Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2011 April 22
2011 April 24 >

23 April 2011

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Neil Cragg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I would had disagreed on this decision to PROD this article if this article was on my watch list (which I rarely watch articles) but these are the point I would like to question on the destruction of this article. First, how can a radio controlled racing world and multiple European champion be considered non-notable, any International Champions will have no problem getting reliable third party coverages; second, you will never come across his name on CNN/Fox News because radio controlled racing do not attract mainstream audiences compared to say football or even so-called "cool/hip/trendy" sport such as skate/snowboarding, one of it is the attitude of the general public toward the hobby, also you are likely to find his name in specialist magazines found in shops such as Radio-Controlled Car Action. Looking up at the website of that magazine, I managed to come across these articles and that magazine is one you find in your local news seller. Third, apart from the link I gave, the deleter said he tried to look for any articles without any sucesses, well I managed to find these - [1] [2] [3] [4] Donnie Park ( talk) 17:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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.
List of sources about claims that Vojsava Kastrioti was Slav ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Substantial procedural errors and incorrect interpretation of the debate that may be summarized as not following the requests of WP:BEFORE, WP:JUSTAPOLICY, WP:AFDEQ, WP:AFDHOWTO... explained why in more details on this page. I think that all those substantial procedural errors gave a good reason to discard the AfD. " How to discuss an AfD says "When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider a dispute resolution process outside the current AfD."

It is obvious that during this AfD process there was "a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines". According to above recommendation, I propose to consider a "dispute resolution process outside the current AfD" which should be restored precisely because of the lack of valid arguments and existing "pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines".

Even if we disregard above mentioned and base decision of his AfD on the above mentioned problematic nomination process and debate, there is obviously much more arguments for Merge than Delete.

I propose to either discard this nomination and debate and restore deleted article or respect the debate and close AfD with MERGE and then merge the article with main page (Vojsava Kastrioti) and other deleted article ( List of sources about claims that Vojsava Kastrioti was Albanian).

Note: I was unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator in question. I attempted ( diff + diff) that first and courteously invited the admin to take one more look and to answer one simple question (without taking in consideration simple votes but arguments about policies violated by the existence of this article brought in AfD discussion):Why did you delete this article? Antidiskriminator ( talk) 16:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply

The consensus was to delete both lists and I think that your response towards the admin who deleted it after he rejected your undeletion request was unwarranted. Btw wikipedia is not a democracy, although even then the delete opinions would outweigh the keep or merge ones. You created the list after its links' inclusion in the main article was rejected both on the Reliables Sources Noticeboard and the Request for Comment on the article's talkpage making the list not only a linkfarm but also a fork.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 17:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
He has already created subpages for the lists.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 17:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Then why have an article page? I'd like an explanation for that from Antidiskriminator before undeletion is even considered. CycloneGU ( talk) 18:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
To present summary of all sources with information about claims that Vojsava Kastrioti was Slav. What WP policy this article existence violated?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 20:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
@Lifebaka: Please provide a link and quote from the WP policy which says that lists are not allowed to contain lists of sources.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 20:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
I've notified him of your reply and he may correct me, but I think you want this. Does the deleted page satisfy any of those three? I find it hard to believe. CycloneGU ( talk) 21:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
It is very useful to have this article with summary of all sources with information about claims that Vojsava was Slav. Having summary of all of them can provide any interested readers with possibility to decide themself about motifs for those claims or neutrality of the sources, and to use those sources accordingly.
Information purposes: Wikipedia policy about notability of the people says:“Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person.” In case of Vojsava Kastrioti one of the most important aspects of her notability is not mere fact that she was a mother of Skanderbeg. There are many other notable people from the Balkans which does not have article about their mothers. Probably the most important aspect of her notability are claims about her ethnicity. That is exactly why this "may be a valuable information source".-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 21:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Development purposes: Additionally, deleted article had not only informative purpose, but was also suitable "for Wikipedia development purposes" because all sources were presented in citation template form.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 21:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
I will ignore the majority of that last post for right now to ask a question about one specific item. You say, "It is very useful to have this article with summary of all sources with information about claims that Vojsava was Slav." Why, praytell, can't sources indicating Vojsava was Slav accompany prose in the article about her? That is what makes a separate list article pointless and laughable; we don't refer to a Wikipedia article for something contained within a Wikipedia article. CycloneGU ( talk) 21:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
(edit conflict)He created the article because for the past six or more months every link he's been adding to that list is either refuted on Request for Comment discussions or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard i.e the list was more or less moved from his userspace to a single article, because the consensus of those discussions didn't allow him to add them on Vojsava Kastrioti, which is obvious because that list among other links has some racist ones about Africans, wrong translations caused by the fact that although he can't read Albanian he probably used google translate for large texts in Albanian etc.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 22:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
@ZjarriRrethues: Nothing you wrote in the above comment is true except that I can't read Albanian.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 22:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Besides many arguments already provided by other users (that it would not be practical, that not all of the sources are RS) the presented sources do not explicitly mention Skanderbeg.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 22:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Raise the issue on the Vojsava Kastrioti talk page then and present your argument as to why this should be a valid source. It does not belong in a deletion review. I will echo the request below for a speedy close, winter is over. CycloneGU ( talk) 22:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
CycloneGU is correct. More specifically, the sentence which reads: "Lists contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) and thus in aggregate serve as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia." Of course, lawyering over whether or not specific wordings in non-static policies supports an argument is frowned upon, so to make another argument, I have never seen a single list which included external links as entries, except reference lists at the end of articles. If this list was meant to be a list of references, it should be in the article the sources are referencing; otherwise, it is not a useful stand-alone list and should be moved out of the mainspace. lifebaka ++ 23:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion - TBH, "List of sources about claims that Vojsava Kastrioti was Slav" should be in the reference section of an article about Vojsava Kastrioti if anything as sources, and any real information inside that article referring to the sources. CycloneGU ( talk) 18:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Adding to this, if the sources themselves are dubious and do not qualify as valid third-party sources, it may be necessary to remove the sources themselves. Also, any such source must be referred to in some fashion as a source in the Vojsava Kastrioti article, or it should not be used on the page at all except in extremely rare cases (for instance, a map of a racetrack on the racetrack's article; you won't likely refer to the source in any way through text). CycloneGU ( talk) 19:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse as an entirely reasonable evaluation of the AFD discussion. This content is not terribly useful for article construction, and would overwhelm what is now barely a two-paragraph entry. The article need do no more than note the existence of conflicting opinions of her ethnicity, with a reasonably reliable representative source for each opinion. No doubt we could accumulate scores if not hundreds of sources for the point that Lindsay Lohan was sent to jail yeaterday, but no encyclopedic function would be served there -- and none is here. Isn't there a relevant ArbCom ruling, even if not exactly applicable here, which might serve to alert one or more of the disputants about overly combative editing in this general area? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 19:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse consensus was very clear that this content shouldn't exist as a stand-alone article, and the only other possible outcome of the discussion was a merge to the article on this person (which isn't practical, for reasons given by the closer on the creator's talk page, but I suppose this could be restored to non-article space if it is needed for the article's development). The creator alleges numerous procedural violations, but they're all either wrong or don't constitute a reason to overturn the deletion. Hut 8.5 20:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
[5] "Consensus is ultimately determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by a simple counted majority." Please be so kind to have second look to the AfD process and if it really contain this kind of consensus?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 20:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Yes, I am aware of what consensus is, and this AfD exhibited it. Hut 8.5 20:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Will you please be so kind to point to the policy that the consensus this AfD exhibited determined as violated, and quote of few arguments why this article violated it?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 21:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Uh...I am afraid I do not understand the question. CycloneGU ( talk) 21:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Sorry. English is not my native language. I will try to explain.
Many, if not all, participants in this debate stated that they think there was consensus this AfD exhibited. The consensus by definition is “determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by a simple counted majority.”
Taking that in consideration, I think it is not enough to participate in the review of this AfD by simple voting, claiming there was consensus, but to point to the policy this consensus was grounded in and arguments provided during consensus building. That way we will have answer on one very simple question that remained unanswered. Why was this article deleted?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 22:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Many voting to endorse the deletion have already explained they agree with the reason the article was deleted. It was not a substantive article on its own merit and, while I have not personally seen the article, it sounds like it was nothing more than a list of links that were denied being added to the article about the subject herself. You disagreed, it sounds like, with the opinion of those removing them and created a separate page that doesn't even have two feet to stand on. That is why the article was deleted, and there is not really a better good-faith explanation than that. At this point, the best route is going to the actual article talk page and raising your issue there for a consensus discussion. You never know, one link might get approved for adding out of however many get disapproved. CycloneGU ( talk) 22:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
I am sorry but I think you got it all wrong. You can see the article (without FAQ section on the talk page) here. You based your opinion on something someone said, not because he provided a proof for his claim. I never added any source from this list to the article about Vojsava Kastrioti. Many of those sources were never attempted to be added to that article. Therefore I did not and could not disagree with anybody who removed this sources. The only edit connected with the sources from this list which I did in article Vojsava Kastrioti happened after I created those lists. I placed links to those lists in see also section ( diff). I don't have any intention to add those sources into the article about her. That is not the purpose of this list. I explained that the purpose of this list is informative and development.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 22:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
That's an article? I disagree. That's a bibliography. It does not belong in the mainspace by itself, period. CycloneGU ( talk) 23:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
On that note, I have to take with bad faith any further claim you make that this should be undeleted from the article space. CycloneGU ( talk) 23:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Here's two:
WP:POVFORK: this guideline forbids creating an article on the same subject as an existing article to advance a point of view. If there is a dispute about whether Vojsava Kastrioti is Slav or Albanian the appropriate thing to do is to edit the article to discuss both sides neutrally, not to create List of sources about claims that Vojsava Kastrioti was Slav and List of sources about claims that Vojsava Kastrioti was Albanian.
WP:NOT: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and our articles are, with few exceptions, encyclopedia articles, redirects, disambiguation pages or lists. This article isn't any of these. We do have a few bibliographies, but they are all either lists of books written by famous authors ( Charles Dickens bibliography) or lists of books about major topics ( List of books about the War of 1812), and in both these cases the material only exists in a sub-article because of space reasons. WP:NOT prohibits articles from being merely a list of links. Admittedly these links are to print references rather than online ones but the point still stands.
Almost everybody in the deletion discussion advanced arguments grounded in policies and guidelines such as these, and you failed to rebut them. Instead you baldly asserted that the policy or guideline isn't applicable. That isn't an argument, as you note earlier. Therefore there was a consensus to delete (or possibly merge) the article and closing any other way would have been a serious error. Hut 8.5 10:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse closure Antidiskriminator, because you took the time to write up such a detailed rationale, I'll take the time to address it point by point.
Detailed analysis/rationale

While following WP:BEFORE is considered good practice, it ultimately a recommendation and not a requirement. Sharing one's "reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag," which you complain that the nominator did not do, would have been polite. However, given his deep disagreement with you over the propriety of these articles' existence, these AfDs were inevitable.

You complain that Gaius Claudius Nero, the nominator, should not have simply linked to policies like WP:LINKFARM without explaining his reasoning. You're right, he should have been more detailed. But your counterargument was no better; you simply wrote, "I believe that this article is obviously not 'a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files' so WP:NOT policy is not violated." If it's so "obvious," then why did so many participants in the discussion believe that WP:LINKFARM was violated? Yours was just as much of an argument by assertion as the nominator's.

You also complain that Gaius personally attacked you in the last sentence of his nomination by writing that you, "as the result of many discussions [were] not able to add the sources of his lists on Vojsava Kastrioti started the list articles as a means to include his preferred content on Wikipedia." Reading through Talk:Vojsava Tripalda and looking at your only edits to the article since February, I do not see evidence to back up his statement. Gaius's statement appears to have been untrue, or at the very least misleading. According to WP:NPA, "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" constitute personal attacks. However, that is nowhere near enough invalidate the whole AfD.

Like your complaints about WP:BEFORE not being followed to a T, your grievances about the articles being bundled together in one AfD and the nominator failing to notify you (and associated WikiProjects) are not reasons to invalidate the AfD. It would have been nice for Gaius to do these things, but it is not a requirement. Similarly, it would be polite for participants in the discussion to disclose their involvement with the article, but it is not required.

It would be absurd to discard these entire discussions at this point because of problems with Gaius's nomination. Many editors participated in the AfDs, and, as Wizardman wrote on your talk page, "you were the only one adamant about it being kept." (Your case for keeping the article used an " other stuff exists" type of argument, which closing admins are generally supposed to give little to no weight.) There was a broad consensus in the discussion that bibliography-type lists of sources should not be separate articles, and that the sources on these pages belonged in the main article on Vojsava Tripalda, if anywhere. Participants in the discussion largely agreed that these articles constituted repositories of links and therefore ran afoul of WP:LINKFARM. WP:AVOIDSPLIT was cited as evidence that this material belongs in the main article, if anywhere. Allen3 noted an additional problem: "No sourcing for the significance of this list is provided or even hinted at." It does not look like this point was refuted.

The question, then, is whether the consensus was to merge or to delete. Essentially, the argument for a merger is that these sources could be useful for developing the main article, i.e. by adding a paragraph on the dispute over Tripalda's ethnicity. However, that argument was refuted by Whpq: "If an editor wants to keep this as aid for article development, then userfying would be appropriate, otherwise there is no good reason for keeping the article. There is nothing to merge here. There is no content to merge here. It's just a list of source material." His point was never adequately contested by those advocating a merger. The implication is that, if this material is to be used for article development, it ought to be in userspace or on the talk page – not in the article. Another strike against the merge proposal is the absurdity of merging "a 35kb list article into a 1k biography," as Wizardman noted on your talk page. He was well within his discretion as closing admin to decide that this was not a feasible proposal.

WP:TL;DR: Following AfD best practices is nice but not required. Only Antidiskriminator was adamant that the article should be kept, and his arguments amounted to "other stuff exists" and the assertion without explanation that WP:LINKFARM was not violated. There was a broad consensus that WP:LINKFARM was violated, and that these never should have been stand-alone articles, per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Further compelling arguments for deletion were provided by Whpq and Allen3, and they were not refuted. And Wizardman was within his discretion as closing admin in deciding that a merger was not feasible. These deletions were proper and the result of a valid consensus. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 22:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse I would have simply SNOW closed this, but I !voted merge in one of the AfDs. It's absolutely clear that consensus does not favor spinout articles like this, from this topic, at this time. Jclemens ( talk) 00:48, 25 April 2011 (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/2011_April_23&oldid=1079393196"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2011 April 22
2011 April 24 >

23 April 2011

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Neil Cragg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I would had disagreed on this decision to PROD this article if this article was on my watch list (which I rarely watch articles) but these are the point I would like to question on the destruction of this article. First, how can a radio controlled racing world and multiple European champion be considered non-notable, any International Champions will have no problem getting reliable third party coverages; second, you will never come across his name on CNN/Fox News because radio controlled racing do not attract mainstream audiences compared to say football or even so-called "cool/hip/trendy" sport such as skate/snowboarding, one of it is the attitude of the general public toward the hobby, also you are likely to find his name in specialist magazines found in shops such as Radio-Controlled Car Action. Looking up at the website of that magazine, I managed to come across these articles and that magazine is one you find in your local news seller. Third, apart from the link I gave, the deleter said he tried to look for any articles without any sucesses, well I managed to find these - [1] [2] [3] [4] Donnie Park ( talk) 17:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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.
List of sources about claims that Vojsava Kastrioti was Slav ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Substantial procedural errors and incorrect interpretation of the debate that may be summarized as not following the requests of WP:BEFORE, WP:JUSTAPOLICY, WP:AFDEQ, WP:AFDHOWTO... explained why in more details on this page. I think that all those substantial procedural errors gave a good reason to discard the AfD. " How to discuss an AfD says "When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider a dispute resolution process outside the current AfD."

It is obvious that during this AfD process there was "a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines". According to above recommendation, I propose to consider a "dispute resolution process outside the current AfD" which should be restored precisely because of the lack of valid arguments and existing "pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines".

Even if we disregard above mentioned and base decision of his AfD on the above mentioned problematic nomination process and debate, there is obviously much more arguments for Merge than Delete.

I propose to either discard this nomination and debate and restore deleted article or respect the debate and close AfD with MERGE and then merge the article with main page (Vojsava Kastrioti) and other deleted article ( List of sources about claims that Vojsava Kastrioti was Albanian).

Note: I was unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator in question. I attempted ( diff + diff) that first and courteously invited the admin to take one more look and to answer one simple question (without taking in consideration simple votes but arguments about policies violated by the existence of this article brought in AfD discussion):Why did you delete this article? Antidiskriminator ( talk) 16:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply

The consensus was to delete both lists and I think that your response towards the admin who deleted it after he rejected your undeletion request was unwarranted. Btw wikipedia is not a democracy, although even then the delete opinions would outweigh the keep or merge ones. You created the list after its links' inclusion in the main article was rejected both on the Reliables Sources Noticeboard and the Request for Comment on the article's talkpage making the list not only a linkfarm but also a fork.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 17:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
He has already created subpages for the lists.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 17:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Then why have an article page? I'd like an explanation for that from Antidiskriminator before undeletion is even considered. CycloneGU ( talk) 18:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
To present summary of all sources with information about claims that Vojsava Kastrioti was Slav. What WP policy this article existence violated?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 20:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
@Lifebaka: Please provide a link and quote from the WP policy which says that lists are not allowed to contain lists of sources.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 20:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
I've notified him of your reply and he may correct me, but I think you want this. Does the deleted page satisfy any of those three? I find it hard to believe. CycloneGU ( talk) 21:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
It is very useful to have this article with summary of all sources with information about claims that Vojsava was Slav. Having summary of all of them can provide any interested readers with possibility to decide themself about motifs for those claims or neutrality of the sources, and to use those sources accordingly.
Information purposes: Wikipedia policy about notability of the people says:“Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person.” In case of Vojsava Kastrioti one of the most important aspects of her notability is not mere fact that she was a mother of Skanderbeg. There are many other notable people from the Balkans which does not have article about their mothers. Probably the most important aspect of her notability are claims about her ethnicity. That is exactly why this "may be a valuable information source".-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 21:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Development purposes: Additionally, deleted article had not only informative purpose, but was also suitable "for Wikipedia development purposes" because all sources were presented in citation template form.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 21:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
I will ignore the majority of that last post for right now to ask a question about one specific item. You say, "It is very useful to have this article with summary of all sources with information about claims that Vojsava was Slav." Why, praytell, can't sources indicating Vojsava was Slav accompany prose in the article about her? That is what makes a separate list article pointless and laughable; we don't refer to a Wikipedia article for something contained within a Wikipedia article. CycloneGU ( talk) 21:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
(edit conflict)He created the article because for the past six or more months every link he's been adding to that list is either refuted on Request for Comment discussions or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard i.e the list was more or less moved from his userspace to a single article, because the consensus of those discussions didn't allow him to add them on Vojsava Kastrioti, which is obvious because that list among other links has some racist ones about Africans, wrong translations caused by the fact that although he can't read Albanian he probably used google translate for large texts in Albanian etc.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 22:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
@ZjarriRrethues: Nothing you wrote in the above comment is true except that I can't read Albanian.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 22:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Besides many arguments already provided by other users (that it would not be practical, that not all of the sources are RS) the presented sources do not explicitly mention Skanderbeg.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 22:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Raise the issue on the Vojsava Kastrioti talk page then and present your argument as to why this should be a valid source. It does not belong in a deletion review. I will echo the request below for a speedy close, winter is over. CycloneGU ( talk) 22:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
CycloneGU is correct. More specifically, the sentence which reads: "Lists contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) and thus in aggregate serve as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia." Of course, lawyering over whether or not specific wordings in non-static policies supports an argument is frowned upon, so to make another argument, I have never seen a single list which included external links as entries, except reference lists at the end of articles. If this list was meant to be a list of references, it should be in the article the sources are referencing; otherwise, it is not a useful stand-alone list and should be moved out of the mainspace. lifebaka ++ 23:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion - TBH, "List of sources about claims that Vojsava Kastrioti was Slav" should be in the reference section of an article about Vojsava Kastrioti if anything as sources, and any real information inside that article referring to the sources. CycloneGU ( talk) 18:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Adding to this, if the sources themselves are dubious and do not qualify as valid third-party sources, it may be necessary to remove the sources themselves. Also, any such source must be referred to in some fashion as a source in the Vojsava Kastrioti article, or it should not be used on the page at all except in extremely rare cases (for instance, a map of a racetrack on the racetrack's article; you won't likely refer to the source in any way through text). CycloneGU ( talk) 19:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse as an entirely reasonable evaluation of the AFD discussion. This content is not terribly useful for article construction, and would overwhelm what is now barely a two-paragraph entry. The article need do no more than note the existence of conflicting opinions of her ethnicity, with a reasonably reliable representative source for each opinion. No doubt we could accumulate scores if not hundreds of sources for the point that Lindsay Lohan was sent to jail yeaterday, but no encyclopedic function would be served there -- and none is here. Isn't there a relevant ArbCom ruling, even if not exactly applicable here, which might serve to alert one or more of the disputants about overly combative editing in this general area? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 19:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse consensus was very clear that this content shouldn't exist as a stand-alone article, and the only other possible outcome of the discussion was a merge to the article on this person (which isn't practical, for reasons given by the closer on the creator's talk page, but I suppose this could be restored to non-article space if it is needed for the article's development). The creator alleges numerous procedural violations, but they're all either wrong or don't constitute a reason to overturn the deletion. Hut 8.5 20:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
[5] "Consensus is ultimately determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by a simple counted majority." Please be so kind to have second look to the AfD process and if it really contain this kind of consensus?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 20:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Yes, I am aware of what consensus is, and this AfD exhibited it. Hut 8.5 20:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Will you please be so kind to point to the policy that the consensus this AfD exhibited determined as violated, and quote of few arguments why this article violated it?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 21:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Uh...I am afraid I do not understand the question. CycloneGU ( talk) 21:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Sorry. English is not my native language. I will try to explain.
Many, if not all, participants in this debate stated that they think there was consensus this AfD exhibited. The consensus by definition is “determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by a simple counted majority.”
Taking that in consideration, I think it is not enough to participate in the review of this AfD by simple voting, claiming there was consensus, but to point to the policy this consensus was grounded in and arguments provided during consensus building. That way we will have answer on one very simple question that remained unanswered. Why was this article deleted?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 22:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Many voting to endorse the deletion have already explained they agree with the reason the article was deleted. It was not a substantive article on its own merit and, while I have not personally seen the article, it sounds like it was nothing more than a list of links that were denied being added to the article about the subject herself. You disagreed, it sounds like, with the opinion of those removing them and created a separate page that doesn't even have two feet to stand on. That is why the article was deleted, and there is not really a better good-faith explanation than that. At this point, the best route is going to the actual article talk page and raising your issue there for a consensus discussion. You never know, one link might get approved for adding out of however many get disapproved. CycloneGU ( talk) 22:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
I am sorry but I think you got it all wrong. You can see the article (without FAQ section on the talk page) here. You based your opinion on something someone said, not because he provided a proof for his claim. I never added any source from this list to the article about Vojsava Kastrioti. Many of those sources were never attempted to be added to that article. Therefore I did not and could not disagree with anybody who removed this sources. The only edit connected with the sources from this list which I did in article Vojsava Kastrioti happened after I created those lists. I placed links to those lists in see also section ( diff). I don't have any intention to add those sources into the article about her. That is not the purpose of this list. I explained that the purpose of this list is informative and development.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 22:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
That's an article? I disagree. That's a bibliography. It does not belong in the mainspace by itself, period. CycloneGU ( talk) 23:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
On that note, I have to take with bad faith any further claim you make that this should be undeleted from the article space. CycloneGU ( talk) 23:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Here's two:
WP:POVFORK: this guideline forbids creating an article on the same subject as an existing article to advance a point of view. If there is a dispute about whether Vojsava Kastrioti is Slav or Albanian the appropriate thing to do is to edit the article to discuss both sides neutrally, not to create List of sources about claims that Vojsava Kastrioti was Slav and List of sources about claims that Vojsava Kastrioti was Albanian.
WP:NOT: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and our articles are, with few exceptions, encyclopedia articles, redirects, disambiguation pages or lists. This article isn't any of these. We do have a few bibliographies, but they are all either lists of books written by famous authors ( Charles Dickens bibliography) or lists of books about major topics ( List of books about the War of 1812), and in both these cases the material only exists in a sub-article because of space reasons. WP:NOT prohibits articles from being merely a list of links. Admittedly these links are to print references rather than online ones but the point still stands.
Almost everybody in the deletion discussion advanced arguments grounded in policies and guidelines such as these, and you failed to rebut them. Instead you baldly asserted that the policy or guideline isn't applicable. That isn't an argument, as you note earlier. Therefore there was a consensus to delete (or possibly merge) the article and closing any other way would have been a serious error. Hut 8.5 10:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse closure Antidiskriminator, because you took the time to write up such a detailed rationale, I'll take the time to address it point by point.
Detailed analysis/rationale

While following WP:BEFORE is considered good practice, it ultimately a recommendation and not a requirement. Sharing one's "reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag," which you complain that the nominator did not do, would have been polite. However, given his deep disagreement with you over the propriety of these articles' existence, these AfDs were inevitable.

You complain that Gaius Claudius Nero, the nominator, should not have simply linked to policies like WP:LINKFARM without explaining his reasoning. You're right, he should have been more detailed. But your counterargument was no better; you simply wrote, "I believe that this article is obviously not 'a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files' so WP:NOT policy is not violated." If it's so "obvious," then why did so many participants in the discussion believe that WP:LINKFARM was violated? Yours was just as much of an argument by assertion as the nominator's.

You also complain that Gaius personally attacked you in the last sentence of his nomination by writing that you, "as the result of many discussions [were] not able to add the sources of his lists on Vojsava Kastrioti started the list articles as a means to include his preferred content on Wikipedia." Reading through Talk:Vojsava Tripalda and looking at your only edits to the article since February, I do not see evidence to back up his statement. Gaius's statement appears to have been untrue, or at the very least misleading. According to WP:NPA, "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" constitute personal attacks. However, that is nowhere near enough invalidate the whole AfD.

Like your complaints about WP:BEFORE not being followed to a T, your grievances about the articles being bundled together in one AfD and the nominator failing to notify you (and associated WikiProjects) are not reasons to invalidate the AfD. It would have been nice for Gaius to do these things, but it is not a requirement. Similarly, it would be polite for participants in the discussion to disclose their involvement with the article, but it is not required.

It would be absurd to discard these entire discussions at this point because of problems with Gaius's nomination. Many editors participated in the AfDs, and, as Wizardman wrote on your talk page, "you were the only one adamant about it being kept." (Your case for keeping the article used an " other stuff exists" type of argument, which closing admins are generally supposed to give little to no weight.) There was a broad consensus in the discussion that bibliography-type lists of sources should not be separate articles, and that the sources on these pages belonged in the main article on Vojsava Tripalda, if anywhere. Participants in the discussion largely agreed that these articles constituted repositories of links and therefore ran afoul of WP:LINKFARM. WP:AVOIDSPLIT was cited as evidence that this material belongs in the main article, if anywhere. Allen3 noted an additional problem: "No sourcing for the significance of this list is provided or even hinted at." It does not look like this point was refuted.

The question, then, is whether the consensus was to merge or to delete. Essentially, the argument for a merger is that these sources could be useful for developing the main article, i.e. by adding a paragraph on the dispute over Tripalda's ethnicity. However, that argument was refuted by Whpq: "If an editor wants to keep this as aid for article development, then userfying would be appropriate, otherwise there is no good reason for keeping the article. There is nothing to merge here. There is no content to merge here. It's just a list of source material." His point was never adequately contested by those advocating a merger. The implication is that, if this material is to be used for article development, it ought to be in userspace or on the talk page – not in the article. Another strike against the merge proposal is the absurdity of merging "a 35kb list article into a 1k biography," as Wizardman noted on your talk page. He was well within his discretion as closing admin to decide that this was not a feasible proposal.

WP:TL;DR: Following AfD best practices is nice but not required. Only Antidiskriminator was adamant that the article should be kept, and his arguments amounted to "other stuff exists" and the assertion without explanation that WP:LINKFARM was not violated. There was a broad consensus that WP:LINKFARM was violated, and that these never should have been stand-alone articles, per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Further compelling arguments for deletion were provided by Whpq and Allen3, and they were not refuted. And Wizardman was within his discretion as closing admin in deciding that a merger was not feasible. These deletions were proper and the result of a valid consensus. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 22:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse I would have simply SNOW closed this, but I !voted merge in one of the AfDs. It's absolutely clear that consensus does not favor spinout articles like this, from this topic, at this time. Jclemens ( talk) 00:48, 25 April 2011 (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/2011_April_23&oldid=1079393196"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE