14 April 2011
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This was closed as no consensus with a specific note that the debate had been messy and ill-tempered. While I agree this was a rather ill-tempered AfD, I don't believe that there was any attempt made by those arguing to keep to address the reasons given for redirecting it. Indeed, almost all of the arguments to keep were very weak indeed. Proposing relisting to hopefully get a clearer discussion without all the bickering. I've pinged the closing admin who agreed DRV was the right route. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Advised to go here by WP:SALT. I created the page in January with proper attribution but it was quickly deleted by Nyttend under the nonsense A10 criteria. I recreated the article again in March right after the iPad 2 was formally announced. This was promptly salted by HeretoHelp under the equally bogus repeatedly recreated claim. When I was a New Page Patroller an article was salted after 3-4 recreates and only if the article's notability had not changed significantly in between each article attempt. Since the protection was applied in the heat of a content dispute I propose that it be unsalted and un-revdeleted. Marcus Qwertyus 05:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The closing admin mistook a successful WP:CANVAS for a snowstorm. Although the CA disputes this (see [1]), his failure to give due weight to the CANVAS problem is clear from his closing comment that it had been snowing since day two (reiterated here): Apart from User:Ending-start, who !voted to keep, every user who chimed in from day 2 through 04:39 on April 7 was canvassed by User:Ending-start, and ultimately, ten of the eleven users canvassed by User:Ending-start would weigh in with almost identical WP:ILIKEIT outrage, demanding that the AfD must be closed at once and questioning the nominator's good faith. See [2] (User:Lil-unique1) (!voted keep); [3] (User:Candyo32) (!voted keep); [4] (User:Cprice1000) (!voted keep); [5] (User:Iknow23) (!voted keep); [6] (User:Jivesh boodhun) (!voted keep); [7] (User:IHelpWhenICan) (!voted keep); [8] (User:Novice7) (!voted keep); [9] (User:Tbhotch) (!voted keep); [10] (User:Reaper Eternal) (didn't contribute); [11] (User:Adabow) (!voted keep); [12] (User:L-l-CLK-l-l) (!voted keep). As User:Prodego and User:Fox recognized, both at the AfD and on Ending-start's talk page ( [13] [14] [15]), User:Ending-start violated CANVAS. If the closing admin had correctly interpreted the debate, the canvassed !votes would have been discarded; the CA's statement that a SNOW close was plainly in the offing from day 2 necessarily accepts canvassed votes and thus precludes his claim that they were. What are we left to work with? I don't deny that thirteen users who don't appear to have been canvassed (although many of them were hostile participants in the preceding merge debate) !voted to keep (User:RxS, User:Dolovis, User:Anarchangel, User:ErrantX, User_talk:Fox, User:Bob_Castle, User:Stuart.Jamieson, User:Physics_is_all_gnomes, User:Fences_and_windows, User:Denaar, User:Pafcool2, User:NellieBly, and User:Rlendog), but Wikipedia isn't a democracy and CAs aren't vote counters. Every one of those thirteen users either ignored or misconstrued the relevant policy WP:NSONGS. For example, User:Dolovis wrote that "[t]he song has charted and is therefore notable," which completely ignores NSONGS' beating heart, the "notability aside" clause, and similarly, User:Bob_Castle simply ignored NSONGS, insisting that the bar to clear was simply "sourced, npov, notable artist." It isn't. Others (for example, User:Pafcool2) relied on mistaken arguments that were wrong when they were advanced against a previous merge proposal and are no more correct today. Importantly, these arguments aren't simply wrong, that they are completely meritless and contradict policy. If they were merely wrong or dubious, I suppose, the CA could justifiably point to the lopsided debate and say "well, chaps, WP:CCC." I would dispute that, too (local and transient consensus can't override the general consensus reflected in policy), but that would be a closer call. Nevertheless, when (as here) the non-canvassed keep !votes "contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, [they] are frequently discounted" ( WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS ¶2). If the closing admin had correctly interpreted the debate, the arguments conflicting with NSONGS would have been discarded; the keep close precludes the conclusion that they were. For these reasons, review is appropriate (because the CA is asserted to have interpreted the debate incorrectly) and the result should be overturned (because the CA in fact interpreted the debate incorrectly by giving insufficient weight to the canvas problem and policy considerations, and excessive weight to the keep !votes). Since there were several articles involved in the deletion, I'd like to request a waiver on DRVP s.5's notification requirement. - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 01:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
14 April 2011
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This was closed as no consensus with a specific note that the debate had been messy and ill-tempered. While I agree this was a rather ill-tempered AfD, I don't believe that there was any attempt made by those arguing to keep to address the reasons given for redirecting it. Indeed, almost all of the arguments to keep were very weak indeed. Proposing relisting to hopefully get a clearer discussion without all the bickering. I've pinged the closing admin who agreed DRV was the right route. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Advised to go here by WP:SALT. I created the page in January with proper attribution but it was quickly deleted by Nyttend under the nonsense A10 criteria. I recreated the article again in March right after the iPad 2 was formally announced. This was promptly salted by HeretoHelp under the equally bogus repeatedly recreated claim. When I was a New Page Patroller an article was salted after 3-4 recreates and only if the article's notability had not changed significantly in between each article attempt. Since the protection was applied in the heat of a content dispute I propose that it be unsalted and un-revdeleted. Marcus Qwertyus 05:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The closing admin mistook a successful WP:CANVAS for a snowstorm. Although the CA disputes this (see [1]), his failure to give due weight to the CANVAS problem is clear from his closing comment that it had been snowing since day two (reiterated here): Apart from User:Ending-start, who !voted to keep, every user who chimed in from day 2 through 04:39 on April 7 was canvassed by User:Ending-start, and ultimately, ten of the eleven users canvassed by User:Ending-start would weigh in with almost identical WP:ILIKEIT outrage, demanding that the AfD must be closed at once and questioning the nominator's good faith. See [2] (User:Lil-unique1) (!voted keep); [3] (User:Candyo32) (!voted keep); [4] (User:Cprice1000) (!voted keep); [5] (User:Iknow23) (!voted keep); [6] (User:Jivesh boodhun) (!voted keep); [7] (User:IHelpWhenICan) (!voted keep); [8] (User:Novice7) (!voted keep); [9] (User:Tbhotch) (!voted keep); [10] (User:Reaper Eternal) (didn't contribute); [11] (User:Adabow) (!voted keep); [12] (User:L-l-CLK-l-l) (!voted keep). As User:Prodego and User:Fox recognized, both at the AfD and on Ending-start's talk page ( [13] [14] [15]), User:Ending-start violated CANVAS. If the closing admin had correctly interpreted the debate, the canvassed !votes would have been discarded; the CA's statement that a SNOW close was plainly in the offing from day 2 necessarily accepts canvassed votes and thus precludes his claim that they were. What are we left to work with? I don't deny that thirteen users who don't appear to have been canvassed (although many of them were hostile participants in the preceding merge debate) !voted to keep (User:RxS, User:Dolovis, User:Anarchangel, User:ErrantX, User_talk:Fox, User:Bob_Castle, User:Stuart.Jamieson, User:Physics_is_all_gnomes, User:Fences_and_windows, User:Denaar, User:Pafcool2, User:NellieBly, and User:Rlendog), but Wikipedia isn't a democracy and CAs aren't vote counters. Every one of those thirteen users either ignored or misconstrued the relevant policy WP:NSONGS. For example, User:Dolovis wrote that "[t]he song has charted and is therefore notable," which completely ignores NSONGS' beating heart, the "notability aside" clause, and similarly, User:Bob_Castle simply ignored NSONGS, insisting that the bar to clear was simply "sourced, npov, notable artist." It isn't. Others (for example, User:Pafcool2) relied on mistaken arguments that were wrong when they were advanced against a previous merge proposal and are no more correct today. Importantly, these arguments aren't simply wrong, that they are completely meritless and contradict policy. If they were merely wrong or dubious, I suppose, the CA could justifiably point to the lopsided debate and say "well, chaps, WP:CCC." I would dispute that, too (local and transient consensus can't override the general consensus reflected in policy), but that would be a closer call. Nevertheless, when (as here) the non-canvassed keep !votes "contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, [they] are frequently discounted" ( WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS ¶2). If the closing admin had correctly interpreted the debate, the arguments conflicting with NSONGS would have been discarded; the keep close precludes the conclusion that they were. For these reasons, review is appropriate (because the CA is asserted to have interpreted the debate incorrectly) and the result should be overturned (because the CA in fact interpreted the debate incorrectly by giving insufficient weight to the canvas problem and policy considerations, and excessive weight to the keep !votes). Since there were several articles involved in the deletion, I'd like to request a waiver on DRVP s.5's notification requirement. - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 01:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |