Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2010 July 13
2010 July 15 >

14 July 2010

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of words having different meanings in Spain and Latin America ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Irrelevant closing rationale. The concerns about WP:OR and WP:V were not addressed. Instead the closer did a numerical count (which is still in favor of the delete side), posted a more or less boilerplate rationale followed by a long rant and ignored the fact that the article has received zero improvement since the last time we had this debate. Vyvyan Basterd ( talk) 14:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Strong endorse (well, I even gave the closer a barnstar for this). Concerns about WP:OR are not a reason for deletion (if something in an article is OR, it can be dealt with editing, unless the very subject of the article is OR, which is not the case), and so they were correctly discarded. Concerns on WP:V were dismissed by sources presented by many in the debate, and the close acknowledges this. Most delete arguments relied on misunderstanding of NOTDIRECTORY and NOTDICTIONARY used in a WP:VAGUEWAVE fashion, missing the point of both policy sections (NOTDIRECTORY is not a blanket that makes every kind of list deletable, and NOTDICTIONARY refers to articles that are mere dictionary definitions). Article improvement is irrelevant for deletion: AfD is a consensus on the article subject , not on content, which can be always fixed by editing. In my opinion, in its simplicity it was one of the best closes I've seen on AfD. -- Cyclopia talk 15:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Within discretion given the numerous well-made keep arguments. The delete side didn't convincingly point to a policy imperative to delete the article: I'm not satisfied of the case for NOTDICT and NOTDIR; OR is the real problem in my view but that is salvageable by using some of the secondary sources pointed to in the AfD. That being the case, consensus rules and there wasn't a consensus either way. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • endorse It's within admin discretion but the closing statement was a bit off-topic (while I agree with it, I'm not sure it belonged where it was). There was no consensus in that discussion. The article needs a lot of help however. Hobit ( talk) 20:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse per Cyclopia. Lack of consensus was evident. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 20:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Extra opinion statements in a closing do not per se impugn the close. No consensus appears objectively reasonable. Jclemens ( talk) 21:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Weak endorse per Hobit—a No consensus outcome seems inevitable. The closing Admin's comments suggest a general objection to deleting articles regardless of policy-based reasons, so perhaps XfD is the wrong work for this Admin. I wouldn't object to an Overturn/Relist, but I doubt the outcome would be different. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Weak endorse A no-consensus close is within admin discretion, so I don't want to encourage more drama through a relisting. That being said, if an admin has an opinion on the merits of an article he should comment at the debate and avoid closing per WP:INVOLVED. Mike, please try to stay away from closing AfDs when you have a personal opinion on the merits of the article; this isn't the first time a debate you have closed has been brought to DRV on this ground. Them From Space 00:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Neither you nor Edgarde appear to have read the closure properly. The opinion actually expressed was on the sorry state of affairs that can be found at User talk:Korovamilkbar, not on the article. Uncle G ( talk) 02:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Without re-reading the closure, I recall the opinion actually expressed was that the editor who created this article had not been appropriately nurtured. While a direct linkage was probably not made, there was implication that for this reason deletion of this article was a bad, and very tragic thing. The AfD is simply not a place for this type of soapboxing; that someone could read this as possibly the closing Admin's only reason not to Delete almost guarantees a visit to Deletion Review. This is a horrible, horrible closure. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Addendum: upon re-reading the closure, I'm noticing the closing Admin's observation of "obvious notability" based on the number of Delete Keep[changed 13:16, 16 July 2010, see below] votes. I very strongly recommend this Admin avoid closing XfDs. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
        • Re-read the closure again. The very next four words after the ones that you quoted show that it is a paraphrase summarizing the arguments given in the discussion. Your recommendation is based upon your error, not the closing administrator's, here. Good grief! A closing administrator doesn't take the common route of just writing a bare unexplained "the result was X" but takes the time to explain how there is no consensus in the discussion. You should be praising such a closure, not censuring it. Uncle G ( talk) 02:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply
          • The quote in question:

            A subject with some obvious notability per many keeps below. A title that could be improved. And many who disagree. [1]

            Right—based on the number of Keep votes. "Delete" was my typo, now corrected above. My point was that a count of Keep votes is not a measure of notability (and AfD is not a poll). As for the rest, you and I will have to agree to disagree, Uncle G. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • endorse A correct result in closing, though it would have thought it better to close on the basis that it had been shown in the discussion that, though this was a weak article, the the subject did indeed have sources, which completely answered the delete objection. DGG ( talk ) 16:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to delete. The closer cites the arguments that there is supposedly evidence that this list is sourceable, as evidence that the deletes have been opposed enough to call a 'draw', yet the closer seems to have completely overlooked the fact that none of that evidence referred to, in any way supported this form of list, and more properly likely refered to another article, the existence of which already on Wikipedia was already pointed out multiple times. This list, and any possible future content which reflects its actual title, is always going to be pure trivial junk, even more so if the creator has been scared off, and nobody is ever going to waste time using those refs in two articles. MickMacNee ( talk) 18:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. The closing admin's job is not to argue in favor of or against one or more reasons raised for keeping or deleting the article. Their job is to assess the consensus as it presented itself in that discussion. There was no consensus and as such the admin closed it appropriately. DRV is not the place to repeat the arguments of the AFD in question and those arguing to overturn the close have failed to explain why consensus to delete should be assumed from this discussion. Regards So Why 21:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
    Pointing out the closer did not seem to notice that keepers ignored the rebuttal of their transformative/sourceable topic angle, is not repeating the Afd, it is pointing out how this closure as the consensus was an error. MickMacNee ( talk) 13:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply
    No. The job of the closing admin is to evaluate the arguments and determine if the consensus on the AfD is in line with policy. Consensus among a handfull of AfD participants can never override a much broader consensus on what is and is not policy. See WP:CONSENSUS. If we're going to accept this kind of closing statements and even applaud them as Uncle G and Cyclopia suggest then we may as well start accepting bets on XfD outcomes because they don't get anymore random than this closure. There's a principle at stake here and I'm disappointed to notice that the closer has refused to participate. Vyvyan Basterd ( talk) 14:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply
    Allow me to disagree on many levels. #1, yes we can override guidelines and even policy in some cases locally. That's at the heart of WP:IAR. Secondly, it is often the case that it is unclear if something in fact falls under a policy. Things like "is this a living person" are generally easy, but things like "is this one event" or "is this just a dictionary definition" are not. For that we rely on reasoned debate and getting opinions from people. Now, as noted, the closing statement is off topic, but I also think it is A) irrelevant to the close and B) very important that people see that this encyclopedia is worse than it should be because of the biting of newbies. The close, as I read it, had nothing to do with the closing comment. Hobit ( talk) 21:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn Counting votes and calling it no consensus is improper. In fact, the devastating arguments that the list is indiscriminate and a direct violation of WP:NOT#DICTIONARY were not countered, and the fact that the "oh, let's wait and see if better sourcing is added" argument is disproven by the fact that this was the 2nd AfD and no sourcing will ever be added. Abductive ( reasoning) 22:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
These "devastating" arguments were not devastating at all in being blatantly wrong -the list has nothing indiscriminate (it was poorly titled, but it has an obvious inclusion criteria) and there is no WP:NOT#DICTIONARY violating -the entry is not a dictionary entry. So, they were obviously not counted. The ability of the closer in distinguishing between WP:VAGUEWAVE and real policy based arguments is the reason I praised the close -too many admins, unfortunately, appear to just count the WP:ALLCAPSABBREVIATIONS as a bad proxy for "policy based arguments". -- Cyclopia talk 23:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The page consists of some definitions of words, which makes it a small dictionary. Abductive ( reasoning) 05:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Rationale isn't the best but it looks like the correct result. I don't see either policy or numbers especially strongly on one side, so this looks to be within administrative discretion. Alzarian16 ( talk) 14:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Overturn- I find myself faced with a tricky question. If an administrator closes an AfD with a terrible closing rationale when a more sensible admin could well have closed it the same way for good reasons, should we overturn it? And let's not make any mistake here: the close was bad. It started out by conspicuously ignoring policy-based arguments and finished up as a bizarre, irrelevant diatribe about how we should be nice to newbies. I'm not usually one to make procedural objections, but I think Wikipedia would suffer by legitimizing this bit of embarrassing twaddle. Reyk YO! 13:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Weak endorse. The comments about the article creator notwithstanding, I don't see a consensus, even among policy-based rationales, for deletion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment by closer: I stand by my close of No Consensus. As for the rationale given (1st 3 sentences), I believe it reflects accurately that there was no consensus in the debate, regardless of how many ways one chooses to interpret what I was thinking, weighing, considering, counting, et. al. when I reviewed the discussion. Since 90%+ of all AfD closes have ZERO rationale given (which seems to be a perfectly acceptable situation), it seems that actually providing a rationale has no upside as most assuredly, someone will think you got it wrong.
I have intentionally delayed the following comment to the end of the DRV period so as not to divert attention from the purpose of the DRV. My comment re the treatment of the article creator was not in my opinion misplaced or inappropriate. Closers occasionally add additional comments to their closes addressing policy and guideline issues that are being misinterpreted or could be handled in different ways. Those comments are usually tangentially related in some way to the article or discussion in question. I can only assume those comments are being made in an attempt to influence behavior in future AfDs and other WP processes. My comment was no different. The first sentence: This AfD however provides a window into a more concerning issue. was clearly an opinion but one it seems many in this discussion agree with. The meat of the comment was merely a statement of facts derived from a review of the article and creator histories and talk pages. The last sentence was my opinion, although I would think that it also was an obvious conclusion. What I failed to do was cite a specific guideline WP:NOOB. The operative aspect of that guideline is hostility as stated in this paragraph: New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is impossible for a newcomer to be completely familiar with all of the policies, guidelines, and community standards of Wikipedia before they start editing. Even the most experienced editors may need a gentle reminder from time to time. As a community of editors (not as individuals) we were hostile to this editor. Everyone one of the deletion notices on this editor’s talk page was valid and the editors looking out for the quality of WP content should be commended for doing so. But as a community of editors we failed to follow WP:NOOB with this editor. Our hostility took the form of indifference to the needs of a new contributor. I do not know why this editor ceased his participation, nor do I know whether or not this editor would have ever been a solid contributor. What I do know, and the facts bear it out, is that as a community, we did not do enough to give him a chance. In the guideline quoted above, the first sentence is either true or it is not—new members are either our most valuable resource or they aren’t. If they are, then as a community, we need to do a better job at Not scaring them away. A great many AfD discussions (including this one) lament the fact that no one has improved an article in a long time. There can be a number of reasons for that, but if the reason is that we’ve scared off the one contributor who actually might be motivated and capable of improving the article, it is a very hollow lament. For those of you who think (as some stated) that my comment was anti-deletion, you’ve got it absolutely wrong and your paranoia shows. WP:NOOB is no different than WP:AGF, WP:POINT and other behavioral guidelines. When they are violated we need to call attention to that violation and not selectively ignore one or the other because it is uncomfortable to do otherwise. The AfD in question provided, as I said, a window of opportunity to highlight the communities’ failure to nuture a newcomer, a direct and unequivocal violation of WP:NOOB. The fact that the AfD made it to DRV is bonus in that regard. Sincerely.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 15:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC) reply
FFS. I am distinctly pissed off at having been forced to read this whole screed, only to find out that yet again, there's absolutely nothing here that gives anybody the slightest indication as to why you closed the discussion as no consensus. Frankly, "A subject with some obvious notability per many keeps below. A title that could be improved. And many who disagree" is a pointless rationale. It's a non-comment that could be applied to virtually any Afd that isn't a SNOW delete. Maybe you should just have done the normal thing and given no rationale at all, you could at least have then spent the time saved taking this rant about N00B to the correct place. It certainly doesn't interest me, nor does it involve most of the people who apparently wasted their time commenting in the Afd. Afd closing must be a piece of piss if all you have to do is say, 'wow, you both made arguments, that means it's a no consensus'. I don't know about anyone else, but I expect far better reasoning from closers if they are going to bother to attempt to summarise their thought processes with reference to the actual apparently contradictory arguments made. MickMacNee ( talk) 16:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and delete in reflection of the consensus. There must be a presumption that an article which has not been improved given ample opportunity is not improvable. Stifle ( talk) 19:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_July_14&oldid=1138437039"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2010 July 13
2010 July 15 >

14 July 2010

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of words having different meanings in Spain and Latin America ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Irrelevant closing rationale. The concerns about WP:OR and WP:V were not addressed. Instead the closer did a numerical count (which is still in favor of the delete side), posted a more or less boilerplate rationale followed by a long rant and ignored the fact that the article has received zero improvement since the last time we had this debate. Vyvyan Basterd ( talk) 14:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Strong endorse (well, I even gave the closer a barnstar for this). Concerns about WP:OR are not a reason for deletion (if something in an article is OR, it can be dealt with editing, unless the very subject of the article is OR, which is not the case), and so they were correctly discarded. Concerns on WP:V were dismissed by sources presented by many in the debate, and the close acknowledges this. Most delete arguments relied on misunderstanding of NOTDIRECTORY and NOTDICTIONARY used in a WP:VAGUEWAVE fashion, missing the point of both policy sections (NOTDIRECTORY is not a blanket that makes every kind of list deletable, and NOTDICTIONARY refers to articles that are mere dictionary definitions). Article improvement is irrelevant for deletion: AfD is a consensus on the article subject , not on content, which can be always fixed by editing. In my opinion, in its simplicity it was one of the best closes I've seen on AfD. -- Cyclopia talk 15:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Within discretion given the numerous well-made keep arguments. The delete side didn't convincingly point to a policy imperative to delete the article: I'm not satisfied of the case for NOTDICT and NOTDIR; OR is the real problem in my view but that is salvageable by using some of the secondary sources pointed to in the AfD. That being the case, consensus rules and there wasn't a consensus either way. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • endorse It's within admin discretion but the closing statement was a bit off-topic (while I agree with it, I'm not sure it belonged where it was). There was no consensus in that discussion. The article needs a lot of help however. Hobit ( talk) 20:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse per Cyclopia. Lack of consensus was evident. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 20:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Extra opinion statements in a closing do not per se impugn the close. No consensus appears objectively reasonable. Jclemens ( talk) 21:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Weak endorse per Hobit—a No consensus outcome seems inevitable. The closing Admin's comments suggest a general objection to deleting articles regardless of policy-based reasons, so perhaps XfD is the wrong work for this Admin. I wouldn't object to an Overturn/Relist, but I doubt the outcome would be different. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Weak endorse A no-consensus close is within admin discretion, so I don't want to encourage more drama through a relisting. That being said, if an admin has an opinion on the merits of an article he should comment at the debate and avoid closing per WP:INVOLVED. Mike, please try to stay away from closing AfDs when you have a personal opinion on the merits of the article; this isn't the first time a debate you have closed has been brought to DRV on this ground. Them From Space 00:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Neither you nor Edgarde appear to have read the closure properly. The opinion actually expressed was on the sorry state of affairs that can be found at User talk:Korovamilkbar, not on the article. Uncle G ( talk) 02:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Without re-reading the closure, I recall the opinion actually expressed was that the editor who created this article had not been appropriately nurtured. While a direct linkage was probably not made, there was implication that for this reason deletion of this article was a bad, and very tragic thing. The AfD is simply not a place for this type of soapboxing; that someone could read this as possibly the closing Admin's only reason not to Delete almost guarantees a visit to Deletion Review. This is a horrible, horrible closure. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Addendum: upon re-reading the closure, I'm noticing the closing Admin's observation of "obvious notability" based on the number of Delete Keep[changed 13:16, 16 July 2010, see below] votes. I very strongly recommend this Admin avoid closing XfDs. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
        • Re-read the closure again. The very next four words after the ones that you quoted show that it is a paraphrase summarizing the arguments given in the discussion. Your recommendation is based upon your error, not the closing administrator's, here. Good grief! A closing administrator doesn't take the common route of just writing a bare unexplained "the result was X" but takes the time to explain how there is no consensus in the discussion. You should be praising such a closure, not censuring it. Uncle G ( talk) 02:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply
          • The quote in question:

            A subject with some obvious notability per many keeps below. A title that could be improved. And many who disagree. [1]

            Right—based on the number of Keep votes. "Delete" was my typo, now corrected above. My point was that a count of Keep votes is not a measure of notability (and AfD is not a poll). As for the rest, you and I will have to agree to disagree, Uncle G. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • endorse A correct result in closing, though it would have thought it better to close on the basis that it had been shown in the discussion that, though this was a weak article, the the subject did indeed have sources, which completely answered the delete objection. DGG ( talk ) 16:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to delete. The closer cites the arguments that there is supposedly evidence that this list is sourceable, as evidence that the deletes have been opposed enough to call a 'draw', yet the closer seems to have completely overlooked the fact that none of that evidence referred to, in any way supported this form of list, and more properly likely refered to another article, the existence of which already on Wikipedia was already pointed out multiple times. This list, and any possible future content which reflects its actual title, is always going to be pure trivial junk, even more so if the creator has been scared off, and nobody is ever going to waste time using those refs in two articles. MickMacNee ( talk) 18:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. The closing admin's job is not to argue in favor of or against one or more reasons raised for keeping or deleting the article. Their job is to assess the consensus as it presented itself in that discussion. There was no consensus and as such the admin closed it appropriately. DRV is not the place to repeat the arguments of the AFD in question and those arguing to overturn the close have failed to explain why consensus to delete should be assumed from this discussion. Regards So Why 21:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
    Pointing out the closer did not seem to notice that keepers ignored the rebuttal of their transformative/sourceable topic angle, is not repeating the Afd, it is pointing out how this closure as the consensus was an error. MickMacNee ( talk) 13:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply
    No. The job of the closing admin is to evaluate the arguments and determine if the consensus on the AfD is in line with policy. Consensus among a handfull of AfD participants can never override a much broader consensus on what is and is not policy. See WP:CONSENSUS. If we're going to accept this kind of closing statements and even applaud them as Uncle G and Cyclopia suggest then we may as well start accepting bets on XfD outcomes because they don't get anymore random than this closure. There's a principle at stake here and I'm disappointed to notice that the closer has refused to participate. Vyvyan Basterd ( talk) 14:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply
    Allow me to disagree on many levels. #1, yes we can override guidelines and even policy in some cases locally. That's at the heart of WP:IAR. Secondly, it is often the case that it is unclear if something in fact falls under a policy. Things like "is this a living person" are generally easy, but things like "is this one event" or "is this just a dictionary definition" are not. For that we rely on reasoned debate and getting opinions from people. Now, as noted, the closing statement is off topic, but I also think it is A) irrelevant to the close and B) very important that people see that this encyclopedia is worse than it should be because of the biting of newbies. The close, as I read it, had nothing to do with the closing comment. Hobit ( talk) 21:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn Counting votes and calling it no consensus is improper. In fact, the devastating arguments that the list is indiscriminate and a direct violation of WP:NOT#DICTIONARY were not countered, and the fact that the "oh, let's wait and see if better sourcing is added" argument is disproven by the fact that this was the 2nd AfD and no sourcing will ever be added. Abductive ( reasoning) 22:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
These "devastating" arguments were not devastating at all in being blatantly wrong -the list has nothing indiscriminate (it was poorly titled, but it has an obvious inclusion criteria) and there is no WP:NOT#DICTIONARY violating -the entry is not a dictionary entry. So, they were obviously not counted. The ability of the closer in distinguishing between WP:VAGUEWAVE and real policy based arguments is the reason I praised the close -too many admins, unfortunately, appear to just count the WP:ALLCAPSABBREVIATIONS as a bad proxy for "policy based arguments". -- Cyclopia talk 23:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The page consists of some definitions of words, which makes it a small dictionary. Abductive ( reasoning) 05:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Rationale isn't the best but it looks like the correct result. I don't see either policy or numbers especially strongly on one side, so this looks to be within administrative discretion. Alzarian16 ( talk) 14:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Overturn- I find myself faced with a tricky question. If an administrator closes an AfD with a terrible closing rationale when a more sensible admin could well have closed it the same way for good reasons, should we overturn it? And let's not make any mistake here: the close was bad. It started out by conspicuously ignoring policy-based arguments and finished up as a bizarre, irrelevant diatribe about how we should be nice to newbies. I'm not usually one to make procedural objections, but I think Wikipedia would suffer by legitimizing this bit of embarrassing twaddle. Reyk YO! 13:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Weak endorse. The comments about the article creator notwithstanding, I don't see a consensus, even among policy-based rationales, for deletion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment by closer: I stand by my close of No Consensus. As for the rationale given (1st 3 sentences), I believe it reflects accurately that there was no consensus in the debate, regardless of how many ways one chooses to interpret what I was thinking, weighing, considering, counting, et. al. when I reviewed the discussion. Since 90%+ of all AfD closes have ZERO rationale given (which seems to be a perfectly acceptable situation), it seems that actually providing a rationale has no upside as most assuredly, someone will think you got it wrong.
I have intentionally delayed the following comment to the end of the DRV period so as not to divert attention from the purpose of the DRV. My comment re the treatment of the article creator was not in my opinion misplaced or inappropriate. Closers occasionally add additional comments to their closes addressing policy and guideline issues that are being misinterpreted or could be handled in different ways. Those comments are usually tangentially related in some way to the article or discussion in question. I can only assume those comments are being made in an attempt to influence behavior in future AfDs and other WP processes. My comment was no different. The first sentence: This AfD however provides a window into a more concerning issue. was clearly an opinion but one it seems many in this discussion agree with. The meat of the comment was merely a statement of facts derived from a review of the article and creator histories and talk pages. The last sentence was my opinion, although I would think that it also was an obvious conclusion. What I failed to do was cite a specific guideline WP:NOOB. The operative aspect of that guideline is hostility as stated in this paragraph: New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is impossible for a newcomer to be completely familiar with all of the policies, guidelines, and community standards of Wikipedia before they start editing. Even the most experienced editors may need a gentle reminder from time to time. As a community of editors (not as individuals) we were hostile to this editor. Everyone one of the deletion notices on this editor’s talk page was valid and the editors looking out for the quality of WP content should be commended for doing so. But as a community of editors we failed to follow WP:NOOB with this editor. Our hostility took the form of indifference to the needs of a new contributor. I do not know why this editor ceased his participation, nor do I know whether or not this editor would have ever been a solid contributor. What I do know, and the facts bear it out, is that as a community, we did not do enough to give him a chance. In the guideline quoted above, the first sentence is either true or it is not—new members are either our most valuable resource or they aren’t. If they are, then as a community, we need to do a better job at Not scaring them away. A great many AfD discussions (including this one) lament the fact that no one has improved an article in a long time. There can be a number of reasons for that, but if the reason is that we’ve scared off the one contributor who actually might be motivated and capable of improving the article, it is a very hollow lament. For those of you who think (as some stated) that my comment was anti-deletion, you’ve got it absolutely wrong and your paranoia shows. WP:NOOB is no different than WP:AGF, WP:POINT and other behavioral guidelines. When they are violated we need to call attention to that violation and not selectively ignore one or the other because it is uncomfortable to do otherwise. The AfD in question provided, as I said, a window of opportunity to highlight the communities’ failure to nuture a newcomer, a direct and unequivocal violation of WP:NOOB. The fact that the AfD made it to DRV is bonus in that regard. Sincerely.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 15:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC) reply
FFS. I am distinctly pissed off at having been forced to read this whole screed, only to find out that yet again, there's absolutely nothing here that gives anybody the slightest indication as to why you closed the discussion as no consensus. Frankly, "A subject with some obvious notability per many keeps below. A title that could be improved. And many who disagree" is a pointless rationale. It's a non-comment that could be applied to virtually any Afd that isn't a SNOW delete. Maybe you should just have done the normal thing and given no rationale at all, you could at least have then spent the time saved taking this rant about N00B to the correct place. It certainly doesn't interest me, nor does it involve most of the people who apparently wasted their time commenting in the Afd. Afd closing must be a piece of piss if all you have to do is say, 'wow, you both made arguments, that means it's a no consensus'. I don't know about anyone else, but I expect far better reasoning from closers if they are going to bother to attempt to summarise their thought processes with reference to the actual apparently contradictory arguments made. MickMacNee ( talk) 16:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and delete in reflection of the consensus. There must be a presumption that an article which has not been improved given ample opportunity is not improvable. Stifle ( talk) 19:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_July_14&oldid=1138437039"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE