Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 17: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:11, 17 April 2009 editChed (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users64,984 editsm →Susan Boyle: let's pick which battles are worth fighting .. this one isn't← Previous edit Revision as of 20:15, 17 April 2009 edit undoJulesH (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,584 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{Deletion review log header}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{Deletion review log header}}</noinclude>
===]=== ===]===
====] and ]====
====]====
:{{DRV links|Susan Boyle|xfd_page=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle|article=Susan Boyle}} :{{DRV links|List of unusual personal names|xfd_page=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names (3rd nomination)}}
:{{DRV links|Place names considered unusual|xfd_page=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Place names considered unusual (2nd nomination)}}


I'm requesting this review following the outcome of the centralised discussion at ], the consensus of which was that "lists of unusual things" aren't automatically ineligible for inclusion just by being lists of unusual things. I feel that editors involved in that centralised discussion would like the opportunity to apply the general principles discussed to these two specific pages, which have previously been deleted. Copies of the deleted pages can be found ] and ]. ] (]) 15:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
{{divbox|orange||The following is a ] on Misplaced Pages: ] is only a presumption; no matter how many reliable secondary sources are shown to exist, an article still has to meet all other applicable policies in order for it to be allowed to exist here. ''All'' relevant policies are up for debate in an Afd, in this case the policy regarding when we include articles on ] (BLP1E for short).}}
*'''Keep deleted'''. The central problem with these was that it is arbitrary, POV, and OR to determine that something is "unusual". Lists like this can reasonably be maintained in project space, but that is all. ] (]) 15:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

*'''Undelete pending a new AfD''' My positions from January etc. regarding such lists in general are fairly clear and remain. The reasons for deletion were, IMHO, deficient at the time and I see no reason not let to others discuss the salient reasons anew. Let the ages get discussed. ] (]) 15:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The major issue I have with Admin {{User|Rootology}}'s closing as keep is that in the Afd, many people made good arguments to merge/delete the article, based on the fact that the notability bar had not been passed to justify a BLP1E type article. He rejected these apparently because:
*'''Overturn''' So long as such lists rely upon other sources that note that something is "unusual", it is not the author's POV. Authors like ] or ] or ] have written about the subject. Ideally, a person consulting the article would be directed to those other sources. ] (]) 15:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

*'''Overturn''' List of unusual personal names: restore it. It is frivolous and unsuitable for a serious encyclopedia, arbitrary, POV and OR. All those things. But the sheer size, the number of contributors and the number of page views (22,285 in December 2008) show that people love it. It does no harm (well, the odd entry may have to be removed if offensive) and may do a lot of good in drawing people into Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 16:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
# the article is not harmful to a living person, therefore BLP1E was not applicable
*'''Endorse''' Place names considered unusual: same argument as above, but it did not get many hits. ] (]) 16:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
# the article is not solely about a single event, therefore BLP1E was not applicable
*'''Overturn'''. While it may in some circumstances be OR or POV that a name is considered "unusual", in others it is quite clearly true and verifiable. IIRC, these articles were well sourced and attributed the discussion of the names in question to appropriate sources, which does not seem to violate any policy. Yes, the sources themselves were expressing their own research and/or point of view, but that's what we're _supposed_ to do: summarise other people's research and viewpoints. Plus, as I said in the original deletion argument for at least one of these article, most of the perceived problems with the articles could be solved by a rename, e.g. to ], which is what the article's title is trying to suggest in a less direct fashion anyway. ] (]) 20:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This was not an accurate reading of the Afd consensus or policy:

# multiple people were of the opinion that 1E was applicable here, irrespective of harm. Furthermore, the wording and intent of the BLP1E policy is just as much about not giving undue weight to 'fame in the moment' as it is about giving undue weight to harmful news reports. I think this departure from such an established policy is well outside the realms of admin discretion for correct closures.
# consensus on Point 2 in the Afd looks inconclusive at best, wikilawyering to get around 1E at worst. Combined with the error in point 1, it is not reasonable to accept admin discretion here on deciding the issue of whether consensus was that this was one event or not.

A major contributing issue leading to this review is Rootology's opinion that ] somehow gives users the option of reversing this keep decision if the hype surrounding the article dies down, by putting it up for Afd again in a few months. It does not. If the relevant policies don't change, then a nomination for deletion in 6 months or whatever violates the basic principle that ]. (Did he discount any keep votes of this form'?)

Other less important but still worrying issues with this closure were:

* Rootology's raising of other 1E Afd keeps as 'precedent' (how are they a precedent for interpreting 1E if 1E did not apply here?)
* Rootology's over weighting of pile on opinions from new users
* Rootology's rejection of merge as an outcome based on the idea that 'it would only be demerged eventually' (based on what?)
* Rootology's closing of the debate early, even after its early closure had been hotly disputed</br></br></br> ] (]) 19:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

* '''Closer responses.''' Hello, I've written extensive responses to this AFD close, as can be seen in their entirety '''''' on my talk page. I posted an even longer explanation of the thought process in the close specifically and then . As detailed in the links, I broke down paragraph by paragraph what my close meant, how I came to the conclusion, why I didn't think it was BLP1E, and even how I weighted different factors in my thinking, as seen . I feel the close was in line with current practice, current normal policy interpretations, and in a pure reading of the consensus of the discussion. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 19:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' It is true that in the case of BLP1E, the close needs to go beyond the usual !vote counting since many editors continue to conflate notable news coverage with encyclopedic notability and never seem to tire of pointing to google news counts or all the quality RS that exist to substantiate coverage. We struggled mightily to get the BLP1E in place in order to counter this systematic bias and the inevitable pile-on of keeps from editors who succumb (understandably perhaps) to this kind of conflation. This does seem like a classic 1E issue, the individual's prominently absent pulchritude mitigated by her singing talent being the main storyline here, at least in the British media. ] (]) 19:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Endorse close''' the notability ''guideline'' is not a policy, as it states, it should be "treated with common sense and the occasional exception". At present the exceptional level of press and public interest in this topic more than justify us making such an exception. As to the BLP ''policy'', the idea that Susan Boyle "essentially remains a low-profile individual" and that we should not therefore have an article on her is, in my opinion, completely risible. Although I agree with some of Rootology's arguments and disagree with others, I'm therefore perfectly happy with his final decision. ] (]) 19:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Endorse.''' Clearly no consensus to delete. ] applies only to people who "are not generally well known", which in the case of this singer is patently no longer the case; also, it is evidently ''she'' who is at the center of the coverage, not the singing event. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Endorse close''': I really don't understand the ] of this DRV. Consensus was clear, policy and guidelines were explained, and the closing was extensively documented which clearly justified the closing decision. An essay that comes to mind in this case is: ]. Let's please put this behind us, and move on to building an encyclopedia. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 20:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


====] and ]==== ====] and ]====

Revision as of 20:15, 17 April 2009

< 2009 April 16 Deletion review archives: 2009 April 2009 April 18 >

17 April 2009

List of unusual personal names and Place names considered unusual

List of unusual personal names (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Place names considered unusual (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm requesting this review following the outcome of the centralised discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Centralized discussion/lists of unusual things, the consensus of which was that "lists of unusual things" aren't automatically ineligible for inclusion just by being lists of unusual things. I feel that editors involved in that centralised discussion would like the opportunity to apply the general principles discussed to these two specific pages, which have previously been deleted. Copies of the deleted pages can be found here and here. SP-KP (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted. The central problem with these was that it is arbitrary, POV, and OR to determine that something is "unusual". Lists like this can reasonably be maintained in project space, but that is all. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Undelete pending a new AfD My positions from January etc. regarding such lists in general are fairly clear and remain. The reasons for deletion were, IMHO, deficient at the time and I see no reason not let to others discuss the salient reasons anew. Let the ages get discussed. Collect (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Overturn So long as such lists rely upon other sources that note that something is "unusual", it is not the author's POV. Authors like H.L. Mencken or Mario Pei or Christopher Andersen have written about the subject. Ideally, a person consulting the article would be directed to those other sources. Mandsford (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Overturn List of unusual personal names: restore it. It is frivolous and unsuitable for a serious encyclopedia, arbitrary, POV and OR. All those things. But the sheer size, the number of contributors and the number of page views (22,285 in December 2008) show that people love it. It does no harm (well, the odd entry may have to be removed if offensive) and may do a lot of good in drawing people into Misplaced Pages. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse Place names considered unusual: same argument as above, but it did not get many hits. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Overturn. While it may in some circumstances be OR or POV that a name is considered "unusual", in others it is quite clearly true and verifiable. IIRC, these articles were well sourced and attributed the discussion of the names in question to appropriate sources, which does not seem to violate any policy. Yes, the sources themselves were expressing their own research and/or point of view, but that's what we're _supposed_ to do: summarise other people's research and viewpoints. Plus, as I said in the original deletion argument for at least one of these article, most of the perceived problems with the articles could be solved by a rename, e.g. to List of names considered amusing, which is what the article's title is trying to suggest in a less direct fashion anyway. JulesH (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

List of unusual personal names and Place names considered unusual

List of unusual personal names (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Place names considered unusual (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm requesting this review following the outcome of the centralised discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Centralized discussion/lists of unusual things, the consensus of which was that "lists of unusual things" aren't automatically ineligible for inclusion just by being lists of unusual things. I feel that editors involved in that centralised discussion would like the opportunity to apply the general principles discussed to these two specific pages, which have previously been deleted. Copies of the deleted pages can be found here and here. SP-KP (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted. The central problem with these was that it is arbitrary, POV, and OR to determine that something is "unusual". Lists like this can reasonably be maintained in project space, but that is all. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Undelete pending a new AfD My positions from January etc. regarding such lists in general are fairly clear and remain. The reasons for deletion were, IMHO, deficient at the time and I see no reason not let to others discuss the salient reasons anew. Let the ages get discussed. Collect (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Overturn So long as such lists rely upon other sources that note that something is "unusual", it is not the author's POV. Authors like H.L. Mencken or Mario Pei or Christopher Andersen have written about the subject. Ideally, a person consulting the article would be directed to those other sources. Mandsford (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Overturn List of unusual personal names: restore it. It is frivolous and unsuitable for a serious encyclopedia, arbitrary, POV and OR. All those things. But the sheer size, the number of contributors and the number of page views (22,285 in December 2008) show that people love it. It does no harm (well, the odd entry may have to be removed if offensive) and may do a lot of good in drawing people into Misplaced Pages. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse Place names considered unusual: same argument as above, but it did not get many hits. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Overturn, allow a month or two for improvement and expansion of the place names article, and reconsideration of the items and rationales and sourcing of individual items in the personal name article, and then if anyone wants to nominate for afd we will see what the current consensus is. (not that I think the closers of the last AfDs necessarily read that right, even then)DGG (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse - good close per our injunction against arbitrary and OR content. Eusebeus (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse. I'm not at all sure the consensus of that centralised discussion really supports the recreation of these articles, and I certainly can't see anything wrong with the closes.—S Marshall /Cont 17:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse what's unusual is dependent on what's usual and in the eye of the beholder (SUBJ & OR & POV). Many of these are unusual in a childhood giggly sort of way like the pictured intersection of "Cumming Street and Seaman Avenue" or mistranslations or pronunciations from foreign language names. Of course, there is no explanation of why each entry is there nor any sources of what constitutes unusualness that are universals - the Book of Lists probably has something of the sort but alas, it's in the opinions of its editors/authors. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)