Bitchy_Resting_Face – Endorsed by default. Selective merge and redirect as suggested in the discussion permitted. –
SpartazHumbug! 04:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I don't think a consensus has been reached. Also, the comments do not take into account the full set of references (including an academic journal and US and UK news sources) - they've focused on one (the Daily Mail) which only adds a minor factual aspect to the article.
The Parson's Cat (
talk) 12:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
That's not the title of an encyclopaedia article, it's the title of a gossip column. What we need to do is see through the terms used to find the underlying encyclopaedic topic, and then redirect all the alternative plausible search terms to that encyclopaedic topic.
In this case there are two encyclopaedic topics here:
Affect display and
Face perception. Any salvageable content from the academic journal and trustworthy news sources should be covered in one or the other of those two articles. I'd endorse Black Kite's close and I suggest you take him up on his offer of userfication so that any salvageable content can be in-merged. Once this has been done there's nothing to stop
bitchy resting face from being converted to a redirect. The only thing that might complicate this is if there's any content in the deleted article that you didn't write, in which case you should seek advice from Black Kite or from this page about how to preserve attribution.—
S MarshallT/
C 17:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
I suppose we could restore the article and convert it to a protected redirect to preserve the history.
Black Kite (
talk) 16:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Paloma Kwiatkowski – I don't think we should wait a whole week to close this. Based on this discussion so far its reasonable to permit recreation and leave further AFDs to editorial discretion. –
SpartazHumbug! 06:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
G4 refers to articles which are 'A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy'. I did expand the article and added additional information and references about her new roles. A year has passed and
Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters (a major Hollywood production) has been released.
[1] She has also completed filming a lead role in Edge of Marlene, an adaptation of a book by an award-winning Canadian author,
Billie Livingston,
[2], completed filming Cheat
[3], and landed a recurring role in
Bates Motel, a critically-acclaimed TV series.
[4]Hergilei (
talk) 07:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
I've temporarily restored the article so that editors may review the history. No opinion on the merits for now.
Mackensen(talk) 11:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Permit restoration The justification for deletion was that the one role listed was in a film that had not yet been completed. That seems clearly no longer the case. So it's enough to justify restoration and optionally another AfD. DGG (
talk ) 22:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn doesn't seem to be a valid G4 as there are new sources. No objection to listing at AfD if someone wants to.
Hobit (
talk) 15:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
There was an extensive and thorough discussion about why this category should not be deleted nor merged. In total 3 people supported a merge while 2 opposed it. No one was able to present an argument based on logic as to why these categories should be deleted. These categories do NOT violate any of our policies either.
The administrator closing the discussion ruled in favor of a "merge" under the rationale that "we can't imagine doing this style of categorization for one of the most notable legislatures in the world, I find it hard to imagine us doing it for a less notable one." However, as noted in the discussion, members of the UK parliament are categorized in such form already. See
Category:UK MPs 2005–2010 for an example.
It is obvious that this discussion should have been closed as a "no consensus" rather than a "merge"; allowing the categories to remain. This is why I'm requesting a DRV. —
Ahnoneemoos (
talk) 03:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Closer's comment. I don't like to get into mere vote counting, but in case that carries the day: There were five people supporting merge: Bearcat, John Pack Lambert, Good Ol'Factory, The Bushranger, and (conditionally) Pr4ever. There were two opposers: Ahnoneemoos and (conditionally) Peterkingiron. Even with the clear majority on the side of merging, I didn't make the close solely on that basis. The arguments on the merge side were vastly stronger: The "McCain argument" (that John McCain would get +15 categories if this precedent applied elsewhere) overwhelmed the repeated restatement of the argument to the contrary from Ahnoneemoos. That repeated restatement included badgering ("Weep fucking do, just because you dislike something doesn't mean we must stop doing it"), personal attacks ("it is quite astonishing that an administrator has such poor understanding of Wikipedia"), and misunderstanding of how CfD works ("This is exactly why administrators base their decisions solely on policies"). So, I took the good with the bad, and made my decision. YMMV.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 04:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
So let me get this clear. As an administrator, your rationale was based on speculation on something that did not happen nor has happened even though we already categorize legislatures by session? (see
Category:UK MPs 2005–2010) Are you aware that such fact was mentioned in the discussion? We already have a precedent, yet McCain, or better said, members of Congress are not categorized that way. Evenmoreso, your decision was based merely on the speculation that someone might add 15 categories to an article? What policy is violated by adding 15 categories to an article? Once again, none. How is such argument considered "stronger"?
John McCainalready has 44 categories. What exactly would be the problem if it had 59? Or 100? How did you base your decision that adding 15 more categories would be "bad"? What policy states that such number of categories is "bad"? Like I said in the discussion, as an administrator your actions must be based on policies. This discussion was extensive and not a single person presented a policy nor a logical statement as to why these categories should have been merged—yet for some reason, which you have not been able to explain logically, closed it as a merge. None of your arguments nor the ones presented in the discussion merit a merge. Finally, I would appreciate if you avoid using terms such as "badgering" and "personal attacks". —
Ahnoneemoos (
talk) 06:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
I'm pretty sure it's not going to benefit the discussion if I get into an argument here. So I'll respectfully decline to comment on Ahnoneemoos's reply.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 06:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse- consensus to merge was clearly established. "I disagree with the result" is not a reason to overturn it.
ReykYO! 06:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said such thing. There is a big difference between disagreeing with a result and noticing that the rationale used to reach such result doesn't make any sense nor is based on policy. —
Ahnoneemoos (
talk) 06:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Well, if your DRV nomination consists mostly of re-arguing the MFD of course I will think you're just disagreeing with the result and asking for "MFD round 2". You are the only person at either the MFD or this DRV who thinks the merge arguments are illogical, and it is clear that you only think that because you disagree with them. Arguments don't become empty or illogical just because you have a different opinion, and these were strong enough to convince the closing admin and an independent editor (i.e., me) that these categories should be merged. The only argument you've presented in this DRV that the closing admin got the process wrong is a miscount of the number of editors on each side.
ReykYO! 06:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
The argument is weak and illogical because we already categorize legislatures by session and yet McCain is still not categorized in such a way. Both schemes can coexist on Wikipedia. This fact was presented in the discussion and debunks the closer's rationale entirely. Do you see the fallacy now?
Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
We already proved the fallacy (weakness) of the arguments presented. Regarding the second emphasis, which policy did the closer invoke to rule in such way? None, because there is not a single policy that states that we should not categorize articles in such a way.
The closer ignored the fact that other legislatures are already categorized in such a way and did not invoke any policies to sustain his ruling. The outcome must be overturned to no consensus.
You already mentioned many times in the MFD that your preferred way is done
elsewhere, but this argument did not convince the other participants that it would be appropriate in this case. You seem to be assuming that everything not explicitly forbidden by policy must be allowed, even when a consensus of editors agrees that it would be a bad idea. That is not true, and I also have to point out that there is no policy that states we must catgeorize articles this way. The arguments referring to
WP:OC were very convincing and won out in the end, and I think you're just going to have to accept that.
ReykYO! 22:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Once again, do not put words in my mouth. I never said such thing. The main issue here is that the rationale used by the closer is (1) a fallacy and (2) not backed up by a policy. Per
WP:CONSENSUS, which is a policy:
Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
How can this CfD be closed as reaching consensus when it was not "viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy"? Once again I ask, what policy was invoked to reach this decision? You have not been able to provide one, nor was anyone in the discussion able to provide one, neither did the closer.
Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.
Not a single argument presented in the discussion nor in the closer's rationale was based on fact. It was based on pure speculation, fear, and personal opinions. No facts, none. Period. The result must be overturned to "no consensus".
I find dealing with you to be very annoying, since you do not read or understand anything people say and endlessly repeat yourself. I am done with this conversation.
ReykYO! 02:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse - the hostile stuff wasn't very nice but it really has no impact on the result itself and so should be disregarded. I'm really not seeing a strong argument as to why the interpretation of consensus was wrong. Arguments about the proposal itself should have been made at MfD and re-arguing them here isn't really the purpose of DRV. Those arguments didn't really seem to convince people at MfD and that's kind of the point. The closer seems to have seen an argument that did convince people and determined consensus on that basis. Effectively there are two comparative arguments there (one with regard to the US Congress and the other with regard to the UK Parliament). As for the count, I'm seeing 5 for "merge" (nom included, one conditional) and 2 "oppose" opinions. All comparative arguments being equal, I can't see a rationale for overturning the close at the moment.
Stalwart111 07:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse per Stalwart's analysis above. I'm not sure where "3 to 2 for merge" comes from, I'm seeing 5:2 the categories should go. The only reason to overturn that's been advanced has been that the close was not based on any policy, but
WP:OCAT applies and thus discounts that argument.
OSbornarfcontribs. 03:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)reply
But
WP:OCAT was not the rationale used to close this CfD; that's the point. Furthermore,
WP:OCAT is a guideline, not a policy. The guideline quoted even says so, "it is generally better" it does not say, "it must not be categorized in such a way". It even says at the top: "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". If we used guidelines then we would have a conflict (a no consensus) since
WP:CLNT states that:
A category is probably inappropriate if the answer to the following questions is "no":
Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it?
If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?
since in this case the answer to both questions would be "yes", which means the category is appropriate. So once again, every fact presented on both the discussion and this DRV points toward the result being a no consensus since (1) we don't have a policy that can be invoked to merit a merge/delete, (2) we have conflicting practices, and (3) our editors have not been able to reach a consensus between themselves.
Furthermore,
WP:POLICY which is another policy, establishes that:
Whether a policy or guideline is an accurate description of best practice is determined by the community through consensus.
and in this case we have proven already that
WP:OCAT is not a description of a best practice since (1) we have conflicting practices (see
Category:UK MPs 2005–2010 where legislatures are categorized by session) and (2) we have not been able to reach consensus neither as a whole nor locally within Wikipedia in these matters, and evenmoreso (3) we have a conflicting guideline through
WP:CLNT. Such cases must be ruled as "no consensus" until we reach an unequivocal consensus through discussions or through the establishment of policies that covers such matters.
So, once again, our policy to establish consensus is very clear, per
WP:CONSENSUS:
Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
But yet, no one has shown which policy this decision was based on. For example, when people invoke
WP:GNG in discussions (which is a guideline) the policy behind such decision is actually
WP:INDISCRIMINATE—in those cases the result is actually based on policy even though people are invoking a guideline. That's not the case of this CfD and it's the reason behind this DRV.
I response with great hesitancy as I fear we've entered an
I Didn't Hear That situation. There seems to be some sort of ongoing discussion regarding guidelines vs. policies, and I'm telling you right now, that I'm having none of it.
Your argument concluding "... which means the category is appropriate." is logically flawed. That the category did not fail a single, isolated test does not imply that it would not fail any test. See:
Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.
I am declining to respond to the rest of your comment. Most of a possible response would simply be flat-out contradictions, and I think most, if not all of this has been covered above.
OSbornarfcontribs. 01:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)reply
As the DRV instructions mention, "Deletion Review should not be used: because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment". Endorse.
Stifle (
talk) 16:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse - The 2 opposes were rather vapid, containing little but whinges about "otherstuff" and "ocat" being just guidelines. The consensus of sound arguments was quite clear.
Tarc (
talk) 16:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I am not completely familiar with how to bring back this discussion, but this article was originally deleted and redirected. Now PhDLin has rebuilt the page while referencing the latest medical literature that did not exist at the time the article was re-directed. I propose to re-open the page and restore the re-direct to the version built by PhDLin. Thanks.
Doors22 (
talk) 04:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Query - where is this new draft located?
Stalwart111 05:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
The user PhD-Lin had a false positive for being a sock-puppet and his account was erroneously blocked. I have asked Reaper Eternal, the administrator who blocked his account to unblock it so we can review the edits. I am not an expert on Wikipedia and any assistance you may provide for this issue will be appreciated. You will see he added new text based on newly published sources. I am unable to find out how to recall his exact draft that was deleted though. Thanks.
The user has not been unblocked, nor in my opinion should they be unblocked. The conclusion at
the spi was "Meatpuppetry is certain," , and that's enough, whether or not a sockpuppet. That does not amount to a false positive. DGG (
talk ) 22:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Okay then, Endorse redirect/oppose recreation - I'm still not clear where the draft is or was. It was deleted? PhD-Lin has a total of two edits to his name. The conduct of that particular editor and his sock puppets/meat puppets was atrocious and I'd venture to suggest that recreation in this instance will require the commitment of an editor in good standing, rather than yet another meat-puppet. Preferably someone with a good understanding of
WP:MEDRS.
Stalwart111 01:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Before you make a presumptuous judgment, will you please look at the re-created article? As I mentioned, the user PhD-Lin included new sources which is a viable reason for undeleting a page. I am admittedly not a sufficiently sophisticated Wikipedia user to know how to undelete his edit, but on Reaper Eternal's talk page he indicated to me an admin will be able to undelete the page for review.
Doors22 (
talk) 06:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Happy to look at it - that's why I asked where it was. I think RE meant the original article, but I'm sure he could undelete a draft if we knew where it was. But my other concern remains - I'd really only be inclined to endorse recreation if such a process included an editor in good standing (rather than a brand new editor, especially in an environment where sock-puppetry/single-purpose-editing was such an issue). That doesn't mean new editors wouldn't be able to help, but
consensus to delete was determined only late last year if we're going to allow someone to try again, there needs to be a commitment to do it properly.
Stalwart111 10:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure exactly how to locate the original draft - but the contribution on July 31, 2013 that deleted the draft is directly below. The second URL listed below is the talk page where Reaper Eternal mentioned an admin would be able to recover the draft if they so desired. Please let me know if I can provide any more information to make this easier for you. Thanks again.
Given Spartaz's comments below, there's probably not much I can do to get access (not being an admin). I'll stay where I am for now but will be guided by the opinions of admins who can see the draft. But I'd still like to see an endorsement from a
WP:MEDRS-proficient editor in good standing who might be willing to "adopt" this article.
Stalwart111 10:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)reply
If you want, I can e-mail you a copy of the deleted sandbox.
Mark Arsten (
talk) 17:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Thanks Mark, but I don't have an email address tied to my account because I move around a bit. But even with a decent draft I'd probably still oppose recreation without a MEDRS-savvy editor-in-good-standing to adopt it, given the history. Anyway, I'd be interested in the opinions of those who can see it.
Stalwart111 01:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)reply
The deleted draft is in a
Sandboxadmin only which was deleted under g5 as the creation of a banned user. On that basis I am not prepared to undelete this for discussion but any admin is able to view the content.
SpartazHumbug! 07:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse redirect and oppose a full article at this time.
WP:MEDRS is definitely a tougher standard than we have for, say, cartoon characters, but that's with good reason--Wikipedia can't take chances on fringe or perhaps erroneous medical advice. If that puts us a little behind the bleeding edge, that's fine too--an encyclopedia isn't really meant to present up-to-the-minute medical findings. Wikipedia isn't The Lancet.
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Bitchy_Resting_Face – Endorsed by default. Selective merge and redirect as suggested in the discussion permitted. –
SpartazHumbug! 04:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I don't think a consensus has been reached. Also, the comments do not take into account the full set of references (including an academic journal and US and UK news sources) - they've focused on one (the Daily Mail) which only adds a minor factual aspect to the article.
The Parson's Cat (
talk) 12:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
That's not the title of an encyclopaedia article, it's the title of a gossip column. What we need to do is see through the terms used to find the underlying encyclopaedic topic, and then redirect all the alternative plausible search terms to that encyclopaedic topic.
In this case there are two encyclopaedic topics here:
Affect display and
Face perception. Any salvageable content from the academic journal and trustworthy news sources should be covered in one or the other of those two articles. I'd endorse Black Kite's close and I suggest you take him up on his offer of userfication so that any salvageable content can be in-merged. Once this has been done there's nothing to stop
bitchy resting face from being converted to a redirect. The only thing that might complicate this is if there's any content in the deleted article that you didn't write, in which case you should seek advice from Black Kite or from this page about how to preserve attribution.—
S MarshallT/
C 17:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
I suppose we could restore the article and convert it to a protected redirect to preserve the history.
Black Kite (
talk) 16:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Paloma Kwiatkowski – I don't think we should wait a whole week to close this. Based on this discussion so far its reasonable to permit recreation and leave further AFDs to editorial discretion. –
SpartazHumbug! 06:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
G4 refers to articles which are 'A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy'. I did expand the article and added additional information and references about her new roles. A year has passed and
Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters (a major Hollywood production) has been released.
[1] She has also completed filming a lead role in Edge of Marlene, an adaptation of a book by an award-winning Canadian author,
Billie Livingston,
[2], completed filming Cheat
[3], and landed a recurring role in
Bates Motel, a critically-acclaimed TV series.
[4]Hergilei (
talk) 07:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
I've temporarily restored the article so that editors may review the history. No opinion on the merits for now.
Mackensen(talk) 11:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Permit restoration The justification for deletion was that the one role listed was in a film that had not yet been completed. That seems clearly no longer the case. So it's enough to justify restoration and optionally another AfD. DGG (
talk ) 22:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn doesn't seem to be a valid G4 as there are new sources. No objection to listing at AfD if someone wants to.
Hobit (
talk) 15:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
There was an extensive and thorough discussion about why this category should not be deleted nor merged. In total 3 people supported a merge while 2 opposed it. No one was able to present an argument based on logic as to why these categories should be deleted. These categories do NOT violate any of our policies either.
The administrator closing the discussion ruled in favor of a "merge" under the rationale that "we can't imagine doing this style of categorization for one of the most notable legislatures in the world, I find it hard to imagine us doing it for a less notable one." However, as noted in the discussion, members of the UK parliament are categorized in such form already. See
Category:UK MPs 2005–2010 for an example.
It is obvious that this discussion should have been closed as a "no consensus" rather than a "merge"; allowing the categories to remain. This is why I'm requesting a DRV. —
Ahnoneemoos (
talk) 03:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Closer's comment. I don't like to get into mere vote counting, but in case that carries the day: There were five people supporting merge: Bearcat, John Pack Lambert, Good Ol'Factory, The Bushranger, and (conditionally) Pr4ever. There were two opposers: Ahnoneemoos and (conditionally) Peterkingiron. Even with the clear majority on the side of merging, I didn't make the close solely on that basis. The arguments on the merge side were vastly stronger: The "McCain argument" (that John McCain would get +15 categories if this precedent applied elsewhere) overwhelmed the repeated restatement of the argument to the contrary from Ahnoneemoos. That repeated restatement included badgering ("Weep fucking do, just because you dislike something doesn't mean we must stop doing it"), personal attacks ("it is quite astonishing that an administrator has such poor understanding of Wikipedia"), and misunderstanding of how CfD works ("This is exactly why administrators base their decisions solely on policies"). So, I took the good with the bad, and made my decision. YMMV.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 04:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
So let me get this clear. As an administrator, your rationale was based on speculation on something that did not happen nor has happened even though we already categorize legislatures by session? (see
Category:UK MPs 2005–2010) Are you aware that such fact was mentioned in the discussion? We already have a precedent, yet McCain, or better said, members of Congress are not categorized that way. Evenmoreso, your decision was based merely on the speculation that someone might add 15 categories to an article? What policy is violated by adding 15 categories to an article? Once again, none. How is such argument considered "stronger"?
John McCainalready has 44 categories. What exactly would be the problem if it had 59? Or 100? How did you base your decision that adding 15 more categories would be "bad"? What policy states that such number of categories is "bad"? Like I said in the discussion, as an administrator your actions must be based on policies. This discussion was extensive and not a single person presented a policy nor a logical statement as to why these categories should have been merged—yet for some reason, which you have not been able to explain logically, closed it as a merge. None of your arguments nor the ones presented in the discussion merit a merge. Finally, I would appreciate if you avoid using terms such as "badgering" and "personal attacks". —
Ahnoneemoos (
talk) 06:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
I'm pretty sure it's not going to benefit the discussion if I get into an argument here. So I'll respectfully decline to comment on Ahnoneemoos's reply.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 06:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse- consensus to merge was clearly established. "I disagree with the result" is not a reason to overturn it.
ReykYO! 06:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said such thing. There is a big difference between disagreeing with a result and noticing that the rationale used to reach such result doesn't make any sense nor is based on policy. —
Ahnoneemoos (
talk) 06:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Well, if your DRV nomination consists mostly of re-arguing the MFD of course I will think you're just disagreeing with the result and asking for "MFD round 2". You are the only person at either the MFD or this DRV who thinks the merge arguments are illogical, and it is clear that you only think that because you disagree with them. Arguments don't become empty or illogical just because you have a different opinion, and these were strong enough to convince the closing admin and an independent editor (i.e., me) that these categories should be merged. The only argument you've presented in this DRV that the closing admin got the process wrong is a miscount of the number of editors on each side.
ReykYO! 06:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
The argument is weak and illogical because we already categorize legislatures by session and yet McCain is still not categorized in such a way. Both schemes can coexist on Wikipedia. This fact was presented in the discussion and debunks the closer's rationale entirely. Do you see the fallacy now?
Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
We already proved the fallacy (weakness) of the arguments presented. Regarding the second emphasis, which policy did the closer invoke to rule in such way? None, because there is not a single policy that states that we should not categorize articles in such a way.
The closer ignored the fact that other legislatures are already categorized in such a way and did not invoke any policies to sustain his ruling. The outcome must be overturned to no consensus.
You already mentioned many times in the MFD that your preferred way is done
elsewhere, but this argument did not convince the other participants that it would be appropriate in this case. You seem to be assuming that everything not explicitly forbidden by policy must be allowed, even when a consensus of editors agrees that it would be a bad idea. That is not true, and I also have to point out that there is no policy that states we must catgeorize articles this way. The arguments referring to
WP:OC were very convincing and won out in the end, and I think you're just going to have to accept that.
ReykYO! 22:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Once again, do not put words in my mouth. I never said such thing. The main issue here is that the rationale used by the closer is (1) a fallacy and (2) not backed up by a policy. Per
WP:CONSENSUS, which is a policy:
Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
How can this CfD be closed as reaching consensus when it was not "viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy"? Once again I ask, what policy was invoked to reach this decision? You have not been able to provide one, nor was anyone in the discussion able to provide one, neither did the closer.
Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.
Not a single argument presented in the discussion nor in the closer's rationale was based on fact. It was based on pure speculation, fear, and personal opinions. No facts, none. Period. The result must be overturned to "no consensus".
I find dealing with you to be very annoying, since you do not read or understand anything people say and endlessly repeat yourself. I am done with this conversation.
ReykYO! 02:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse - the hostile stuff wasn't very nice but it really has no impact on the result itself and so should be disregarded. I'm really not seeing a strong argument as to why the interpretation of consensus was wrong. Arguments about the proposal itself should have been made at MfD and re-arguing them here isn't really the purpose of DRV. Those arguments didn't really seem to convince people at MfD and that's kind of the point. The closer seems to have seen an argument that did convince people and determined consensus on that basis. Effectively there are two comparative arguments there (one with regard to the US Congress and the other with regard to the UK Parliament). As for the count, I'm seeing 5 for "merge" (nom included, one conditional) and 2 "oppose" opinions. All comparative arguments being equal, I can't see a rationale for overturning the close at the moment.
Stalwart111 07:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse per Stalwart's analysis above. I'm not sure where "3 to 2 for merge" comes from, I'm seeing 5:2 the categories should go. The only reason to overturn that's been advanced has been that the close was not based on any policy, but
WP:OCAT applies and thus discounts that argument.
OSbornarfcontribs. 03:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)reply
But
WP:OCAT was not the rationale used to close this CfD; that's the point. Furthermore,
WP:OCAT is a guideline, not a policy. The guideline quoted even says so, "it is generally better" it does not say, "it must not be categorized in such a way". It even says at the top: "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". If we used guidelines then we would have a conflict (a no consensus) since
WP:CLNT states that:
A category is probably inappropriate if the answer to the following questions is "no":
Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it?
If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?
since in this case the answer to both questions would be "yes", which means the category is appropriate. So once again, every fact presented on both the discussion and this DRV points toward the result being a no consensus since (1) we don't have a policy that can be invoked to merit a merge/delete, (2) we have conflicting practices, and (3) our editors have not been able to reach a consensus between themselves.
Furthermore,
WP:POLICY which is another policy, establishes that:
Whether a policy or guideline is an accurate description of best practice is determined by the community through consensus.
and in this case we have proven already that
WP:OCAT is not a description of a best practice since (1) we have conflicting practices (see
Category:UK MPs 2005–2010 where legislatures are categorized by session) and (2) we have not been able to reach consensus neither as a whole nor locally within Wikipedia in these matters, and evenmoreso (3) we have a conflicting guideline through
WP:CLNT. Such cases must be ruled as "no consensus" until we reach an unequivocal consensus through discussions or through the establishment of policies that covers such matters.
So, once again, our policy to establish consensus is very clear, per
WP:CONSENSUS:
Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
But yet, no one has shown which policy this decision was based on. For example, when people invoke
WP:GNG in discussions (which is a guideline) the policy behind such decision is actually
WP:INDISCRIMINATE—in those cases the result is actually based on policy even though people are invoking a guideline. That's not the case of this CfD and it's the reason behind this DRV.
I response with great hesitancy as I fear we've entered an
I Didn't Hear That situation. There seems to be some sort of ongoing discussion regarding guidelines vs. policies, and I'm telling you right now, that I'm having none of it.
Your argument concluding "... which means the category is appropriate." is logically flawed. That the category did not fail a single, isolated test does not imply that it would not fail any test. See:
Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.
I am declining to respond to the rest of your comment. Most of a possible response would simply be flat-out contradictions, and I think most, if not all of this has been covered above.
OSbornarfcontribs. 01:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)reply
As the DRV instructions mention, "Deletion Review should not be used: because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment". Endorse.
Stifle (
talk) 16:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse - The 2 opposes were rather vapid, containing little but whinges about "otherstuff" and "ocat" being just guidelines. The consensus of sound arguments was quite clear.
Tarc (
talk) 16:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I am not completely familiar with how to bring back this discussion, but this article was originally deleted and redirected. Now PhDLin has rebuilt the page while referencing the latest medical literature that did not exist at the time the article was re-directed. I propose to re-open the page and restore the re-direct to the version built by PhDLin. Thanks.
Doors22 (
talk) 04:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Query - where is this new draft located?
Stalwart111 05:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
The user PhD-Lin had a false positive for being a sock-puppet and his account was erroneously blocked. I have asked Reaper Eternal, the administrator who blocked his account to unblock it so we can review the edits. I am not an expert on Wikipedia and any assistance you may provide for this issue will be appreciated. You will see he added new text based on newly published sources. I am unable to find out how to recall his exact draft that was deleted though. Thanks.
The user has not been unblocked, nor in my opinion should they be unblocked. The conclusion at
the spi was "Meatpuppetry is certain," , and that's enough, whether or not a sockpuppet. That does not amount to a false positive. DGG (
talk ) 22:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Okay then, Endorse redirect/oppose recreation - I'm still not clear where the draft is or was. It was deleted? PhD-Lin has a total of two edits to his name. The conduct of that particular editor and his sock puppets/meat puppets was atrocious and I'd venture to suggest that recreation in this instance will require the commitment of an editor in good standing, rather than yet another meat-puppet. Preferably someone with a good understanding of
WP:MEDRS.
Stalwart111 01:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Before you make a presumptuous judgment, will you please look at the re-created article? As I mentioned, the user PhD-Lin included new sources which is a viable reason for undeleting a page. I am admittedly not a sufficiently sophisticated Wikipedia user to know how to undelete his edit, but on Reaper Eternal's talk page he indicated to me an admin will be able to undelete the page for review.
Doors22 (
talk) 06:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Happy to look at it - that's why I asked where it was. I think RE meant the original article, but I'm sure he could undelete a draft if we knew where it was. But my other concern remains - I'd really only be inclined to endorse recreation if such a process included an editor in good standing (rather than a brand new editor, especially in an environment where sock-puppetry/single-purpose-editing was such an issue). That doesn't mean new editors wouldn't be able to help, but
consensus to delete was determined only late last year if we're going to allow someone to try again, there needs to be a commitment to do it properly.
Stalwart111 10:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure exactly how to locate the original draft - but the contribution on July 31, 2013 that deleted the draft is directly below. The second URL listed below is the talk page where Reaper Eternal mentioned an admin would be able to recover the draft if they so desired. Please let me know if I can provide any more information to make this easier for you. Thanks again.
Given Spartaz's comments below, there's probably not much I can do to get access (not being an admin). I'll stay where I am for now but will be guided by the opinions of admins who can see the draft. But I'd still like to see an endorsement from a
WP:MEDRS-proficient editor in good standing who might be willing to "adopt" this article.
Stalwart111 10:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)reply
If you want, I can e-mail you a copy of the deleted sandbox.
Mark Arsten (
talk) 17:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Thanks Mark, but I don't have an email address tied to my account because I move around a bit. But even with a decent draft I'd probably still oppose recreation without a MEDRS-savvy editor-in-good-standing to adopt it, given the history. Anyway, I'd be interested in the opinions of those who can see it.
Stalwart111 01:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)reply
The deleted draft is in a
Sandboxadmin only which was deleted under g5 as the creation of a banned user. On that basis I am not prepared to undelete this for discussion but any admin is able to view the content.
SpartazHumbug! 07:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse redirect and oppose a full article at this time.
WP:MEDRS is definitely a tougher standard than we have for, say, cartoon characters, but that's with good reason--Wikipedia can't take chances on fringe or perhaps erroneous medical advice. If that puts us a little behind the bleeding edge, that's fine too--an encyclopedia isn't really meant to present up-to-the-minute medical findings. Wikipedia isn't The Lancet.
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.