Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 14: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:11, 14 June 2007 editBdj (talk \| contribs)19,739 edits →[]← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:12, 14 June 2007 edit undoGwern (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers47,632 edits →[]: overturn. DRV is aboiut process, which AMIB violated, not his controversial assertion that the wish of a subject is enough to censor WP over and diminish utility to readersNext edit →
Line 47:		Line 47:
	****Fuck the RfAr. I'll take the fall if it means calling out people who could give a shit about actual consensus. Shame on ''you'', again. --] <small>]</small> 02:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)		****Fuck the RfAr. I'll take the fall if it means calling out people who could give a shit about actual consensus. Shame on ''you'', again. --] <small>]</small> 02:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse''' closure per A Man In Black's subpage above. A lot of effort has gone into trying to resolve this, rather than simply letting this rather minor article in the scheme of things continue to be a problem to the community's harmony. ] 01:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)		*'''Endorse''' closure per A Man In Black's subpage above. A lot of effort has gone into trying to resolve this, rather than simply letting this rather minor article in the scheme of things continue to be a problem to the community's harmony. ] 01:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
			*'''Overturn'''. By no possible construction of the 14th AfD or the AfD discussion is a hack-down-&-redirect-&-protect anywhere near what even a plurality of editors wanted. There's such a thing as administrator discretion in closing an AfD, true, but using the occasion of closing an AfD as a pretext for forcing through (using admin tools to enforce it, I note) a pet solution is entirely outside policy and discretion. --] ] 02:12 ] ] (GMT)

	====]====		====]====

Revision as of 02:12, 14 June 2007

< June 13	Deletion review archives: 2007 June	June 15 >

14 June 2007

Daniel Brandt

Ok, this is what everyone has been dreading- the DRV of the latest Daniel Brandt AfD. I'm really sorry to have to do this. If this had closed as almost any form of keep or delete I wouldn't be doing this, but the current close just doesn't work. The AfD was closed by A Man In Black who I give a lot of credit for being willing to close such a difficult AfD. That said, his close has no basis in policy, common sense, AfD consensus, ethics or what is good for Misplaced Pages. The AfD was closed as "complex merge" which it is clear from reading the AfD has no consensus behind it whatsoever (and two prior attempts at similar merges met with clear consensus against them. One is so fresh that it is still on the talk page at Talk:Daniel_Brandt#Proposal ) The vast majority of editors wanted it either kept or deleted. A few called for merging and there views were at best ignored. AMIB's logic behind the close which focused on three points was also faulty in at least two regards. First, AMIB asserts that "This article causes Brandt distress, largely because of previous and potential coverage of minor things he'd rather not have discussed in public but which have been mentioned in minor self-published publications Brandt has mostly tried to bury" - to characterize Brandt's distress at soley those issues is inaccurate in the extreme. Brandt has made it clear that he is not happy with any article about him and that indeed he is unhappy with almost any mention of him. Thus, this complex merge does not even solve Brandt's "distress". Furthermore, the problematic material that AMIB refers to is not in the article and can be easily kept out (the only such material I'm aware fails WP:RS anyways). AMIB's claim that "this article cannot hope to be complete, due to incomplete coverage in the sources" hinges on an extreme definition of what constitutes completeness. For no other biography would we consider it fatally incomplete if we had trouble tracking down minor details like the year of the author's birth. All in all, this close does not reflect any consensus, will not satisfy Brandt and should be overturned. JoshuaZ 01:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

~~Speedy~~ endorse HOLD ON A MINUTE. How about we come to a compromise on the close, instead of ramming articles through PROCESS? Instead of "overturning" this decision, let's all go to the AFD talk page and work something out like civilized people. Sean William @ 01:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- OH NOES NOT PROCESS. Get a grip. Don't want DRV? Get it right the first time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  - I have a problem with people immediately running articles through DRV without 1) Talking to the closing administrator and 2) simply because they don't like the decision. This did not turn out the way that I wanted it to, but I respect the judgment of the closing administrator and endorse this close. Sean William @ 01:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    - I have problems with people automatically jumping on the "OMG PROCESS" bandwagon while endorsing nonsensical closures. I don't know why I'm replying anyway, since the closure proved that none of our opinions mattered, anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
User:A Man In Black/Brandt has my notes on the close. Regarding "the vast majority of editors wanted it either kept or deleted"; rather than counting the bolded bits of text, I looked at the reasoning advanced by each editor. A simplistic "Okay, five days are up so it's time to close this again with no result" close ill serves this project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep AMIB's decision His is the only way that I can see all parties being happy in some form or another. Kwsn 01:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Endorsing this close is a matter of formality, for there was nothing wrong with it. There's absolutely nothing in our policy that says the closer must choose between a multitude incompatible suggestions, and good AfD closes have tended to seek a consensual middle ground in much the same way as this one. The problematic article disappears and the information stays. There is no downside. A Man In Black is to be congratulated on producing something that we can all live with. --Tony Sidaway 01:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Endorse closure. While very few people argued specifically for a merge, this seems to be a reasonable compromise. It won't completely pacify Brandt, but it should alleviate his concerns somewhat, and, in doing so, satisfies the objections the people who suggested deletion had. It keeps much of the content, though, as a concession to the people who wanted it to be kept. It's a difficult AfD, and AMIB's solution is probably the best we can get. --Rory096 01:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Endorse decision - I believe AMIB's closure of the AFD is an intelligent synthesis of the people's opinions — he accounted for arguments and not bolded votes. That's a good admin right there. (messedrocker • talk) 01:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Thoughts? Dumbest closure imaginable, and I was prepared for some dumb ones. But this isn't a DRV situation, somewhat sadly - he wants to merge, so it's an editorial deal. There's obviously no consensus for a merge, so it won't happen, and we move on. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Scratch that, he protected the redirect. Completely absurd, overturn. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  - This isn't a vote, Jeff. For our benefit, would you care to explain why "There's obviously no consensus for a merge"? --bainer (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    - Can you explain where there is consensus for a merge? Oh, wait, I know, you have to defend the bad closures for the future. Forget it, I'm done commenting here. We're not an encyclopedia anymore. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:DRV is as good a place to discuss this as any, as I've used my admin tools to make this close happen, protecting Daniel Brandt as a redirect.

By the way, the dumbest closure possible is "The result was BLEEP BLOP BLOOB ZORP." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- - No, that would be marginally brighter than this. At least that closure would reflect consensus better than this bullshit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Endorse closure, I swear, I knew this was coming no matter how it was closed. After 14 AFDs, I would think that the time for "process for the sake of process" has long past. I think it was a well-reasoned close and is a good compromise, and is probably as close to not having an article on Brandt (and in turn, pacifying him as Rory096 states) as we will possibly get. --Coredesat 01:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't process for the sake of process. This doesn't reflect consensus and as I observe above, we've had two nearly identical proposals on the Daniel Brandt talk page before. Both were rejected. I think anyone can see that this isn't a good solution given that Daniel Brandt now redirects to one of his various enterprises and doesn't given any hint that he had any involvement with the others. JoshuaZ 01:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  - If all else fails, that's what disambiguation pages are for, and the close statement does include a sentence about discussing what to do with the actual Daniel Brandt article space. --Core desat 01:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Endorse closure. This was a thoughtful balancing of the various positions expressed, going to the core of the arguments made to consider whether there was a compatible position incorporating the different objectives. --bainer (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Possibly endorse merge, but not protection of redirect I believe that merging actually may turn out to be the best decision, but it is an editorial one. If AMIB wishes to make such an editorial decision, he should of course do so, and I am glad to see that someone's trying to be inventive here. However, others are free to disagree with that decision-but with protection, not to reverse it. Seraphimblade 01:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Overturn and delete (first choice) or relist (second choice) or appoint an agreed upon committee to make a decision one way or the other (third choice) - wholly inappropriate decision on many levels. First off, there was no consensus for such a decision. When you have a Really Great Idea (tm) on how to do something, the way to see it happen is to propose it and come up with a consensus for it. Why even have AFD if we're just going to impose a predetermined result? Next, there are procedural problems with this close. Nothing good can come from keeping the history around. The article has been often vandalized. It will continue to be a source of angst and division as long as it remains in any form. It would be much better to copy/paste the sources somewhere and create Namebase or anything else from scratch, if there is community consensus that such an article should even exist. --BigDT 01:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't ask the Arbitration Committee to make a content decision. They won't. --Tony Sidaway 01:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok ... I don't really care who ... just someone needs to make a decision (switched to "agreed upon committee")--BigDT 02:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
That's what we're doing now: making a decision. --Tony Sidaway 02:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

People need to actually read User:A Man In Black/Brandt ... the argument that there is notable information about the events in Brandt's life has been addressed by keeping the information, and the argument that there is not enough information to write a good bio of someone who is only marginally notable as a person at best, has been addressed by not having the article endorse brilliant closure and slap Jeff with a trout for his out of line remarks here. DISendorse the very existance of a DRV on this brought before the ink even dried. And full marks to AMiB for taking on a very challenging close. ++Lar: t/c 01:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Out of line? Only thing I see out of line is numerous endorsements of further middle fingers to the opinions of the community. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Jeff come on here, no offense, but you can't win them all. Kwsn 02:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Agreed. Whining about the closure to everyone endorsing it (as well as about them) doesn't help your case to get it overturned, if that's what you're trying to do. It only strengthens the case against you at RFAR. --Coredesat 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    - Fuck the RfAr. I'll take the fall if it means calling out people who could give a shit about actual consensus. Shame on you, again. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Endorse closure per A Man In Black's subpage above. A lot of effort has gone into trying to resolve this, rather than simply letting this rather minor article in the scheme of things continue to be a problem to the community's harmony. Orderinchaos 01:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Overturn. By no possible construction of the 14th AfD or the AfD discussion is a hack-down-&-redirect-&-protect anywhere near what even a plurality of editors wanted. There's such a thing as administrator discretion in closing an AfD, true, but using the occasion of closing an AfD as a pretext for forcing through (using admin tools to enforce it, I note) a pet solution is entirely outside policy and discretion. --Gwern (contribs) 02:12 14 June 2007 (GMT)

Xiaxue

Whilst the original article contained some POV statements, there was enough encyclopedic content to form the basis for an NPOV article such as the one for Dawn_Yang, a former online rival and fellow Singaporean blogger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by January2007 (talk • contribs)

Endorse this sounds like a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. -N 00:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Dragon Ball special abilities

AFD proposal was only in place for four days before a decision was made — Preceding unsigned comment added by January2007 (talk • contribs)

Endorse. Second AfD. Article was listed for just a few hours short of the full 5 days, and somehow I doubt 3 extra voters would have appeared in that time to swing the numbers. This endorsement is, of course, without prejudice should someone find any reliable third party coverage of the topic. -N 00:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)