| ||
---|---|---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | ||
I request we overturn, i.e., reverse the deletion. The rationale for deletion was erroneous. What the debate showed was evolution of the article to address concerns. This was taking time because of conflicts among editors other than myself: a desire for a clearer scoping required a more explicit lede but that was considered synthesis by other editors. But that could likely have been resolved if people suggested appropriate lede language or if I continued developing the lede and posted it, as I was already doing. When the nominator accused me of misrepresenting her pre-AfD advice, that struck at the article's core credibility, too, so I copied her pre-AfD texts into the AfD page and refuted with quotes and particulars, raising new points. The closing admin edit-summarized with TLDR and deleted the article. TLDR meant misinterpreting the debate. Votes were 5–1 for deleting and 1 to split and move plus my vote to keep. The core issue was whether the article's topical range was too disparate for one article. A solution offered was that I get a source(s) that tie all the other major secondary sources together. (I searched for such secondary-secondary sources, did not find one, and will be glad to add it if one turns up.) I don't think there was consensus to require secondary sourcing of secondary sources. I proposed dividing the article into new articles on narrower subjects, one narrow subject per article, but that was rejected. None of the standard reasons for deletion were present. Opposition because the article's topic is controversial—which it definitely is—was, I thought, being resolved toward keeping with respect to that ground. I thought it had been. Another editor and I apparently agreed on a renaming, I notified and renamed with an admin's help, and I re-edited the lede, but the closer did not comment on any of that. The closer's rationale was simply "a rough consensus ... for the reasons identified by the other participants". The deletion stopped the progress in editing to achieve consensus. A couple of us were negotiating to resolve what would help, and I was editing. Most editors did not respond. When an editor is accused, applying TLDR turns an erroneous accusation unanswerable, thus rendering a charge always right and a reply always wrong. I asked the closer to reconsider and undelete or tell me about his concerns but he said simply that "[t]he deletion ... was based on the result of the discussion." Since some of the opposition was on invalid grounds for deletion (such as notability in the face of numerous third-party sources) and the closer declined to read and take into consideration the article creator's (my) last response, which answered a key accusation, the closer's decision was incorrectly interpretive of the debate. I would like discussion to continue with a view to adding content of the sort editors are saying is absent. Keeping content open to sunlight is the better solution. I have been answering critiques on this article and elsewhere and looking for workable compromises. I would like to continue that practice, as it strengthens readers' ability to find literature backing up topics. I request undeletion. If that's not feasible, I request userfying the article, its talk page, and (if possible) both histories, so other editors can add sources. I can work alone, but I don't want to exclude other editors who have something to contribute, and some do. Thank you. Nick Levinson ( talk) 08:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC) (Corrected a link: 09:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)) (Clarified the section title (but not the DRV template, not knowing how) to show the deleted article's old title: 09:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)) (Copied the DRV template and edited it as a possible solution: 09:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)) (Corrected formatting of the subsubsection title by moving the addition to the next line, to ensure compatibility with an expected automatically-generated link: 09:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC))
* Userfication, please? While the DRV is pending, if an admin could please userfy the Gynocracy article, Talk:Gynocracy, and the two histories, that would ease discussion for the
matriarchy and
separatist feminism pages. We've already begun dialogues, and an editor
there had not seen this article. Userfying would save me hours of reconstruction and I don't have enough information with which to reconstruct histories myself. And if a timely response to anything is needed here, userfying would speed that up, too. Thank you.
Nick Levinson (
talk)
13:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC) (Repunctuated: 13:38, 9 January 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. | ||
I request we overturn, i.e., reverse the deletion. The rationale for deletion was erroneous. What the debate showed was evolution of the article to address concerns. This was taking time because of conflicts among editors other than myself: a desire for a clearer scoping required a more explicit lede but that was considered synthesis by other editors. But that could likely have been resolved if people suggested appropriate lede language or if I continued developing the lede and posted it, as I was already doing. When the nominator accused me of misrepresenting her pre-AfD advice, that struck at the article's core credibility, too, so I copied her pre-AfD texts into the AfD page and refuted with quotes and particulars, raising new points. The closing admin edit-summarized with TLDR and deleted the article. TLDR meant misinterpreting the debate. Votes were 5–1 for deleting and 1 to split and move plus my vote to keep. The core issue was whether the article's topical range was too disparate for one article. A solution offered was that I get a source(s) that tie all the other major secondary sources together. (I searched for such secondary-secondary sources, did not find one, and will be glad to add it if one turns up.) I don't think there was consensus to require secondary sourcing of secondary sources. I proposed dividing the article into new articles on narrower subjects, one narrow subject per article, but that was rejected. None of the standard reasons for deletion were present. Opposition because the article's topic is controversial—which it definitely is—was, I thought, being resolved toward keeping with respect to that ground. I thought it had been. Another editor and I apparently agreed on a renaming, I notified and renamed with an admin's help, and I re-edited the lede, but the closer did not comment on any of that. The closer's rationale was simply "a rough consensus ... for the reasons identified by the other participants". The deletion stopped the progress in editing to achieve consensus. A couple of us were negotiating to resolve what would help, and I was editing. Most editors did not respond. When an editor is accused, applying TLDR turns an erroneous accusation unanswerable, thus rendering a charge always right and a reply always wrong. I asked the closer to reconsider and undelete or tell me about his concerns but he said simply that "[t]he deletion ... was based on the result of the discussion." Since some of the opposition was on invalid grounds for deletion (such as notability in the face of numerous third-party sources) and the closer declined to read and take into consideration the article creator's (my) last response, which answered a key accusation, the closer's decision was incorrectly interpretive of the debate. I would like discussion to continue with a view to adding content of the sort editors are saying is absent. Keeping content open to sunlight is the better solution. I have been answering critiques on this article and elsewhere and looking for workable compromises. I would like to continue that practice, as it strengthens readers' ability to find literature backing up topics. I request undeletion. If that's not feasible, I request userfying the article, its talk page, and (if possible) both histories, so other editors can add sources. I can work alone, but I don't want to exclude other editors who have something to contribute, and some do. Thank you. Nick Levinson ( talk) 08:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC) (Corrected a link: 09:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)) (Clarified the section title (but not the DRV template, not knowing how) to show the deleted article's old title: 09:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)) (Copied the DRV template and edited it as a possible solution: 09:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)) (Corrected formatting of the subsubsection title by moving the addition to the next line, to ensure compatibility with an expected automatically-generated link: 09:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC))
* Userfication, please? While the DRV is pending, if an admin could please userfy the Gynocracy article, Talk:Gynocracy, and the two histories, that would ease discussion for the
matriarchy and
separatist feminism pages. We've already begun dialogues, and an editor
there had not seen this article. Userfying would save me hours of reconstruction and I don't have enough information with which to reconstruct histories myself. And if a timely response to anything is needed here, userfying would speed that up, too. Thank you.
Nick Levinson (
talk)
13:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC) (Repunctuated: 13:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC))
| ||
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
|