Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ezeu (talk | contribs) at 23:16, 26 April 2007 (→[]: endorse Doc glasgow). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

26 April 2007

United States military aid to Israel

United States military aid to Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

AfD was originally closed by Doc glasgow as a "keep". . Shortly thereafter, Jayjg reversed the decision, and deleted the page, calling the previous close "nonsense" . I believe both the decisions and the appropriateness of the reversal should be examined here. (For what it's worth, I strongly disagree with the unilateral reversal, and the discussion looks like a no consensus to me.) Seraphimblade 06:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Could it be undeleted for the DRV so I could actually see it? --Iamunknown 06:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. WjBscribe 06:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you. --Iamunknown 21:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: I just restored the AfD back to Doc's original closure and was about to place this on DRV before I saw that I was beaten to it, hehe. I just wanted to note that the AfD back to its original version, so it appears that the primary decision being discussed is Doc's, as Jay's edits should be rendered null and void gaillimh 07:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Uh, I dunno, maybe overturn and delete? I don't see an obvious consensus in AfD, but its very hard to see the article as it stands in the final version as having slight OR issues and it isn't clear to me how listing weapons systems given to a country is somehow encyclopedic, so it isn't even clear to me that there is much worth merging to the main article. The article does also have a strong whiff of POV fork. If I had been the closing admin I probably would have closed it as delete. JoshuaZ 06:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete. Unilateral overturning of close should be reverted. Discussion looks like it reached no real consensus. The best result is probably to merge some of the better content to Israel-United States relations but for that we need to preserve the history at United States military aid to Israel by turning it into a redirect for GDFL compliance. WjBscribe 06:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• I would say Merge. As WJBscribe said: "The best result is probably to merge some of the better content to Israel-United States relations but for that we need to preserve the history at United States military aid to Israel by turning it into a redirect for GDFL compliance."--Aminz 07:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redir. No need to have a WP:POVFORK. ←Humus sapiens 07:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to Delete. Since WP is turning into a battleground, I'd rather be counted as a "usual suspect". ←Humus sapiens 21:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• It should be Deleted (along with redirect and merge as appropriate) according to the clear consensus. Jayjg was correct that Doc Glasgow was mistaken to conclude the consensus was "keep" when there was a 70% consensus to delete. There were only 9 keeps against 21 deletes (this includes 12 "delete", 1 "redirect"--which is form of delete, 3 "delete and merge", 4 "redirect and merge", and 1 "delete, redirect and merge"). --MPerel 07:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • People who want things "merged" do not want them deleted, they want the content retained in another article. Apart from that, blind counting of votes in a fairly messy debate with several arguments such as this one is a poor way to close a decision. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Jay, Endorse Doc Glasgow. GFDL concerns have been raised; also, it appears to me to be a no-consensus keep, although I generally think those are cop-outs. Note, I love Jay's edit summary. Also the fact that overturning another admin's decision unilaterally is an edit marked 'minor'. Hornplease 08:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn -- just another sad example of Jayjg's sometimes destructive, irrational, and wayward editing habits. Also, it might be worth noting that not only does the U.S. have sway over questions relating to Israel's military, but sometimes the Israelis call the shots regarding the weapon systems in the U.S. For instance, Israeli military officials are trying to prevent the U.S. from selling armaments to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States -- see the NY Times abstract "Israel's Protests Are Said to Stall Gulf Arms Sale". --Wassermann 09:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per User:Aminz.--MONGO 10:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Doc Glasgow's closure of keep (or "no consensus", it has little bearing). The article is not in great shape but the bulk of it is well-sourced so there was no need to try to overrule consensus or the lack of consensus in this case on the basis of WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV (since facts and statistics are not inherently biased in an obvious manner). Several people argued for merging, several argued for outright keeping, several argued for deleting, but there was no clear conclusion from the debate. I cannot see that the debate could have been closed in any other manner, and calling the close "nonsense" is nonsense. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion, endorse no consensus closure per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion, rename and rewrite article. A patently irregular deletion, as documented above. I'm disappointed that nobody seems to have thought of a more creative solution. I believe this article would be better recast as US-Israel military relations, as a content fork of US-Israel relations, within the scope of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history. There is certainly scope for a series of articles on bilateral US military relations with a whole range of countries, covering military alliances, military cooperation, military aid and so on. For instance, US-Iraq military relations could cover the US DOD's efforts to train and equip the New Iraqi Army, the ongoing military aid programme, the ground-level cooperation in building security and so on. In the case of US-Israel military relations, the existing article would have to be expanded to cover other issues such as joint technology development (e.g. Tactical High Energy Laser) and joint exercises such as the biennial JUNIPER COBRA exercises. I'm sure there's plenty of well-sourced material that could be added. -- ChrisO 11:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This would be a good idea if done systematiclly. JoshuaZ 13:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep The delete votes generally came from the usual suspects who have for years engaged in biased editing with respect to Israeli issues. The merge and keep votes combined have much the better arguments. I think this subject is important due to the legal implications of the United States aiding actions by Israel which may violate international law, particularly the requirements for belligerent occupation. Fred Bauder 12:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure that it is really fair to label editors as "the usual suspects", especially when the same concerns exist for many of the keeps as well. Tewfik 16:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Fred, let's not pretend you are being neutral. This is not the first time you turn WP into a battleground. You convinced me to change my vote. ←Humus sapiens 21:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - There's a lot of confusion here. Some people are saying "overturn", meaning overturn Doc's "keep" decision, and others are saying "overturn", meaning overturn Jay's "delete" decision. Some are using this as an opportunity to censure Jay, but this is not the appropriate place. Others are maligning the opinions of anyone who disagrees with them politically, but that's not appropriate on Misplaced Pages at all. Many are commenting more on the political situation ("Should we over/under-emphasize U.S. military support for Israel?") than the merits of the deletion, but I suppose that's inevitable. Also, alleged GFDL concerns are silly; there are no copyright issues with merging articles. It would be most helpful if commenters could comment solely on whether, based on the comments in the original AFD, the article should be deleted or kept. – Quadell 12:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I beg your pardon- whose GDFL concerns are silly? The concern is that Jayjg's close (which was orginially being discussed) calls for the merging of deleted content which we cannot do. There is only no problem with merging if the history of the page merged remains visible- usually done by redirecting it to the destination of the merge with the page history intact. WjBscribe 16:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with WJB here. Delete & Merge is not a tenable outcome for any debate, per GFDL concerns. Also, "Delete and suggest merging" is even worse: if the article is deleted, how can we expect that someone else will merge as was "suggested"? Mangojuice 18:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Any useful information belongs in US-Israel relations, or perhaps a new United States military aid which could describe U.S. military aid to various countries. (Note that the military aid article is currently in awful shape.) – Quadell 12:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep, as it was a notable subject matter with sources to verify it. I also sincerely hope that there is an investigation into Jayjg's actions regarding this AfD. Tarc 13:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• endorse keep per above. I generally think the arguments for keeping were stronger (e.g. Mister.Manticore's). I strongly discount "delete and merge" comments as that's not really an option under current policy (edit history needs to be maintained), and that constitutes a LOT of the delete votes. The only other verbose delete vote is based on a false assumption of what keep voters would do in another hypothetical AFD. Closing this as a keep decision was the right call, and no meaningful reason for reversing that was given. It's also odd that an admin would suggest merging deleted content... just make it a redirect. --W.marsh 13:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think when people say delete and merge, they generally mean redirect and merge or mean merge but want their merge to count more as a delete than a keep. In any event, since it is agreed that an effectively identical merger that is GFLD compliant can occur by leaving the redirect it isn't clear to me why we should discount the people who said merge/delete. JoshuaZ 14:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I know, I consider them more "redirect" supporters than people who want an outright deletion. But they probably don't consider themselves that so it's iffy. --W.marsh 14:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Information could be supplied in the yet to be started United States military aid Hughey 14:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. Keep is undeniably the incorrect result. However, there is enough argument here that I think a relisting and re-evaluation of community consensus is more appropriate than flat deleting. But there was a mistake in process here. -- Avi 14:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I have now started a United States military aid article that any useful information could be merged into. – Quadell 14:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep Fred Bauder said it better than I could. Also, reversing another admin's closing while calling it "nonsense" and marking it as a minor edit is disrespectful at best. Frise 15:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep - The United States' large and ongoing military support of Israel is eminently notable and certainly requires an article. This article may not be up to snuff yet, but it will get there. Deleting it won't help any. And I am really disappointed in Jayjg, not just for overturning Doc Glasgow's closure in an improper manner, but also for taking controversial actions in a subject matter he knows he doesn't have even the remote appearance of being unbiased in. --Cyde Weys 16:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep: The AfD was without consensus, so it should be kept. .V. 16:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion with all due respect to Doc, 70% in favour of deletion, redirect and merge satisfies the rough consensus specified in the AfD guidelines. In response to the comments declaring the topic enyclopaedic, I don't think that anyone disagrees. The problem is that this entry is merely an unsourced list, whose minimal encyclopaedic information already exists in the section of the same name in Israel-United States relations. Such aid is treated that way for other similar cases like Egypt, and there is simply no precedent for singling out one case. Tewfik 16:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • A vote to merge is not a vote to delete... it's a vote to keep (the content). --W.marsh 16:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Considering all the delete & merges, it seems that the intent of the few redirect & merges to be the same. Tewfik 17:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
      • But the delete and merges are difficult to interpret since that's not a valid option. Nevertheless "merge" is interpreted as a keep vote at AFD... if people mean delete and leave a redlink where the article was, they need to say delete outright. --W.marsh 17:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Closing admin's comments - I am quite annoyed about being reversed without any discussion whatsoever here. I'm puzzled how any objective person could have thought my close "nonsense", and I have asked the editor concerned for an explanation . I'm always willing to reconsider closes if asked, which I was not here. I am sometimes wrong, and happy to think again. However, on reconsidering, I recount: 14 deletes, 9 keeps, 4 merges, and 3 'delete and merge' (huh? can't do that!). 14 d v 13 k/m; that's clearly not a consensus to delete (even if we took the 'delete and merge' as straight deletes) which defaults to keep. For clarity, I have added the 'no consensus' rationale for my keep call. As I indicated from the outset, merge is still a valid option for consideration by editors. I've no objections to a relisting if anyone thinks a consensus to delete can be gathered, but a decision by anyone to relist needn't have involved a DRV.--Doc 16:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Further I've just noticed that one !voter chabged their vote after my closing . So, my recount should have read 13 d vs. 13 k or m.--Doc 17:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse original closure due to obvious lack of consensus. While I may have agreed with the delete !voters, any claims that the consensus was to delete are erroneous. Arkyan • 16:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep as per Sjakkalle and Cyde Weys, V and Doc. -- FayssalF - 16:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse original closure as No Consensus, which appeared appropriate based on the discussion. I have no qualms with a later merge and redirect, if a suitable target can be found, but as has been noted there's no such thing as "delete and redirect". JavaTenor 17:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep Most of the participants in this debate were voting, not discussing. As for the arguments, no one was ever able to really explain how this is a POV fork (needing deletion) as opposed to a mere topic fork (per WP:SUMMARY), which is appropriate. Other delete arguments amounted to trying to make precedent out of the existence of other articles, very weak. Merge opinions made sense & were justified, but AfD doesn't have to serve as a referendum on merging vs. keeping. And a reminder: here, we are discussing the closure of the debate, not the merits -- we can always have another AfD (and it seems to be headed that way). Mangojuice 18:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Jayjg's spectacularly inappropriate closure, relist if necessary. When you want to challenge a result, you come to deletion review. You do not overwrite another sysop's opinions with your own. Picaroon 21:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn both and merge Although there was no consensus to delete, there was a consensus (between the deletes, merges and "delete-and-merges") that having a separate article is POV-pushing. In addition, many of the arguments were of type "The US gives massive military aid to Israel," which is not a valid reason to keep. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The vote was 21 who wanted the article gone versus 9 who wanted it kept, and the arguments in favor of deletion were, in my view, stronger in terms of policy. Marking this is a "keep", not even a "no consensus" was clearly some sort of error or oversight. Doc G had left for the day (and indeed did not return for another 12 hours), so I WP:BOLDly fixed the problem, though marking the edit as "minor" was accidental - I didn't realize I had done that. However, in hindsight my edit summary was aggressive and dismissive, and as a courtesy to Doc G, I still should have waited until he was back online and discussed it with him first. My apologies to Doc G for that.
  Regarding the various people who are hinting or stating outright that I have some sort of conflict of interest, or shouldn't be able to make administrative decisions on wide areas of article topics, or, most bizarrely, that I have in the past "illegally" deleted articles, I note the obvious bias that many (though certainly not all) of them have expressed in these areas themselves, and point out that an interest in a topical area is not a conflict of interest in that area. Jayjg 21:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Er, doesnt point two weaken point one - oh, never mind. Jay, the sooner you learn that someone with an explicit POV - which you have expressed yourself on talkpages and in edit summaries, as well as a dismissive attitude to discussants, should perhaps avoid major, controversial, administrative decisions that impinge on the issues for which that POV is relevant, the happier the community will be. Hornplease 21:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Every time someone closes an AFD differently than you would have it isn't automatically a "problem" or a mistake, it's life at AFD. I'll assume maybe you're just not familiar with the nitty gritty of AFD, but reversals like you made have been challenged in the past and as far as I know have never withstood that challenge... DRV and talk pages exist for a reason. --W.marsh 22:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Even if your interpretation of the debate was correct, unilaterally overturning another sysop's closure was not. That's what WP:DRV is for.
    Of course, there doesn't appear to be consensus that your interpretation of the debate was correct, and your "delete - with a strong suggestion to merge" wording simply doesn't make sense. —David Levy 22:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep, leave editorial discretion for merge, that's how it happened and how it should remain, I don't perceive faulty reasoning on Doc's part. --Iamunknown 21:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse original keep as no consensus and revert disruptive second closure. An admin should know that if one disagrees with a closure, one goes to DRV about it, and one does not simply overwrite the closure. What's next? Admins edit-warring over AfD closures? We don't need this silliness. Sandstein 22:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure by Doc glasgow. I haven't even looked at the article (so I have no opinion of it), but it's clear to me that there isn't consensus to delete it. "Merge" = "keep," and Jayjg's decision to lump such respondents together with the "delete" voters as people "who wanted the article gone" has no basis in policy, nor does his determination that we should strongly consider merging the deleted text. —David Levy 22:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Doc's original closure and consider merging as an editorial decision. There is simply no precedent on AFD or any other deletion process for considering merge and/or redirect discussion points as equivalent to delete. Furthermore, merge and delete is a violation of the GFDL because it eliminates necessary edit histories. I simply don't see any consensus to delete, and the "keep" arguments had substantial weight. Personally, I would have closed the discussion as a no consensus, but that makes no real difference since the result either way is the same. *** Crotalus *** 22:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Relist per Avi. Rather than guessing, we can simply ask the "mergers" to clarify their positions. <<-armon->> 23:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• 'Endorse closure as "No Consensus" as there obviously wasn't any consensus. --Ezeu 23:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete As an editor that did not have an opportunity to contribute to the AfD discussion before it was closed, I would like to point out that Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information . This appears to be a pov fork from Israel-United States relations and pointless by itself. I also note FEWER THAN 1 in 3 editors expressed the view that it should be kept, in the previously closed AfD. That does raise the question of whether the consesus view was recognized?Doright 23:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Captain Cannabis

Captain Cannabis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The policy cited as cause for deletion was that the article was not notable. The Misplaced Pages notability guidelines clearly state the basis for determining notability which the article met. It had multiple, non-trivial, arms-length citations. There were no arguments given, just "delete votes. The Administrator failed in their duty to assign proper weight in an objective manner to the issues as set out in the Misplaced Pages notability policy. Verne Andru 02:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Closer's response: Guidelines guide participants (guide not instruct) - consensus and strength of arguments guide admins - there was a consensus to delete. Guidelines are not policy. --Doc 02:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The "guidelines" state quite clearly that "votes" without any argument or reasons should not be considered when making a determination. As most of the "Delete" votes cited no reasons, they should not have been given any weight. When applying the guidelines in a fair and dispassionate manner, the "Delete" votes should not have been considered and the consensus was to "Keep" the article. Verne Andru 02:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, met standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. Seeing as sources seem to have been added throughout the debate, and some people changed their mind, this deserves a run-through with all the information present, for the whole time. -Amarkov moo! 03:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)</S.
• Endorse deletion per Joshua. Plus the fact that the nominator has responded to everyone's opinion, and invoked "I'm a lawyer so I'm right"; that is a huge red flag. -Amarkov moo! 20:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• relist per Armakov. The stupidity of the subject aside, it does make a claim to notability with the sources and the situation changed midway through. This is why admins aren't supposed to be robots when closing AfDs. JoshuaZ 06:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC) endorse deletion Having now gone through the claimed sources, almost all of them dont mention the person in question, they are of questionable reliability and not a single one is both indepedent and non-trivial. A relisting will result in the exact same result. Let's not waste our time. JoshuaZ 06:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, several arguments to delete were made later in the argument, and at least one specifically addressed (and rejected as insufficient) the sourcing added. Correct read of consensus. Seraphimblade 06:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no matter how many times you say, "these are sources, you can't ignore them", if the sources don't mention the character, then they are simply insufficient for establishing the notability of the character, and that argument was definitely raised at the AfD. Notability is not contagious; characters don't catch it from their authors or from the works they appear in. However, a non-notable character may still be relevant to (and thus worth mentioning in) an article about the author or the work. And the sources presented at the AfD do suggest that the author or the work might be notable. And, having given that very broad hint, Verne, I do hope you will keep our conflict of interest goidelines in mind. :) Cheers, Xtifr _tälk 07:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion While sources were provided, the ones that were actually available did not mention the character, but mentioned other things we are told are in some way related to the character. Xtifr put it best when he said "Notability is not contagious". I see no fault in how this debate was closed. _InBC 13:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Citation Rebuttal The High Times, Skunk Magazine article and QsHouse radio show all explicitly mention the Captain Cannabis character by name, which is the criteria for being "non-trivial" according to Misplaced Pages guidelines, as well as the 420 comic book. All sources are arms-length, independent and reliable - High Times and Skunk Magazine being two of the most widely circulated publications to the market segment. Just because a source isn't available on the internet does not mean it does not exist. Verne Andru 15:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)