page (i.e. User:Javabula) stating that you previously edited using that account. Switching to a new username is legitimate, as long as you are upfront about it. Using multiple user names, and not disclosing the connection, is not permitted. -- RoySmith(talk) 12:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the original article, but I can't find a clearly notable Omri Dayan anywhere. So yeah, a draft sounds like the best way to start. I'd bet someone would be willing to move the article to draft space for you as long as you promised to not move it back to article space without someone looking it over first. Also, if this is a minor, Roy's comments should be taken into account. While not in policy anywhere that I know of, we tend to be very careful with barely notable BLPs for minors. Hobit (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. If you're not finished writing the article yet, then the correct approach is to work on it in draft or user sandbox space, where it isn't subject to mainspace requirements — and then when you're done, it can be reviewed for whether it qualifies to move into mainspace or not. But to be in articlespace now, it has to meet articlespace standards now, and is not exempted from them just because you're still working on it. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse this was a valid A7 deletion. The article explained that the subject is the 15 year old leader of an online community with 2000 members, and he posts videos there. He's also related to two notable people. None of that is an assertion of significance, which is required to avoid deletion under A7. I agree with the advice to start a draft instead, and I suggest you focus on demonstrating that the subject meets WP:BIO (which will be needed if the page is to avoid deletion). Hut 8.5 21:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse mainly commenting because I saw Hut 8.5 noted being related to two notable people. While there have been disagreements as to whether or not this is a credible claim of significance to the point where I'll send to AfD over that rather than A7, I do not believe that it should be a credible claim of significance, and DRV is the best place to test the idea of it being a WP:CCSI. If this was closest claim of significance that the article had, it should be A7 eligible and I do not fault the deleting admin even if I would have gone through AfD because of uncertainty on this point. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These were not close relations with very notable people, which might have constituted claims of significance. The article said his grandmother is Rivka Michaeli and that he was somehow related to Moshe Dayan (but it didn't specify how). Hut 8.5 06:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the specification: I have seen grandparents listed as claims before I believe by a declining admin. I agree that it is not a claim in this case as well: the only time I think that relations could merit a claim is if they are close, the notable person is very notable, and they have some association with their public life (i.e. wife a politician, children of a major celebrity, etc. Thanks for further expanding on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Donald Trump's handshakes – Endorse. Strong consensus here that the AfD close was a correct reading of the discussion. However, there's also a reasonably strong feeling that the end result was wrong because the participants in the discussion didn't do a good job evaluating the article. But, that's an issue which would be best handled in a follow-up AfD discussion. DRV finds that the close itself is correct, which is DRV's job. Hmmm, it seems like I've written this close before. Oh, yes, I did. Right below here, in the Cultural impact of Michael Jackson discussion. Weird day, today. – -- RoySmith(talk) 13:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The arguments to delete far outweigh the arguments to keep, discounting any iVote count. The delete arguments are convincing, and were well presented by several respected NPP editors without any indication of bias. Following are some examples: [57], [58],[59]. Additionally, the questionable sources and WP:SYNTH used in the sectionExplanation given by Donald Trump, the use of questionable and unreliable sources throughout the article, the WP:FRINGE aspects and medical analysis without using high quality sources per WP:MEDRS and the overall attempt to disparage the subject is in complete noncompliance with BLP, NPOV, and SYNTH which makes it appear as an attack page, and that aspect should also be considered; however, if the aforementioned is rejected as cause, then the arguments for delete are substantive and stand by themselves. Atsme📞📧 01:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not offering a specific recommendation, but "trivia" is not a deletion reason, there is nothing in the policy supporting that (WP:TRIVIA is a guideline about trivia sections nothing to do with articles). INDISCRIMINATE as the section clearly notes is about the way information is presented, not about whether a topic merits an article. Other points such as NOTNEWS are legit (albeit not uncontested) but the focus on "trivia" drags the strength of the delete case down. Also, maybe I missed something but BLP and MEDRS were not mentioned in the AFD. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 08:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Absurdity is, and this article is absolute absurdity. It's clearly nothing more than an attack page with inuendos by biased journalists who have nothing better to do with their time than write bait-click garbage. The article is an embarrassment to the integrity of this encyclopedia as much as it would be if we had articles about the way Obama sings, or walks, or dances, or Hillary's multiple falls and fainting spells. Pah-lease. Hate him, or not - the rest of the world can see how absurb this article is, and that is a fact. Atsme📞📧 19:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. Synth, fringe & medrs arguments seem a little strained, and were not made in the XfD, so probably shouldn't be considered here. Anyone with strong concerns those have been violated could raise the matter on the article talk page.
BLP & NPOV issues don't seem to have been substantially raised at the XfD either, though due to the criticality of complying with these, perhaps we ought to review this angle. To me, looks like the article is written in close to the most neutral possible way, given the nature of the coverage, so well done to the editors. There is the view that the article topic is inherently NPOV. Even fair minded people who supported Hillary would admit the Donald has many fine qualities, which can be reflected in most articles about him to help offset any negatives. On the topic of handshakes however, I've not noticed sources including any positives at all, it just doesn't seem to be one of the many things he's good at unfortunately. If the article was about anyone less than a head of state, I probably would support deletion as an attack page. But given the undeniably huge importance of this topic to global international relations, my view is it might be excessively chivalrous towards the Donald to delete.
This leaves the actual arguments at the XfD. On the delete side, almost every vote can be boiled down to an assertion of triviality. As JoJo explains, this is not a good delete argument even if true. And in this case, few with much understanding or engagement with politics & business could agree this subject is even the slightest bit trivial. The keep side refuted the triviality argument, and laid out stronger policy and precedent based arguments , with this characteristically concise and compelling vote by the Colonel a nice example.
Even before Macron, tens of thousands of reliable sources deemed Trumps handshakes with Abe, Merkel & Tradeu worthy of dedicated coverage - they are hugely important to global international relations, and hence in a sense to the fate of our planet. Perhaps conscious that some intelligent folk didn't grasp this, that most reliable of sources the Financial Times run a front page article titled Why Donald Trump's weird handshake matters. The FT article is cited multiple times in our article, and it includes this description of the handshake: "the threshold act, the beginning of politics".
Im sorry delete voters, but if much weight had been given to the triviality argument, then in the eyes of people who have a good understanding of geostrategy & politics, that would have been rather embarrassing. On strictly weight of policy based argument, this was a clear keep. Still, given the proportion of delete votes from many fine editors, it was a good call to close this as no consensus. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
endorse as a reasonable reading of the discussion. I'd prefer we not have this article, but it clearly meets WP:GNG and there isn't enough of a consensus (or even all that close) to run with WP:IAR (which would be my basis for deletion). Hobit (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No consensus is the correct outcome. There are strong, policy-based arguments on both sides. The issue boils down to an interpretation of WP:TRIVIAL or WP:EVENT vs. WP:GNG and the importance of the topic regarding international politics (anti-single event). 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 18:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have GOT to be kidding me is the correct outcome. Since when did we start to use throwaway humour-pieces from CNN, complete with animated gifs, as the basis for encyclopaedia articles? NorthAmerica1000 did exactly what we expect closers to do ---- he closed in accordance with the consensus ---- but in this case the consensus was just utterly ludicrous. Are we here to write an encyclopaedia or not? "Overturn" is the wrong word because it implies censure of NorthAmerica1000's decision and that's inappropriate here. I'd prefer "Vacate close" as phrasing.—S MarshallT/C 18:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is unexpected - I guess if even someone as cultured as yourself can see this article as ludicrous, anyone can. Good Atsme must be right about people seeing it as absurd all across the world. Together with the article admitedly haveing some attack page properties (though not a true attack page IMO), I could accept your suggestion for a vacate close, as long as it's absolutely clear there is on censure of North's perfectly correct NC decision. That said, maybe those still wanting to destroy the article could consider the editor retention implications. The article seems to have been created by the main editor of Balfour Declaration. And then expanded by another editor with experience creating GA class articles. These are serious, politically aware editors. We have very few with their sort of talent volunteering their time to the graft of article creation. There could be a risk they'd be de-motivated if their hard work was destroyed. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: It ultimately doesn't matter what prompted an article to be created; what matters is whether the topic itself is notable, and the fact that there are multiple reliable sources covering it (not just a CNN "throwaway piece") suggests that it is, according to WP:GNG.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, I've got a message on my talk page about the Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting, which I think shouldn't be a standalone article. What's your view on that? Multiple sources should mean keep, right?—S MarshallT/C 18:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well that was a single event so a redirect may be more appropriate in that case. Here, as Hobit has already noted, Trump's handshakes have been written about many times before Macron.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see, so there's a special reason not to keep the anti-Hillary article that doesn't apply to the anti-Trump one. Would you agree with me that Theresa May's leather trousers are more notable than Donald Chump's handshakes?—S MarshallT/C 19:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall, I think this article should be deleted or redirected to Donald Trump but I didn't contribute to the original AfD. The main difference I see between this article and the tarmac meeting article (which I think should be redirected) is that the handshakes received international attention and there are international mainstream independent reliable sources for them, whereas the tarmac meeting did not receive such attention (and neither has the conspiracy theory stuff that's being put into that article). US politics is nuts. Ca2james (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the major argument for deletion is that the subject is to trivial or unencyclopedic to have a standalone article. Those are, in principle, valid reasons to delete an article, but they are also very subjective. While the numbers were leaning towards deletion in this AfD opinion was still fairly divided as to whether this subjective position is valid or not. Given that No Consensus is a valid close. This contrasts with his hair, where the discussion was much more one-sided. Hut 8.5 21:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse fair reading of the (lack) of consensus here. Atsme, I think it might be fair to open a merge conversation. FWIW, I would have !voted to delete her per WP:NOTNEWS or WP:5P1/commonsense, but I think that the keep !votes were policy based enough to challenge the delete !votes in this. Wikipedia exists on people applying broad principles to work in specific circumstances. While I think the broad principles say not to have this here, enough others made policy based objections to that where I think no consensus was a very justifiable close within NA1000's discretion. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think WP can sink any lower than an article that disparages a US President's handshake sourced to biased news, loaded with SYNTH, and non-medical analysis. It's a sad day for WP's credibility. Maybe if it was accompanied by a cartoon animation it might be worthy. Atsme📞📧 07:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd certainly agree: if I'd participated in the AfD I'd have made what I think was a pretty strong argument for deletion. The question at DRV is whether NA1000's close was reasonable, and I think it was here. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete as unencyclopedic topic and WP:SYNTH. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree it's not encyclopedic, but I don't buy the SYNTH argument. We have an entire news articles about Trump and handshakes ([60]). Heck, there are articles talking about how we have too many articles talking about Trump and handshakes. No Synth needed. Hobit (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to speedy keep WP:NPASR WP:IAR The nomination seven hours after creation of the article cited an "information page" without a pretense to WP:BEFORE analysis needed by participants, or any connection to WP:Deletion policy. The nominator later openly documents that the nomination is a deliberate disruption of AfD arising from a dispute. There are no less than 3 "Delete or merge", as if the decision is someone else's problem. I wouldn't object to an overturn to delete WP:IAR, as I think that the viewpoint of history is not currently available for this topic, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper; but I think an AfD initiated with a nomination based in WP:Deletion policy is a better path to that result. Unscintillating (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about exactly this case when I saw this DRV. My thought was that _this_ is actually somewhat relevant to geopolitics. Again, I'd probably push for IAR deletion, but this is actually a serious topic covered by serious news outlets. It probably _shouldn't_ be, and I'm not in favor of us having this article. But it isn't quite MO's arms. Hobit (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Endorse. This is pure Trumpcruft and completely WP:UNDUE as User:Jclemens points out. That said, the closing admin can only work with what they're given, and in this case "no consensus" was clearly the only possible outcome. Lankiveil(speak to me) 00:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse There's no consensus, and there's unlikely to be a consensus at this time. "No consensus" here should mean there's no prejudice against re-nomination in several months time. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a correct reading of the (lack of) consensus. Atsme you may not like the outcome of the debate but DRV is not the place to remedy this.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have since learned, Pawnkingthree, and here is the irony of it all: [61] and [62] 🤣. Atsme📞📧 18:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know, but WP:DRV is specifically for procedural objections to a close – it's deliberately narrow to avoid the AFD simply being re-run. As it was no consensus you may well find if it's nominated again later down the line it will get deleted.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close as reflecting consensus of the AfD discussion. Ca2james (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Endorse- While I myself would want to see the article deleted; that cannot fault the closure of a discussion--which shall be the proper gauging of a consensus.Winged Blades Godric 12:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Cultural impact of Michael Jackson – Endorse. There's unanimous agreement here that the close correctly summarizes the discussion, hence the endorse finding. There is, however, some feeling that the discussion itself wasn't very good, and ultimately ended up in the wrong place. The way to address that might be in another AfD, or a merge discussion on the article talk page, but DRV has done its job and endorsed this AfD close. – -- RoySmith(talk) 22:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Endorse close Contrary to the nom, keep votes were policy based as they included reference to the subjects obvious notability. You don't have to explicitly link to a policy like WP:GNG to make a policy based vote. Even a delete voter conceded the topic had notability.
Can not even believe that arguably Wikipedia's two best AfD closers have been put up for review. Good old Sandstein, while he unfortunately leans slightly towards the deletionist end of the Del/Inc spectrum, he's always great at evaluating consensus, and I've noticed over the years he often fairly treats the losing side in his close notes, admitting their strong points rather than mocking them as some admins do. Sandstein and North should be showered with Barnstars and cookies, not put up for review! It's like 2016 all over again. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even Nose of Michael Jackson[63][64] would pass WP:GNG but we don't need it. All of the references are valid for already existing List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson, but nothing else. There is no justification of this CFORKED fancruft, we can make same article for anyone who has a "legacy" section on main article, but CFORKING is against the rule. Excelse (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree on an article about his nose, but given that he was a cultural super star, an article on his general impact seems quite reasonable. We don't have to avoid forking in every case, this seems to me a case where WP:SPLIT applies. Maybe others will agree with you. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's comment: This is one of the cases where the outcome is a matter of editorial judgment rather than clear policy: Nobody can really contest that there are many sources relevant to the topic, and any overly fannish content can be improved by editing, so the real question here is whether this is a sufficiently distinct topic from Michael Jackson generally as to warrant a spin-off article. This requires the individual evaluation and an overall assessment of the sources, which isn't something that the closer should make a decision about on their own. Neither side discussed the sources very seriously, but if anything, the "keep" side appeared very slightly more thorough. Overall, a poor discussion, divided responses, and no basis on which to make a policy-based decision results in no consensus. Sandstein 11:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close Contrary to nominator's assertion, a number of the keep votes are policy-based. As a for instance, "MJ is a bg subject, subarticles make sense" and "the article successfully shows the extent of Jackson's cultural impact. Forking content is eminently sensible here" can be viewed as making the argument of our guideline: WP:SUBARTICLE. No consensus seems a well-reasoned outcome of the policy-based arguments for and against deletion. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sensible at all because WP:SUBARTICLE is not for creating a fancruft WP:POVFORK without getting consensus on the main article (happens to be FA) first. The content has to be moved, not just deceptively copy pasted in POV language. Excelse (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close Personally, I'd have closed it as No Consensus, but that defaults to Keep anyway, so it doesn't really matter. This is always the problem when we have an article about a subject which is inherently notable (there's certainly a very good article possible here - the lede isn't bad at all) but actually the content is mostly complete crap. Here's hoping someone with a bit of knowledge on the subject can turn it into the decent article it could be. Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can't fault the closure, which I'd have to endorse, but the article looks like a POV fork and I would hope it gets merged back. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thats right. I would wait for a month or three then probably redirect to main article after discussion. Excelse (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There may be many ways to address this, but Sandstein's close is not the best way to accomplish that. Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look, on thinking it through more, you don't even really want the article deleted--you want the content back where you think it belongs. That's a merge discussion, not an AfD in the first place, since WP:ATD applies. Jclemens (talk) 07:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why you are making this up, I clearly said "Thus delete." Thats not asking for merge. You can have your opinion but don't misrepresent what I said. Excelse (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse fair reading of the lack of consensus. Both sides had policy-based arguments, which means the AfD came down to judgement calls about how to apply the policies in question. There wasn't a consensus amongst the participants on this point. Good close. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
List of Philippine television specials aired in 2017 – "Delete" closure endorsed. Anybody who wants to can still create redirects as suggested in the AfD. There is very little interest in restoring the deleted history behind any redirects. – Sandstein 15:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Allow overturn the page and redirect to 2017 in Philippine television as well 38.96.9.224 (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there has been no discussion with the closing admin, there is not a problem that needs review. Unscintillating (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we here? The request is to create a redirect. The AfD closing statement included, Any editor may feel free to also create the suggested redirects if desired. My brain hurts. -- RoySmith(talk) 01:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We are here because you asked a question in order to raise a controversy for the purpose of moving this discussion forward, instead of agreeing with me and closing the debate. Any more questions? Unscintillating (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The inference that "overturn to redirect" is in this case somehow the same as "delete and redirect" is not readily apparent, so the edit history needs to be restored for non-admins to consider the inference on its merits. Unscintillating (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, because it in no way conflicts with what's actually being requested. An AFD does not have to explicitly close as "redirect" before a redirect is allowed to exist — if you want to create a redirect, then you can just go right ahead and create a redirect without needing the article to be restored or the AFD to be overturned. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence offered that there is no conflict between an overturn to redirect, and the "delete and redirect" that is the only redirect currently possible without admin tools. Unscintillating (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence that there's any need for anything more than "delete and redirect that is the only redirect currently possible without admin tools." Is there any remotely substantive reason why "overturn to redirect" is even necessary, such as any actual reason why any part of the title's edit history needs to be returned to public visibility? There's no substantive conflict if one of the options in the conflict is entirely unnecessary. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What you can see as an admin is not evidence until you make it available to non-admins. As per WP:DRV#Temporary undeletion,
===Temporary undeletion=== Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
As an alternate to restoring the edit history and building consensus on the theoretical difference between the OP's proposition and the "delete and redirect" option; this DRV can be closed, as there is still no dispute identified by the closing admin to review. Unscintillating (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about the difference between the two possible ways of creating a redirect requires any part of the articles' edit histories to be made visible to non-admins. The only time that's necessary is if what's under discussion is whether the titles should be restored as standalone articles or not — but there's no reason why non-admins need to see the articles' edit histories in order to decide between "redirect" and "redirect". Bearcat (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere is this a discussion limited to the creation of a redirect. We are talking about two redirects, each with an associated set of edit history data. One set is the empty set, and the second you and Roy are implying is the equivalent of an empty set. I don't want to speculate about a set of data I can't see. I've requested the data set, and I've shown you the WP:DRV process which requests that you provide the data set.
And we just finished having a similar discussion on another talk page. I quoted WP:REDIRECT "Reasons for not deleting" #1 and #7. Re-creating the page is only one of the 7 reasons listed for not deleting. For example, at a recent AfD, I discovered an entire productive MfD discussion cited in the edit history. Unscintillating (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Supergabbyshoe, Oripaypaykim, and Pinespunned supported a redirect. Nominator Ajf773 also supported a redirect, writing, "Redirecting would be sufficient although I don't know what content would be suitable for merging." Lugnuts and Mrschimpf supported deletion.
Since four editors supported a redirect and two supported deletion, I do not see consensus for deletion.
The redirects' history is useful to allow editors to merge material to the television articles as Oripaypaykim (talk· contribs) suggested:
Overturn Time has run, and my request to involve the closing admin as a priority has not been sustained. My apologies to the closing admin. Upon review of the AfD, I find that deletion was contrary to consensus, and the suggestion to make new redirects disregarded the intent of the voters who did not vote to delete. One of the delete !votes was a "pernom", so had no weight. Unscintillating (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as there was sufficient attention to the subject and, as usual, redirects can be started at any time, without consensus or input. Given these are indiscriminate lists that can easily be merged into one entire article, there's no immediate need for attention here. SwisterTwistertalk 22:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there was no consensus to keep the article and no strong arguments to retain the history: there certainly wasn't a consensus to merge anything. If anyone actually thinks these would be good redirects (which I'm not convinced of), they can create them without fear of deletion. As a nose count, you might have had a stronger case for redirect, but because those were essentialy JUSTAVOTEs, they should be weighted significantly less in the discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Steven Scheu – Closure endorsed, but recreation based on new sources permitted. Interested users may ask an admin to restore the deleted article to userspace or to draft space. – Sandstein 15:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Endorse, but allow recreation. The AfD couldn't have been closed any other way given the material the closer had to work with. But, the sources presented here look plausible, so there's no reason somebody shouldn't be allowed to write a new article based on those sources (or, restore the old one as a starting point). Maybe in draft, maybe in mainspace. If people don't like the new sources, they can take it back to AfD for another look. -- RoySmith(talk) 23:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, but allow recreation Per everything RoySmith just said. Jclemens (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close, restore to draft per RoySmith. Restore the deleted article to draft so that the OP has something to work with. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No endorse Petitioner does not seek an overturn and there is no statement from the closing admin. Unscintillating (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, but allow draft as this is indeed an overturn contesting, since they opened it here; a statement from anything else is not relevant. There was clear consensus at AfD that it was viewed no differently and thus nothing else to evaluate again. A Draft can be made if there's enough and it can be reviewed. SwisterTwistertalk 16:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. An AFD discussion is not a permanent ban on the subject ever being allowed to have an article — if you're able to show stronger evidence of notability and better sourcing than were present in the first iteration, then you are allowed to recreate an article, and the original AFD does not have to be overturned at DRV before you're allowed to do that. If you can do better, then go right ahead and do it. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it passes GNG, its notable. I figured we could just undelete the article to save the page history. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Deletion close did not follow Wikipedia:ROUGH CONSENSUS, and as someone that has been an admin on another edition of wikipedia for 6 years, I am far from being impressed. Deletion discussion is not a popularity vote, but an vote based on arguments. Nominator made false claims on that Faroe Islands is only an local area and an false claim of english sources not being allowed on english wikipedia. I did dispute these false claims in the deletion discussion. Also the nominator made an false claim of the awards in the article not being of an high enough rank. Other participants either mentioned speculation, like Largoplazo or repeated the same false claims. Snaevar (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of wish you had contacted me first, as the instructions say to do (Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly.) As I mentioned in my closing statement, I gave no weight to the argument about English-language sources. But, you could make a reasonable argument that people didn't have much time to consider the other points you made. So, rather than have us spend a week arguing about this here, I'm going to just back out my close and relist it for another week. But, please, in the future, read the directions and contact the closing admin first with any concerns :-) -- RoySmith(talk) 23:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Bruce Flatt is a well-known Canadian businessman and, apparently, one of the richest people in Canada, according to Canadian Business. He appeared on the cover of Forbes May 16. 2017 issue. That cover was accompanied by a long article about Flatt. The Globe & Mail did a long piece on him in 2000 and lists him 7th on their 2017 list of "the 50 most powerful people in Canadian business". That's probably enough to show that he easily passes WP:GNG.
User:Kudpung deleted Bruce Flatt on July 30 as "G5: Created by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block". It was apparently created by an editor associated with a paid editing sockfarm. Although WP:G5 clearly states " the edit must be a violation of the user's specific block or ban", no banned or blocked user has been identified as being the puppetmaster. When I questioned Kudpung about the deletion of Bruce Flatt (just one of a number of articles deleted as WP:G5), he responded that "there are things on Wikipedia that in order to preserve its integrity sometimes mean that blocks and deletions due to sockpuppetry and paid editing are more important than the assumed notability of something or someone whose actual presence on Wikipedia is not really important in the grand scheme of things". I believe these out of process deletions are not helpful to our readers.
For the record, I am not a paid editor and I have no connection to Bruce Flatt. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then you can create the article. The fact that a previous version has been G5'ed is no obstacle to a fresh creation by a good faith user.—S MarshallT/C 21:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce Flatt had all the common hallmarks of a commissioned work. BTW, why do you specifically need to claim here that you are not a paid editor? Nobody here, AFAICS World's Lamest Critic, suggested you are. I don't believe the statement to be helpful to this issue.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse this was a sock farm of 28 CU confirmed socks engaged in a paid editing enterprise in violation of the terms of use. The odds of such a group of socks not having a previously banned or blocked account are practically zilch. This wasn't just one account that got another account to try to sneak an article in, in which case I would agree that G5 would be a stretch. This sock farm also had the nasty habit of adding BLP violations to promotional articles. I don't believe that was an issue with this particular subject, but it certainly further pushes this deletion to within admin discretion in the circumstances in order to prevent potential abuse or blackmail of the article subject, as is common in some of these cases. WLC is free to recreate the article from scratch in a neutral tone. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have claimed that editors in this particular sockfarm inserted BLP violations into articles, but no one seems to have provided evidence of this. In any case, you admit that that didn't happen in this particular article, so it's a red herring. All biographies on Wikipedia are equally likely to have people use them to "abuse or blackmail the article subject", as you say. So that's another red herring. Unless you have read the article, you don't know whether it was neutral in tne or not, so that suggestion seems misplaced as well. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to a new article being created by a bona fidae editor. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my view it -- and other articles created by the blocked sock farm, should be salted. Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse--WLC has been told many times in the course of disc. that there exists different viewpoints among admins and even arbs--- as to the applicability of G5.No prejudice against recreation.Winged Blades Godric 04:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse strictly the OP is right and we ought to have some evidence that one of the socks in this farm has been blocked or banned at some point, however I agree that is pretty likely and I don't see any reason to be nice to someone operating a paid sockfarm. There were a few edits from IPs which added significant content to the article, however they all came from open proxies identified in the SPI as associated with the sockmaster, so I think it's very likely they came from the same person. Hut 8.5 09:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, given the paid editing connection. The fact that anyone (who isn't an undisclosed paid editor) may recreate the article makes this request pointless process wonkery. Lankiveil(speak to me) 05:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse. Copy the references for possible use, but do not let banned editors get attribution rights. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and salt. Also, I observe that World's Lamest Critic has an interesting contribution history. Their very first edits included Jimbo's talk page, a sockpuppet investigation, and an AfD. These are not the sorts of edits one would expect from a new user. Looks like a duck to me. -- RoySmith(talk) 12:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should start keeping track of the number of people who have accused me of being a sockpuppet of a paid editor simply because I disagree with deleting properly referenced articles about notable topics. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and WP:TROUT to RoySmith and others inclined to salt. WP:BEANS be damned, people just aren't getting it: If I wanted to hurt someone's publicity, all I have to do is create an obviously promotional article enough times with an obvious sock farm, and we obligingly salt the article. Paid promotional editing can also be paid anti-promotional editing--that is, using a false flag operation to hurt someone's chances of being covered in an impartial manner. Jclemens (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any examples of that ever actually happening? It does not seem a reliable avenue of attack to me because Wikipedia is very hit-and-miss when it comes to dealing with promotion. Yes, some get deleted and salted, but more just get deleted without salting, and even more simply escape by no-consensus, or simply slip through the cracks without ever getting acted on. Why would anyone try a false flag tactic like this when there's a better than even chance that the article will remain as free publicity for the target, indefinitely? ReykYO! 07:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None whatsoever, but finding problems before they're exploited is part of my professional portfolio; I used to get paid quite a lot of money to poke holes in things before anyone else could. You're correct that how we have previously dealt with promotion and socks is hit or miss, but to the extent that we standardize a response, we risk someone intentionally provoking that (well intentioned) response. Many, many computer security attacks deal with exception handling, error response, and the like, and this would introduce an 'error handling' routine that could trivially be exploited. And to point out further finessing on this attack, there's absolutely nothing to stop a skilled attacker from reporting the 'bad' content he just created and increasing the chance that it will be so addressed. Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except that contrary to common belief and practice, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a publicity tool. So I don't see why it should matter. By the way, I am against salting; deleted BLPs make good honeypots. Rentier (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as per SmokeyJoe, but copy both the references and the categories, and copy them to Draft:Bruce Flatt. Unscintillating (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What does our license say about that? If the intent, per SmokeyJoe, is to, not let banned editors get attribution rights, can we grab the references and categories without attribution? -- RoySmith(talk) 21:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no creative content in either a reference list or a list of categories. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Categories you are definitely good on. References I could see a possible argument (annotated bibliographies, etc.) but a simple listing would probably be fine in terms of lack of copyright. There was no creative determination in the ordering of the listing, which leans to it not generating a copyright in the United States. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The body text of the article would have to be written differently than the first version, but there's no rule that the original article's references can't be reused in the new version — the wording of how our article summarizes what the references say has to be different, but the references themselves are allowed to be reused. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The original deletion does not mean that an article will never be allowed to exist, but merely that the particular version wasn't compliant with our rules. If you can do better, then go right ahead and do it — absolutely nothing about the process requires the original article to be restored before a neutral non-COI editor is permitted to try again. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there's been paid/COI editing in the past cannot create a permanent ban on an article ever being allowed to exist. If he can be properly shown and properly referenced as notable enough for a Wikipedia article, then the fact that there's been a paid editing issue in the past cannot prevent a new, more neutral non-COI version from ever being allowed to exist. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This article was part of a mass deletion of articles titled, "Open access in x". Many of those articles were low quality with no sources. This one had 34 citations and at least should be considered for AfD on its own. There are three people, Filippo Morsiani, Gutam2000, and myself, who have expressed interest in making the article live again. Ultraexactzz executed the deletion and I expect this user will agree that the deletion discussion did not go into detail about any single article in that set, and that at anyone's word, it would be fair to undelete the article and let anyone nominate it for deletion individually if they desired. I had no prior discussion with the admin and am just informing them now with this post and on their talk page. I am unclear about the process here.
About undeletion - the article is in a user draft at User:Filippo Morsiani/Open Access in India but I would like the old talk archives restored as well. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No objection on the merits, as such, but I didn't have any involvement in the AFD itself, or in judging its consensus. Once it was completed, and the articles deleted, I found Open access in Albania and Open access in Iceland at WP:BADAFD, which I patrol regularly. Both articles had been tagged as part of this mass AFD, but neither was listed at the AFD itself and neither had been deleted once the AFD closed. Since they had been tagged and were similar in most respects to the articles discussed at the AFD, I went ahead and deleted them. I left a note at the AFD to reflect that. The person who closed the AFD, and who might wish to provide additional information about their read on the consensus at that debate, is admin Jo-Jo Eumerus. I'll let them know about this discussion. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 13:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The India page seems to have some salvageable material. Given that most concerns in the discussion where about the content of the articles and not the topic recreating articles on the basis of other sources also works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
restore any of these articles that an admin feels are at least a good starting point. There was a sense in that discussion (as Jo-Jo notes) that we could have articles on these topics, but that they were autocreations and not a good starting point. If some weren't, it's probably fair to say this discussion doesn't cover them. Doesn't mean they can't be put up for AfD as desired, rather that (as is common with mass AfDs) some of the articles shouldn't have been included in the listing. Hobit (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore/userfy on request I wouldn't be in favour of a mass restoration, but if there are any articles that individual users feel that they could salvage, I'd support userfication on request. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore/userfy on request (and obviously, this DRV counts as a request). For mass AfDs like this one, nobody's looking at each article individually, so if there's any in particular that somebody can make a reasonable argument are worth salvaging, it's a no-brainer to do so (but not just restore them all en-masse). -- RoySmith(talk) 23:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore per the above. It's actually on the nominator to ascertain that any grouping of articles is substantially similar in sourcing and rationale for deletion, and it doesn't look like that was done here. Jclemens (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
totally agree I believe a mass deletion of 190+ articles is just reckless, as I have tried to explain in many circumstances the articles have been created as part of a project aimed at collecting and sharing open access policies and organization around the world, I understand that few articles have issue related to content and sourcing (however they all come from UNESCO publications which is normally considered as a source)
I have tried to re-publish some of the articles( the most developed ones), with improvements, they got deleted in minutes with no notice, this is like some sort of dictatorship really, how can publish an article with improvements if it get instantly deleted?
I think it will be right to have all the articles back and then nominate for deletion only the one who deserve it.
The deletion of pages is not really in any way related to any "dictatorship" or whatever. It seems though that some people are incorrectly tagging and deleting as G12 (@NotTheFakeJTP and Brookie: in the case of Open access in France). To stave off G4 re-deletions perhaps I ought to amend the close to say that it reflects mostly the pre-deletion state of the articles rather than the topic.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the original nominator I'm just commenting to defend both my nomination and Jo-Jo Eumerus' close. Those articles were not the kind of thing Wikipedia articles are supposed to be. Most of them had no salvageable content because "open access in xyz" is an overzealous content fork. A "list of open access by country" is much better because not every entry in such a list has enough content to be considered notable enough for its own article. You had ample opportunity to participate in a standard deletion discussion and deleting what was, to be completely honest, a load of crap is neither reckless not dictatorial. I would have hoped somebody working with UNESCO would have more tact but clearly not. DrStrausstalk 11:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's no to me to state that if there is not policy on OA in a specific country it is per se a matter of INTEREST, to ignite a conversation maybe, but is not on YOU as well... you have deleted the chance for many people around the world to access information on OA policies. I took part on the deletion conversation, as they happened, and yes they happened a country at the time or maybe 2 or 3 not 195 just for the sake of it, you deleted very alive articles, people were implementing them just watch them closely. I want them back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filippo Morsiani (talk • contribs) 10:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Filippo Morsiani: people around the world would have been reading utter garbage for the most part. The articles were deficient in terms of tone and sourcing. I see that some of them are being put into your userspace but I highly doubt it'll get further than that. Our deletion policy makes no comment on how "alive" articles are - if they are rubbish then they go. I don't understand your sense of entitlement in this situation. Jclemens, I believe I put it quite well - most of the articles were tiny stubs with little information that would have been better off in an article. DrStrausstalk 13:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the AFD result does not prevent some or all of the articles from being recreated again if somebody can actually do better than the first versions. An AFD discussion is not a permanent ban on the subject ever having an article at all — there have been a lot of instances over the years where an article got deleted, but then some time later the subject's notability claim and sourceability improved and thus a new article was allowed to be recreated. So no, a blanket restoration of all the articles isn't called for here — but if an editor is convinced that they can do better, then any of these pages can be restored and sandboxed to give them a chance to try. That doesn't require a DELREV, though — it just requires an administrator to perform the sandboxing. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I along with other users tried to restore and improve some articles that go "speedy deleted" this is a form of fascism...
also you are using words as most and some, meaning not ALL articles but you deleted ALL... THIS IS NOT GOOD.
Sourcing please I am sourcing from UN publications is this not good enough?
@Filippo Morsiani: I am lost for words as to why a respectable international charity like UNESCO would associate itself with somebody who is so quick to Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. This isn't "fascism", it's called "adhering to established principles of an encyclopedia" and what you're doing is "throwing a tantrum". Bearcat is right that AfD is not permanent, I myself never said it was and we are not saying that the topics about which you are writing are notable. You are just refusing to even attempt to understand key policies like verification and expecting everybody to lay down a red carpet because you're working with UNESCO. Focus on reading the policies and guidelines, improve your drafts and we will take another look but you are in no position to make demands or throw such poisonous accusations around. DrStrausstalk 17:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not call UNESCO a charity... I am not expecting anyone to lay down, I only expect respect for other people work whoever it is.
In case of only one article out of 195 is good how can you delete it?
I and other people have tried to re-publish updates version of articles and they has been deleted with no conversation within minutes, (censorship?)
Who decides what is relevant? In my opinion should be the whole community.Filippo Morsiani (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Filippo Morsiani: whether UNESCO is a charity or not is beside the point - it is a subdivision of the highest international forum on earth: the United Nations. For a representative of such a monumental organisation, your attitude and behaviour is appalling. It wasn't just "one" article that was bad: the whole lot woefully failed the criteria for inclusion. Wikipedia is not censored and accusations of such are just excuses to try and get rubbish content passed. DrStrausstalk 13:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think behaviors, attitude and monumental organizations are just secondary here, please lets talk content. I believe the bulk deletion of 195 articles was not appropriate, I am sure that many of them had the right to exist on wikipedia and "they deserved a fair trial". I am forced to abandon this project as I am not able to publish articles with the same title even with improvements. My will is not to engage a not productive conversation with any member of wikipedia community but promote and foster knowledge on Open Access policies and current situation in every country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filippo Morsiani (talk • contribs) 14:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Filippo Morsiani: okay, as I have explained, they were given a fair 7-day trial. I think going elsewhere is advisable considering the state of the articles you created. Perhaps you could start a wiki at http://www.wikia.com? You can create your own content policies there so you can set the standard for your own quality. We're all here to build an encyclopedia, but that requires productive conversation, so if you are uninterested in collaboration, a fundamental part of Wikipedia that's not very helpful for anyone. DrStrausstalk 16:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
