Misplaced Pages

Red cunt hair (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No clear consensus, so should have defaulted to keep  Chzz  ►  22:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion: The debate fell clearly within admin discretion and it's important we maintain our core principles, esp. project scope. Additionally, the arguments from the delete side were much stronger. I see no reason to dig up the buried horse. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - I personally would have closed it as no consensus, but I trust the closing admin's judgment. Also, the arguments to delete the article were stronger than those to keep. –Juliancolton |  22:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - competently closed by weighing arguments instead of counting votes. Given the delete arguments were stronger than the keep arguments, a delete result was a good call. PhilKnight (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn- I see no consensus to delete from that. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - Correct policy weighted close. There were a lot of ilikeit keeps, but not much that addressed the reasons why the AfD was begun. --Clay Collier (talk) 08:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn. That should've been a no consensus outcome.—S Marshall /_Cont 08:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Struck, see below.—S Marshall /_Cont 22:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse, notavote. Deletion had the arguements, keeping had the numbers. I don't like numbers. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 10:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. When a deletion discussion has roughly the same number of people supporting and opposing deletion, the administrator closing the debate should take into account when determining the result the strength of arguments, and whether either side had the force of a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline behind it. That was exactly what happened here, although the basic delete closure without an explanation of this might have been a suboptimal choice. Stifle (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse – Proper admin closure per guideline. I believe the arguments for deletion outweighed the arguments against it. MuZemike 16:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, other editors would've given a great deal less weight to Smerdis of Tlon's argument than I would have!—S Marshall /_Cont 18:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• weak endorse This probably belongs on a list somewhere, so ideally a merge would have occurred instead. But target isn't clear. As Stifle indicated, the closer ideally would have provided an explanation (and again, ideally, mentioned a willingness to merge given a target). Hobit (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Striking !vote. I'm annoyed with the ARS issues and the canvassing claims that keep getting thrown around in poor faith here and elsewhere. Finally L at Large shows this was probably no consensus. Hobit (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse good close, no procedural problems.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse good close - arguments by those favouring deletion were obviously stronger than those favouring retention. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn - clearly worth keeping and far away from being a dictionary entry. Topic has a long enough history and the article was well written and had good sources. Why was this deleted in the first place? Both discussions ended very close and were within weeks. Do we repeat AfDs until an admin can be found who's willing to delete the article? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 20:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Note that this DRV has been canvassed at Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron - (diff). Black Kite 20:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Notifying WP:ARS about content under deletion review is not WP:CANVASSing. The project has been approved to assess the viability of content for the project and vote accordingly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "The project has been approved to assess the viability of content for the project and vote accordingly."
      No, it hasn't. You may want to read WP:ARS#So ARS wants to keep everything? and WP:ARS#What the Rescue template is not for. It is not an article inclusion thinktank. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes it is. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
        • No, it isn't. There have been some persistent attempts by one or two editors to pervert it into such. But there were also attempts to pervert Talk:Deletionism and inclusionism in Misplaced Pages in much the same way. In both cases, one should not take the attempts to pervert something into something else that it is not, by a battleground-seeking minority, as evidence that it actually is, or is intended to be by non-battlers, what it is not. Uncle G (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Nonsense - ARS' remit is to provide sources and cleanup articles that are at AfD. It is specifically *not* a vote-gathering exercise. It is sad to see the cynical impression that some have garnered of the ARS so quickly confirmed by one of its members. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I suggest you re-think that. Indicating that ARS is a mechanism for voting in a certain manner at AfD and DRV would probably lead to an MfD for the project. However, canvassing is clearly indicated here, as many Keep voters on the original AfD were ARS members, and thus likely to vote Overturn here (as you can see below). Black Kite 21:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Blatant and wholly inappropriate canvassing by the person who brought this to DRV. Absolutely unacceptable behavior. In cases like this we really should simply close the discussion altogether, but I suppose that'll just stir up drama. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • If ARS has a remit limited to providing sources and cleaning up articles that are at AfD, why was there a notification regarding this DRV? From my perspective, it certainly looks like canvassing. PhilKnight (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • It seems, as a personal observation, that any AfD involving an article "tagged for rescue" has lately become filled with ARS members voting "keep" with little or no reference to guidelines or policy. Whether or not this is the explicit purpose of ARS, bringing unreasoned "keep" votes to AfDs appears to be what happens when that rescue tag goes on. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
      • More accusations of canvassing of ARS yet DRV is in fact one area in which we can help. In this case I don't see what we can do without actually being able to work on the article but making blanket accusations against the whole project seems less than productive. If the article did exist we would apply the {{rescue}} tag and point to the DrV - which in turn points to the AfD. Potential rescuers would need to take in all the salient stated deficiencies and see if the article was indeed rescueable. I find the toxic approach of labelling all the work of the rescue project as canvassing uncivil and unproductive. Our members have rescued many many items and will continue to improve Misplaced Pages in this manner. Jumping on editors for stepping out of form seems likely over-reacting. If closers on AfD and DrV can't adequately weight the many facets of a discussion that is a different issue that ARS has no control over. -- Banjeboi 22:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
        • The article has been in user space for over a week here where it could be improved. Half the votes were for the article to be moved to Hair (unit of measure), which could created regardless of the outcome of the AfD if new content was added. There is a lot ARS could be doing instead of vote stacking. BJ 23:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Knock it off, ARS has never and still doesn't advocate violating policies. Please desist in suggestion so which does violate our civility policies. I'll look to what can be done about userspace work. -- Banjeboi 00:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
            • That's true. WP:CANVASS is a guideline, not a policy. Not sure how that makes a difference here, though; it was still wholly unacceptable to canvass for "overturn" votes. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
              • The point is the same ARS has not and does not endorse canvassing despite several editors insisting so despite lack of any evidence. Could this user posted a more neutral post, certainly, is it fair to slander an entire project based on this - not so much. As usual, the over-reaction to perceived canvassing has done far more disruption than the original post ever did. It's also a leap of bad faith that the DRV closer isn't able to fairly close a discussion and apply due weight appropriately. -- Banjeboi 00:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
                • What else would you like a group of users all coming from the same place and then voting the same (with one exception) be called? BJ 00:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
                • I'd rather you knocked off the disingenuity. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
                • Benjiboi, I don't doubt that the ARS wikiproject members have good intentions and do good work. I think perhaps the idea of improving articles and hereby preventing them from being deleted may have been co-opted by some members into an ideological battle between "inclusionists" and "deletionists". Even framing things using those terms is automatically divisive and puts the focus on editors instead of articles. You probably don't share my impression of what has been happening lately. It wasn't my intention to start a discussion or get into specifics here, just to share my observation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
                  • I think all projects go through some soul-searching and that's not a bad thing, I appreciate any constructive suggestions and also invite you and anyone else to make solid suggestion to my talkpage and I will suss them out one by one. If we were the Article Mercy Angel Squad putting articles out of their misery it likely would have similar concerns along another bent axis so I appreciate the insight. -- Banjeboi 10:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
      • You've not observed enough data to form a correct conclusion. For example: Biblical definition of God (AfD discussion) was not tagged, but it was rescued. (Tagging an article for rescue doesn't mean that rescue actually happens. And the converse is true, too. Rescue happens even when no tagging occurs.) You won't find any silly bloc voting at either its subsequent deletion review or its second AFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Outdent. If we needed to call them anything besides volunteers you could use editors, fellow human beings, Wikipedians, etc. Anything else seems to present your POV and a bad faith assumption. Closers look at the merits of !votes not the volume of noise to signal. We know there are AfD participants on both ends of a deletion/inclusion continuum who make rather empty comments. I think in general our closers can suss out those issues in the best interests of the overall project. -- Banjeboi 01:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • That doesn't mean it is ok to votestack. Just the opposite. Adding noise doesn't make it easier to just remove the noise again. It makes it harder for any closing admin to properly read consensus for a discussion. I have every confidence in our AfD closers, but we shouldn't set them up for failure. Point is, using ARS for votestacking is wrong and it brings up a question I've had for a while now. Why aren't you guys at ARS the most fervent enforcers of this? Why aren't you on the lookout for anything that even gives a hint that your project is becoming (even partially) a tool to stack votes at AfD and now DRV (A DRV I might add, for an article which was nominated because it was outside the project scope, rather than because it lacked sources or polish)? Protonk (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure anyone has ever suggest vote-stacking or canvassing was OK? And ARS, IMHO, has indeed taken steps to address the perceptions of some editors such as yourself, who only see ARS as inclusionists or something. And when someone visits our talkpage with less than neutral posts we would deal with it except some self-appointed editors have inserted themselves as authorities. This even resulted in an RfC because I had posted a link to a TfD discussion, the result?, TfDs are now offcially under ARS as well. And DrVs have always been as it is an article that can be improved to satisfy the original concerns of the AfD. As to why we don't do more? Well lately it's been a non-stop barrage of accusations of canvassing from the same editors who have routinely lobbed that against us for a very long time, with little to no evidence whatsoever that we are in fact a vote-stacking group a of inclusionists. Several of the deletionists in our ranks are quite insulted by that as well as those, like myself who aren't particularly embracing either camp. My hunch s most of us are somewhere in the middle and don't need the drama. If you have any constructive suggestion feel free to ping my talkpage as ARS has been turned into a battleground by our detractors. -- Banjeboi 20:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't see ARS as all inclusionists. I see it as dramatically more inclusionist than it was when I joined in April of last year, certainly. I don't think that this conversation will really get us anywhere. Protonk (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
        • I appreciate your insight and agree as above that maybe this isn't the best venue. My concern was to address the oft-repeated accusation that I feel should be addressed directly and I've done that. There are some valid concerns and i believe they can be addressed systematically without causing disruption and that is my aim. -- Banjeboi 10:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn no consensus outcome would have been correct.Ikip (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment If my actions are classed as canvassing, then I sincerely apologise. It was suggested to me that I inform ARS of the DRV, and the idea that this could be construed as canvassing honestly never occurred to me; all I can do is to plead ignorance/stupidity.  Chzz  ►  08:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Specifically, it was suggested by TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn I don't feel that there was consensus to delete the article. I also feel like they were just taking stabs at the apple only a few weeks after the first AFD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - The delete arguments were much stronger than the keep arguments. OlYeller 22:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. The keep arguments generally seemed to be "but it's well sourced", ignoring the basic argument. Quantpole (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus And the delete arguments were IDONTLIKEIT. of the two, well sourced is much nearer to policy. I was undecided myself, & therefore didn't comment at the afd, But looking at it there was no consensus. There's no way to judge what the closer may have based the close on, as he has never said. DGG (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • They weren't IDONTLIKEIT arguments. They were "Hey, we've been through this previously and decided to create a separate project for dictionary definitions" arguments. Have one citation, have sixteen: a dictionary definition is a dictionary definition. If only this were codified somewhere.... ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. I don't see much of a clear leaning in either direction. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. (disclosure: I recommended Keep in the AfD) After taking some time to distill the arguments in the disucssion, I see a clear "no consensus". There were more "keep" arguments than "delete" arguments (12 to 10). The keepers basically said "it's notable and it's already more than a DICDEF". The deleters basically said "it's a non-notable DICDEF or I don't like it". Neither side really supported their arguments with evidence, other than the references already in the article. Thus, instead of a "keep", it should be lowered to "no consensus". Data:

Keep arguments:
    Keep Sourced, notable, move to Hair (unit of measurement)    1
    Keep Already more than a WP:DICDEF                4
    Keep Sourced, repetetive nomination                1
    Keep + move to Hair (unit of measurement)            1
    Keep per WP:NOTDIC                        1
    Keep Sourced, WP is not censored                1
    Keep Sourced, notable                        3
Delete arguments:
    Delete Article is ridiculous, WP:DICDEF, Not notable        1
    Delete WP:DICDEF                        6
    Delete Article is nonsense/ridiculous                1
    Delete Article is ridiculous + WP:DICDEF            1
    Delete Not notable                        1

— LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Note: I am not arguing "delete" or "keep" here. I'm arguing that an objective analysis of the merit of the arguments clearly points to a "no consensus" closure. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • You've done just the opposite. This is as far from "an objective analysis of the merit of the arguments" as you can get; it's a list of votes, without the arguments. For example, notability was not something at issue but suitability for an encyclopedia. And this article was not well sourced at all, despite all the claims by the people who wanted it kept and refused to explain their claim. Listing quotations of a term being used does not establish the merit of the term any more than every other word in the language. What you're doing is listing the vote rationales devoid of their reasoning, to make it look like the two sides were equally cogent in their arguments, when it wasn't the case. Dominic·t 00:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
      • All I have done is condense the arguments so the discussion can be analyzed at a glance. The closing admin probably shouldn't even look at the article. They should interpret and implement consensus based on the arguments and supporting evidence given in the discussion. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn The correct finding was "no consensus." "IDONTLIKEIT" arguments should have been ignored. Edison (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Personally I would've gone for some merge/redirect with the unit of measurement article, but there's nothing wrong with this close. Those arguing above that Delete !votes are WP:IDONTLIKEIT are missing the point that at least there's a rationale (WP:DICDEF) there, whilst many of the Keeps are vague armwaving that somewhow it isn't a dicdef or it's notable purely because there are lots of sources (at least six votes say something along those lines). Black Kite 06:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Within the discretion of the closing administrator. Protonk (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn with no prejudice to relisting for further input. There clearly wasn't a consensus to delete. If it had been me closing, I would have closed as "no consensus" just to be safe since it's actually borderline "keep" that could fall to "delete" with just one additional reasonably sane opinions as to why. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 09:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn Did the closing editor simply take one look at the title, and dismiss it as nonsense, or did they take the time to read the arguments from both sides? Also, those who wish to endorse this, have you actually read through the AFD? What delete argument convinced you? Dream Focus 10:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you have any evidence to back up your fairly severe accusation of bad faith? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy close this DRV as irretrievably tainted by canvassing at WT:ARS, with liberty to relist in a week or two. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely sure that would be useful; once canvassing has taken place it is impossible to withdraw, with the result that a future DRV would be just as tainted as this one. The community may wish to consider how long it is willing to put up with what is becoming a recurring problem. Black Kite 17:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • You're again assuming bad faith that ARS members have stated some opinion that all articles, or at least all article tagged with {{rescue}} will be voted for keep when I know that's not true at all. -- Banjeboi 00:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Stifle (talk) 08:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
        • You want me to cite my own experience? Duly noted. -- Banjeboi 18:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to "No consensus" per DGG and LinguistAtLarge. Both demonstrate that, once the ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT !votes are discounted, the main arguments were about whether this article was really only a dictionary entry or did have further encyclopedic value. There were good arguments for both sides but none was really stronger, so the correct outcome would have been "no consensus".
  @Stifle: We are here to get consensus on the decision of an admin's AFD close decision. Consensus is, like in that AFD, something that does not rely on the number of people !voting a certain way but on their arguments. Even if one were to think posting at WT:ARS is really canvassing (I'd rather say it's a friendly notice), it does not counteract our goal here, i.e. to determine consensus based on arguments. Your approach would allow any editor to disrupt any AFD/DRV process by simply posting a notice at WT:ARS or similar, thus allowing them to get any discussion speedy closed, which cannot be the result we want to have. I think we should just ignore this posting (for which Chzz even apologized above) and concentrate on the AFD at hand. Regards SoWhy 17:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • So if I'd posted a notice of this DRV to all the editors that !voted Delete on the AfD, that would be a friendly notice as well? Given that a very high percentage of the Keep !voters on the AfD were ARS members? I think not. Black Kite 17:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • You're assuming - seemingly in bad faith - that ARS is the Borg and think, act, vote alike. Instead each is responsible for their own actions just like everywhere else. If a similar note were posted to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion I wouldn't assume all responding editors were vote-stacking at all. We are compelled to assume that all are here to improve Misplaced Pages. -- Banjeboi 00:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
      • No, let's be pragmatic about this. Chzz advertises this AfD at WT:ARS, and lo and behold lots of ARS members turn up and vote "overturn". I am quite aware that many ARS members aren't voting machines and that a lot do good work to rescue saveable articles (including yourself). However, a number more do little else but vote Keep on rescue AfDs. ARS should be able to co-ordinate the good work that it does without becoming a votestacking forum - something which many people believe it is already. Black Kite 06:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
        • You've unknowingly identified the nub of the problem. See below. Uncle G (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Bjweeks made a perfectly reasonable call. I would prefer if AfDs were scheduled a bit more than five weeks apart, though with no consensus it is not as important. via ARS, and I cannot see the deleted article to judge the merits of the arguments. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 21:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment On the other hand, an IAR move of User:Chzz/Hair (unit of measurement) to mainspace would be a-ok with me. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 22:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - agreed, moving the draft into article space would be ok. Someone could open a new AfD, but it wouldn't be a speedy. PhilKnight (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn per LinguistAtLarge. -- Banjeboi 22:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy close per Stifle (moved from "Overturn" because even though I feel the closure was in error, I agree that the inadvertent canvassing has invalidated this discussion).—S Marshall /_Cont 22:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Agree to speedy close, per Stifle. –Juliancolton |  23:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment How would canvasing affect things? The majority of people said Keep, so would object to being simply ignored, and thus would choose to overturn this decision. You have some editors, mostly administrators it seems, who watch this page and seem to Endorse the actions of any other administrator, no matter what it is. Seriously, have those who said Endorse here, ever once said Overturn? Seems like you have an automatic bias. Dream Focus 03:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • You accusing other editors of voting in a biased manner certainly cheered me up on a dull, wet, Wednesday morning! Black Kite 06:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, many times. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Black Kite has, possibly unknowingly, identified the nub of the problem here. This article was rescued. LinguistAtLarge and Phil Bridger did some rescue work in the first AFD discussion. Despite the canvassing and the tagging, there was little actual rescue work done by the self-styled rescuers in the second. Ironically, neither LinguistAtLarge nor Phil Bridger are listed as Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron/Members, despite the fact that they've rescued several articles, both at AFD and Proposed Deletion. This is the nub of the problem. We have people calling themselves rescuers who actually are not, since they don't do article work. And we have people who actually are article rescuers, with fairly long lists of rescues that they can point to, who aren't ARS "members". The problem here is that the self-styled "members" have been canvassing and stuffing non-existent ballots, whilst the actual rescuers have been working on the articles and not bothering with the silly badges.

  This is a problem for addressing on Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron, but the net effect that it has had on AFD and on Deletion Review is to wholly obscure two things: the article was rescued, and (as can be seen from the efforts of yet another article rescuer in order to answer the question posed below) was further rescuable, in exactly the way pointed out in the first AFD discussion, by the time of the second AFD discussion. The actions pointed out in the first AFD discussion could have been taken, and did not involve deletion.

  As such, clearly the action taken by the closing administrator, of deleting the article, was the wrong one; clearly following the path pointed out in the first AFD discussion is the action that should have been, collectively, taken (even the nominator in the second AFD discussion was persuaded by it, once it was pointed out to xem); and the action of (selectively, see below) history merging the draft at User:Chzz/Hair (unit of measurement) with the history at Special:Undelete/red cunt hair, and then renaming to Hair (unit of measurement), is the one that should now be taken. The route was shown, by an actual article rescuer, in the first AFD discussion, and it is a route that is in accordance with our Misplaced Pages:deletion policy.

  Indeed, the Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary policy, so happily pointed to by the people opining to delete in the second AFD discussion, itself includes an explanation of renaming and refactoring articles to fix them. Read the rationales as they stand, in the light of the very policy that they cite, and clearly the correct course of action is in fact not the boldfaced words that prefixed those rationales. The boldfaced words should be ignored in favour of the policies cited in the rationales, and what those policies actually say, and have said all along for about eight years now.

  Shame on the people who either didn't read the policy that they were happily pointing to, or didn't put it into practice. Shame on the self-styled ARS "members" who aren't actually article rescuers, for your efforts generating so much palaver that you wholly obscured the work that was done by actual article rescuers on the article itself. And shame on the people critical of those latter, who have diverted this discussion into a discussion of ARS and away from a discussion of whether our content and deletion policies were correctly applied for this article. You know where Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron is.

  Undelete and put the article back on the path that was outlined for it two months ago — a path that is fully in accord with deletion policy and the policies pointed to in both AFD discussions. Uncle G (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the last point in your penultimate paragraph, that's a matter I raised on the DRV talk page.—S Marshall /_Cont 15:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm happy w/ the merge option suggested above. I still think the deletion decision was a reasonable interpretation of DICDEF, but there is some friction over the borders of that policy to be sure. Protonk (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Properly closed, no problems. Should remain deleted. Verbal chat 18:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The existence of proof at User:Chzz/Hair (unit of measurement), that the people opining to keep, refactor, and rename to Hair (unit of measurement), in both AFD discussions, were right, notwithstanding? Uncle G (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What's the next paragraph?

A lot of people are claiming that this article has merit in an encyclopedia. The current draft is two paragraphs which consist entirely of an extended dictionary definition. So my question is: what's the next paragraph? What do the people voting "overturn" here propose to add here? How does this article grow? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• It's a language or "word" article. Some logical growth would be Etymology, History, Notable usages in literature, Usages in popular culture. It really depends on what sources provide to work with. -- Banjeboi 01:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No, it isn't — or shouldn't be. Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. Uncle G (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Aren't those all typical things you find in an dictionary entry? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Actually, it's not a next paragraph, by the looks of things. It's a preceding paragraph. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • thusly Uncle G (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Should you be discussing that here, or in the AFD? If you are going to discuss it, then you need to allow everyone to see what the original page was. And this is suppose to be about following the consensus of those participating, not ignoring them and doing what you want instead, otherwise the consensus process and AFD discussion become pointless. Dream Focus 03:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "... you need to allow everyone to see what the original page was." Err, I linked to the current draft. And, the ultimate goal of any discussion anywhere on the project should be to improve Misplaced Pages. Ignore the page title. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Doh! I thought that was a page it was merged to. Nevermind, should've been paying more attention. There are clearly a lot of references to the article. Dream Focus 03:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: I've boldly redirected it to Figure of speech for the moment. It's a remotely plausible search term, and those shouldn't be redlinks on Misplaced Pages.—S Marshall /_Cont 09:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • That's added to the difficulty, alas! Should this draft be placed into article space, it has to be history merged with Special:Undelete/Red cunt hair for GFDL compliance (see above for some of the editors who got this article to where it stands today and whose history attribution most definitely needs to be retained). Unfortunately, we now have three sets of unrelated page histories, your redirect included, at that title. So the history merging administrator will have to perform a selective undeletion of just the history that actually went into forming the page as it stands in the draft. If it's the route chosen, give me a nudge and I'll merge the histories. Uncle G (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• The question posed in this section is now answered, I think. Uncle G (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Answered? We need the closing administrator to explain their reasoning for their action. Dream Focus 15:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, answered. Please read what the question actually is. Uncle G (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, dismissing my thoughtful reply and experienced with this type of article response with Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary is part of the problem - from a relevant essay - Word articles which fall somewhere inbetween a dictionary definition stub and a lengthy well-written and well sourced article are treated in an entirely random and haphazard fashion, and might be kept and expanded, rewritten into something different, redirected, deleted, or who knows what else, based on the personality of the editor who finds it, the particular group of editors who wander into the article's AfD page, or perhaps the phase of the moon that day. We do have articles on words and this has the potential to be a good one. -- Banjeboi 18:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Rubbish. It's not part of any problem. Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary and we don't do dictionary articles. Expanding the prior article with etymology or cargo-cult written "usages in popular culture" was not the correct path, and policy tells you that. As to what this article has the potential to be: It has the potential to be what was outlined in the very first AFD discussion, which is not an article about a word, and not a dictionary article. Indeed, the current draft is an existence proof. You'll find that it's about a verifiable unit of measurement known as a hair.

          Pointing out our oldest policy to you is in no way part of any "problem", except perhaps if you then ignore that policy and continue to suggest that we should run counter to it. If anything is actually the problem, it is the lack of willingness on those who sport the ARS badges to actually work on rescue in this instance, accompanied by vague counter-to-policy handwaving along the lines of "We can just grow a dictionary article, with etymology and quotations." when pressed for how they would rescue an article. And this problem is compounded by AFD and Deletion Review discussion canvassing that eclipsed the rescue work. Shame on the supposed rescuers who did that!

          Even now, as you point out some people's lack of adherence to policy (which is all that that essay's complaint, as quoted, really boils down to), you totally fail to address the rescue work of the original rescuers, their ideas for further rescue and article development expressed in the AFD discussions, and the userspace draft immediately at hand. You may well have put thought into your reply, but the end product was a poor one that was contrary to policy, when a good one was right there staring you in the face, supplied on a platter by several editors, across two AFD discussions. Uncle G (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

        • We actually do have many articles on words. and this can be one of them. As for can it be something else, possibly but I don't have a strong opinion or interest in doing battle on the matter. This issue for AfD is can this be a good article and what is the path to it. For DrV the issue is was the AfD closed properly and is there extending circumstances that proose a better outcome. Please aside all the ARS generalized accusations, we each act according to our own interests and if there is any coordination to parrot each other I'm utterly unaware of it but also believe it to be just as ill-concieved as coordinated efforts to remove content that is encyclopedic. Thanks for the many visual cues and loaded phraseology but I'll continue to assume good faith that all are here to improve the project. If you wish to dole out shame there are plenty of more appropriate websites to do so. -- Banjeboi 22:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• I think there is some discussion to be had about DICDEF and its limits. We do articles on words, the best example of a marginal article being Nucular. I think editors arguing here about the borders of purely or largely etymological articles would do well to read that AfD and DRV. I still think it is a fair argument to say that we do not do articles like "Red cunt hair" (which is a very different article than "Hair (unit of measurement)") largely on the basis of WP:NOT regardless of sources noting the existence of the phrase.
• It is also fair, in my opinion, to have discussions about the relevance of {{rescue}} to this article. I can agree w/ Benjiboi that the discussion isn't perfectly germane to the DRV. This is decidedly not the best venue to have a reasonable talk about that issue (given that emotions about the contingent outcome of the article will get in the way). I also can agree that rescue is appropriate (though just barely). Lastly, the relevance of the rescue template to the article at DRV is another issue and shouldn't be handled under the broader issue of relevance to dicdef articles.
• I'm not sure yet what the best venue is or what the best course is. Protonk (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Songs with lyrics by Johnny Mercer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This category was proposed for renaming to Category:Songs written by Johnny Mercer on April 18. With very little discussion, the rename was approved, effective April 24. (See Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 18#Category:Songs with lyrics by Johnny Mercer.) Only one person posted an opinion in favor of the change; one other said "put it on hold" and one wrote against it. This does not appear to be a consensus in favor of the change.

In fact, I did not know the change was up for consideration, as I received a notice on my talk page on the 18th, but did not happen to be editing on Misplaced Pages from the 18th until after the discussion had closed. So I was unable to put forth my arguments.

To me, "Songs written by X" implies songs where X wrote both lyrics and music. Mercer wrote both for only one or two songs; he was by far known primarily as a lyricist. Putting songs like "Autumn Leaves" and "Moon River" in a category of "Songs written by Johnny Mercer" minimizes the roles of the other partners in the team that created these songs.

Some persons have objected to having three categories for one songwriter: "Songs written by X," "Songs with music by X," and "Songs with lyrics by X." While I would think this to be the most accurate way of handling this, I would accept the idea that for people like Johnny Mercer who wrote primarily either music or lyrics there should be two categories: "Songs with music by X" and "Songs with lyrics by X," with the very small number where, a person wrote both being put into both categories. Where a songwriter primarily wrote both, I think a "Songs written by X" category is appropriate, with either "Songs with music by X" or "Songs with lyrics by X" used where appropriate for any where he wrote only one or the other. And for someone like Frank Loesser, who was a major lyricist but also wroth both lyrics and music for a lot of songs, yet another treatment might be appropriate.

To satisfy Alansohn's comment that "While there are many music aficionados who would appreciate the nuances of splitting a single artists songs based on what component they created, there are many more amateurs who would only be baffled as they navigated through categories trying to understand why a song they associate with Johnny Mercer isn't listed under songs written by but is instead in songs with music by" there only needs to be a cross-reference such as was done in Category:Songs with lyrics by Tom Lehrer. -- BRG (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Not only did I nominate the merge, but encouraged BRG to bring the matter here for further discussion. I also notified BRB on his talkpage and at Wikisongs. Whereas I agree with BRG's comments regarding JM and writers of that era, what happens when 1. WP can't verify who wrote what? 2. What's to stop a singleton writer being listed under both composer and lyricist? 3 Some less notable person than JM is known for one lyric and one composion only? Furthermore, a category is a navigation tool, not a definition of who wrote what, so anybody interested in songs that JM is involved with will go to the article and discover exactly what his contribution was. If you applied the logic that BRG is using you would have separate, say the Lennon/McCatney category into "songs written by Lennon, but credited to Lennon/McCartney", ditto, McCartney. Please note : If a songwriter is purely a lyricist or a composer I see no problem categorizing accordingly, nor putting something into the JM category to establish he is principally a lyricist who also composed music. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The cases of "What's to stop a singleton writer being listed under both composer and lyricist?" and "Some less notable person than JM is known for one lyric and one composion only" is covered by what I said earlier: "Where a songwriter primarily wrote both, I think a 'Songs written by X' category is appropriate." The first is a different issue, and it certainly is of a kind with other situations where an important piece of information is unknown. (In at least one case I managed to be able to make a good guess; see Ricochet (song), where I've tried to make it clear that it is a guess, but with good reason.) -- BRG (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately your solution to Ricochet fails both WP:V and WP:OR, which is a shame because you are probably correct in your assumptions and your good faith is not in dispute in any way. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Check the words there again. What was stated there was verifiable, namely that particular members of the team are known to have written lyrics or music to specified other songs. While you might make a case for WP:OR, if you wish to say that deleting the conclusion' is necessary, a case for that may exist; but that needs to be discussed elsewhere. -- BRG (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Relist and discuss the merits there, not here, or in a more general forum. The closer said: "If wider consensus is to split all of the "written by" categories out into "lyrics by" and "music by", this can be reversed. That, however, is a very large undertaking and will require more input than this". As for the particular instance: here was only one support of the original proposal; the nom himself , after introducing the nom by saying "I consider this a very contentious nomination," said "Not adverse to this suggestion" to an alternate proposal. DGG (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Relist There was no clear consensus. - Mgm| 17:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Just nominate Category:Songs written by Johnny Mercer and have at it there. Good Ol’factory 01:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I see that a new CfD discussion has been started. I didn't mean to suggest that this should be started prior to the conclusion of this DRV. It was just my opinion about what should be done once the DRV was closed. I suggest the new CfD discussion be closed pending the outcome here, since having 2 ongoing processes for the same thing is confusing. Sorry if my comments were misinterpreted in this regard. Good Ol’factory 03:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Then close the new CfD discussion. My understanding of your comment was that you thought a CfD discussion was more appropriate than a DRV. If you had meant "once the DRV was closed," perhaps you should have said that. -- BRG (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Whoa, ease up, tiger. "Votes" in DRVs are typically taken as opinions about what the closing administrator should direct, not what we should all drop and do right away. I didn't think it was necessary to specify "at the close of the DRV", just as the other commenters did not. I did previously apologise if my comments led to a misunderstanding, though. If you want to close the CfD you started, you can do so. Good Ol’factory 11:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Relist – Category:Songs by lyricist dates from 2005 so this is not a new venture; indeed Category:Songs by songwriter is the upstart. BRG's views are in accordance with mine on this (that 'written by' means or should mean both music and lyrics) but certainly the whole area is littered with difficulties (eg co-writers, often 5 or 6 of them). Occuli (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look. (from Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review#What_is_this_page_for.3F) Was this done? It could have saved all of you a lot of typing... --Kbdank71 17:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  Kbdank71, it looks as though you are the one that closed the discussion. Therefore, you are the one that I should "courteously invite ... to take a second look." Have you done so? -- BRG (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The Newtones (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was deleted under speedy delete criterion A7 in March having survived an AfD discussion in January. From Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion: "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements.". Whilst the discussion was rather short and a non-admin close I think the correct procedure would have been to relist or reopen. I approached the deleting admin last week but they do not appear to have been active since the 25th. Guest9999 (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn should have gone to AFD. And judging from the first AFD, there were multiple claims of importance (winning awards, reaching the International Championship of High School A Cappella semifinals) so WP:CSD#A7 really didn't apply anyway. --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn - Having been kept in an afd, less than five months ago no less, and had claims of notability, there was not proper criteria for speedy deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn- Nominator hit it on the head. The policy on CSD says that if its gone through an AFD, unless a new Copyright infringement is discovered, then an article cannot be speedied. The AFD didn't have much in the way of comments, granted, but it was held open for plenty of time, with no delete votes other than the AFD's nominator.Umbralcorax (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn, it's a bright-line rule that a page that has survived AFD can't be speedied except for copyvios. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn unless it's a copyvio, it should not have been A7'd per policy. MuZemike 16:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• snow overturn as clear process error. I have a reasonable confidence the deleting admin would acknowledge it as such. DGG (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)