Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:37, 20 July 2022

Archives:

2005 - 17th April

2006 - 4th April - 22nd May - 11th June - 23rd June - 15th July

2007 - 3rd February - 10th March - 31st August - 8th September - 7th November

2008 - 14th February - 4th May - 10th October

2009 - 16th May

2011 - 15th December

2015 - 12th May

2021 - 19th April

2021 - 27th May

****** Please place new discussions below this line ******

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.106.121 (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

List of 9/11 victims

Hi. Can you please expand your closing statement and explain how you arrived at your conclusions (including why you decided to close at this time and not relist). Thanks, Levivich 14:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Levivich. I am not sure what to add to expand the closing statement. As I mentioned, from reading the discussion there seems to be consensus that the subject of the list is notable, and also that being a list of deaths doesn't immediately exclude it as a memorial. There is plenty of discussion around the list being trimmed, which is a separate matter from deletion. I certainly could not see a policy based consensus to delete. As for relisting, it seemed that there had been a significant discussion, with LISTN and NOTMEMORIAL discussed in depth and didn't see scope for much new coming out of a relisting. Do you feel that a relisting would likely lead to a policy based consensus for anything other that the article being kept? TigerShark (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response!

I'd start by saying that "keep"/"delete" aren't the only two outcomes. Had you considered the others, like merge and "keep title/change content"?

Second, I know you said from reading the discussion there seems to be consensus: can you explain that? Where do you see consensus, or how did you come to conclude there was consensus? Is it in the number of votes for one option v. the other? Is it in the quality of arguments? Did you weigh some votes more or less than other votes? Did you discount any votes?

What about the WP:PAGEDECIDE part of WP:N? Even if it's notable, that doesn't mean necessarily mean it must be kept. Many editors seemed to raise arguments beyond just "does it meet N", how did those arguments factor into the consensus?

What about the arguments that, while the subject is notable, it's already covered by the non-list article (Casualties of 9/11); i.e., the WP:FORK argument? The Casualties article was discussed by many voters, but I don't see that in the closing statement.

On the numbers, it seems like a 50/50 split between keep and delete. But then when you factor in the "or merge" and the "keep the title but not the content", the numbers favor delete. Even aside from the numbers, there were some arguments like, "keep, meets LISTN", which totally ignored the rationale for deletion (meeting LISTN is not an "automatic keep"), and I think those votes should be weighed less.

So if anything, I see a weak consensus towards delete/merge, but really it's pretty close to no consensus, which is why I think a relisting might help clarify the consensus, particularly when there hasn't been a relist yet.

Basically if there are a ton of !voters participating and the numbers are 50/50 or close to it, I believe it should be relisted. Levivich 16:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I wouldn't strongly disagree that the close could have been a "no consensus" rather than a straight keep, but I couldn't see any clear likelihood of consensus for anything else forming, as things currently stand. It may be that some bolding editing (perhaps attempts at the proposed trimming) and further discussion on the article's talk page may be the best way forward for now. A future relisting at AfD might be appropriate after some work to the articles and/or more talk page discussion, but I don't personally feel that it would be best to jump straight into a relist now. TigerShark (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I generally agree with that, and I recognize there is little practical difference between a keep and no-consensus outcome. But my issue isn't with the result, it's with the closing statement, which I don't think accurately summarizes the discussion, and I think this inaccuracy will have a negative affect on further talk page discussion, because editors will point to the closing statement as "proof" that there is consensus to keep the article as it is. Specifically, the sentences There does not seem to be significant disagreement that the subject of list itself is notable. There also seems to be consensus that not all lists of deaths are non-notable memorials.. What is missing is that -- at least in my view -- there was consensus that the list should not remain in its current form; that is, there was consensus that we should not have a list of all the victims of 9/11. I also disagree with each of the statements individually:

• "There does not seem to be significant disagreement that the subject of list itself is notable." There is consensus that the group is notable, not that the list meets notability guidelines. A lot of people's arguments centered around the non-notability of most of the members of the group. In other words, there wasn't consensus that the list met WP:N, but it sounds like you're saying there was.
• "There also seems to be consensus that not all lists of deaths are non-notable memorials." Really? I think more than half the participants (like all of the delete/merge voters?) specifically said the opposite, at least for this list, that it violates NOTDIRECTORY and NOTMEMORIAL. (In fact, NOTDIRECTORY was a very common argument, but is not mentioned in the closing statement.)

I fear these two statements will impede future talk page discussion. I think a more accurate summary would be something like, "while there was no consensus to delete the page, editors broadly agreed that the page should either be culled to notable entries or merged, or some combination thereof, which can be decided through future talk page discussion." Anyway, thanks for discussing this with me, I'll leave it at that. Levivich 19:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Consensus that the group is notable ipso facto means that WP:NLIST is met. I also don't read the closing statement as weighing in on the question of the appropriate selection criteria for the list at all, which is to say that it doesn't affirm the current way that the list is structured. My reading of the close is that there is consensus that (1) some lists of people who died in an event are notable, and that (2) the people who died on 9/11 are notable as a group. This does not mean that a list has to include every single member who is a part of that notable group (much like how List of Russian Americans certainly doesn't include every single Russian American).

@Levivich: I do not believe a relist is appropriate; relisting is for when the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy. If you believe that there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a close of no consensus would be the way to go rather than a relist. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Further to this: (1) None of the opposing rationales adequately explained why this list is not notable. (2) None of the opposing rationales adequately explained why a list covering a notable topic infringes NOTDIRECTORY or NOTMEMORIAL. In the case of the latter, it expressly identifies that its basis is that memorial pages generally lack notability. Many responses simply cited those principles in a fairly perfunctory manner without addressing (1) or (2), both of which were squarely raised by Mhawk10 in their early response. No other result was reasonably available here. The closing statement, in my view, cut right to the heart of the issue and concisely summarised it. Also, given Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, closing admins need not give elaborate reasons rejecting every single proposition put forward, otherwise AfD would grind to a halt. Local Variable (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Megan Huntsman

Hi, I am hoping you can provide some further explanation for your close of this AfD. I am wondering how a policy-based consensus was found for this article to be kept per WP:EVENT. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, due to the extensive discussion in the AfD, would you be willing to undo the move and relist the discussion so further participation could happen, as suggested in the previous relist note? A relist note could be added indicating that it would be helpful to have further discussion about whether WP:EVENT notability is supported. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your message. My overall reading of the AfD is that the main concern is that the individual does not satisfy BLP1E, because their only notability comes from that one event. However arguments have been put forward that the event meets notability (perhaps not very strongly) due to the unusual nature of it, coverage in academic/professional literature and, to a lesser extent, the media. In terms of relisting, I do feel that a future relisting would be appropriate, but that the current article should at least be reworked to be about the event rather than the individual (beyond just the title change that I made). Once that is done, I think a relisting would be a reasonable way forward, so that a proper discussion on the event rather than the individual could take place. Do that sound reasonable to you? TigerShark (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

From my view, when there is an event article for a crime that academic RS describe as not unusual and for which no sources have been identified to suggest it is unusual or historically significant, no amount of editing will overcome the lack of notability for the event. There also appear to be no sources that refer to the event by the new article title. This was a challenging discussion due to the types of sources raised and few participants in the discussion, and the limited engagement by keep !voters with the policies and guidelines. Changing the BLP to an event article was raised by the first !voter, which was responded to with a focus on the guidelines and polices, and a review of sources. From my view, relisting now and asking participants to focus their attention on the policies and guidelines would be helpful for facilitating a policy-based consensus. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the current title is not one that has been used in sources, and another name may be more appropriate. I still feel that it would not be the most efficient approach to relist the current article for a discussion as an event, until it is reworked as an article about the event. It is likely that the discussion would include arguments about BLP1E, because it is current worded as an article about the perpetrator, even if the relisting questioned the notability of the event. TigerShark (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

From my view, a relist note could help address the concern about off-topic discussion continuing, by asking participants to focus on the event issue already raised in the discussion. It does not seem necessary to try to rework this article before the discussion continues, especially with the limited sourcing available and the apparent need to remove BLP issues (e.g. poorly-sourced allegations about a living person) from the current article. It may become more clear after attempts to revise this article that it is not adequately supported per WP:EVENT and should be excluded per WP:NOTNEWS, but I think this is already apparent based on the sources in the article and the sources identified in the discussion. I think a relist with guidance would be the most efficient route for the discussion under these circumstances. It also does not seem clear in the closing statement that editors are expected to revise the article with a focus on the event. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Hi TigerShark, I decided to seek further input at DRV, as noted below. Thank you for discussing this AfD with me. Beccaynr (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Hi Beccaynr. Thanks for letting me know and for linking this talk page discussion into the request. I will watch the discussion and comment further as necessary. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for Megan Huntsman

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Megan Huntsman. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Beccaynr (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Owen Cochrane

Can you please put Owen Cochrane in draft space, there is enough to work with. He plays in a top league as well. The fact you straight up deleted it is wrong in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Govvy. As I mentioned in the close, we should really only put the article in draft space if the individual can meet the notability criteria now, not in the expectation that they may do in future. There were no arguments put forward in the AfD to support notability. Are you able to put forward specific reasons that the individual meets specific notability criteria (either WP:GNG or WP:SNG) here? If you can, and you want to work on the article yourself, then I would be happy to move it to draft space. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Soda Popinski

I'm not sure about your close for its AFD. You said there's no convincing arguments for non-trivial mentions. Haleth and I provided ample evidence that the character has received significant coverage, while Oinkers42 and Smuckola agreed, but no one in support of the merge attempted to refute the specific sources brought up. I'm not saying all the merge votes were invalid, but I see more of an equal amount of weight between those who support a keep vs. those who support a merge. I think the discussion should have been relisted. MoonJet (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I have had a look through again and still feel that there is not consensus to keep as a standalone article. Of the sources that are accessible, the consensus appears to be that they do not provide significant coverage, and I would personally agree with that. Whether the book does would depend upon the content, and perhaps consensus might have been different if there were more details of what the source included. A lack of access to such sources does not exclude them, but does make it harder for those commenting to assess them. TigerShark (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Patrick Lancaster

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Patrick Lancaster
As you didn't mention any of them, did you miss the Dutch sources I added? Several were more than passing mentions. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Yes I did look at them as best I could. They do not seem to provide significant coverage of the individual and the consensus at the AFD appeared to be that there is not significant coverage, although it is unclear how many have read all of the sources. As an example of the Dutch sources, I have reproduced one below. In of itself it would not count as significant coverage of the individual (Lancaster). It briefly describes him, mentions his findings and then mentions that the Ukrainians have made allegations against him. There is no depth regarding him at all, and the rest of the sources seem to follow a similar pattern. TigerShark (talk) 02:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The Joint Investigation Team (JIT) investigating the MH17 disaster will probably soon receive another bone remains found at the crash site in eastern Ukraine. Research leader Gerrit Thiry confirms that the JIT has asked freelance journalist Patrick Lancaster to hand over bones he allegedly found there to the mayor of the Ukrainian town of Grabovo. “If it turns out to be human remains, we will do our utmost to get them here,” said Thiry. Lancaster has promised to return the bone remains in Grabovo.

Patrick Lancaster is an American freelance journalist who has been reporting on the battle in Ukraine for years. At the beginning of this week, he posted a film on YouTube showing that he found bone remains at the crash site in the open field and in a shed. Lancaster was also the one who showed the Dutch freelance journalist Michel Spekkers the way to the place where MH17 was shot down in early January. Spekkers returned with bone remains that turned out to be a victim of the MH17 disaster. Two victims have still not been identified. For that reason too, the JIT would like to investigate remaining human remains.

The Dutch freelance journalist Stefan Beck, who traveled with Spekkers at the time, is currently back in Eastern Ukraine. According to him, Lancaster has now visited the same warehouse as at the time with Spekkers. "The barn is a gathering place for MH17 remains that local residents have found," says Beck. He is in contact with Lancaster, but was not present during the alleged new finds.

Lancaster has been accused by Ukrainian authorities of promoting pro-Russian separatists in the east of the country. In Russian media, the discovery of human remains in January was widely reported as proof that the Netherlands did a poor job of combing the disaster site and left relatives out in the cold. TigerShark (talk) 02:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Most voters likely haven't read the new sources I added. I guess this is a matter of policy interpretation. Misplaced Pages:Notability#General notability guideline says coverage must be "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". The detail from for example which you shared a translation of above is clearly more than a trivial mention, and it serves the purpose of providing a source so no original research is needed.
If I just count the votes, counting the RfD starter as "delete", I count 9 delete and 9 keep. That's not counting Horse Eye's Back "Can't say I agree with you on delete" comment. Even if you discount the keeps from IntrepidContributor and 666hopedieslast this isn't consensus, it's a majority vote by a fairly small margin. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)