Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:50, 15 February 2020

14 February 2020

ShifCustom

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

The delete proposer claimed a lack of notability due to unreliable sources. In reality, before nomination there were reliable, secondary, independent of the subject sources that wrote about it in detail (svaboda.org, sb.by, tut.by, kp.by, Interfax, onliner.by, abw.by). Also, notability is not related to the reliability of the sources in the article (WP:ARTN, WP:NPOSSIBLE). References to awards, that is, to professionals, confirm the notability of the subject. Closer to the discussion wrote that after the nomination sources were not added. He did not write anything about notability. Also, in reality, sources have been added, including found in Google Books (Uli Cloesen books) and others (German specialized editions "Custombike" and "Dream Machines", Russian "Moto", a directory of the Belarusian Union of Designers, several American materials). Discussion without consensus to delete. Article can be improved (WP:NEXIST). Improved on the home wiki (be:), did not translate into English until I finish. Sources can and can come new. In 2020 there is a new publication, it was added to the article. Maksim L. (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse, but Allow Recreation in "Draft:" namespace I'm not seeing any qualifying, reliable, independent sources doing a Google web search. There's a couple articles from Motonews and Jalopnik, and potentially, Interfax, on which WP:GNG may be at least plausible; however, I have my doubts as to whether there's enough independent source coverage to meet the second WP:CORPDEPTH test. Thus, I think the close was reasonable, on two relists, but am fine with allowing a draft and have it go through AfC as a second set of eyes. Doug Mehus T·C 20:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • A small company (<10 employees, my assessment) is not separable from Yuri Shif. A significant coverage will be a biography of the person. I can do it. If the move to Yuri Shif (customizer), the article will only have the date of birth and the foundation of ShifCustom in 2003. The usual situation for companies in the customization industry. But he builds motorcycles, rated as notability items of a Kustom Kulture. The Jalopnik has a retelling of material from the Onliner.by. The author also writes that he does not know the Russian language and uses a Google translator. It is not clear why a Jalopnik can be more reliable than a Onliner.by (editable media owned by Alexa). The reasons for the unreliability of RFE/RL and the largest national newspaper Belarus Today and the online media TUT.by are also obvious. Maksim L. (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse but allow draft as per User:Dmehus. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

List of hyperspace depictions in science fiction

List of hyperspace depictions in science fiction (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Misinterpreted consensus. There are 3 keep comments, 3 redirect, 2 delete, and 1 merge. Clearly, to me, this is a case of "no consensus" and the article should remain in place. Guinness2702 (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse. The closer correctly recognized that there was consensus to not keep the article, even if there was no consensus about delete, merge or redirect. In those circumstances, "redirect" is an appropriate compromise because it allows editors to further discuss what, if anything, they want to merge from the history. Sandstein 14:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse Close by Tone looks good to me. AfD nominator Zxcvbnm wasn't necessarily arguing for deletion or redirecting, only that the article, as written, fails our notability guidelines and contains a lot of original research, both of which were accurate. Despite this being titled as a list, it doesn't look like a list to me; looks more like a broad-concept article on hyperspace depictions in science fiction. Thus, the arguments that this list meets WP:LISTN are, in my view, incorrect. The arguments for merging are essentially the same as redirecting, so there was a clear consensus against keeping. There were some arguments towards deletion later on and, perhaps, if this had been relisted again, that would've been the outcome. This probably could've also been closed as "merge," but to close as anything but "redirect" or "merge" would've been incorrect, I think. To add to what Sandstein said and what I was thinking but hit "publish" too soon, there's no prejudice on properly proposing a splitting of the target article, and that's arguably what should've happened. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse - The close is a plausible close. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse if you look beyond the bolded !votes the Delete, Redirect and Merge supporters all think this should be a short section in the Hyperspace article and that this list contains large amounts of unencyclopedic content. There was consensus for that view. Exactly how it gets implemented is much less important. Hut 8.5 12:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Chronological list of Belgian families

Chronological list of Belgian families (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It looks as if no one but the article creator argued to keep at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Oldest Belgian families, against delete supports by Piotrus, myself, and Eggishorn, and a comment by Peterkingiron stating in part " Basically this is families recorded in a certain genealogical dictionary, I am not sure that is an adequate basis for a WP article". Wouldn't a "delete" be the more logical conclusion from this than a "no consensus"? Closing admin argued that there were no new comments after the last relist, and that a renomination is always possible, but we already had a 3-weeks+, 5-editor discussion, it's not as if a new nomination is likely to get a sudden influx of commenters, and it's not as if the opinions were that divided when only the article creator argues to keep it. Fram (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• What a weird AfD. It was full of points that were at best tangentially relevant to this list. The question AfD needed to resolve was: "What's encyclopaedic about this?" Without a good answer to that, the best possible outcome would be a merge, which wasn't considered. Maybe there are no good merge targets? AfD should have considered that. Relist as a defective discussion.—S Marshall T/C 10:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Relist or overturn to delete given that (counting my presumed vote as a nominator) it was 3:1 for delete (the only keep coming from the creator). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Relist. I couldn't close as "delete" as Sandstein had already relisted the debate to no further comment after 9 days, and he's been working long enough at AfD for me to trust his judgment that there is no consensus (after all, AfD is not a vote, but a discussion). A relist would have been problematic, as the procedure says "Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice." The discussion seemed to primarily centre around an argument with Fram and Brookford; also there had been no comments since Brookford did some work on the article, cleaning it up a bit. If consensus was that obvious, somebody else would have come forward in the final 9 days and said something; that they didn't it somewhat telling. Ritchie333 11:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any opinion about the close itself, but do want to comment on the above. When closing a debate that's been relisted, I pretty much ignore the relisting comments. You shouldn't feel painted into a NC corner just because some previous admin relisted it and there wasn't any more discussion. It's your close; own it. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• • In what way does the fact that no one commented on these two changes have any importance? They do nothing to help determine whether this should be deleted or not. Fram (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, you could have said "despite the recent changes, I still don't think we should have an article on this". Ritchie333 12:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, and then get accused by you of bludgeoning the discussion again probably... Adding a comment to an AfD to state that "some edits to the article, which had not been remarked upon in the AfD or used as arguments, do nothing to sway me from delete to keep" would be an utterly pointless edit, which would probably be seen as an attempt to mock the editor and his useless edits or something similar. Not everything that "can" be said "should" be said. Fram (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Relist or delete and, who knows, maybe someone who would have !voted delete had they seen the discussion come along and !vote delete. ——SN54129 12:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Relist, or delete if Ritchie333 as closer is OK with that. After the second relist, either delete or no consensus would have been acceptable closures. After the first relist, I still held out hope that some more useful discussion would occur and clarify the situation. Sandstein 14:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Relist or overturn to delete per above. This list does fail our criteria for categories, navigation templates, and lists and WP:CLN. The "keep" argument makes a good point on notability except that this is a list, so as I understand it, the relevant policies are WP:AOAL, WP:CLN, and WP:LISTN, which this list fails. It, nonetheless, has useful information, so I'd support allowing userification or e-mailing the page on request, at the processing administrator's discretion, at WP:REFUND. Doug Mehus T·C 17:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer. I would have !voted to Delete. This is not a revote. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

No-one is re-voting. ——SN54129 09:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Serial Number 54129 - Re-litigating the original AFD is, as we all know, common in DRV, and it is often useful to restate that a DRV is not a revote. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: as usual, you speak much sense. Please return to the RfA process. ——SN54129 20:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)