-
List of numbers of ex-patriate Norwegians by country (
talk|
|
history|
logs|
links|
watch) (
article|
XfD|
restore)
- I am arguing for the restoration of the article:
List of numbers of ex-patriate Norwegians by country which was deleted. The list was previously called "Norwegian diaspora".
The name was changed to a "list of expatriates" which negated the rationale for delete based on the word "diaspora". The name change was made about 3/4 of the way through the debate which negated those delete votes based on the name "diaspora" in the title. The closer ignored the name change and counted the delete !votes that complained about the name, even though the article no longer had that name. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk) 15:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk) 15:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Okay. A quick note from the closing admin to rebut some of the statements here - I'm not sure of the procedure here, not having been DRVd before, so I'm not turning my points into something formally bolded as a Vote Which Is Not A Vote. Firstly, Richard made no attempt to discuss this with me prior to bringing this DRV, which is contrary to procedure as I understand it. Secondly, the deletion arguments were not solely based on the name. The nomination opened with "I am nominating this article for deletion because the topic seems to be a neologism constructed through synthesis of different sources that do not themselves describe this topic" something the keep commenters did not rebut. I disregarded all "deletion" rationales but one, as I made clear in my closing statement, that included deletion comment being "per the excellent reasoning in the nomination".
Ironholds (
talk) 15:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- You do understand what a neologism is right? It is a new word, which was the title of the article, "norwegian diaspora". That the Keep votes did not address that the title was a neologism was because the article was moved to a new title not containing the word "diaspora", so there was nothing to address. You counted all the delete votes based on the old title being a neologism. That is what makes your closure invalid. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk) 17:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- I pointed out that there are more than 25 articles called "X diaspora" and that there were whole books on Norwegian emigration to America. I also pointed out that we are voting on the topic, and not on the state of the article at any given time. Any article can be a stub of just a sentence or two if the topic is valid and can be sourced. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk) 15:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Both Stifle and I left messages and you and I communicated before I brought it here. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk) 15:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Stifle's message being "good close" and yours being "I'm taking it to DRV", yes.
Ironholds (
talk) 15:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Well, that is the beauty of a selected quote. The entire conversation was: "Good closure, I think, although I came up with a keep outcome from my analysis. Yours was not unreasonable enough for me to make an issue of it. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) will, on the other hand, so watch out at DRV in short order." to which you responded: "Noted; thanks for the head's up, and the compliment. Keep safe - or keep safe, I guess". --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk) 17:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- I have never witnessed a deletion reversed based on a personal appeal, only at deletion review. We have "no consensus" for iffy AFDs, you closed as delete with great certainty. Being taken to deletion review isn't punishment, it is getting more eyes on the process. When I said "I'm taking it to DRV", you could have said " Oh no, please don't, I was 100% wrong and will reverse it" and negated bringing it here. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk) 15:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- I could, yes, but if I wasn't certain in my action I wouldn't have made it. That doesn't mean I'm not willing to address logical arguments, simply that you haven't yet provided me with any.
Ironholds (
talk) 16:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Hmm. Seems to me this could use a relist. Would you have a problem with this, Ironholds?
lifebaka
++ 15:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Well, I'd rather get some consensus that that's necessary; at this point, I can confirm that me coming out in favour of a position will probably lead to Richard opposing it while vehemently claiming that he'd discussed it with me beforehand.
Ironholds (
talk) 15:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- I ask because I really have no idea how I would have closed the AfD. This seems to tell me that it should either have been closed as no consensus or relisted.
I'd say we should go with relisting, as consensus may have been forming towards the end of the AfD. This isn't any sort of censure on your closure, which was perfectly reasonable. The only trouble is that keep seems perfectly reasonable, too. Cheers.
lifebaka
++ 16:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- With an article currently existing and up for AfD at
Norwegian diaspora, I no longer have any clue what should be done here. No action.
lifebaka
++ 01:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- I said it was a reasonable decision, and I think the nominator should have made more effort to discuss the closure with the closer first. Will the nominator please explain why he repeatedly does not do this? And I won't accept "it's optional", because it's polite, and everyone else does it.
Stifle (
talk) 17:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Eat your pride and accept the rule as it is, or lobby to change the rule so that the new rule demands a personal appeal before an AFD. If the closer ignores the logic presented at the AFD, repeating the same logic again has not been shown to have an effect on reversal. I have never seen a reversal based on a personal appeal. If you can show me statistics on how many personal appeals have led to a reversal, I would be happy to lobby with you for a rule change. The only way to resolve a controversial AFD is to get new eyes on the situation. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk) 17:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- It's happened with me in the past. So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that you feel Ironholds is so set in his ways that consulting him before impugning his decision is a waste of time?
Stifle (
talk) 18:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- I do not consider myself sufficiently neutral to place a bolded word in this discussion, but I want to put it on record that I believe Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is misusing DRV by the above and by using it as a second bite at the cherry when a deletion discussion does not go his way.
Stifle (
talk) 18:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- This is my read on it as well, considering that the DRV nomination attacks arguments that weren't really part of the closing rationale.
Reyk
YO! 01:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- It's arguable that Ironholds closed that discussion in accordance with the consensus, but the consensus was clearly wrong. There was a Norwegian diaspora and it's been the subject of numerous scholarly treatments. Wikipedia quite rightly has a whole family of articles about it—see, for example,
Viking expansion,
Danelaw,
Varangians,
Settlement of Iceland,
Norse colonization of the Americas, etc. Create a redirect to
Viking expansion. No blame attaches to the closer because the debate ought to have considered that possibility specifically, and failed to.—
S Marshall
T/
C 18:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Those articles are not about Norwegian diaspora - they are about migration from Norway the past 1000 years. The point of the afd nomination wa sthat 1. not all migration is diasporic. and 2. there was no evidence at the time that the phrase "Norwegian diaspora" has any currency. MR. Norton has now - after the deletion procured a single source.21:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
·Maunus·ƛ·
- No they aren't, they're about a historically significant mass emigration from the whole of Scandinavia between 800 and 1100 AD.
Norwegian diaspora is a plausible search term for that event, though. My personal bias is that I like putting in a redirect wherever possible—redirects tend to stop inexperienced editors from thinking "ooh, a tempting redlink, let's write an article!" and therefore save us from unnecessarily repeating process.—
S Marshall
T/
C 00:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Comments One It was said above "I don't remember a deletion close being reversed on a personal appeal" -- I can remember many. It'll take some searching to find them, but most administrators both know they are capable of making errors and are very willing to fix them. Speaking for myself, there are closes I am very sure of and closes I am somewhat less sure of, & in those cases I would certainly relist if a reasonable case were made on my talk p., & I think I remember having done so. Two Even if it is known that a given admin never reverses their decision, asking about the decision can guide the appeal to address the salient points involved. In my experience, it can often prevent a poorly-founded appeal, and I would think most people contemplating an appeal would not want to do so if they became convinced they would not succeed in it.
DGG (
talk ) 19:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn There was no consensus to delete this article as several experienced editors gave cogent reasons why it should be kept.
Colonel Warden (
talk) 20:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Could you provide something more detailed and, dare I say it, cogent?
Ironholds (
talk) 22:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- comment I would like to know why I haven't been notified as the original nominator for deletion?
·Maunus·ƛ· 21:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Well, I think Richard only bothered poking me, and then got distracted while we argued over whether or not another administrator telling me "good close" on my talkpage constituted Richard calmly and politely discussing the close with me or not.
Ironholds (
talk) 22:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Nobody notifies the AfD nominator. It's the closer who's being challenged.—
S Marshall
T/
C 00:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Ironholds, can I just clarify whose delete comment you thought was valid? Was it mine? Because
User:Johanneswilm's also seemed well argued to me.
Cordless Larry (
talk) 01:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Johanneswilm's comment was useful, but more focused on the reliability of the content than anything else. If there'd been a need for a longer rationale I would have included it.
Ironholds (
talk) 01:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse- Ironholds does seem to have afforded the delete votes that concentrated on the name less weight, and based his closing rationale on the fact that issues of
WP:SYNTH and
WP:OR had been raised and not addressed by the article's defenders. I see nothing wrong with this close.
Reyk
YO! 01:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Moreover, even after the page move and some editing to the article contents, the
WP:SYNTH and
WP:OR issues remained. At the time of deletion, the article was still synthesising several different sets of data (Norwegian-born people, Norwegian citizens, Norwegians registered with the local embassy) into one concept - that of Norwegian expatriates.
Cordless Larry (
talk) 01:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- That isn't original research, it is just called research when you compile information from various referenced sources. What makes something original research is reaching a novel conclusion from the results that isn't in the initial data, like concluding that the people of Italy hate Norwegians, or that Norwegians hate Peru because of the low number of Norwegians there. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk) 02:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- If the different sources used the same defintion, then you'd be correct. But as I point out, they don't and hence it's synthesis.
Cordless Larry (
talk) 03:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- overturn <ec> with a
WP:TROUT to RAN for not trying to discuss this first. I have seen deletions overturned by the closer, and I think in this case there was a fair shot of it occurring. The discussion was leaning toward "keep as improved", though a relist was probably the best bet.
Hobit (
talk) 01:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- And how long should I argue with him before bringing it here? An hour, a day, a week, a month? If he agrees to rescind I can always withdraw the AFD, but I think it best to get the others involved as quickly as possible before the issue gets forgotten. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk) 03:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- First of all, contacting the deleting admin is a part of the process outlined at the top of the DRV page. In some cases taking that step can immediately solve the problem which makes everyone else's life easier. Secondly, the process is generally pretty simple: you explain why you see the close being a misreading of the discussion. The admin generally either agrees or disagrees. You then either have a fixed close or you go to DrV. I generally ads less than 24 hours.
Hobit (
talk) 14:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn The closing arguments were that it violated
WP:OR and
WP:SYNTH. Look at the cache of the article. Its a perfectly valid
WP:LIST article, with references to where the information comes from. It is certainly NOT original research nor synthesis. The list itself says its listing "Number of people born in Norway or Norwegian citizens". Does anyone doubt that all sources were referring to the number of people born in Norway or Norwegian citizens? The article defines itself clearly as saying "Expatriate Norwegians are Norwegian people outside of Norway." If you have a problem with the same for some reason, then you can discuss a more appropriate one, that not a reason to delete this though.
Dream Focus 03:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn Issues of WP:OR / WP:SYNTH were addressed by those participating in the discussion and much of the validity of the WP:SYNTH was based on the former title of "Norwegian Diaspora", which was changed to address concerns.
Alansohn (
talk) 04:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Please separate the discussions:
- As for
Norwegian diaspora: Someone in the deletion debate pointed out that the article "topic" was what should be discussed, thereby implying that there was nothing wrong with the topic. This was in reply to a "delete" comment I made while the article was still located at "
Norwegian diaspora" and claimed that there were four million "ethnic Norwegians" in the US, among other things. The problem was that the article topic as conceived by all the early contributors was in fact seriously flawed. People with some small amount of distant Norwegian ancestors are not Norwegian, even if they claim to be in a US census that, apparently, insists on people putting in some ethnic identity. Nor are all Icelandic people part of a "Norwegian diaspora". Not only do they not identify as such, but their ancestors left Norway long before the modern Norwegian nation-state existed. In other words, the original article used muddled definitions both of "diaspora" and "Norwegian". With such a start it couldn't end up as anything other than a hopeless confused mess (certainly violating
WP:OR and
WP:SYNTH, as the closer argued). As for using
Norwegian diaspora as a redirect to
Viking expansion, I think it is better to keep to the term "Norse" when dealing with that period.
-
List of numbers of ex-patriate Norwegians by country, on the other hand, is a topic easy to clearly delimit: Norwegian citizens and/or people born in Norway living abroad. There is no reason why such a list shouldn't be allowed to exist, and there is no reason to not allow it to be recreated. I would suggest starting from scratch, to make sure that the figures are as correct as possible and based on reliable sources, but if such reliably-sourced content existed in the later revisions of the now-deleted article, I see no reason not to resurrect those revisions.
- --
Hegvald (
talk) 07:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Ultimately it is what the reliable sources call the "Norwegian diaspora" and not how you, or I, or any other editor chooses to define the term. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk) 16:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- You appear to have found two sources speaking of a "Norwegian diaspora". That isn't much, but what is more interesting is whether these works really include all current descendants of Norwegian emigrants to North America, as opposed to just the emigrants themselves? Does either source think of "the Viking expansion and the conquest of Normandy" as part of the same historical phenomenon as the 19th/early 20th century emigration? As for Elazar, the answer is clearly no on both accounts; he appear to be preoccupied solely with the events of 1905, when many members of the large waves of late 19th century migration to North America were still alive, and he is really not dwelling on this, as his main interest lies elsewhere. How about Hale? I can only see a snippet view of Hale's book in Google Books, so I can't tell. I assume you have access to the book and can clarify the context for those of us who do not. --
Hegvald (
talk) 17:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- My problem with a list that includes both people born in Norway and Norwegian citizens is that these two concepts are not comparable. Some people born in Norway are not Norwegian citizens and not all Norwegian citizen will have been born in Norway. So I still think it involves synthesis because these two concepts are being combined into a single one, namely expatriate Norwegians. If the list used one definition or the other, on the other hand, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Cordless Larry (
talk) 16:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse - despite ARS handwaving to the contrary, no actual wrongdoing or misstep has been cited in the original AfD. Consensus, when the "keep-its-interesting" votes are weighted down, was clear.
Tarc (
talk) 15:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- comment The article
Norwegian diaspora has been recreated and renominated for deletion.
·Maunus·ƛ· 23:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- The article was improperly renamed during that AFD. The current one by that name is totally unrelated.
Dream Focus 23:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Summary The salient argument not to overturn the deletion is: that the Keep votes did not address that the title was a neologism. But that was because the article was moved to a new title not containing the word "diaspora", so there was nothing to address. The closer counted all the delete votes based on the old title being a neologism. That is what makes the closure invalid. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk) 17:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- That's not what I said and not what I did. Tell me - did you actually read my rationale?
Ironholds (
talk) 20:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse. Neutrality or not (see above), DRV is not AFD round 2.
Stifle (
talk) 09:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse After the invalid votes were discounted, this was a pretty clear delete. Moving a page at the last minute is not a quick way to invalidate all of the prior delete votes.
—SW—
confabulate 16:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
|