| Revision as of 14:58, 18 July 2006 editXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing moribund debate← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:21, 18 July 2006 edit undoXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing moribund debateNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| --> | --> | ||
| ==== ] ==== | |||
| Not sure if this is the right place for discussion since the above article has been '''kept'''. But, in my view, this article is unverifiable - it's based on material in the possession of a single author. Commentary is at ]. ] ] 18:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment:''' I had a feeling you would bring this up for review. As the closing admin, I'll just say that I didn't think that relisting this AfD as you requested would be useful because the AfD was already extremely long with the back-and-forth conversations, and there were already about five or six !votes in the AfD. The consensus was a slight majority to keep. --] ] 19:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **For some reason, the internal wikilink to the AfD discussion is giving a redlink. If you are still seeing a redlink, you can find the AfD via . ''--] ] 19:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***''('''Comment'''. I fixed the wikilink. It had an unprintable character. ] 21:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC))'' | |||
| ***I take your point about the relisting and, of course, you're absolutely right there was a majority to keep. But I feel strongly that in this case the community came to the wrong decision. As a result, I'm not sure what best to do and thought I'd look for input from here. If people here feel it's best left, then that's fine by me! ] ] 19:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ****If you feel that the community came to the wrong decision, that's fine, and yes, this is a good place to see if the closure is correct. It seems like the original author presented enough information for some of the people to !vote keep. Can you provide some new information about why the article should be deleted (for example, if all of the sources that the author provided are wrong or do not exist)? If you can, that might be sufficient evidence for the AfD to be overturned (or relisted). --] ] 20:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Rationale for request for Review''' | |||
| The article is created by a single editor based on material he says is from three sources: | |||
| ''History of Snohomish County'', J Daniels, 1962. Privately printed. | |||
| ''Clearview, founders and pioneers'', Frances Smith, 1982. John Brown & Co. Everett. | |||
| ''Snohomish Tribune'', various dates from 1956 to 1972. | |||
| #Books entitled ''History of Snohomish County'' exist but none I can find by Daniels. | |||
| #I can find no reference to ''Clearview, founders and pioneers''. | |||
| #''Snohomish Tribune'' exists but the online version is just a Classifieds. | |||
| The creator says ''There is a library in the city of Snohomish. It's a small town of perhaps 3,000 so it may not be open very often. I've never been to it. There is a larger library in Everett which *may* have copies of these. I have not personally checked either one to be sure.'' | |||
| ''Clearview work isn't even a 'book' per se, its more like a phamplet, probably put together by a local history society or genealogical society (although not so marked). Also no ISBN number and stapled not bound. '' | |||
| So in summary, the source material is asserted to exist by a single person and has been nowhere verified. The only way of verifying it is to visit Snohomish or Everett (and may not exist once there) - hence I feel the article is not only unverified but, '''for practical purposes''', unverifiable. | |||
| If and when an independent editor confirms the existence of these sources, then the status of the article will be very different! | |||
| Not sure if I'm allowed as requester, but if I am, then *'''Overturn and Delete''' ] ] 20:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I edited the article, and in the process ended up reading the whole thing (which I rarely do). I can not find one statement explaining why this person is notable. Writing personal diaries about newspaper headlines is not notable. Being in your local newspaper for being 90 is not notable. Seriously, I found almost no encyclopedic value to this article, in addition to it sounding like a genealogical entry, or some other thing that would fit the bill of an indiscriminate collection of information (per WP:NOT). So we have verifiability issues, notability issues, content, format issues, and the overall encyclopedic value is questioned. Just some things to think of. This is one instance where I agree that AfD shouldn't be a raw vote (but maybe thats because I am on the loosing side, :P--] 00:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn and Delete''' ] is non-negotiable and cannot be trumped by consensus, especially not by slight majorities. The article collapses without the cites from her diary, and the diary fails ] by a long shot. Closing admin should have investigated verifiability issues and also should have discounted most Keep votes as they completely ignore policy: ''This person's diaries give us some insight into history'' / ''I accept the author's claim of notability''. The article presents an interesting snippet of American lore that should be published somewhere, but per policy not here. ~ ] 02:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **I accept any votes in this deletion review, I accept if this AfD needs to be overturned, and I would accept it if I made any mistakes. However, I take umbrage with your accusation of my wrongdoings in this AfD. Yes, a slight majority of Keep votes isn't necessarily something that will trump policy, but I take offense that I somehow didn't look further into it. I read his comments. I have, on occasion, applied my admin's discretion on AfDs where one side's votes were based on policy, and one's sides votes were not. I've had one or two AfDs reviewed because I did it. However, I didn't blindly vote-count in this AfD and I strongly resent any implication from you that I did. I looked at the comments. Some weren't terribly convincing, and perhaps this AfD might have benefited from a relisting, but this AfD was already huge. I don't make it a habit of relisting AfDs that have already garnered so much votes. One voter's comment that this article was new and still in progress was convincing. Perhaps that was a case of userfying rather than keeping, perhaps not, but I accepted that the article could benefit from more work in progress. If that assumption was false, I can accept that, but I resent your accusations that I didn't do all I could do to close this AfD properly. --] ] 13:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***I apologize for any comments that might be construed as accusations that you didn't do your job properly. But if you did (i.e. look at the "weight" of the votes and arguments, double-check on verifiability issues, etc.) it would be useful if you made note of it in your closing statement. It is easier to accept a closing statement that covers those bases, even if it goes against one's wishes. ] is a good example of a closing statement of that kind (which incentally survived deletion review). ~ ] 02:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn and delete''' per trialsanderrors. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 12:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn and delete''' On reading through the article, I also do not see any notability claim, and the arguments that the sources were insufficent seemed stronger to me. The diaries are primary sources, and as such, could be used to add additional information to an article, but no article should be solely based on primary sources. But without secondary sources (except self-published one) to cross ref the primary sources, and to show notabilty, I agree that as it stands the article fails WP:V. Anyone can write diaries, but unless a reliable secondary sources thinks they're notable enough to mention, they fail notability for me too. Failing notability and verifibility would be a delete in my book. Regards, ] 13:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn and delete''' per Dlyons, Andrew c, trialsanderrors, and MartinRe. Fails ], fails to meet notability guidelines for inclusion. Perhaps the AfD's closing admin needs to develop a thicker skin, if (s)he's going to issue a couple of hundred words of resentment whenever criticized about closing a discussion by putting more weight on "One voter's comment that this article was new and still in progress" than on ''WP policy''. ] 14:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **I've got the skin. And I don't mind if you refer to me in the second person. I am losing the will to close contentious AfDs, though, probably much to everyone's delight. --] ] 16:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Speedy overturn and delete''', I've seen enough, and before this rapidly degenerates into further attacks of why I suck as a closing admin, I'll just bow to consensus and delete the article. --] ] 16:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The sources used to create this article are almost all in the public domain. Things like the census, the BLM grants, the Civil War pensions are all government documents, in the public domain. Some persons above have mis-characterized this situation. Those public documents give almost all the data to establish that this person is notable. The claim to notability is that she was widely known in her local community. The local history of this county mentions her. She was not know all over the country, but then neither are thousands of the persons already in wikipedia. Is wikipedia to be an encyclopaedia of *current* persons only and then the top 50 of the past famous? We can have articles on every Miss California from 1922 but we can't have articles on persons of real significant note ? Every statement made in the article has been previously published in reliable sources. ] 19:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The Civil War pension was for her father not her. And if everyone who received a Civil War pension is notable, you and I have seriously different definitions of the word notable. Same thing for the census. If anyone who is in a census is notable, then well, just about everyone is notable, which I hardly the case at all. So these verifiable sources you keep refering to do not establish notability, and they provide VERY little information besides where the family lived. Seriously, if these documents were all that were necessary to make someone notable, we'd have thousands and thousands of useless articles stating where certain families lived a hundred years ago. Look through the winners of ]. Note the large number of redlinks. Read the articles that exist. One of them went on to be Miss America, one of them was a TV actress and played catwoman, one was in Soap Operas etc. In additions to winning the state pagent, they all have other notable things about them. I am still cluely on what makes Kitty notable. She was in her local newspaper for being 90 years old? She was in a census? She kept an unpublished diary where she commented on newspaper storeis? Seriously, she isn't notable. As for verifiability, you keep citing the wikisource entry you transcribed by hand as a ], while you forget that the policy explicitly states: "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources" and goes on to talk about self-publishing. This diary fails the wikipedia criteria for being a reliable source. And the individual, from the information in the article, fails notability requirements. I urge you to publish your work at a different project that is more welcoming. I'm sorry this didn't work out to your liking, but you shouldn't get discouraged. Just keep in mind that wikipedia has higher standards for notability and verifiability than you. --] 20:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You keep focusing on one or two aspects of the entire problem. No, everyone who receives or applies for a Civil War Pension is not notable, that's not the point. The point is that that public domain document is one of the sources used for the biographical article. And apparently you're unaware that these applications can give much biographical detail, not just on the one person applying but on their entire family. | |||
| :Again the census, the BLM grant, in fact any one particular document, doesn't make her notable. The sum total of her life, including that she wrote it all down, makes her notable. This article was deleted *in the middle of vast revamping*, as you well know. So the whole argument is specious to say the least. To claim a person currently being worked on, is not notable, because you won't let me finish the article is a vacuous argument. | |||
| :As for your argument about sources, why not take that to wikisource and ask them? That's the appropriate place, but so far, not one single person in this argument, other than myself, has done that. The answer I got, was that any person of historical note, who has left a diary, even an unpublished one, can have that material posted to wikisource as the appropriate vehicle for such documents. | |||
| :Again you focus on a few sources and ignore others. The article I wrote was replete with sources and *I* *wasn't* *finished*. A few antagonists got a burr up their nose and decided to take it out on me. ] 20:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are missing my points. First of all, giving you more time to revamp the article is not going to make a person more notable. Please read ] and answer me in very simply terms. What makes Kitty notable? Second of all, please read ]. Note the part that says wikis are not reliable sources. Therefore, a diary that you uploaded to a wiki is NOT a reliable source. Even if the other wiki accepted it does not make it a reliable source under WP guidelines. I don't have to go to wikisource to find out why it is acceptable there, because I know that WP policy is clear on what IS and what isn't a reliable source. Something published for the first time on a wiki is not a reliable source. End of story. I'm sorry if I sound impatient. After reading and working on the article, I am totally clueless about why Kitty is notable, and I am highly skeptical that you left out the notable parts because the article was a work in progress. Forgive me if I am wrong. We can clear this up by you stating how she is notable under the guidelines, and you accepting that the diary is not a RS under guidelines. Otherwise, I would urge you, not to waste your hard work arguing policy here, but instead publish your work with a different project (try for starters). --] 22:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::And you are missing my point. Every statement is from a reliable source. Never once did I state the underlying statements are from the diaries. Can we get that point clear yet. The source is *not* *the* *diaries*. Each statement is from a *different* source. I listed those sources at the end of the article. Is this point clear now? ] 23:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Three points. One, you did a laudable job backing various biographical points with genealogical sources. Two, still an enormous amount of claims were sourced only by linking to the Wikisource version of her diary, an inherently unreliable source. Three, the problem with the article was that in its intro line it stated that Ellis's claim to notability was her diary. But the diary itself has received no discernible attention at all. It has not been published, it doesn't seem to have been discussed in academic cirles and two news searches cam e up with nothing. In other words what you did was create a very well-written genealogical research effort on a person of local interest, centering on a very interesting but for our purposes unreliable primary source. There are many places on the web that welcome those efforts, but Misplaced Pages is by policy ] one of them. ~ ] 02:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Point one. Thank you. Point two, this is incorrect. Every statement could be sources to previously published sources. The other accusers in this thread know this, because I've stated it many many times. They choose to ignore it and then try to convince everyone else that they are right. Again every single statement has been previously published. I linked to the primary document *because* those other sources are *not* online and this one is, that is the plain and simple reason. Portions of the diary have been published, which I stated several times in the past, but some people choose to ignore that because they just wish to beat on this until its dead. I'm just sorry that no one in this review gave me any opportunity whatsoever to respond before wiping out a week of my work. ] 04:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::First of all, nobody accuses you of anything. Second, reading the AfD gives a completely different pictures of your "accusers". Rather than ignoring your claims, quite a couple of people tried to follow up on your sources and failed in it. Third, even if giving you the benefit of doubt that those sources exist, it is still hard to believe that they followed up on and verified statements such as ''They never made it to the Gold Rush because of what Kitty refers to several times as : "deep-dyed treachery". She states that the proprietor of their hotel tried to poison her family, by putting poison in their food, and then later to break in and rob them in their hotel room..'' { being a link to the diary) or ''Kitty variously describes her father as treacherous, a fiend, a robber, and cruel and she states this is why she never married ''. You are working very clearly from the original source here. Fourth, still the inherent problem is that the only claim to notability Ms. Ellis had is her diary, and the article is full of details that are in the encyclopedic sense non-notable in any other way than that they were written up by Ms. Ellis herself. And for this to pass muster the diary itself needs far more exposure than it received. I don't think anyone who came to the same conclusion as I thinks you did a poor or shoddy job here. You just picked the wrong outlet for it. This is an article for a journal, a magazine or a genealogy website, and publication of her story might rekindle enough interest in her life that we can eventually use second-sourced material to write an article on her. In its current state though it is genealogical research, and that's by ] something we don't do. You should ask Deathphoenix to give you access to your article though that you can find a better outlet for it. That's the only advice I can give you. ~ ] 10:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :First, thank you. Second this is incorrect. They ignored all my sources except two. The article listed at least 15 sources if I recall. Almost every one is a public domain source. Only rather than "quite a few" only one person attempted to actually "follow-up", one other merely complained because two sources were hard to follow-up on. Of course I'm working from the diary. The diary is the underlying source for the other sources. However every statement comes from those *secondary* sources as I've stated over and over and over. I linked to the diary because it's online, and accessible and is the primary source, the others are not online and not generally accessible. And again notability doesn't have to be current, the guidelines for notability specifically state that people are notable if they *should be* notable outside a small group. The small group of interest are the local historians all of whom know about Kitty. This is not genealogical research, the article has almost to do with her family. It is about herself. I hope this is clear now, the eleventh time I've stated it. Basically the editors here, want everything to be googleable before it's accepted, that is just wrong and contrary to the founder's wishes. The founder is quite emphatic and specific about wanted wiki to become the source of information. This AfD goes against that wish. ] 15:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :One more thing you mentioned. The statement that she is only notable for her diaries, is incorrect. ] 16:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The article itself, in the intro line, stated as her claim to notability that she was a diarist. I think we're going around in circles here. Good luck on the recreation but I'm not so certain it won't fail another AfD. In any case you might want to try and work from the secondary sources to avoid this fate. ~ ] 19:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::It did survive the AfD. After the AfD, a few malcontents protested and got a Review which they conducted in the middle of my night, when I could not respond. It was this Review of an *already concluded AfD* that itself concluded within only a few hours of discussion and wiped the information. That process is flawed and unfair and probably contary to policy. ] 20:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I've stated now 12 times, the entire article was sourced from secondary, published, material. That material is not online and not generally accessible, but the primary source that underlies it is. In cases like that, it seems fairly ridiculous to cite sources which are hard to check, when there is a source that is simple to check. At any rate, I did list those secondary sources in the article, but certain editors chose to ignore that completely.] 20:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It doesn't matter how often you say it, it doesn't make it true. The article clearly cited the diary for almost every claim. If you want to keep your article from being deleted again, ''start from the secondary sources''. It means write, "According to the Snowhomish Tribune, Kitty moved to Spokane Falls in 1883" and then cite the article in a footnote: ''Snowhomish Tribune, "Diaries Depict Life of a Pioneer" by J. Scribe, Feb 28, 1956, pp. 4-6.'' You're getting awfully close to asserting ] here, when it's fairly apparent that a good number of unrelated editors looked at your article and independently came to the same conclusion, both in the AfD and here. That's my last advice I can offer you. End of Communication. ~ ] 20:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Please do note, that if, once completed, the deletion review of the afd, decides to reverse the keep (and early indications suggest that it will), then the article will be likely be re-deleted, as recreations of content deleted either by afd (or a drv reviewing an afd) are speedy delete candiates as per ] G4. By the way, the review is ongoing, so it's not really accurate to describe it as "conducted", not yet anyway! Regards, ] 20:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This review has been closed for some time. To the prior post, I have already stated several times why I cited to the diary. The diary is the original primary underlying source for those secondary sources. Those sources are not easily accessible and so the diary was used to back them up. But not one single statement made came *solely* from the diary. This was made clear several times, and ignored. Hopefully this is the last time I have to state this. And Trialsanderrors calling me a liar and/or fabricator is hardly going to win you support. Assume good faith. ] 20:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I didn't call you a liar. You also asserted many times over that other editors' statements were "incorrect". Does this mean you called them liars too? There is a difference between making incorrect statements and outright lying. In any case, your motivation in setting these links is absolutely irrelevant as we can't expect readers to deduce editors' motivations. What stands factually is that almost every claim linked to the diary on Wikisource. If you want to avoid the problem in the future, follow my advice. ~ ] 20:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You did. You stated that I can assert that I used secondary sources, but this doesn't make it true. So you're saying that I'm lying. That's a pretty clear inference. And yes I am calling people who deliberately mischaracterize the issue liars. You can see above the claim "this article is based on material in the possession of one editor", clearly a mischaracterization which I've addressed many times already. (It's untrue. That poster knows it's untrue. That it's untrue is verifiable. Whether that's easy to do or not is irrelevant. It's possible and that's all that matters.) But based on things like that other editors reading the review get that impression and it sticks in their minds, even though it's not true. I have already stated many times *why* i cited the diary. You have not yet, one time, stated any justification for *not* citing it. In fact reliable sources states that you *can* cite primary materials along with secondary. It does not state that you *must* do that in any particular way. And I refuse to be bullied by someone who insists there is only one way to do that. So are we done yet? ] 20:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I've added a {{tl|delrev}} tag on the article, as contrary to Wjhonson's comment above, this review is still ongoing. (If it were not, this debate would have been closed and the article re-deleted). Regards, ] 20:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ====]==== | ====]==== | ||
Revision as of 15:21, 18 July 2006
13 July 2006
Cyanide and Happiness
I am requestion that this page not be deleted. I have been lurking here for a while, registered not too long ago. I've seen many pages I liked get deleted, but I will not stand for this one to be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brent19 (talk • contribs)
- There has already been discussion of this at the above AfD (your link was wrong - I changed it), which resulted in a unanimous consensus for deletion based on strong arguments. Deletion review is not a rerun - please set out why the previous AfD was invalid, improperly closed or made obselete. "I disagree" is not sufficient for a nomination for review. --Sam Blanning 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I've notified Mailer diablo of this review. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, valid AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, unanimous consensus to delete, doesn't require much further explanation on each vote. - Mailer Diablo 17:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- endorse closure, though a new article might be in order. The same search that drew 144 hits in April now draws over 270,000.--Toffile 19:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse: Valid procedure followed. Geogre 20:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - "I will not stand for X" is a terrible argument to make for !X. --Improv 23:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The other logical and rhetorical mistake frequently seen is "X is bad, and it's here, so Y should be here for being only as bad." (Three lefts make a right, but not two wrongs.) Geogre 03:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep deleted as per above. Dionyseus 14:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)