-
Azerbaijan–Spain relations (
talk|
|
history|
logs|
links|
watch) (
restore)
Should have been closed as no consensus, default to keep. Although numerically there were more votes for delete citing the article as "trivia" or using the
Reduction to absurdity argument just before the close, AFD is not a vote and no Wikipedia policy violation was cited by the delete votes. Trivia is a subjective concept, and Wikipedia relies on notability and verifiability and the article meets those two pillars. What is being called trivia is the same outline used at various government websites including the US State Department when discussing bilateral relationships. The first line of
Wikipedia:Five pillars reads as follows: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. This certainly is an almanac entry, and a Wikipedia Pillar should trump denigrating it as "trivia". Another argument was that the word "relations" itself doesn't appear in a media report, so the article is original research. A state visit, trade, treaties, international crime, kidnapping of citizens are relations as defined at
international relations and any
Ministry of Foreign Affairs website.
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
talk
13:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn to no consensus based on strength of arguments. Yet another case of the same half dozen odd copy and paste delete votes that appear in all of these. Sincerely, --
A Nobody
My talk
13:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
- As opposed to the copy and paste DRV nominations? :)
Fritzpoll (
talk)
13:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I am no fan of copy and pastes from anybody, but we are clearly seeing a voting block of accounts that are fixated on trying to indiscriminately remove these bilateral relations articles and as such cannot possibly reflect the actual views of the community. Sincerely, --
A Nobody
My talk
17:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse based on strength of arguments. eg one keep "vote" provided a primary source, one keep said "Article is flimsy and needs improvement", another used
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. the remaining strength of keep arguments do not outweigh deletion arguments.
LibStar (
talk)
13:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse 9 arguments for delete (a couple of them rather extensive and certainly not "copy-pasted" as anyone who wants to take a look for themselves can confirm) against 5 for retention. Here are 3 of the keep arguments in full: The otherstuff; "Well, if this article is to be deleted, then why there is Armenia–Spain_relations with similar content and no references? Why double standards"; the extensively reasoned: "Keep with the current additions." and; "Keep. Article is flimsy and needs improvement, but I see no valid reason for deleting it." 9 other editors in good standing disagreed, and some of us argued rather extensively on the matter of adhering to the notability guidelines. Sometimes conensus goes against us and we just have to roll with it.
Bali ultimate (
talk)
13:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment from closing admin - Again, no discussion with me prior to this DRV, but there we go. Ca I say that I am confused by this nomination statement: "Although numerically there were more votes for delete citing the article as "trivia" or using the
Reduction to absurdity argument just before the close, AFD is not a vote and no Wikipedia policy violation was cited by the delete votes." - where are you reading this? I can't see any delete comment referencing trivia - all refer to the notability guidelines requiring substantial third-party coverage in multiple places, and none of the keep comments address it. Has the nominator nominated the right AfD?
Fritzpoll (
talk)
14:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
- proves to me about the "copy and paste" nature of some.
LibStar (
talk)
14:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment (I participated in the AfD, so I won't !vote here) As far as I can tell, the DRV nominator is just forum shopping; per the nom statement and comments like
this on his user page, he just thinks that these articles meet WP guidelines and should stay. He had ample chances to convince people of that during the AfDs; DRV, however, is just for contesting deletion discussions that were closed improperly, did not follow correct procedures, etc., not for contesting deletion discussions where people didn't agree with you as much as you would have liked them to.l
rʨanaɢ
talk/
contribs
14:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
- He isn't forum-shopping, because reviewing XfDs is DRV's primary purpose. (And the articles that were kept, and subsequently DRV'ed on similar grounds, didn't count as forum-shopping either.) I agree with you that the discussion about these articles is becoming immensely disruptive, and indeed far more disruptive than the original articles were.—
S Marshall
Talk/
Cont
14:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Cmt -- why is sorting out what's notable or not notable "disruptive." It's part of the process here. If some people don't care about these issues, or simply want to dismiss all disagreements as disruptive they of course don't have to participate in any of this. But we were left with a huge heap of unsourced articles of undemonstrated notability, and cleanup is in fact under way. Wikipedia is a tiny bit better off for this effort than it was when all this started a few months ago.
Bali ultimate (
talk)
15:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
- it is not only becoming disruptive, but has become disruptive, to consider these multiple articles in isolation , for random and inconsistent decisions are harmful to the encyclopedia. I am not saying, and neither I think is S Marshall, that any one or more specific individual is being disruptive. I am sure we are all trying to follow our judgment--but tin the basis of agree guidelines, our judgement is inconsistent and without more consistent process, doing this large number is preventing proper consideration of the issue and interfering with the proper consideration of other issues. Hence disruptive--and disruptive from the day these inadequate articles were introduced too quickly to improve them. This has overwhelmed us, and the proper course must be postponement of this until we have some degree of stable consensus.
DGG (
talk)
18:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a location to raise issues with the deletion process being improperly followed. It is not a location to attempt a second bite at the cherry when a deletion discussion hasn't gone your way.
Stifle (
talk)
16:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Correct WP deletion process requires the deletions to be in accord with WP policies and guidelines, and to take account of the arguments submitted and the consensus, and to use good judgment. Therefore any closure that fails to do so is a mistake in following WP Deletion process. A error in evaluating the evidence, the guidelines, the policy or the consensus are all cases of improper process, for the correct procedure for all admin actions is that admins must act reasonably. And so this, and any closing that is asserted to not be in accord with correct judgment, can and should be reviewed here. All systems except drumhead court-martials provide for review. If admin decisions were not reviewable, we would not be willing to have admins, as none of them, including myself are perfect.
DGG (
talk)
18:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I suppose we'll have to put our readings of that policy onto the (long) list of things on which we disagree (:
Stifle (
talk)
08:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I've had a change of opinion. I think that all AFDs, DRVs, and (ideally) creations of X-Y relations articles should be suspended in favour of a discussion setting out distinct guidelines on which such articles are appropriate. The number of AFDs and DRVs on the matter is proving poisonous, and as several people have pointed out, users (myself included) are getting entrenched on one side or the other and turning the place into a battleground, which is in nobody's interest and, if not stopped, could bring the issue to the same severity as the Macedonia issue.
Stifle (
talk)
11:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
- For once I can say that I am in total agreement with
Stifle. These AfDs and DRVs have just become a battleground, rather than a collaborative attempt to come to a consensus about whether articles should be kept or deleted. Most of the decisions just seem to be based on which particular admin closes the discussion rather than any strength of argument on either side. If we could stop this relentless stream of individual discussions we would have the chance of coming to some consensus about a general guideline for bilateral relations articles.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
19:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
-
- Me too. These AfDs and DRVs are just raising tensions. I will not create any new bilateral relations articles, nor start any new AfDs. We are indeed rapidly approaching RfC or future ArbCom terrain, which as always means more time spent doing something other than improving our content. Sincerely, --
A Nobody
My talk
19:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
- It feels odd when Stifle, S Marshall and A Nobody all agree. It also indicates that the proposal makes sense. There is project/something that was working on all these. I don't know the detailed status of
[1] but I think making one page for each countries relations would be good. I'd really like it if the creator of all these would stop and the AfDs of those that exist would stop while we figure this out. Say everyone stops for 30 days and everyone involved agrees to discuss.
Hobit (
talk)
20:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Sadly, the
disruptive, pointed, and frivolous renominations a mere month after a keep closure continue... At this point, any renominations, DRVs, where consensus was hardly ambiguous should be blockable, because it is clear that these renominations a month later are getting out of hand and that AfD is being not just flooded by these bilateral relations discussions, but by ones we already had. Are we here to build an encyclopedia or play games? Sincerely, --
A Nobody
My talk
21:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Request Could we have a history only undelete or, baring that, can someone provide a list of all the sources used in the article when it was deleted? The real issue in the discussion was WP:N (IMO) and it's hard to evaluate the "is not" "is too" AfD without knowing what the sources are.
Hobit (
talk)
17:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Anyone?
Hobit (
talk)
14:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion - yes, we all know Richard's whimsical interpretation of the five pillars by now, but that personal opinion still doesn't trump
WP:N or license the dissemination of trivia here. Consensus was in favour of deletion; retentionist arguments were weak; the closer interpreted the debate correctly. -
Biruitorul
Talk
17:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion - strong arguments to delete were advanced during the AfD and there was no error in the closing admin's judgment of consensus.
Eusebeus (
talk)
18:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion Kudos to the closing editor for a clear explanation of the analysis of the discussion. Not one valid reason was given to keep the article and not even one reliable independent source providing in-depth coverage of the topic was shown. It certainly wasn't about counting !votes but about the quality and validity of the points made during the discussion. It is shameful that impartial and well-reasoned decisions are questioned in this manner when they are not so easy to come by. I hope that this sort of deletion review doesn't discourage participation.
Drawn Some (
talk)
18:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse Deletion The fact that no attempt was made to contact the closing admin and discuss reasons for closing as he did aside, the delete !votes carried much stronger arguments. Many of the arguments to keep came down to "It's pretty and I want it to stay." --
Blue
Squadron
Raven
20:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I was earlier admonished for making cut-and-paste arguments to AfD, despite the cut-and-paste nature of the stub articles up for discussion. When will the nominator face similar for his activity at DRV? --
Blue
Squadron
Raven
20:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion. I would very much struggle to interpret this as no consensus: while some bad, "I don't like it" delete arguments were made, the majority of the keep arguments are equally weak. No compelling sources were found to demonstrate anything worthwhile for the article, and despite a rescue attempt several previous delete voters even came back to confirm that their concerns were still unrectified. While I salute the effort put into salvaging the article, it rather saddens me the amount of good editors' time and effort being put into attempting to save these awful, contentless bilateral relations articles. ~
mazca
t|
c
23:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
- very well said Mazca.
LibStar (
talk)
00:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
- How do we non-admins know no compelling sources were found?
Hobit (
talk)
14:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Clicking the "cache" link at the top should show you a copy of the deleted article. Hope that helps
Fritzpoll (
talk)
14:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks, I'd done that before and gotten a copy from June 2nd, which was horrible/old. The one I'm seeing now has more sources, but I've not idea if it was the final one. The problem with the cached version is you never know if this was the _last_ version, which in a DrV like this is actually important as both sides in the AfD are arguing about source quality without actually discussing the sources. Still would like a history only undelete.
Hobit (
talk)
20:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion since strong policy-based reasons for deletion were present which overwhelmed the reasons for keeping it.
Edison (
talk)
23:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - an excessive amount of x-y relations article debates are being sent here.
PhilKnight (
talk)
14:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse on the basis the closing admin was acting well within the bounds of discretion.
PhilKnight (
talk)
14:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Weak overturn Frankly it might fall within admin discretion given the !votes and a bit of an application of IAR. But that said, arguments for deletion were weak in the face of what is a well-sourced article that meets all of our inclusion guidelines and policies. The sources appear to be on target and from solid reliable sources. I just don't see any guideline/policy-based reason to delete nor any arguments in the AfD that are such given the nature of the article at the time of deletion.
Hobit (
talk)
20:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
|