-
2009 White House criticism of Fox News (
talk|
|
history|
logs|
links|
watch) (
XfD|
restore)
There was no consensus (obvious or otherwise).
Jwesley78 (
talk)
02:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse I nominated the AfD based on
WP:NOTNEWS. I felt that the article was merely an indiscriminate collection (
WP:INDISCRIMINATE) of common, non-notable (
WP:N) exchanges between the White House and the press. I believe that the difficulty in arriving at a meaningful title for the article was a symptom of this condition. I believe the closing administrator clearly saw the non-notable aspect of this opinion and did not see compelling arguments to the contrary. I do believe that a more
WP:ABSTRACT article entitled, say,
U.S. Presidents and the media would be appropriate.
HyperCapitalist (
talk)
02:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- The contention between the White House and Fox News (and now also the
Chamber Of Commerce, and others) appears to be a "change of strategy" taken by the Obama presidency. Instead of dealing with individual "falsehoods" they are directing their comments to whom they see as the source of these, i.e., Fox News. This "change of strategy" is notable within Obama's presidency.
Jwesley78 (
talk)
03:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- That's an interesting take on it - but the article wasn't "White House's change of media strategy," nor was the article written with that in mind.
HyperCapitalist (
talk)
23:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- So let's just change the title. ;-)
Jwesley78 (
talk)
23:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- That takes care of the first problem, now you just need to address the "nor was the article written with that in mind" part. ;-)
HyperCapitalist (
talk)
23:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- The
Wikipedia:Deletion policy is fairly clear as to how the deletion process should take place. (The more controversial a topic, the more closely policy should be followed.) My contention is simply that no consensus was formed. If measuring by number of votes (although not a valid way to measure consensus) it would clearly say keep the article. Since this is (at best) a case of "no consensus", the article should be kept.
Jwesley78 (
talk)
03:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse The article was a farce. Its name alone hinted that other articles can and would be created for other years. It is very easy to place this information into the body of other articles and still respect
WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Now lets all remember that any crictism article or otherwise that is aimed at the current occupant of the White House has been met with much resistance from many other users, yet I must point out that some of those same users have not only participated in the deletion discussion as wanting to keep this article, but also added information into the article as well. The same arguments they use on other pages to repress critcism, were somehow forgotten in this artcle. It is unfortunate that some users have used wikipedia to promote or otherwise encourage their political point of view. I not only commend Julian for making this difficult decision, but he deserves our gratitude for rising above the political mess that was created by this former article.--
Jojhutton (
talk)
03:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- (Additional note): Jojhutton's crystal ball gazing about the verbal sparring's raging on indefinately may well be incorrect. According to today's US News & World Report the battle may well end up being circumscribed as but a "September-through-October 2009" affair (if not the whole war, at least, apparently, these recent, high-profile skirmishes):
"[...]White House officials don't expect to fire another shot in the battle unless Fox strikes first."
(link)
↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now)
00:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- (Are comments allowed?) Jojhutton, I haven't edited the Obama pages much lately so am ignorant of which Wikipedians' partisanship you're referring to. However, I noticed in the AfD that (as an example) User:Showtime2009 made an empty accusation about there being SPAs who had been editing the article in question; therefore, in the present case, I'd hope you'd either provide some names or more detailed explanations of your accusations -- perhaps even some diffs? (It's ironic that sometimes those who are actually overly partisan themselves tend to see partisanship where none really exists. Eg, I created the article, yet in real life I am an Obama supporter.)
↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now)
03:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I'll give you one previous example and one possible future example. 1. There was a previous heated argument over the creation of a new article titled
Criticism of Barack Obama. Many editors argued against the article based on
WP:BLP, while ignoring that an article that some of them had previously worked on titled
Criticism of George W. Bush did excist. When it was brought up to some of these editors that this other article excisted they would point out
WP:OTHERSTUFF as a criteria for deleting the article about Obama. In the end, it was agreed to change the name of both articles to read "Public Perception....." in stead of criticism. 2. As far as future debates go. I would suggest trying to create the article
Fox News Criticism of the White House. This article is the same thing as the other, only in reverse. I can almost see the sides switching on this one based on the partisian divide on wikipedia. Its all wait and see now.--
Jojhutton (
talk)
19:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Jojhutton, I know nothing about the Bush "image" article but know for a fact that your version of the circumstances surrounding the genesis of the "Image" article about Barack Obama is faulty. Unlike the case with concern the "
Public image of Sarah Palin" article, which quickly became a depository of critical commentary and issues, the article "
Public image of Barack Obama" has never contained much if any critical material at all. (BTW, there is also an article on McCain's image, containing some critical material but mostly not.)
↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now)
02:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Jojhutton, again, please provide evidence of partisanship backing up your speculations with regard to the current article under discussion; otherwise, please do try to
assume good faith.
↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now)
00:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Jojhutton, I am sure you're not talking about me, since I have not participated in any of the myriad Obama flailexes, and I have never edited the subject of this DRV at all. Please avoid using a broad brush to characterize those editors whose judgment of this article's merits differ from your own.
Horologium
(talk)
01:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Perhaps the wording of
Articles_for_deletion#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed should be changed to place less emphasis on determining an "obvious consensus"?
Jwesley78 (
talk)
03:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse - once again, a DRV nominee who forgets that AfDs are not a vote. The keep votes that simply consisted of "I saw it in a reliable source!" were weak.
Tarc (
talk)
03:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- The nominator does realize that it's "not a vote". The problem is that there was clearly no consensus. Please don't make false claims about me.
Jwesley78 (
talk)
04:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- (I'll at least try to concentrate on the closing administrator's application/lack of application of AfD policy moreso than any stuff that would be peripheral to that.)
Endorse I like our collectively allowing closing admins elbow room to make reasonable decisions. In this case, the decision could have gone either way, so....
In other words, even though how I personally saw the AfD's consensus was that it was one supporting a merger of either all or at least some of the article's info -- to somewhere or another; what real diff does it make if the closing admin sees it as a delete? In the end, whatever would be deemed notable will end up being contributed elsewhere (...well, of course, I'd saved a copy of the deleted article in my user space) -- so, why make a big fuss over whether the original page was deleted or remains as a redirect?
↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now)
03:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- overturn- I disagree that the strength of the arguments favored the delete side of that argument, and I don't feel there was any consensus in that discussion to delete.
Umbralcorax (
talk)
03:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- overturn Closer claimed "Indeed, many keep votes consist of essentially "It is notable" without any sort of explanation or reasoning. " As the article was very well sourced, deleting on the that basis is not reasonable in this case. Normally a "it's notable" !vote holds little value. But when the article is sourced in a way far past what WP:N requires, I can't see how it could be deleted on that basis. I personally would have leaned toward delete due to NOTNEWS with a dose of IAR had I seen the AfD, but I don't believe a consensus to delete can be found in that discussion.
Hobit (
talk)
04:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - personally i thought it was heading towards no consensus. Sometimes keep !votes are simpler explanations then delete !votes, because the deletion rationales are more tortured. This, in fact, happens commonly when a clearly notable article is nominated for deletion. This article doesn't fall into that bucket neatly, though, and I'm neutral on the close decision here due to some discretion needing to be allowed the closing admin. This article's subject matter is no doubt going to appear in other articles as well.--
Milowent (
talk)
04:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse close was within process and legitimate, only claims of votecounting seem to support any other close. Closing admins rationale seems perfectly fine to alleviate any concerns. --
Jayron
32
06:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I very rarely !vote to overturn Juliancolton. But in this case I didn't see a consensus in that debate. Overturn to no consensus.—
S Marshall
Talk/
Cont
07:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse. Textbook case of
WP:NOT#NEWS.
Stifle (
talk)
08:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse AfD's are, we sometimes forget, discussions not polls. The closing administrator seems to have properly taken account of that by making an assessment of the arguments presented rather than simply counting votes. I note the comments from Hobit in suggesting this decision is overturned. However, he doesn't seem to recognise that satisfying the notability guidelines does not mean an article on a particular subject is appropriate, merely that one might be. This is why simply saying the subject is notable is not adequate justification to keep this article.
Adambro (
talk)
08:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse, it seems to me that many of the keep !voters were of the erroneous belief that everything that meets the verifiability and third-party coverage requirement of
WP:V and
WP:N required or guaranteed an article, with very few of them even trying to address the comments of those who were arguing for deletion. While a merge might have been a viable closure option, there was no consensus on where it should be merged to. This means that a merge outcome would effectively mean keeping the article indefinitely until such time as a place could be agreed (or even a suitable article written), and keeping the article in its current form was the option rejected most clearly by those expressing reasoned opinions.
Thryduulf (
talk)
09:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Note - This line of reasoning of Thryduulf's is what I was trying, really (if lamely) to argue via my !vote above. (Also note that the language at
WP:FANCRUFT: "Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial." -- while accurately pointing out that closes of this type are controversial, obviously does not say such closes are improper or disallowed.)
↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now)
13:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- overturn It is a notable event and there was no consensus. Wikipedia has an article on Balloon Boy, but not the WH battle against Fox? It makes Wikipedia editors look like leftists covering for the WH. As noted below, notable votes for a page with numerous cites can be succinct, while attempts to justify based on
WP:NOTNEWS need more justification. No consensus was reached on the page by any means.
GeorgPBurdell 10:09, 28 October 2009
- Overturn. More Wikipedians supported Keep than supported Delete. Under these circumstances, it's absolutely farcical to claim that there was a rough consensus for deletion, which is what the policy calls for. The "AfD is not a vote" mantra has been perverted to the point of meaning, in practice, "AfD is nothing but a debating society that presents arguments for consideration, with the final decision made solely by one individual, namely whatever admin or other editor wanders by on the eighth day and decides to make his or her opinion the dispositive one." If that's to be the policy -- and some Wikipedians seem comfortable with that extreme version of "AfD is not a vote" -- then the policy should be rewritten to eliminate the word "consensus". There is no plausible meaning of the word "consensus" by which this closing, and others of the same ilk, reflected even a "rough consensus". Now, I realize that
the policy doesn't make the consensus requirement absolute, but rather states, "Under most circumstances, if there is no rough consensus the page is kept...." (emphasis added) That wording allows for exceptions. It cannot, however, allow an exception on the basis that "the person closing the AfD happens to favor deletion and therefore feels like deleting regardless of the absence of consensus." If that were an allowable exception then we'd have no policy.
JamesMLane
t
c
11:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
-
- The numeric count does play a role. If 90% of the !voters invoked IAR to do something contrary to guidelines we generally follow that lead. Here the real debate (IMO) was NOTNEWS vs. WP:N. As both sides have perfectly valid arguments (NOTNEWS doesn't preclude the coverage of all news) and the !votes leaded keep there was no consensus to delete.
Hobit (
talk)
13:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Julian, read the rest of what he wrote. He explains why it's relevant.
Jwesley78 (
talk)
13:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- To explain why I consider it relevant, let me give you a hypothetical AfD in which fully 100 Wikipedians participate, none of them SPA's, none of them anon IP's, and none of them having been brought in through on- or off-wiki canvassing. The nominator and four others give varying thoughtful arguments for Delete. Five of the other participants give varying thoughtful arguments for Keep. The remaining 90 all find themselves persuaded by a comment already made, so each of them responds with some variation of "Delete per User X" or "Keep per User Y". The view of some AfD closers, which your comment suggests you may share, is that the person closing the AfD should read the ten reasoned arguments, examine the challenged article and the relevant policies, and decide which view he or she personally considers to be more sound. The 90 other participants can be ignored. The closer can delete the article even if all 90 said "Keep". The closer can keep it even if all 90 said "Delete". Is that your view? I personally think that would be a terrible system, but the more important point is that it's not the system we have. The policy repeatedly uses the word "consensus". You're asking me how the numeric count of responses is relevant to determining whether there's a rough consensus. I'm sorry, but I just don't know how to explain it any more clearly. It follows from
the definition of the word.
JamesMLane
t
c
21:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- The notability of current events is hard to "prove" because we do not have the full context (yet) and we do not (yet) know what effect these events will have on the future. Since we don't fully know the effects, one possible measure of notability is how many sources can be found that covered the events. This article was clearly well cited with many sources. In addition, since the clear majority voted Keep or Merge, there should be some overwhelming reason to instead choose Delete.
Jwesley78 (
talk)
13:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- In response to Hobit's comments, I don't see that it was "NOTNEWS vs. WP:N". That would assume that the two are mutually exclusive. I disagree. WP:N does not require us to have an article on a subject because the criteria are satisfied, and I would agree that they were, rather it says an article might be appropriate. The main question here in my opinion was not really whether the subject was notable according to WP:N, the multiple independent reliable sources meant it was fairly clear that it was, but rather was a standalone article the most appropriate way for us to deal with this subject. Meeting WP:N does not and should not mean an automatic new article, we have to assess each subject in the context of other articles we may have about similar subjects and consider the historical significance. We already have a
Fox News Channel controversies article and so this particular topic can probably be appropriately covered in that and similar articles. I don't think we can speculate that this particular incident is going to be significant which is what I feel some may be doing.
Adambro (
talk)
13:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse. The close was not clearly erroneous. Obligatory disclosure: I !voted to delete in the AfD.
Tim Song (
talk)
11:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn The keep supporters put forth a strong and well-sourced argument. Although the delete supporters believe the article is
WP:NOT#NEWS, there was not a consensus on this. --
Odie5533 (
talk)
13:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse - while the close was controversial, it wasn't definitely incorrect. Closer evaluated the strength of the arguments and decided that while it met the requirements for independent sourcing, it didn't meet the requiremets for
WP:NOTNEWS. (Disclosure - !voted to delete.)--
SarekOfVulcan (
talk)
13:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse - the closer followed precedent by evaluating the strength of the opinions; I agree that many of the keeps were based on "it happened!" and had little basis to define why we should have this as a fork rather than in one of the relevant articles. A good close, not obviously erroneous. Unless we're going to make a policy change that states AfD is a numerical vote, no problem here.
Tony Fox
(arf!)
15:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse. I don't know whether I would have reached the same conclusion, but the closer provided a reasonable rationale based on policy and the content of the discussion. To overturn decisions without clear indications that the closer misinterpreted the discussion or committed some other important error, and without any new information about the subject of the article, just turns DRV into AFD round two. I don't see any such clear indications or new information, so I believe the closer's decision should stand. --
RL0919 (
talk)
18:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn, as the closer explicitly stated that he used
WP:NOTNEWS as a rationale for deletion. This is not a case of NOTNEWS, as it is not a single event.
Here is a story from June, where Obama slams Fox;
here is another from September, discussing a separate, but related event;
another from October 6th, discussing yet another incident;
another, from October 14th, with a different Obama adminstration official attacking the network;
another one, on October 19th, which quotes both the official from the previous link and another senior administration official; and a pair of pieces from
The New York Times and
CBS News, which mention yet another incident, while providing an overview of the whole topic. All of these are related, but they are not a single incident, and they encompass a span of at least six weeks (discounting the June attack from Obama). Therefore the topic of the article does not meet the criteria for NOTNEWS exclusion. NOTNEWS clearly states that it only applies to a single incident; this is not the case here. BTW, the Colorado balloon incident, which was retained after an AFD which also had many !votes citing NOTNEWS, has an article in Wikinews; this does not.
Horologium
(talk)
19:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
-
WP:NOTNEWS doesn't limit what Wikipedia articles should not be to only where a single event is involved. Unless I'm mistaken, the only reference made to a single event relates to individuals; "our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event". Where does clearly state "that it only applies to a single incident"?
Adambro (
talk)
19:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I also find it odd that "Balloon Boy" incident was found worthy of an article, but this issue was not.
Jwesley78 (
talk)
19:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- One involved a significant hoax resulting in sizeable search and rescue resources being mobilised, flights being rerouted, an airport being temporarily shut, and an apparent life and death situation involving a child which looks set to result in criminal charges. The other incident concerns a petty dispute between some in the White House and Fox News. I don't see how the incidents are comparable.
Adambro (
talk)
20:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I suspect that you would feel differently if Gordon Brown's government were to mount a similar offensive against
Sky News, with multiple high-level officials stating that they were not a legitimate news outlet. This is not a couple of staffers spouting off; this is a sustained and coordinated effort, something that has never happened before on this scale in the United States. Previous administrations have squawked about biased coverage (and publicly ended White House subscriptions to specific newspapers) and complained about specific stories, but never has any administration stated that one of the major news outlets is in fact, not a news outlet at all. FNC is not an obscure cable outfit; it is the largest cable news channel in North America (probably in the Western Hemisphere), and six weeks of direct attacks against its legitimacy is a lot more than a petty dispute.
Horologium
(talk)
22:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Why might I feel differently if Gordon Brown's government was involved in a similar incident?
Adambro (
talk)
23:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Because it appears that you are misjudging the significance of this event because you are not an American editor, just as American editors misjudge the significance of incidents which occur on your side of the pond. As I have mentioned before, this is not just a little steam-blowing by a few staffers, and it makes
Spiro Agnew's famous fulminating fusillades against the media look like a toast to them. This is a systematic and deliberate attack on the credibility of Fox News. Imagine
John Major's government claiming that
The Guardian was not a newspaper, but rather a tabloid like
The Sun.
Horologium
(talk)
01:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Please don't assume that by a quick look at my contributions you can judge my background enough to suggest I might not be in a position to understand this issue.
Adambro (
talk)
08:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse – I'd argue that this isn't about notability but whether or not this went against
WP:NOT, in which the arguments for deletion on those grounds made it very clear.
MuZemike
20:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Undelete; I think that the keep voters made a satisfactory demonstration of notability. Ultimately, I think this material better belongs in an article or series of articles discussing the Obama administration's media relations strategy. In the moment it is difficult to achieve that kind of coherence/synthesis and the material appears in smaller chunks; that's okay so long as severe NPOV and weight problems are avoided.
Christopher Parham
(talk)
20:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn - I just don't see how this deletion is based in policy. There is no question of compliance with
WP:N, as acknowledged by the closing admin. Several editors (myself included) pointed out that the remaining rationale, based on
WP:NOTNEWS, in which the interpretation being applied is
prima facie invalid and is in fact directly addressed within
WP:NOTNEWS. The closing admin didn't address this point of order; it should also be noted that there are just as many "keep" !votes based solely on
WP:N as there are "delete" !votes that seem solely based upon the misunderstanding of a policy named "NOTNEWS". If you boil out those two vaporous arguments, any remaining policy objections are focused around content issues (
WP:NPOV,
WP:OR/
WP:SYN, etc.), for which the remedy is certainly not deletion. It seems clear to me that this deletion should be overturned. //
Blaxthos (
t /
c )
23:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse
WP:NOTNEWS at its finest.
Soxwon (
talk)
00:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn not at its finest, at its most expansive and worst. Clear misinterpretation of NOT NEWS, by the people in the debate and the closing admin. There needs to be an undetrstanding that the sort of events which would reasonably be in history books is more than transient news. It would have been much better to either interpret NOT NEWS to mean NOT TABLOID, or, if these misunderstandings persist, reword the rule to make it explicit. But in any case there have been continuing additional publications, and it should easily be possible for a more extended article to be written.
DGG (
talk )
00:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I'm not sure why you believe I misinterprpeted NOT#NEWS, as I made no effort whatsoever to interpret it to start with. I made my decision simply on the basis of what I perceived to be fairly well-defined consensus for deletion; personally I have no opinion on the matter. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
15:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Q - A statement by Julian on his talk page, "[...]
WP:NOTNEWS is a policy, and thus citing it, proving that an adequately solid reason for doing so, is reasonable and taken as a valid argument. On the other hand, many of the editors arguing that the topic is notable provided little or no evidence and indeed cited no relevant guidelines or policies, hence my decision. As for the page, I hadn't noticed that the title was moved, so my AfD script evidently killed the redirect. Thanks for the note!" -- leads me to believe that Julian only read the AfD and didn't actually read the article. If so (and I'm not absolutelyu certain that it is), would such a course of action as this by a closing admin be OK?
↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now)
16:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I rarely read the articles associated with AFDs I intend to close. I look at each one briefly and check the references, but anything more is unnecessary and perhaps even detrimental. As noted above, my opinion is more-or-less irrelevant. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
16:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Julian, I am a little startled by that statement. I would never close anything no matter how obvious without reading the article myself, and checking the history, not just glancing at it. How else could I tell if the arguments raised are pertinent? Our job is to follow consensus, you are quite right there, but it's to follow the consensus of the arguments that are based on policy and relevant to the particular article. It's not uncommon for objections (or support) to be given that sounds applicable, but it not actually relevant to the article being discussed--orthat are elevant to a currently poor state of the article, when there was a better one earlier.
DGG (
talk )
17:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Yes. As I said, I do briefly examine the article to ensure the arguments raised during the AfD were valid. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
17:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- My apologies, I may have read more into your first sentence than was intended.
DGG (
talk )
03:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn Closing admin admitted to judging arguments by a significant group of concerned Wikipedia editors, rather than taking a measurement existing consensus. I believe that if we are to be governed by consensus, the latitude given to closing admins should not include the ability to make judgments which exclude carefully considered opinions made by longstanding editors from consideration at AFD - that ability should be restricted to clear misunderstanding, or lack of understanding, for core policy, which is not at play here.
Ray
Talk
00:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
-
- Q - Tarc, is this article (-->
Nixon's Enemies List) synthy?
↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now)
02:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I don't know if the proposal was definitively rejected. My personal opinion is that, if it described all such controversies at the level of detail of the improperly deleted article about this particular controversy, it would be way too long. If instead it tried to draw general conclusions from such past incidents, it would be more of an essay than an encyclopedia article, and would likely be original research. Conceivably there could be such an article per
WP:SS -- for each major controversy, it would give a brief summary and a wikilink to a daughter article with more detail. Of course, that project is hopeless if the daughter articles with more detail (like this one) get deleted.
JamesMLane
t
c
02:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- A model might be the Wiki omnibus article "United States journalism scandals" -- that contains, for example,
one section that links to a main article about the McCain-NYTimes-lobbyist controversies.
↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now)
03:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: I was for deletion in the original AfD,
but I'm going to steer clear of whether it was correctly decided. However, I want to say that since for a lot of people, this discussion seems to be about how to interpret
WP:Not, specifically "Wikipedia is not news." Some editors want to in effect "throw out" the opinions of those who advocated deletion on the back of this guideline. Whichever way you come out on the issue, there is at least a reasonable argument to be made that this event falls under the umbrella of "routine news coverage." Even if you don't believe that such an argument is persuasive, it at least has a rational basis, and so long as it does, essentially telling editors that their opinion doesn't count would be a tremendously wrongheaded move.
Croctotheface (
talk)
09:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse. Actually, after reading some of the rationales advanced for overturning the decision, I've actually been swayed toward believing that the closing admin made the right call, or at least that no better call is likely to be made if we were to run the process again. The best arguments against upholding the closing admin seem to be more about re-litigating the AfD than pointing out serious errors with the closure.
Croctotheface (
talk)
14:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn The issue is a lack of editorial consensus in the original AfD, not arguing the points in the original nomination for deletion all over again. A lack of consensus for "delete" could not have been more clear (please just reference the archive above[
[1]]). But evidently, essays are now required.
- The admin stated that "At a first glance this seems like an obvious 'no consensus' or even perhaps a 'keep'," but then proceeds to assert something that is blatantly unapparent--that the notability argument was not documented. Looking over the "delete" nominations, the identical detail and lack thereof were apparent. In other words, both sides presented typical keep-delete arguments.
- Editorial comment is supposed to have meaning in Wikipedia without having to write an essay on the
WP:NOTNEWS, etc., guidelines each time. Noting the relevant issue does not require a rewrite of essays meant to make just such extended remarks unnecessary. The reasons were stated as often, clearly, and cogently as those nominating for delete, even if concise, and assumed other editors could refer to the noted guidelines without having to restate them in the nomination for deletion itself. No one gets to decide that "some arguments count more," but that appears to be exactly what has happened in this case by this particular admin. It's the disparity of views of the arguments' merits themselves that are at issue and that had no consensus, whether you agree with the purpose of the article or not. The arguments laid out for why the article met the
WP:NOTNEWS guidelines were clear. Others referred to comments made previously, implicitly or explicitly, assuming good faith that they need not simply repeat the same arguments, but merely point out their existence. Sorry, this was, to be honest, an affront to the process of determining consensus or the lack thereof. The prima facie evidence, as also cited by the closing admin, was clear.
- But to be clear:
- The original AfD produced substantial and indisputably notable, verifiable, and reliable sources (that an proponent of deleting the article even tried to remove [maybe then the closing admin would have a point ;], but that was later inserted and collapsed). Perhaps the closing admin missed it.
- The article regarded a subject where, unlike previous presidents with secret "enemies lists", this president declared open war on a reputable news organization (and which also carries commentary--so do newspapers). The Pew Research Center for People and the Press conducted a survey that put Fox News squarely on top as the network with the most balanced audience mix [
see p.15] with almost equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats along with the "usual" number of independents.
-
Nixon's Enemies List is a clear analogue to the present situation. The present widespread news coverage and even criticism by others than Fox News exists precisely because of the parallels. Suggesting the two are different would be the equivalent to suggesting the Iraq war is history but the Afghan war is news and therefore does not meet the
WP:NOTNEWS tabloid threshold.
- The sources were reputable, notable, and occurring with increasing frequency precisely because the "declaration of war" on the media was so unprecedented. It took a whole roundtable discussion on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, for example.
-
WP:NOTNEWS, as noted and seconded by many editors, is meant to avoid tabloid journalism. Unless every major news outlet in the U.S. is tabloid, including the mainstream media, this just doesn't fly. One would have to be living in a news black hole not to have seen the coverage and come to a "non-notable" conclusion.
- The overriding point is that the closing admin had to argue some editor's views are less important than others, minimize or ignore their contributions, and do so under the guise of deciding which arguments deserved "strong" consideration and which did not. It's a demonstration of the very arbitrary will as applied to Wikipedia decision-making that consensus building seeks to avoid. Calling it "not a vote" and then imposing one's own will just seems to go a bit beyond the pale in this instance. --
John G. Miles (
talk)
10:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Weaker arguments are simply discard from the final consideration. That is the entire point of having an AfD closer in a position to evaluate the arguments for and against an article, and not just be a vote-counter.
Tarc (
talk)
12:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- True, and the point of DrV is to act as a way of correcting errors and to see if the community thinks the closer mis-interpreted the AfD discussion. I think John raises some good points on that score.
Hobit (
talk)
13:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Tarc, the problem with saying that weaker arguments aren't considered is that it's not self-evident which ones are weaker. You could say that arguments written in all caps are not considered, and that's an objective standard. You have to consider the arguments on both sides to decide which set is weaker, though. What a closure of this type amounts to is that multiple editors come to the AfD discussion, read the arguments on both sides, and comment and !vote according to their judgment. Then one of them, instead of merely commenting or !voting, makes his or her personal decision the dispositive one, based on his or her view about which arguments are the weak ones.
- The closing admin has not seen fit to address the hypothetical case tha I posed above in
this edit. Because you seem to share his orientation, I'd be interested in what you think about how that hypothetical AfD should be closed.
JamesMLane
t
c
22:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I think you've misinterpreted WP:Not. "Not news" is also designed to get at things with legitimate (not just "tabloid") news value that lack value for an encyclopedia. Every single game that, say, a professional hockey team plays is covered in detail by multiple non-tabloid news sources. They would plainly pass the basic WP:N standard, but they shouldn't get articles here. Why? Because Wikipedia is not news.
Croctotheface (
talk)
14:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Croc, do you think
Ketchup as a vegetable and
Dick Cheney hunting accident pass WP:Not? (I found these a few days ago while category-hopping.)
Horologium
(talk)
15:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- They're both questionable for sure. I think it would certainly not be unreasonable to say that both of those don't belong in an encyclopedia. The arguments that they are more than news, which could perhaps distinguish them from this case, is that they are powerful cultural memes (particularly the ketchup thing) or they are so wild and crazy (sitting VP shoots a guy) that they merit attention in an encyclopedia. But if your point is that there exist gray areas, I completely agree. My objection was to an interpretation of WP:Not that essentially said that only "tabloid" stories shouldn't get articles. In reality, all "news of the day" stories, including those about important subjects, pass WP:N, but in the vast majority of cases, they shouldn't get articles.
Croctotheface (
talk)
19:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Croc: A couple of points. First, the issue is whether the "not news" is actually "not news," and that is what the AfD nomination is for—to establish consensus. We can argue between ourselves till the cows come home, but that's exactly the point—it's not the point. The point is that neither you nor I (nor an admin) get to determine what is and is not encyclopedia-worthy; rather, that is an issue for the AfD and upon which no consensus (as admitted by the closing admin) was prima facie apparent in the AfD discussion.
- Second, I use the term "tabloid" in the same way
WP:NOTNEWS uses it; that is, in the sense of non-notable and "routine." The extensive coverage and absolutely "non-routine" nature of a presidential administration of the United States trying to censor (and directing other news organizations to censor its coverage of another major news organization--you can ask me for specific sources if you like) is absolutely not "routine" in the sense of
WP:NOTNEWS. But again, the second point is superceded by the first—it's the first point of editorial consensus that is at issue even if the second point is ignored. --
John G. Miles (
talk)
01:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Reading your viewpoint really strengthens my endorsement of the closing admin here. The closing admin never ever "admitted" there was no consensus; he said that at first glance it may appear that way. It's like saying, "At first glance, John Doe appears to have something relevant to say, but in fact he does not." According to your view, the speaker in that sentence "admitted" John Doe's comments were on point. Your second paragraph just reads like a desire to reargue the AfD and make spurious accusations of "censorship," which doesn't hold any weight at this discussion.
Croctotheface (
talk)
17:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- You need to read for comprehension. The closing admin admitted prima facie consensus. Prima facie has precise and accurate meaning in the present discussion. Your comments assume it was never used. --
John G. Miles (
talk)
07:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- First off, civility is valued here. Put another way, "You need to write for not-being-a-dick." Having just written that, though, I can understand why being uncivil is fun. If you mean prima facie in the colloquial sense and not the legal sense, then I don't see what it has to do with the issue at hand. If you mean it in the legal sense of "sufficient evidence to support a claim," then my response above still applies.
Croctotheface (
talk)
07:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Actually, I wasn't being uncivil, I was being descriptive--you missed the very words that comprehended my meaning and that made your objection one of lack of understanding. Prima Facie means "on the face of it" (lit. "first face") or "at first sight" which is exactly how the closing admin described the situation. No legal distinction whatsoever is required (though it is used identically). The pot does look quite black, however. Feel free to take the last word here. --
John G. Miles (
talk)
04:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- (What follows is not a critique of Julian's "administrative technique" so much as one of, maybe, the Wiki system.) Say a (reasonably circumscribed?) series of events occur and begin to receive coverage in the media. A Wikipedian starts an article, but its sourcing is, in truth, thin. The article is immediately nommed for deletion. In the resulting discussion, commenters note the skant sourcing and advocate convincingly for the article's deletion. In the meantime, an avalanche of sourcing turns up as the series of events becomes a much noted-upon phenomenon. The closing date for the AfD arrives and the admin can only hope to have become but cursorily acquainted with the article's subject matter and furthermore doesn't read the short article in order not to prejudice hi/rself toward the discussion in the AfD. Because the early !votes in the AfD are so well argued and because the later !voters felt less of a need to support their "Keep" positions in the face of what had come to be overwhelming media coverage, the closing admin is forced to delete. Thereafter, those advocating for the events in question to receive coverage on Wikipedia are told, "This issue has already been settled and the consensus is against its being covered."
↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now)
17:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- The moral of the story is that anyone who comments in a deletion request or similar should add both that discussion and the relevant page to their watchlist, monitor any changes, and be prepared to revise their comments.
Adambro (
talk)
17:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Endorse reasonable interpretation of the discussion, grounded in policy.
Bali ultimate (
talk)
18:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse - no particular reason to overturn. The discussion leaned toward deletion, with better arguments on that side, and a solid policy-based reasoning was given by the closer. -
Biruitorul
Talk
19:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn per comments from a number of others above, including DGG and John G. Miles. I personally can't see how this could have possibly been closed as anything other than no consensus and this very DRV shows that there is still no consensus regarding this issue. --
Tothwolf (
talk)
19:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
-
-
-
- A review of a close that proposes that the closer did not realise that no-consensus described the overall situation can appropriate point to material discussed during the review. we're not narrowly technical.
DGG (
talk )
03:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse a reasonable close that is consistent with policy.
Crafty (
talk)
03:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn - This article's content had received attention from multiple major news sources, united a description of several events, and generally does not fall under
WP:NOTNEWS. Many other more eloquent statements along those lines have already been made above.
Tigerhawkvok (
talk)
09:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I found this on NPR. It includes links for views on both sides of the issue: "
In White House Vs. Fox News War Of Words, Who Gets Your Vote?". This gives further evidence for notability.
Jwesley78 (
talk)
14:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- More evidence of notability. Katy Couric states, "Politicians and the media have long had a contentious relationship, it's part of the American system, but we've *never* seen anything quite as intense as the feud between President Obama and the Fox News channel."
CBS News' Chip Reid on Fox News and the administration.
Jwesley78 (
talk)
14:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Subsequent sourcing means little, here. (IMO, if folks truly felt this affair was important to be mentioned in the encyclopedia, they would have already added something about it to the Barack presidency page and/or the Fox controversies page and/or would have contributed something about the affair in an article with alternate framing and/or alternate sourcing...yet, what is interesting to me -- in a good way, I might add -- is how much energey we all contribute to such discussions rather than our attempting to contribute content, sometimes. I guess this is cos we want to help set the tone or terms or whatever of the debate about this issue w/regard to WP's workings and help frame what lessons ought to be inferred from this aministrative action as a prededent? Which may, in the end, simply be that, in cases similar to these, such a close is controversial? Nonetheless, as I've said above, lightning probably ain't gonna strike twice and this DRv's not gonna do a Julian via deciding that the majority of arguments advocating we maintain the status quo (of the article's being deleted) are intrinsically invalid.)
↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now)
16:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I agree, the proper place for my links was the original AFD. But honestly, when I added my comment on the AFD I thought it had already been made clear why this article was notable. I regret not realizing that an admin could see the same argument and think that "Deletion" had the consensus (i.e., a stronger argument).
Jwesley78 (
talk)
16:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- The AfD wasn't open and shut, IMO, thus I endorsed the delete, above. Ne'ertheless, as Jwesley helps to show, the affair has subsequently been proven to be very notable -- geez, it is the subject of an entire Jon Stewart show;
see here! (Yeah, yeah, Stewart's basic point, in his satire, is that the whole affair shouldn't have been considered notable in the first place, ironically. But, the point of fact is, some observers and many partisans believed that the Obama-Ayers affair, the McCain-lobbyist affiar, even the Watergate-break-in affair, really ought not to have been considered notable. But, in the end, how does a terteiry source such as an encyclopedia determine whether some affair is notable or not? That's right, through the affair's being noted upon at great length and depth within reliable, 2ndary sources.)
↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now)
23:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I'm just saying, Jwesley78, that an admin needs to have such options preserved in his
bailiwick. Ne'ertheless, although a judge can jail a courtroom participant for allegedly showing contempt towards that judge or the judicial system, it certainly isn't always advisable for that judge to do so under many circumstances where such a ruling could be reasonably supported. Right? So, yeah, my question to Julian here has and continues to be: why this "nuclear-option" of a Delete here? when there is a close available that would have been much more in keeping with the guiding spirit of the encyclopedia, that of a recommendation to "Merge"? The argument that a "Merge" close leaves open the possibility that Wikicontributors will ignore it and never get around to replacing the title with a redirect and their merging the content somewhere seems to err too heavily on trusting the judgement of administrators over trusting the good faith of regular editors. As it is, resorting to a "Delete" close seems to violate a principle within the project's most basic Editing Policy -- that of
WP:PRESERVE -- which, according to my reading of it, anyway, says that tagging, fixing, moving, or at least bringing to the talkpage any contributed text that is at all encyclopedic is preferable to simply deleting it. Analogizing from this basic, user-friendly, no-biting-newbies, et cetera, premise to dealing with AfDs, when an AfD is dominated by those advocating a merge of some type, why close it in a way that would delete the entire article's source code and editing history? Such machismo would seem not to be -- so much, anyway -- the Wikiway.
↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now)
20:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I think everyone (including the closing admin) agrees that there is no question the subject matter heartily passes
WP:N. The hinge seems to be on a pervasive misunderstanding (IMHO) of
WP:NOTNEWS (which I think is due to the shortcut name instead of the actual content). //
Blaxthos (
t /
c )
19:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I truly cannot see how
WP:NOTNEWS applies here. The only point which this article could conceivably violate would be the "routine news coverage", but there's ample evidence to refute that.
Jwesley78 (
talk)
19:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Blax, do you really think that it's totally and completely off the wall to say that this kind of back-and-forth is too close to everyday politics and everyday news coverage to merit its own article? You can certainly disagree, and you can even present a compelling case, but this discussion isn't really about delete/keep so much as whether the closing admin erred. In order for a misinterpretation of "not news" to be persuasive here, it would seem to me that the misinterpretation would need to be SO egregious that no reasonable person would possibly endorse it. Whichever way you come out, I think you almost have to acknowledge that a reasonable person could see this episode as more news material than encyclopedia material.
Croctotheface (
talk)
19:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
-
WP:NOTNEWS point number four is clear, in my mind: Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. I guess the interpretation comes down to whether you think there will be historical significance -- I certainly do. Additionally,
WP:NOTNEWS is pretty clearly meant to apply to single-event tabloid coverage -- this isn't tabloid, nor is it a single event. No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, the overt and repeated denouncing of a major media organization by a US Presidential administration as "not a news organization" (regardless of if you agree or disagree with the assessment) is both unprecedented and significant. This isn't a single event, as plainly noted by the "exclude FNC" episode (whether you believe FNC's take on the matter or not). I'll spare the
OSE argument, as it's been covered previously, but there are plenty of analogues to this circumstance. I simply don't understand how one can assert deletion based on
WP:NOTNEWS once you actually read the policy. I don't mean to imply that anyone in this discussion did not; it just seems to me that the only way one can argue for a
WP:NOTNEWS based deletion is to argue that there is no historical significance... if that's the case, I'd like to see some discussion surrounding why this isn't historically significant given the Nixon analogue and the points I just made. //
Blaxthos (
t /
c )
20:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- No historical significance has been shown (it may all blow over tomorrow and that will be the end of that). It may be demonstrated by future coverage, but we're not a crystal ball. If at some point actual significance is shown, and it's not just the current headline of the month, then I would absolutely support the creation of a new article (or reinstatement of this one), but it is much, much too soon to argue that.
Karanacs (
talk)
20:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Fwiw, it looks like the (quote) affair (end'o'quote) may have already blown over (in a sense of the White House may no longer be calling out Fox, overtly -- if not in the sense that Fox has decided to quit being "Roger Ailes' Fox," which it, of course, has not; see
USAToday blog, here).
↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now)
21:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Historical significance is a pretty open-ended thing. If you interpret that to mean "somebody might care about it sometime in the future," then basically every news item has historical significance, and that doesn't get us very far, and the policy is redundant with WP:N. If you interpret it, and the rest of "not news" as I do, then it's more along the lines of "significantly more interesting than the kind of stuff that's in the news on a routine basis." One way or another, we're going to deal with a subjective judgment. So, again, the issue isn't whether you can present a case that this stuff passes muster under WP:Not, the issue is whether it would be so totally irrational to hold an opposing view that we have to overturn the closing admin because he made an error in considering arguments based on WP:Not here. Whichever way you come out on the merits, it seems to me that there's at least reasonable debate.
Croctotheface (
talk)
21:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Justmeherenow, you seem to be contending that any subject involving the Obama presidency that merits a standalone article must be mentioned in the main Obama presidency article. If that's your position, I disagree. An article about a presidential administration covers, typically, four or eight years of the work of the most powerful person in the world. Obviously, that generates material on a staggering range of subjects. We have to condense all that material into an article of encyclopedic length. Whole books have been written about administrations and even about specific aspects of them. Analogous to the present dispute, at least one whole book was written just about a prior administration's media relations (
On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency). The point is that there will be many, many presidency-related topics that Wikipedia can and should cover but that don't merit discussion or even mention in the main article. They must be addressed solely through standalone articles like this one. Instead of inclusion in the text of the Obama bio or the Obama presidency article, the article about Fox could be linked by being listed in
Template:Barack Obama, subhead "Public image", subsubhead "News and political events".
JamesMLane
t
c
17:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- James: Fair enough. :^)
↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now)
17:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Endorse. I thought RL0919 said it best above. I may not have made the same decision, but I can understand how this decision was reached and believe the rationale the closer left was appropriate and reasonable.
Karanacs (
talk)
19:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Endorse Once again, AfD is not a vote; frankly, as the delguide is written, one valid delete (or keep) rationale can outweigh a significant number of poor or just dead-wrong votes. RL0919 is right; DRV is just being used as forum-shopping.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(
talk)
20:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- DRV is always used as "forum-shopping", if you like. That's its purpose: it's a place to come if you think a bad decision has been made. Since our admin corps is neither underworked nor infallible, nor always capable of discerning which !votes are "poor or just dead-wrong" (to use your phrase), there must be a DRV for the benefit of the encyclopaedia. Accusing someone of "forum-shopping" when they come to DRV will always be true. But it will never be constructive.—
S Marshall
Talk/
Cont
22:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Forum shopping refers to asking the same question in multiple places and hoping you eventually get the result you want. That shouldn't be what happens here because AfD and DRV are forums that seek to answer different questions. DRV is for correcting errors in the closing of an AfD. It's not for rearguing the AfD, i.e. it's not for arguing delete versus keep.
Croctotheface (
talk)
19:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment At this point, it's not even relevant whether or not Julian Colton's close was appropriate at the time; there is ongoing substantial coverage of the issue in reliable sources, including
this article, which is the headline item on
The Politico at the time that I am typing this. This issue has not gone away, and sticking our fingers in our ears and saying "lalalala, I can't hear you" doesn't make the issue less important. Other notable coverage of the incident after the close of the AFD has appeared in
The Baltimore Sun,
The Los Angeles Times,
The San Jose Mercury-News, and
The New York Times; none of this, of course, includes the coverage by Fox News itself on the issue.
Horologium
(talk)
01:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Well, it's still in the news, sure, but I don't think that either the close of the AfD or the delete opinions expressed within the AfD would've flipped because the topic remained in the news for another week or another month. Coverage in sources was never the issue; that there are more sources that cover the topic doesn't change anything.
Croctotheface (
talk)
04:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- The closer explicitly stated that he discounted almost all of the
WP:N–justified "keep" votes, which essentially left only
WP:NOTNEWS "deletes". However, NOTNEWS addresses announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism, none of which the many sources for this topic fall under. The fact that there is still ongoing discussion of the issue six weeks later (the first significant discussion began when Obama pointedly excluded FNC from his whirlwind Sunday morning TV tour on September 20th; I cited articles which were written on November 1) pretty much nukes the whole "routine news coverage" caveat upon which all of the NOTNEWS proponents are relying. AS I noted earlier in the discussion, there has been sustained media coverage of this topic far longer than the Colorado balloon incident, which disappeared from the news within three or four days. This topic didn't have the saturation coverage of the balloon thing, but it's certainly been longer-lived.
Horologium
(talk)
04:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Croc, wouldn't you agree that continued coverage in so many reliable sources is further indication of its significance as an encyclopedic topic? Unless you just flat out say that this topic could not ever be encyclopedic, what threshold do you think needs to be met before the topic meets the burden set forth in
WP:NOTNEWS (the policy cited as grounds for deletion)? //
Blaxthos (
t /
c )
05:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- The balloon incident is a different scenario; there might be an argument to delete under similar grounds, but for whatever reason, that hasn't happened. A couple of major differences could be the pervasiveness of the coverage (I'd wager that more people are familiar with the balloon incident than the Obama-Fox News issue) and the weird nature of the balloon thing as compared to a political spat over news coverage. I'm sure there are others, and I'm sure there are arguments to be made that suggest the balloon incident is less worthy of an article than the Fox News tiff. Again, the question here isn't whether it would be possible to have an article or whether there could've been a decision made to keep the article, but whether the closing admin erred or whether there is significant new information to establish notability. Considering that this passed the basic WP:N standard at the time of the AfD, more news articles don't really seem to prove anything, as notability was never the issue in the first place.
- A parallel case for me is something like the Mike Piazza-Roger Clemens feud back in the beginning of the decade. That continued to receive news coverage in sports journalism for years afterward, yet we don't have a separate article because the content is better treated within existing articles. If you want a political example, consider that there'd be no question about the WP:N notability of an article called something like
Debate over Iraq policy in the 2004 United States elections or an article called
Campaign advertising in the 2008 United States elections. We don't have those articles (near as I can tell) because although there is tons of sourcing, although those topics easily pass WP:N, and although they remained in the news for longer than this topic has, they are better covered within existing articles than alone.
- Finally, I think you guys are suffering a little bit from a disease that plagues some Wikipedia editors. There's sometimes this odd strain of reasoning that goes something like, "Because there's no policy that explicitly says we must do what you want to do and there's no policy that explicitly says we must not do what I want to do, you can't possibly be right and I can't possibly be wrong." Look, there isn't a policy called WP:OBAMAFOX that's going to explicitly cover this issue. Instead, we have to use existing policies, guidelines, and practices, combined with the wisdom of our editors, and we need to interpret all of that in a way that lets us move forward. Your interpretation of "not news" is different from mine, and that's fine. But don't pretend that there does not exist any other way to interpret it. As I've said over and over, the purpose here is not to reargue the AfD, and arguing the best interpretation or the best application to the article in question belonged there, not here.
Croctotheface (
talk)
08:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- The difference between the Mike Piazza/Roger Clemens feud and this topic is the former is unremarkable (lots of people, including sportspeople, have interpersonal disputes), while the latter is notable. As has been noted, there are plenty of instances of friction between the White House and the press, but this is not just a minor difference of opinion, and attempts to minimize it under NOTNEWS are rather disingenuous. It's akin to saying that
Nixon's Enemies List (and the related
Master list of Nixon political opponents) is not worthy of an article, since all politicians have political opponents in business, academia, the media and entertainment industries, and from other parties, and reporting about the existence of a formal administration policy is routine news, not something which should have an article of its own.
- As for your assertions about my reasoning, you are quite wide of the mark. I'm hardly an AFD/DRV regular, and this is only the second time I've argued for overturning an AFD closure that was closed as delete (the first one was way back in May 2007, when I had been actively editing for about a month). And yes, we *do* have differing opinions of "not news". That is the crux of the issue, though, since it was the only argument used by the closer, and those of us who are arguing to overturn believe it was misapplied. Because the !votes which were in favor of retention of the article were discarded by the closer, to a certain extent it is necessary to rehash the AFD; it's not a discussion when one side's input is ignored.
Horologium
(talk)
11:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Well, according to WP:N, all of the examples I gave are notable, which is precisely my point. I'm sure lots of people would disagree with your assertion that Piazza-Clemens is "unremarkable" as well. As I've said, it's my view that this material is better covered within a broader article than on its own. As far as "not news," it's up to you guys not to present your case for why this deserves coverage, but to show that the closing admin was so wrong that his decision can't be allowed to stand. One way or another, it all seems reasonable enough for me, and while I can certainly understand where the "keeps" are coming from, it isn't enough for you to say that your arguments are better. If that were enough, then this process would never end, since the "deletes" would just do the same thing you've done and run the discussion again until there's a result they like. Then, if they prevail, you open up another DRV, and on and on. That's why this needs to be on a level beyond rearguing the AfD.
Croctotheface (
talk)
22:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- We're not asserting that our arguments are "better", we're saying that the closing admin (1) misread the consensus, and (2) misapplied NOTNEWS policy. Most of the overturn arguments herein deal with one (or both) of those points. //
Blaxthos (
t /
c )
13:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Well, again, your burden is stronger than saying you have a different interpretation of "not news" that you believe is better/correct/however you want to say it. You haven't shown that it's unreasonable to interpret that policy the way closing admin did. I think it's a tough task for you, honestly, because the high number of adherents basically makes it self-evidently true there's a rational basis for that viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
Croctotheface (
talk)
21:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I disagree with that assertion -- I don't believe that his interpretation of
WP:NOTNEWS is correct on its face, nor do I agree with your assertions. Regarding the closing admin's interpretation of
WP:NOTNEWS:
- The article subject is not a single event, as prescribed by
WP:NOTNEWS
- The subjet has historical significance (IMHO), which is evidenced by the massive media coverage and is the main criteria of point #4 in NOTNEWS.
- it's not "routine coverage", which is the stated intent of NOTNEWS.
- With regard to the actual form of the closure, I would assert that there is no clear consensus. The deletion should be overturned based on two grounds: (1) there was no discernible consensus for deletion in the AFD; (2) the interpretation of the policy
WP:NOTNEWS is not reasonable based on the contents of
WP:NOTNEWS. Also, directly to your argument above, the "high number of adherents" point is invalid as an
argumentum ad populum logical fallacy. Sorry to keep this going, but I think this is a pretty important issue. I don't think his interpretation of
WP:NOTNEWS is at all reasonable, and I'd ask anyone who asserts that it could be a reasonable interpretation to speak specifically to how it could be reasonable in light of the three numbered points I just raised. Thanks. //
Blaxthos (
t /
c )
22:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I would claim reasonable in the [same] sense as "I can see how somebody might possibly think that was the consensus". However, not reasonable in the sense of "the decision was obviously made after thorough and careful examination of both sides, giving proper weight to the arguments made". [Addendum:] In any case, I think Blaxthos makes the case very clear that
WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here, and thus, the closing admin made his decision w/o thoroughly and critically examining the Not News argument.
Jwesley78 (
talk)
22:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Of course the closing admin acted in good faith (i.e., made a reasonable interpretation of consensus). The question I have is not whether it was reasonable, but whether it was the right decision. In this case, I think the closing admin clearly made the wrong decision. And, in the spirit of
WP:PRESERVE, the article should be retained.
Jwesley78 (
talk)
22:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
|