Wikipedia:WMF noticeboard ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

While the close was well explained, I don't believe WilyD gave appropriate weight to the various arguments in coming to his decision. If we go by the rationale that we should keep this because someone "find this a better way to keep up to date on ... issues than other possibilities", then what's to stop every editors creating hundreds of new noticeboard because they personally find it better that way? KTC ( talk) 15:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to delete, one of the rare times I will do so. There is a fundamental flaw in the closer's rationale if he discarded calls to delete that noted the lack of consensus. Random Joe User just can't up and create entire noticeboards willy-nilly, why should a single user get to decide issues such as naming, scope, and so on? Things that can have an effect on the project as a whole. If 2:1 participants in good faith feel "no, this isn't the way noticeboards should be created", then that should be respected. Perhaps it isn't set-in-stone policy to mandate discussion in an appropriate venue, e.g. the Village Pump, but I think a dash of common sense and honestly a little respect for the community at large to not foist a new board upon them un-discussed is in order here. Tarc ( talk) 18:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply

  Random Joe User just can't up and create entire noticeboards willy-nilly... I did just that over three years ago, without any RfC and with just a handful of supporting editors. The noticeboard was never MfD'd and is still in use today. Bold actions are sometimes necessary to get through the bureaucratic nightmare of project space editing and administration. If the noticeboard fills a niche then we shouldn't need prior discussion to give it a try. Them From Space 22:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply

  I think you got lucky that it didn't get MFD'ed, more than anything else. And at least that was to handle an actual on-wiki problem, not like this dumb thing that is to be used to talk to WMF staff. It is just poorly-conceived and executed all-around. Tarc ( talk) 13:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn I would agree that the close reads more like a supervote of "I agree with the keep rationales better." If a user finds something is not useful and believes it should be deleted because they, individually, do not think it is useful, that is as valid a reason as someone who says they find it personally useful. In the same way, if a person believes process is important/essential and things done out of process should be deleted, that is also a valid opinion, even if other people believe the end result is what matters the most. MBisanz ^talk 18:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Any time the closing admin feels compelled to call one side of the debate "dicks" they are not a neutral party and should not be closing the debate. Obvious supervote. There is no policy on how to create a noticeboard, so nobody can claim policy is on their side, but this close would set a precedent that anyone can create entire new WP processes out of thin air and their unilateral decision to do so will be respected, since anyone who thinks that is wrong is apparently making a completely invalid argument. Not only that, but he seems to have ignored about half of the reasoning, it's not just that there was no consensus to create it, other arguments were in fact made but in the close they are all just belled up into one reason and rejected enitrely. That's not right. The close is easily twice as offesnive as trying to foist this new process ont he community without getting their input first. I personally believe I see a consensus to delete, but at the very least this should be re-opened so that an actual neutral third party can perform a proper close. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comments, while I think. First, if the MfD discussion does not to show any consensus, we should not fault the closer for saying so. And surely the closer is not calling anyone "dickish", but is saying the community should not be dickish towards new ideas that are not obviously harmful. So far as I know there is no (recent) policy or guidance about how noticeboards should be created so it is not clear how a page creation or a no consensus deletion discussion should be treated. I have to say I agree very much with the other comments here that it would have been far better to discuss such things in advance, with a userspace draft to refer to. But DRV should not (normally) be considering such matters, but should be looking at whether the MfD was closed correctly. Thincat ( talk) 21:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete- as this was clearly the consensus. WilyD was wrong to treat the delete opinions with such contempt, because they were actually strong and relevant arguments. Reyk _YO! 00:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• A reasonable close, considering that several of the delete arguments said "Delete - no consensus" or amounted to that. If even the ones who want to delete admit there is no consensus, surely the closer should recognize this. I think it would have been better to seehow the boarddevelops over the next month or so, and then nominate again if it remains justified. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete The closer discounted two types of arguments. I'm open to the those closer's view on the first group, but looking at the second class of arguments explicitly discounted, well, the close says "The only other real delete argument I see boils down to more or less "I wouldn't find this useful, because I prefer some other forum (or fora)", which isn't much of an argument.", referring as near as I can tell roughly to the redundancy arguments of the nominator, Legoktm, Xavier, KTC, Ten Pound Hammer, Philospher, and MBianz. The problem is that I simply don't read those arguments the way the closer summarizes them. I don't see the emphasis on personal preference, I do see a pragmatic concern for redundancy (a word that's used quite a bit). Some of those opinions (check out the full back and forth of MBianz) went a fair bit deeper. Accordingly, I feel that those seven or so arguments deserve greater weight than was apparently accorded them, and that the close should be reconsidered in view of that. As that's actually a majority of the downweighted arguments, I'm left at overturn.-- j⚛e decker ^talk 06:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete that a noticeboard is redundant or inferior to other methods of doing the same thing is a perfectly valid rationale for deleting it, especially as the keep rationale was basically to assert the opposite. Hut 8.5 10:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete - Exactly what Hut 8.5 said. Additionally, the closer did not address that several of the people voting keep were voting keep only if the foundation approved. Thus far that has not happened, and at least one staffer expressed concern over IRC (although, since I don't log, I won't name who it was). Full disclosure, I was the filing party for the original deletion. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I agree with the closing statement that the delete rationales were exceedingly weak. Arguments citing no prior consensus to create the board are off the mark and discourage bold editing. Now, if there had been a consensus against creating the noticeboard before it was created, things would be different. Other delete comments suggested animosity towards the noticeboard system in general, not just this particular one. Discounting these erroneous arguments, a "no consensus" conclusion is well within administrative judgement, and in my opinion the proper close. Allowing the noticeboard to stay in a no-consensus close gives the community and the WMF more time to see if it is workable. Besides, if we decide in a few months that the board isn't necessary, another MfD can easily be created. Them From Space 22:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The simple problem is that we don't, as far as I know, have policy about when to create or remove a noticeboard. As such, the closer gets a lot of leeway to determine which arguments are strong and which are weak. Even if the arguments were equal in strength a 2:1 ratio doesn't rule out an NC close. And if the closer felt the delete arguments were weaker (and I'd agree on that point) an NC close is looks quite reasonable. I'd also endorse a delete outcome had that happened (also easily within discretion given the lack of on-point policy). Hobit ( talk) 04:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • If there is no specific policy on a point, doesn't that actually give the closer less discretion to weigh arguments because there is no established standard to which they can compare the arguments? If the community has never opined on the topic and a majority of the people at a discussion feel one way, regardless of if the closer thinks their logic is strong, isn't that a good indication that they represent a stronger consensus then if the community had opined on the topic and a majority of people at a discussion opined in the opposite direction? Also, isn't this giving a de facto supervote to all closers who can say they think there is specific policy on a topic, therefore, their interpretation of strength should override a majority? I also fail to see how arguments based on WP:PII are presumed weak. MBisanz ^talk 13:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Hard call, do we expect admins to just vote count when there is no on-point policy, or to use their best judgement? Obviously some combination of the two. And even if the votes were treated as equal in weight, an NC close isn't unreasonable given that ratio. As I said, a delete outcome would also have been reasonable here, but I can't see a basis for saying the closer clearly erred. Hobit ( talk) 14:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
      • I would wonder then. The margin for deletion in this case was 2 to 1. Usually that's consensus unless something weird like SPAs or a wikiproject ignoring policy are involved. But what we have here is a case with no policy applying. What threshold would you say is sufficient to show consensus for an action that a reasonable person says is arbitrary and capricious? For example, there is no policy that requires disclosure of a person's hair color, but what if an RFC said to block a person because they refused to disclose their hair color? MBisanz ^talk 15:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
        • I think you made my point? If there is a 2:1 ratio saying to block someone because they won't reveal their hair color (and let's say that there is no on-point policy here) then we would hope that the closing admin would weigh the votes using their own judgement rather than blindly following the numbers. In any case, while I would tend to agree that a 2:1 ratio of equally weighted votes is often consensus, I've seen it not be (all RfAs for example, but also more than a few RfCs). I just think we need to give closing admins a fair bit of room on an NC close like this. Hobit ( talk) 15:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
          • I agree with giving the admin a broad remit on an NC, but I don't agree with an admin having a supervote to discard comments he personally doesn't agree with, particularly when there is no policy to provide the proper standard for commenting. I would also say that if the community decided to block someone for failing to disclose hair color (absent SPAs, group action, small sample, etc.), the closing admin should do it, regardless of how irrational he personally finds it. MBisanz ^talk 17:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
            • • I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Hobit ( talk) 17:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
                • Agreed. MBisanz ^talk 17:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I was going to stay out of this because I was mostly neutral, but liked the close; however, Hobit's argument is strong enough that I felt the need to endorse per his reasoning.  Ryan  Vesey 04:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete. Strawmans have great looks, but no place in a closing rationale; the closer's analogy of the arguments to delete a noticeboard to a proposal to delete "all Wikiprojects" or "all categories" because he doesn't find it useful is a gross oversimplification, and catapults this close into "dead fish" category for me. T. Canens ( talk) 19:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete. I agree with Hobit, except that I don't find the delete arguments weaker. Instead, I read the "delete - no consensus" as implicitly citing a known problem of a very large number of noticeboards being to the detriment of them all. Too many noticeboards means they no longer function as noticeboards but just another local forum. I don't think the close was a supervote introducing new arguments or hiding a closers personal preference. I think the delete voters just didn't explain themselves very well. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 20:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Cham Albanians Genocide ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This was closed as delete, despite my demonstrating that both reasons given by those wanting deletion were incorrect (namely that the event is not called a genocide and that all the web hits related to a different genocide in Colombia Cambodia). I further detailed why I believe the redirect is useful, which nobody even replied to let alone rebutted. In discussion with the closing admin at user talk:Ruslik0#Cham Albanians Genocide, they have not addressed this, they have just been adding their own interpretations of the redirects usefulness with arguments that were not presented in the discussion. I believe that these additional reasons are outweighed by the usefulness of the redirect, but whether they are or are not they should have been presented in the discussion rather than as justification for a deletion. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply

You confused Cambodia with Colombia. Ruslik_ Zero 18:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Whoops, so I did. That doesn't invalidate the point though. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Relist Like many RfDs, there was almost no discussion, and I do not see there was a consensus to delete DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. No RfD nomination rationale. One keep. One delete challenged. No explanation from the closer. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Hound Dog (Elvis Presley cover song) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Wikipedia has four million articles, but not one of them as far as I am aware is a standalone article on a cover song. As posted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs Cover-versions and multiple-renditions, apparently Wikipedia prohibits treating cover recordings of a song in a standalone article: "A song article (as already explained to the nominator) is about the song and NOT a specific performance - it is the song that is notable, even though specific performance(s) may make it notable." I don't know exactly why over the past twelve years of Wikipedia all cover songs of a song topic have been merge into or restricted to one song topic article. Given the precedent of banning all cover songs from being treated in a standalone article, I think deletion review appropriate place for this request and would like permission to post my sourced draft (on my computer) of Hound Dog (Elvis Presley cover song) as a standalone article. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 14:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment don't think DRV is the right venue. The wikiproject can't prohibit it, no more than we take wikiproject notability guides to be binding in anyway. Similarly I don't believe DRV can authorise it. Simply create it, there are I guess then about three possible way forwards - (1) someone can nominate it for deletion which if the deletion rests solely on the basis of the wikiproject idea is likely to be overturned here if it meets WP:GNG, (2) Someone thinks it'll be better part of some other article (which I guess my own instinct suggest there will be many cases where that is the case), then an editorial decision can be made to merge this seems a normal merge discussion or (3) it stays as a standalone article (which again my instinct suggests there will be some cases where that's the best option, but probably (2) for the majority.) -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 19:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Whatnow? I would follow the advice you were given at the MFD and/ or the advice in the above remark. This process exists solely to challenge the closing of a deletion discussion, not to propose new types of articles. Either open a proper RFC somewhere or just create the article. You have permission to do either of those things right now, so go for it. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply

DPT Labs ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This article may have been deleted without a discussion of the number of sources, their depth of coverage and their availability regarding the topic.

• The first AfD closed as keep per the sources and the second AfD was closed as delete without any source evaluation, other than from the sole keep !voter in it.
• This topic appears to meet or pass WP:CORPDEPTH.
• Also, per WP:NRVE, topic notability is based upon the availability and depth of coverage of reliable sources, rather than just those that may be present in an article.

Also note that there's a working version of the page, which I had userfied, located at User:Northamerica1000/DPT Labs Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 05:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Closing admin I referred NA1000 here because I did not feel comfortable basing an undeletion on my own, uneducated on the topic, review of his new article. MBisanz ^talk 18:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn; this is a good example of an AFD that should be closed as "No consensus, because virtually nobody cares enough to participate". I'd suggest relisting if that hadn't been tried multiple times already. Nyttend ( talk) 17:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• I think the close was perhaps reasonable (though I'd have preferred an NC close, the COI issue could have pushed it over I suppose), the sources in the article now seem to meet WP:N (though many are behind a pay wall, they appear to cover the topic in reasonable depth). Hobit ( talk) 15:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment/Update - I've reworked the article; see: User:Northamerica1000/DPT Labs. Personally, I'd like to recreate the article. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 14:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC) reply