| Revision as of 05:58, 2 December 2024 editSportingFlyer (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Rollbackers30,614 edits →Controversy over Baidu: comment← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:49, 27 December 2024 edit undoExtraordinary Writ (talk | contribs)Administrators74,802 edits →Rafael de Orleans e Bragança: re JoelleJay | ||
| (56 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~ --> | Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~ --> | ||
| ====]==== | ==== ] (closed) ==== | ||
| {| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed mw-archivedtalk" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" | |||
| |- | |||
| ! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" | | |||
| * <span class="anchor" id="Controversy over Baidu"></span>''']''' – Deletion '''overturned'''. I will send the page to draftspace (]) for the time being, as suggested by several editors below. ] (]) 03:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC) <!--*--> | |||
| |- | |||
| | style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the ] of the page above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' | |||
| |- | |||
| | style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | | |||
| :{{DRV links|Controversy over Baidu|xfd_page=|article=}} | :{{DRV links|Controversy over Baidu|xfd_page=|article=}} | ||
| I am a course instructor supervising ] and this is the first time I've seen a properly translated article (with references, interlanguage links, etc.) subject to speedy deletion (under strange rationale - G10, attack page). The page in question was just a translation of criticism of Chinese company Baidu from Chinese Misplaced Pages (] - ]), perfectly normal for large companies - see ] and articles like ] or ]. It is simply the main article for the subsection present in our article at ]. Now, the name should probably be ] rather ] <small>(although we also have ] or ] - some name standardization of entries in this category may be in order...)</small>, but there is no good reason to speedy this. If someone dislikes the page, ] could be used, but I am pretty certain the article would be kept, per numerous precedents (dozens of articles in criticism of companies category). With all due respect, whoever speedy tagged it and deleted it needs a ] and a refresher of policies. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 04:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | I am a course instructor supervising ] and this is the first time I've seen a properly translated article (with references, interlanguage links, etc.) subject to speedy deletion (under strange rationale - G10, attack page). The page in question was just a translation of criticism of Chinese company Baidu from Chinese Misplaced Pages (] - ]), perfectly normal for large companies - see ] and articles like ] or ]. It is simply the main article for the subsection present in our article at ]. Now, the name should probably be ] rather ] <small>(although we also have ] or ] - some name standardization of entries in this category may be in order...)</small>, but there is no good reason to speedy this. If someone dislikes the page, ] could be used, but I am pretty certain the article would be kept, per numerous precedents (dozens of articles in criticism of companies category). With all due respect, whoever speedy tagged it and deleted it needs a ] and a refresher of policies. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 04:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment'''. Could the page be undeleted for non-admins to review? I don't see any reason that a page about controversies related to a company would automatically be considered an attack page, but I didn't see the content of this particular page. ] (]) 05:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | *'''Comment'''. Could the page be undeleted for non-admins to review? I don't see any reason that a page about controversies related to a company would automatically be considered an attack page, but I didn't see the content of this particular page. ] (]) 05:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *If an admin could either temp undelete this or confirm it's an attack page that doesn't require undeletion, that would be fantastic. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 05:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | *If an admin could either temp undelete this or confirm it's an attack page that doesn't require undeletion, that would be fantastic. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 05:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Overturn G10''' I don't need to see it, I've disagreed enough with Piotrus in deletion discussions over the years to know that he knows what is and isn't an attack page, so it can go to AfD if someone disagrees. ] (]) 06:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn G10''' <s>assuming good faith that it is a faithful translation of the Chinese page, this shouldnt have been speedily deleted. If there are other concerns, send it to AfD and let the community decide if it should have a place here.</s> ] (]) 08:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Now that the page is visible, which it was not at the time of writing, I do not have to make assumptions about the content. I still stand by that this was not a G10 candidate. If there are notability concerns about the coverage of the controversies as a whole, send it to AfD, however, an overview a summary of controversies in a psuedo-list is a copyediting problem rather than a notability issue. The language used is strong and literal, however, that is inherited from the phrasing of the source language, and an artifact of it being a translation of another article. To me, this means draftify for further copyediting, but an attack page it is not. ] (]) 07:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse'''. After reviewing the deleted page, I completely understand the action of the deleting admin. The page is not like the other "Criticism of ____" pages mentioned by the appellant. It does not attempt to place these controversies in appropriate context or treat them encyclopedically. It's just a laundry list of negative content about the company, and it appears to be based on original research as the sources presented describe individual instances, not covering Baidu-related controversies as an overall topic. (As a translation, it has several significant defects as well.) I think there's probably some room for interpretation here; another admin might have reasonably decided this didn't meet the definition of an attack page, but given what's here (content {{tq|that exists primarily to disparage...its subject}}) a G10 is definitely within discretion. ] (]) 14:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *: This matches my thinking when I tagged the page for G10, including the "another admin might disagree" bit which is why I didn't use my own admin tools to push the delete button. ] ] 17:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' I do think that was a G10 within discretion. There are also salvageable parts, so a draft might be a good idea if it's allowed, but it shouldn't be in mainspace as is. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 17:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' per Dclemens1971 comments above. The fact it is a translation from the Chinese WP is irrelevant, the existence of an article in another language WP is not a guarantee there should be a similar article in the English WP. --] (]) 21:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' It sure looks like the only purpose of that page was to disparage its subject. --] (]) 23:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment (nom)'''. Having read the comments above, I am sure we can remove any parts that are based on weak sources/OR if such parts are tagged, and rewrite content that is not neutral if it is likewise tagged (and feel free to be ] and nuke stuff). I don't think this is bad enough to be ]ed, however, and the topic seems notable per coverage (ex. ) --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 03:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment (nom)'''. I've notified ] and ] about this discussion.--<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 03:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn G10'''. I don't think it was ready for mainspace, but I don't think this could reasonably be characterized as an ]. The fact that it came through the translation process without sufficient encyclopedic context for EN readers is an important concern but doesn't make it speedy deletion material. I think draftification (or re-userfication) would have been a more appropriate remedy. As a professional translator and occasional Misplaced Pages translator, I think I understand what went sideways here. IMO Misplaced Pages translation is best approached as ], and by the same token a faithful translation is mostly wasted effort; it's better to just use the source article as a jumping-off point so you can focus on the challenges of the target wiki-culture rather than on the challenges of the translation process. I am not here to cast aspersions on anyone who is willing to contribute such an enormous amount of necessary and important work. But much of the content of even the ''best'' translation, especially of a substantial article like this, will need to be removed or reworked before it can survive in mainspace on EN wiki. -- ] (]) 04:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn speedy and send to AFD'''. It was not unreasonable to tag this for speedy deletion, or to action that tag. Absent context (and there was none provided in the article), it does seem to "exist primarily to disparage" and raises various other questions. But SD is for uncontroversial, clear deletions and this is not the case here. In particular, it seems there is content that is salvageable. So send it through normal processes to figure out what best to do. No trouting for anyone needed, just people acting reasonably (in creating, tagging, and deleting) and now needs sorting out. ] (]) 12:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn G10'''. Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial and clear cases, which this is not. It can go to AFD if needed, but it is clear that the uncontroversialness criterion isn't met. ] (]) 14:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn speedy''' I can understand why it was deleted as a G10, but per Stifle, this isn't clear enough to be a speedy. It does lack needed nuance in places, but that's fixable. ] (]) 15:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn G10'''. This does not come off as "exclusively" an attack page. Individual sentences that come off as attacks can be removed via editing. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">'''] ]'''</span> 17:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn'''. G10 doesn't exclusively cover BLPs, but the wording of ] makes it pretty clear that they're the priority juridstiction for the criterion, implying that the bar should be very high for other pages to be deleted under it. This article is pretty bad (it's translated worse than Piotrius makes it out to be, and seems to include of ] content) but in terms of prose or sourcing or severity of allegations its no worse than other ''Criticism of <corp>'' pages. ] 00:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn G10, draftify'''. Seems more like ] than ]. Rather more detail than seems necessary in many of the subheadings. The only bit that seems more like an attack that criticism of poor quality control is the final lvl2, {{code|1===Title==}}: there's already a critic quoted elsewhere in the prose referring to the company by the unkind pun 百毒; we could just explain it once and move on. ] (]) 01:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn G10'''. I really don't see how this qualifies for ], which only applies when pages {{tq|serve no other purpose}} than to {{tq|disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity}}. And there is a purpose to that page—controversies surrounding a large company, like Baidu, may well be encyclopedic, just as we have ] and ]. The ''telos'' of this page is not to attack; even if it is a ], that doesn't ''ipso facto'' create an attack page when the primary aim of the page is to cover encyclopedic content. — ] <sub>]</sub> 08:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn G10'''. It looks like ] explicitly allows this kind of article. It also looks like, as Folly Mox pointed out, G10 is aimed mainly at BLPs. A lot of this article is cruft cited to social media with no lasting significance, and those parts should be removed, but the topic is clearly notable and appropriate for the encyclopedia. ] </span>]] 21:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| |- | |||
| | style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the ] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' | |||
| |} | |||
| ====]==== | ====]==== | ||
| Line 20: | Line 50: | ||
| :Commenters supporting deleting or redirecting made more valid, policy-based arguments than those favoring keeping it, so deleting and redirecting seemed the most reasonable course of action. ] ] 00:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | :Commenters supporting deleting or redirecting made more valid, policy-based arguments than those favoring keeping it, so deleting and redirecting seemed the most reasonable course of action. ] ] 00:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::New sources were presented that were simply ignored. If the page was just redirected it could be improved in the future, but the deletion made no sense at all. And in this case, I'm just asking to make it a draft since I think it's possible to work on it in the coming months. It's quite reasonable. ] (]) 02:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | ::New sources were presented that were simply ignored. If the page was just redirected it could be improved in the future, but the deletion made no sense at all. And in this case, I'm just asking to make it a draft since I think it's possible to work on it in the coming months. It's quite reasonable. ] (]) 02:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :::No, you aren't asking that, as I tried to explain. You are asking to overturn the close. If you wanted it restored as a draft so you could work on it, you could've just asked me to do that for without opening a DRV and I would've done it, and none of this would be necessary. ] ] 22:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *The AfD which runs a long time and where consensus is delete, but the very last vote is a keep !vote with sources, is always a bit difficult. At the same time there was also plenty of time to evaluate these sources, and no one bothered to. I think the close was generally fine, but the question is really whether the sources show that the consensus that GNG was not met was incorrect. These are foreign language searches about a topic I'm completely unfamiliar with, and one is paywalled, but I am not convinced this is a clear keep based on the three sources in the AfD. If it were up to me alone I'd endorse the close and draftify the page to allow more sources to be added, but I'm sure there will be others here more confident in their source analysis. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 02:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | *The AfD which runs a long time and where consensus is delete, but the very last vote is a keep !vote with sources, is always a bit difficult. At the same time there was also plenty of time to evaluate these sources, and no one bothered to. I think the close was generally fine, but the question is really whether the sources show that the consensus that GNG was not met was incorrect. These are foreign language searches about a topic I'm completely unfamiliar with, and one is paywalled, but I am not convinced this is a clear keep based on the three sources in the AfD. If it were up to me alone I'd endorse the close and draftify the page to allow more sources to be added, but I'm sure there will be others here more confident in their source analysis. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 02:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *:While this can be taken to a tendentious extreme, yes, a solid posting of additional sources invalidates all prior !votes on a notability basis, until and unless those editors come back to reiterate their !votes. ] (]) 06:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I don't necessarily agree with that - plenty of times at AfD you will see someone posting sources which don't actually meet GNG, and then you'd rely on the closer to make a source analysis, which could potentially lead to supervotes. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 07:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Hence my saying ''solid'' posting, which I'm not saying this was. Some editors, Cunard and Daranios being two that come to my mind, will post what amounts to an annotated bibliography, including quotes and detailed rationales. In this case, these were untranslated bare links--a world of difference. ] (]) 22:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I agree that the distinction you describe does exist. There was no depth to the final comments made by the appellant here, "here's some stuff I found" is not that compelling if you don't explain more clearly what it is. That fancy tool that generates an analysis table is pretty nice for this as well. ] ] 00:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' the close, if this is an appeal of the close. The new sources were presented after two relists, and the closer had no obligation to relist a third time. ] (]) 03:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | *'''Endorse''' the close, if this is an appeal of the close. The new sources were presented after two relists, and the closer had no obligation to relist a third time. ] (]) 03:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Restore to Draft''' and allow review of draft. When the consensus at an AFD is Redirect, the article is usually ], so that the deleted article remains in the history. In this case, it was Deleted and Redirected. Is there a specific reason why it was deleted this time? I don't think that the appellant is making an unreasonable request to have the article restored in draft. They will be well advised to expand the article to summarize what the additional sources say. ] (]) 03:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | *'''Restore to Draft''' and allow review of draft. When the consensus at an AFD is Redirect, the article is usually ], so that the deleted article remains in the history. In this case, it was Deleted and Redirected. Is there a specific reason why it was deleted this time? I don't think that the appellant is making an unreasonable request to have the article restored in draft. They will be well advised to expand the article to summarize what the additional sources say. ] (]) 03:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Restore history to redirect''', which would allow any user to create a draft from the prior version. The redirect close was correct, but I see no reason to have deleted the history as a blank and redirect would have had the same effect. None of the AFD participants made any objection to retaining page |
*'''Restore history to redirect''', which would allow any user to create a draft from the prior version. The redirect close was correct, but I see no reason to have deleted the history as a blank and redirect would have had the same effect. None of the AFD participants made any objection to retaining page history (which is very common in a redirect and, in my opinion, the greatest benefit to having a redirect). <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">'''] ]'''</span> 05:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *:We should really get rid of the delete-and-then-redirect as a common practice. It's great for copyvio, attack pages, or other abuse, but for run-of-the mill NN content, it's both overkill AND makes it more difficult for someone to come along and repair the deficiency later. ] (]) 06:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn''' to NC. Or relist. There's no good reason that after a relist, when the only editor commenting after the relist posts sources and opines keep, an admin should find a consensus to delete. Admins don't all have to defer to each other's relists, but that doesn't pass a sniff test. I've commented on other issues above, but that's the heart of the policy-based reason I find the close problematic. ] (]) 06:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse close''' which is consistent with the discussion. If we're going to raise issues not raised in the deletion discussion, then I will point out that this article and its companions are magnets for cross-wiki LTA. , , , , etc. etc. All this talk about needing the page history: , where it's been since the last deletion discussion. The content is insignificantly different from all the other times this content has been blanked, restored, deleted, recreated, redirected, and argued over. ] (]) 09:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn to Redirect ''without'' history deletion'''. There was no valid reason to delete the history, and indeed, none of the Redirect !voters suggested it. The Redirect !votes were for an ''alternative'' to deletion, not for a grave marker. If any revisions contain copyvio or attacks, those specific revs can be deleted. ] ] 11:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I felt the decision was spilt between those calling for redirecting and those calling for deletion, which is why I made the decision I did. It may not be what every other admin would have done in this case but I believe it was within the realm of admin discretion when determining consensus. I also really don't think using hyperbole like "grave marker" is helpful, or even makes sense in the case of a redirect, which is a more like a signpost if you want to use metaphors. ] ] 02:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - Thanks to ] for providing a link to the deleted content. It seems that the deletion of the history by the closer didn't delete the history because there are two or more versions of the article with different linguistic forms of a preposition, a form of ]. The appellant can copy the deleted article to draft space. ] (]) 17:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn to Redirect ''without'' history deletion''' While a close of redirect was within the discretion of the closer, there was no reason given during the discussion that suggested the history was problematic. --] (]) 21:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse but restore to draft''' (or restore the history under the redirect, no preference). JSS' close was correct, but no reason not to allow requestor to try and improve this in draft space. That's why I lean that way vs. history restoration but either way fine. ] ] 01:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn to NC''', or at any rate '''restore history''', since there was plainly no support for the unusual step of delete-and-redirect. I am troubled by the closer's statement above that a lack of replies to a !vote indicates that the other participants did not find it persuasive. By that standard none of the delete !votes were persuasive either -- indeed even less so, since more time had passed. In this way and others, it seems clear that the closer took it upon themselves to pick away at the rationales for keeping ''without applying any comparable scrutiny'', or apparently any scrutiny at all, to the rationales for deletion. Indeed the closer does not appear even to have weighed the rather obvious problem that the AFD nom failed to make a valid argument for deletion in the first place (improperly basing the claim of non-notability only on sources present in the article).{{pb}}But setting all those quibbles aside, even by the most favorable application of ], there was simply no consensus -- that is, reading the AFD discussion as favorably as possible to the close, the best that can be said is that both sides raised plausible arguments that were neither conclusively refuted nor found persuasive by their opponents. Looking at Svartner's sources I don't see anything that would justify rejecting them out of hand. (I can ''imagine'' that people with deeper knowledge of the subject matter might find reasons to do so, e.g. maybe these particular outlets are unreliable in this area, but nobody suggested that in the AFD.) IMO the best argument for deletion is the one raised above, that these articles are part of a larger program of ], but that is not an argument that was raised in the discussion or considered in the close. -- ] (]) 03:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:To be clear, I did not reject those sources out of hand. I didn't even look at them. That's not the closers job, I was there to read consensus, not sources. And the very first comment after the nomination does in fact mention the broader issues with this subject area, although it didn't seem to gain much traction. ] ] 04:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Restore to draft, or (no objection to) restore history under redirect'''. We struggle with situations where a discussion sputters, then someone brings up potential sources, and .... crickets (i.e., silence). Did others evaluate the new sources and find them lacking? Or no one looked at them (since foreign language, or people were just tired of this discussion?). Layer on a topic area with history on wp, and I don't fault any decisions made. But sending to draft, as requested by appellant here, seems a sensible way forward. BTW, I agree with the commentary above that closers should be careful about delete-then-redirect closes. A preponderance of !votes arguing for either delete or redirect should not imply delete-and-redirect is necessarily the consensus outcome; it's quite possible many of the delete !votes merely mean "should not be a standalone article" and would not object to a redirect instead, exactly as the redirect !voters are saying. BTW, I know nothing about independence of various sources in Portuguese, but the sources provided at the end of the AFD seem not unreasonable. ] (]) 12:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn''' I think NC and redirect were both valid outcomes based on the discussion. This was not. ] (]) 15:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| *Just to re-iterate what I've stated above, I was not asked to restore it as a draft before this drv was opened. If I had I would've done so. I'm pretty much always willing to do that, as are most admins, but drv shouldn't be the method for asking for it. ] ] 21:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I don't think the page should be restored to draft. The three sources presented by the appellant are weak, and likely won't survive AfC or a second AfD anyway. Your Redirect close was correct. It's the history deletion I and others here find questionable. Self-revert that deletion, and we can probably close this DRV with a broad endorsement. ] ] 21:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Not that I necessarily disagree but I'd rather let an uninvolved admin close in the usual manner. ] ] 00:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse'''. It was not unreasonable to find a rough consensus to delete, and the specific "delete and redirect" outcome is just "delete" with the deleting admin noting that they are also creating a redirect (which anyone else could do). "Delete and redirect" may look unusual, but that does not matter when it's really just a "delete" close. The real "redirect" outcome as an ATD was certainly an option but it was not a requirement; I particularly lean toward not seeing it as a requirement when a BLP is concerned, and in the AfD it was said that the content is weak due to poor sourcing and that there is recycled information from articles about other people, which really makes for something I'm fine not using an ATD on. The "new sources" are bad and I don't like the idea of a draft, as no amount of drafting can make a non-notable topic notable. Still, '''restore to draft''', per the usual practice in this situation.—] 02:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Despite DrKay's disturbing revelations about this subject on other wikis, no serious issues have been raised about this article in this discussion yet, so deleting and redirecting was highly inappropriate. I don't particularly care what happens in this case but I am shocked to hear from JSS that they deleted and redirected simply because a few people !voted delete and a few people !voted redirect. Unless a CSD applies, delete and redirect is never a valid ]. ''Never''! ] </span>]] 21:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *My first choice would be to '''relist''' (even though third relists are frowned upon) and ping the previous !voters; I can't see a consensus to delete when unrebutted sources are on the table, but I'm not sure no consensus would be a fair closure in this situation either. At a minimum, though, overturn to redirect—deleting the history when no one has offered a reason ''why'' is neither policy-based nor a good idea. ] (]) 10:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse'''. Deleting and redirecting is not unheard of, and especially for regular targets of aristocracy fans simple redirection just makes it easier for LTA accounts to recreate the article in the future while avoiding NPP. ] (]) 23:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **For the benefit of any would-be spammers reading, articles created from redirects do go back into the NPP queue—there's no getting around it quite that easily. ] (]) 01:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **:They do? I didn't realize simply reverting a redirection could reset the patrolled status. ] (]) 23:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **::Yep: "]" You can typically find examples by going to ] and sorting by "oldest". ] (]) 23:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse.''' It is not the closer's fault that possibly relevant sources were offered too late in the discussion to sway consensus. The two other "keep" opinions offered no policy-based arguments, and none of the "redirect" opinions makes an argument for why the history should be retained. The "delete and redirect" closure therefore reflected rough consensus in the discussion. As ever, all are free to recreate the article if proper GNG-compliant sources are found. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is not the job of the redirect voters to explain why the history should be retained, as that is standard practice for a redirect. However, as several people brought up already in the DRV, no voter brought up a valid reason to ''not'' retain the article history. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">'''] ]'''</span> 18:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse redirect closure''' but '''restore history behind redirect''' to allow for further potential improvements, feels like the best way forward here. Alternatively, happy with restoring to draft too (this could theoretically be done by anyone if restoring history behind redirect is the outcome). Nothing wrong with the original close, but happy to give a chance for improvements to the article, to better meet our P&G's. ] (]) 17:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:49, 27 December 2024
< 2024 December 1 Deletion review archives: 2024 December 2024 December 3 >2 December 2024
Controversy over Baidu (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I am a course instructor supervising students writing and translating articles here for 10+ years and this is the first time I've seen a properly translated article (with references, interlanguage links, etc.) subject to speedy deletion (under strange rationale - G10, attack page). The page in question was just a translation of criticism of Chinese company Baidu from Chinese Misplaced Pages (zh:对百度的争议 - wikidata:Q10956638), perfectly normal for large companies - see Category:Criticisms of companies and articles like Criticism of Google or Criticism of Starbucks. It is simply the main article for the subsection present in our article at Baidu#Controversies. Now, the name should probably be Criticism of Baidu rather Controversy over Baidu (although we also have MSNBC controversies or Controversies of Nestlé - some name standardization of entries in this category may be in order...), but there is no good reason to speedy this. If someone dislikes the page, WP:AFD could be used, but I am pretty certain the article would be kept, per numerous precedents (dozens of articles in criticism of companies category). With all due respect, whoever speedy tagged it and deleted it needs a WP:TROUT and a refresher of policies. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Rafael de Orleans e Bragança
I would like to know if the page can be reinstated as draft since new sources presented in the discussion were ignored. Svartner (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse own close Just so we're on the same page here: This process is for contesting the closers' reading of the consensus of the discussion. It is not the closers responsibility to evaluate sources, but to gauge consensus, which I believe I did.
- Your remark was there for a week without being replied to, so seemingly it was not found to be compelling by the other particpants.
- Of the other comments in favor of keeping it, one made arguments not based in policy, one baldly stated that better sources exist and did not follow up on that when asked to, and one was self-identified as "weak".
- Commenters supporting deleting or redirecting made more valid, policy-based arguments than those favoring keeping it, so deleting and redirecting seemed the most reasonable course of action. Just Step Sideways 00:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- New sources were presented that were simply ignored. If the page was just redirected it could be improved in the future, but the deletion made no sense at all. And in this case, I'm just asking to make it a draft since I think it's possible to work on it in the coming months. It's quite reasonable. Svartner (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, you aren't asking that, as I tried to explain. You are asking to overturn the close. If you wanted it restored as a draft so you could work on it, you could've just asked me to do that for without opening a DRV and I would've done it, and none of this would be necessary. Just Step Sideways 22:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- New sources were presented that were simply ignored. If the page was just redirected it could be improved in the future, but the deletion made no sense at all. And in this case, I'm just asking to make it a draft since I think it's possible to work on it in the coming months. It's quite reasonable. Svartner (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- The AfD which runs a long time and where consensus is delete, but the very last vote is a keep !vote with sources, is always a bit difficult. At the same time there was also plenty of time to evaluate these sources, and no one bothered to. I think the close was generally fine, but the question is really whether the sources show that the consensus that GNG was not met was incorrect. These are foreign language searches about a topic I'm completely unfamiliar with, and one is paywalled, but I am not convinced this is a clear keep based on the three sources in the AfD. If it were up to me alone I'd endorse the close and draftify the page to allow more sources to be added, but I'm sure there will be others here more confident in their source analysis. SportingFlyer T·C 02:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- While this can be taken to a tendentious extreme, yes, a solid posting of additional sources invalidates all prior !votes on a notability basis, until and unless those editors come back to reiterate their !votes. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily agree with that - plenty of times at AfD you will see someone posting sources which don't actually meet GNG, and then you'd rely on the closer to make a source analysis, which could potentially lead to supervotes. SportingFlyer T·C 07:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hence my saying solid posting, which I'm not saying this was. Some editors, Cunard and Daranios being two that come to my mind, will post what amounts to an annotated bibliography, including quotes and detailed rationales. In this case, these were untranslated bare links--a world of difference. Jclemens (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that the distinction you describe does exist. There was no depth to the final comments made by the appellant here, "here's some stuff I found" is not that compelling if you don't explain more clearly what it is. That fancy tool that generates an analysis table is pretty nice for this as well. Just Step Sideways 00:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hence my saying solid posting, which I'm not saying this was. Some editors, Cunard and Daranios being two that come to my mind, will post what amounts to an annotated bibliography, including quotes and detailed rationales. In this case, these were untranslated bare links--a world of difference. Jclemens (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily agree with that - plenty of times at AfD you will see someone posting sources which don't actually meet GNG, and then you'd rely on the closer to make a source analysis, which could potentially lead to supervotes. SportingFlyer T·C 07:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- While this can be taken to a tendentious extreme, yes, a solid posting of additional sources invalidates all prior !votes on a notability basis, until and unless those editors come back to reiterate their !votes. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse the close, if this is an appeal of the close. The new sources were presented after two relists, and the closer had no obligation to relist a third time. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Restore to Draft and allow review of draft. When the consensus at an AFD is Redirect, the article is usually Blanked and Redirected, so that the deleted article remains in the history. In this case, it was Deleted and Redirected. Is there a specific reason why it was deleted this time? I don't think that the appellant is making an unreasonable request to have the article restored in draft. They will be well advised to expand the article to summarize what the additional sources say. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Restore history to redirect, which would allow any user to create a draft from the prior version. The redirect close was correct, but I see no reason to have deleted the history as a blank and redirect would have had the same effect. None of the AFD participants made any objection to retaining page history (which is very common in a redirect and, in my opinion, the greatest benefit to having a redirect). Frank Anchor 05:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- We should really get rid of the delete-and-then-redirect as a common practice. It's great for copyvio, attack pages, or other abuse, but for run-of-the mill NN content, it's both overkill AND makes it more difficult for someone to come along and repair the deficiency later. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn to NC. Or relist. There's no good reason that after a relist, when the only editor commenting after the relist posts sources and opines keep, an admin should find a consensus to delete. Admins don't all have to defer to each other's relists, but that doesn't pass a sniff test. I've commented on other issues above, but that's the heart of the policy-based reason I find the close problematic. Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse close which is consistent with the discussion. If we're going to raise issues not raised in the deletion discussion, then I will point out that this article and its companions are magnets for cross-wiki LTA. Simple wikipedia article created by a globally-locked sockpuppet, Spanish article created by a globally-locked sockpuppet, French article created by a globally-locked sockpuppet, Afrikaans article created by a globally-locked sock puppet, etc. etc. All this talk about needing the page history: it's here, where it's been since the last deletion discussion. The content is insignificantly different from all the other times this content has been blanked, restored, deleted, recreated, redirected, and argued over. DrKay (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn to Redirect without history deletion. There was no valid reason to delete the history, and indeed, none of the Redirect !voters suggested it. The Redirect !votes were for an alternative to deletion, not for a grave marker. If any revisions contain copyvio or attacks, those specific revs can be deleted. Owen× ☎ 11:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I felt the decision was spilt between those calling for redirecting and those calling for deletion, which is why I made the decision I did. It may not be what every other admin would have done in this case but I believe it was within the realm of admin discretion when determining consensus. I also really don't think using hyperbole like "grave marker" is helpful, or even makes sense in the case of a redirect, which is a more like a signpost if you want to use metaphors. Just Step Sideways 02:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Thanks to User:DrKay for providing a link to the deleted content. It seems that the deletion of the history by the closer didn't delete the history because there are two or more versions of the article with different linguistic forms of a preposition, a form of gaming a title. The appellant can copy the deleted article to draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn to Redirect without history deletion While a close of redirect was within the discretion of the closer, there was no reason given during the discussion that suggested the history was problematic. --Enos733 (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse but restore to draft (or restore the history under the redirect, no preference). JSS' close was correct, but no reason not to allow requestor to try and improve this in draft space. That's why I lean that way vs. history restoration but either way fine. Star Mississippi 01:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn to NC, or at any rate restore history, since there was plainly no support for the unusual step of delete-and-redirect. I am troubled by the closer's statement above that a lack of replies to a !vote indicates that the other participants did not find it persuasive. By that standard none of the delete !votes were persuasive either -- indeed even less so, since more time had passed. In this way and others, it seems clear that the closer took it upon themselves to pick away at the rationales for keeping without applying any comparable scrutiny, or apparently any scrutiny at all, to the rationales for deletion. Indeed the closer does not appear even to have weighed the rather obvious problem that the AFD nom failed to make a valid argument for deletion in the first place (improperly basing the claim of non-notability only on sources present in the article).But setting all those quibbles aside, even by the most favorable application of WP:DETCON, there was simply no consensus -- that is, reading the AFD discussion as favorably as possible to the close, the best that can be said is that both sides raised plausible arguments that were neither conclusively refuted nor found persuasive by their opponents. Looking at Svartner's sources I don't see anything that would justify rejecting them out of hand. (I can imagine that people with deeper knowledge of the subject matter might find reasons to do so, e.g. maybe these particular outlets are unreliable in this area, but nobody suggested that in the AFD.) IMO the best argument for deletion is the one raised above, that these articles are part of a larger program of promotional abuse, but that is not an argument that was raised in the discussion or considered in the close. -- Visviva (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear, I did not reject those sources out of hand. I didn't even look at them. That's not the closers job, I was there to read consensus, not sources. And the very first comment after the nomination does in fact mention the broader issues with this subject area, although it didn't seem to gain much traction. Just Step Sideways 04:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Restore to draft, or (no objection to) restore history under redirect. We struggle with situations where a discussion sputters, then someone brings up potential sources, and .... crickets (i.e., silence). Did others evaluate the new sources and find them lacking? Or no one looked at them (since foreign language, or people were just tired of this discussion?). Layer on a topic area with history on wp, and I don't fault any decisions made. But sending to draft, as requested by appellant here, seems a sensible way forward. BTW, I agree with the commentary above that closers should be careful about delete-then-redirect closes. A preponderance of !votes arguing for either delete or redirect should not imply delete-and-redirect is necessarily the consensus outcome; it's quite possible many of the delete !votes merely mean "should not be a standalone article" and would not object to a redirect instead, exactly as the redirect !voters are saying. BTW, I know nothing about independence of various sources in Portuguese, but the sources provided at the end of the AFD seem not unreasonable. Martinp (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn I think NC and redirect were both valid outcomes based on the discussion. This was not. Hobit (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just to re-iterate what I've stated above, I was not asked to restore it as a draft before this drv was opened. If I had I would've done so. I'm pretty much always willing to do that, as are most admins, but drv shouldn't be the method for asking for it. Just Step Sideways 21:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think the page should be restored to draft. The three sources presented by the appellant are weak, and likely won't survive AfC or a second AfD anyway. Your Redirect close was correct. It's the history deletion I and others here find questionable. Self-revert that deletion, and we can probably close this DRV with a broad endorsement. Owen× ☎ 21:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not that I necessarily disagree but I'd rather let an uninvolved admin close in the usual manner. Just Step Sideways 00:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think the page should be restored to draft. The three sources presented by the appellant are weak, and likely won't survive AfC or a second AfD anyway. Your Redirect close was correct. It's the history deletion I and others here find questionable. Self-revert that deletion, and we can probably close this DRV with a broad endorsement. Owen× ☎ 21:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. It was not unreasonable to find a rough consensus to delete, and the specific "delete and redirect" outcome is just "delete" with the deleting admin noting that they are also creating a redirect (which anyone else could do). "Delete and redirect" may look unusual, but that does not matter when it's really just a "delete" close. The real "redirect" outcome as an ATD was certainly an option but it was not a requirement; I particularly lean toward not seeing it as a requirement when a BLP is concerned, and in the AfD it was said that the content is weak due to poor sourcing and that there is recycled information from articles about other people, which really makes for something I'm fine not using an ATD on. The "new sources" are bad and I don't like the idea of a draft, as no amount of drafting can make a non-notable topic notable. Still, restore to draft, per the usual practice in this situation.—Alalch E. 02:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Despite DrKay's disturbing revelations about this subject on other wikis, no serious issues have been raised about this article in this discussion yet, so deleting and redirecting was highly inappropriate. I don't particularly care what happens in this case but I am shocked to hear from JSS that they deleted and redirected simply because a few people !voted delete and a few people !voted redirect. Unless a CSD applies, delete and redirect is never a valid alternative to deletion. Never! Toadspike 21:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- My first choice would be to relist (even though third relists are frowned upon) and ping the previous !voters; I can't see a consensus to delete when unrebutted sources are on the table, but I'm not sure no consensus would be a fair closure in this situation either. At a minimum, though, overturn to redirect—deleting the history when no one has offered a reason why is neither policy-based nor a good idea. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. Deleting and redirecting is not unheard of, and especially for regular targets of aristocracy fans simple redirection just makes it easier for LTA accounts to recreate the article in the future while avoiding NPP. JoelleJay (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- For the benefit of any would-be spammers reading, articles created from redirects do go back into the NPP queue—there's no getting around it quite that easily. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- They do? I didn't realize simply reverting a redirection could reset the patrolled status. JoelleJay (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yep: "If a redirect or blanked page is converted to an article, it will be marked as unreviewed and placed in the new pages feed. This is to avoid people creating redirects for inappropriate pages and later converting them into articles to avoid review." You can typically find examples by going to Special:NewPagesFeed and sorting by "oldest". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- They do? I didn't realize simply reverting a redirection could reset the patrolled status. JoelleJay (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- For the benefit of any would-be spammers reading, articles created from redirects do go back into the NPP queue—there's no getting around it quite that easily. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. It is not the closer's fault that possibly relevant sources were offered too late in the discussion to sway consensus. The two other "keep" opinions offered no policy-based arguments, and none of the "redirect" opinions makes an argument for why the history should be retained. The "delete and redirect" closure therefore reflected rough consensus in the discussion. As ever, all are free to recreate the article if proper GNG-compliant sources are found. Sandstein 15:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is not the job of the redirect voters to explain why the history should be retained, as that is standard practice for a redirect. However, as several people brought up already in the DRV, no voter brought up a valid reason to not retain the article history. Frank Anchor 18:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse redirect closure but restore history behind redirect to allow for further potential improvements, feels like the best way forward here. Alternatively, happy with restoring to draft too (this could theoretically be done by anyone if restoring history behind redirect is the outcome). Nothing wrong with the original close, but happy to give a chance for improvements to the article, to better meet our P&G's. Daniel (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)