Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SilkTork (talk | contribs) at 20:39, 24 May 2012 (→Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John F. Ashton: commenting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!!! Pull up a chair, let's have a nice chat. I'm glad you called. I'll put the kettle on.
SilkTork

I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.

— Barack Obama

To do

Honky Tonk Heroes

Thanks for working in the review, I'll do my best to assess your concerns.--GDuwenTell me! 20:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll pop along shortly to have a look. Am suddenly busy in real life, so Wiki time is reduced, and the priority is the ArbCom stuff when I do get time here. SilkTork 13:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, take your time. We'll take care of everything at some point anyway. I'll start working on Jailhouse Rock.--GDuwenTell me! 17:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree. With a little work I see the article reaching GA status, and I don't see the matter hanging on too long, it's just a question of getting round to it. I'm looking today at a couple of other GA reviews I've taken on, so people have something to work on, then I'm coming back to yours. SilkTork 09:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Jailhouse Rock

I started working on the article, I'll be assessing your concerns through the week. --GDuwenTell me! 20:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I have been woring on the cast section, I'm trying to find more details now on the production.--GDuwenTell me! 23:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Your comment on my appeal

Hi SilkTork, I'd like to correct a point you made here on my appeal. The controversy you referred to had nothing to do with the ARBCC sanctions, where there is not and has not been any controversy whatsoever. The issue in that discussion related to the ARBSCI restrictions, specifically an editor's attempts to go after me for supposed violations. It makes no sense to oppose a lifting of the ARBCC sanctions on the grounds of "controversy" if there has not been any controversy. I'd be grateful if you could reconsider this. Prioryman (talk) 07:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Greg koch, chris and me.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Greg koch, chris and me.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Deleted the file. SilkTork 09:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

Just like to say a very big thank you for the thorough GA review! -- Lemonade51 (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with tidying it up and further developing it. Will you take it up to FA level? SilkTork 14:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hope to. I will most likely take the article to WP:GOCE in the coming weeks to get it fine tuned. Then another crack at peer review and nominate it if all goes smoothly. Any idea how I should go about citations; something you touched upon the review? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The FA reviewers like consistency in reviews. Criteria 2(a) says: consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required.. Because of that "consistently formatted" phrase, a number of reviewers want all the citations to be exactly the same - that is, if cite 1 has author, publication, date, page number, then all the other citations need to be author, publication, date, page number, and if any citations are found to be author, page number, publication, date then they will ask for it to be changed. There are editors who enjoy or don't mind doing such meticulous formatting, and it might be useful to find one. You could try User:Jenks24 or User:Nikkimaria - they are two people I know who are interesting in citation formatting of FA articles - if they are not willing or able to do it themselves, they might suggest someone. You have more short format citations than full format, so you may decide to go with that, as that would be easiest. Most Wikipedians find the full format more useful and reader friendly than the short format, and I am a supporter of full format so that is what I would urge, but the decision has to be those who are going to do the work. Some Wikipedians, I think, find the shorter method easier for editing purposes if there are a lot of different sources, as it reduces the amount of text in the article in editing mode. So it's a balance between the needs of the editor and the needs of the reader. My feeling is we should always put the reader before the editor. SilkTork 15:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John F. Ashton

Thank you for taking the time to close this lengthy AfD debate. I agree with your comments and your assessment of the consensus. Cunard (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. SilkTork 23:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

As per WP:N, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."  It is the nutshell that identifies that we look for "sufficiently significant attention".  Unscintillating (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. SilkTork 23:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a single piece of objective evidence at the AfD that impeaches any of the 70 sources as being what WP:GNG defines as "trivial coverage".  As is typical in such arguments, there is no quantitative definition of how the known sources fall short of what would have been "sufficiently" significant attention.  I do see quantitative evidence (such as "2.5 pages") of individual sources with , that there is much more than minimally significant coverage.  WP:GNG is commonly understood as requiring two "good" sources the length of a newspaper article, which is a benchmark that is far surpassed.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

However, it might not be a bad thing to move the article to JJBs user page for a while.  I think it would make things go more smoothly if the close was changed to "Userfy".  Unscintillating (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I find it highly proceedurally-irregular that more than a week after the AfD was closed it was reverted to a different result without any notice (amounting to a speedy deletion), not to mention that less than two thirds was ruled to be a consensus. I think a fresh AfD would have been more appropriate, because of the substantial work and research put into article since the original close, which could easily have given rise to much clearer arguments than was possible before the original close. You did not acknowlege that sources had been found directly refuting a large fraction of the specific arguments that had been put forward as a basis for deletion, and under the circumstances I would have at least expected temporary preservation in the incubator. I also fail to understand why you found reconfirmation of votes worthy of positive comment (since I don't see how future AfDs will benefit from your obliging all sides to keep redundantly and persistently reiterating their positions). So this is me courteously asking you to take another look at whether deletion is appropriate at this moment given the process? Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concern. What happened was I went to AfD to close some old discussions. This AfD was listed as the oldest one, so I put a {{closing}} notice on it and began to close it in the normal way. As part of my closing process I read the article and the article talkpage, and checked the article history; as I did that I became aware that it had been previously closed, and that the closer had then undone their close as they felt they were unable to commit to writing a closing rationale for their "no consensus" decision. Like yourself, I did then pause to consider the implications of that, and felt that in essence the closer had returned the AfD to the pool, and it was as if that close had not happened. If I hadn't checked the talkpage and the article history, I would not have been aware of the previous close. The circumstances are, however, interesting, and it would be appropriate to test if the procedure was acceptable by taking it to DRV, and I would support that. The article had changed since the AfD, and the discussion had not covered those changes, which included information from the New Scientist article. In the circumstances a relisting for seven days might have been more appropriate, and it would have been more helpful if the original closer had done that. By the time I became aware of it, I had already spent over an hour on the review, and I think that would have influenced my decision to continue and finish the close. SilkTork 09:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Well, this was rather a surprise for my letting WP go for 2 hours. Never thought of that eventuality, that would allow an article with 70 independent sources to be deleted. Yes, please userfy to me, with full history of course, if that is the right outcome. I am disappointed that you didn't mention that there were eighteen reviews of four books other than the anthology, which were incompletely rebutted; only a couple comments mentioned them, and all referred only to the chocolate book and not to the other three reviewed books. These reviews were asserted to satisfy WP:AUTHOR and were not rebutted at any time by any of the delete !voters I can find (I only found 13 such !voters). Also after close it came out that Ashton was a Chartered Chemist after all (CFRACI), which probably settles the question of PROF#C3. Based on this data I would of course appreciate your making any clarifications necessary for the record. JJB 01:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I have userfied to User:John J. Bulten/John F. Ashton with the full history. When you feel the article is ready to be moved back into mainspace it's just a case of removing the <!-- --> code from around the categories, and then doing a page move - full editing history will remain with the page. It would make sense to ask an admin to look over the article before making the move so that the article isn't speedy deleted as a recreation of a deleted article. Sometimes people will voluntarily take a newly recreated article to AfD in order to test out consensus, but that is up to you.

As regards the reviews and the CFRACI, such information is useful in building up a profile of a topic in order to establish notability. The various guidelines that we have regarding notability are not bright lines - it is not intended that if a topic meets a criterion that they are automatically notable, nor that if they do not meet any criteria that they are automatically non-notable. The criteria are useful guides. The majority of those in the discussion felt that article did not sufficiently meet the criteria, and it was worth noting that as the article was being developed during the discussion, and that arguments were also being developed, that a number of people had revisited the article and the discussion and re-affirmed their delete !votes - sometimes early delete !votes count for less if new sources or arguments come to light during the discussion, and the !voter hasn't noticed. I felt that there had been a healthy (and civil) discussion of the article, and good points had been raised on both sides, but that on balance the consensus was sufficiently enough in favour of the delete view for deletion to take place. SilkTork 09:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have listed the AfD at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2012 May 24. SilkTork 09:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your communicativeness, a rare and desirable quality. Though I have strong views about the subject, I have not formed any opinion on the unique process that occurred other than its being WP:ASTONISHing as stated. JJB 14:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC) I guess I will need to ask some ticklish questions about the second close's text here after all, and I apologize that my request for clarifications was clearly too generic.

• Could you please userfy the full talk history? I'm sorry I neglected to mention this. I had listed 16 more sources there for "posterity", and much other useful discussion there is essential to work that could establish notability more clearly.
• In your close, do you see any need to adjust your !votecounts and reasonableness percentage? 31 accounts edited the AFD. Keep (13): Professor marginalia, Phil Bridger, Xxanthippe, Guillaume2303, David Eppstein, Yaksar, Hrafn, Salimfadhley, Dominus Vobisdu, Thine Antique Pen, IRWolfie-, Nomoskedasticity, MrOllie; Delete (9): John J. Bulten, StAnselm, Mormon Man, Unscintillating, Tonyinman, Cesiumfrog, DGG, 202.124.73.201, DrPhen; Abstain or comment (1): Joe Decker; Administrative (8 including duplicates of IP editor): Snotbot, Gene93k, PhantomSteve, SilkTork, Armbrust, 202.124.74.80, 202.127.72.61, 202.127.72.13.

You're right. Looking at my figures I was using the five bar gate counting method - four down strokes and a fifth crossing through. I then counted each five bar gate as a 10. I didn't count the non voters for the sake of the counting, so adding the three gates as 10 instead of 5, gives me the extra 15 for the voters. I didn't count Mormon Man's vote. Including his vote makes the figure more like 59% than 64%, but that is not significant enough to make any difference. SilkTork 20:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Since you mention GNG, do you want to mention WP:BASIC, which is an SNG? "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." No rebuttal describing the point at which combination toward notability is achieved (e.g., 70 sources).
• For "meant", read "met"?
• Since editors indicate CFRACI status, rather than FRACI status, would have made a difference, and since this was documented after AFD, do you want to mention that? First such comment: Phil Bridger 17:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC). Probably more on deleted talk page.
• Since DGG referred to "books" rather than a book, do you want to mention the additional 4 reviewed books, or adjust your classification of the "main book"? 5 multiply-reviewed books were sourced, 3 were totally ignored, and the chocolate book had many more reviews than the "main book".

I am not trained in diplomacy and do not know the best way to approach this, so I have asked you these points directly, as knowing these answers will help guide my work toward clarifying notability. Clarifying your stance on these "neglected aspects" here would be very gratifying. Thank you for your attention. JJB 18:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)