Heterophobia ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This page faced persecution of multiple types. First all the references were removed, then people complained that there were no references then it was deleted. Also, the deletion of this page shows the extreme bias on wikipedia and the fact that both sides of the coin isn't shown. 3abos ( talk) 23:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• As closer Happy to have this reviewed. Please note that the nominator has not attempted to discuss the matter with me prior to listing (step 1), but did notify me of the DRV. It's my view that this was a completely transparent case of SNOW. -- j⚛e decker ^talk 23:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - Please let's not waste time at DRV reviewing the homophobic antics of a disruptive user. AN encyclopedia is not a platform to promote one's fringe, anti-gay points of view; we all know that, that's why this trashy article was swiftly deleted. Tarc ( talk) 00:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• As nominator and the one who directed 3abos to this board, I reiterate my point that I don't think this is the best way to go about it, and I once again encourage 3abos to avoid editing tendentiously. Nonetheless, I concur with Joe that transparency is good, and welcome a review of the AfD. To wit: The only place where I could see any grounds to object is that the two speedy deletion requests were both declined by administrators who went on to be involved otherwise: Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) declining G4 and going on to !vote for deletion, and Bbb23 ( talk · contribs) declining G10 and blocking 3abos for edit warring. However, those seem to me to fall solidly under the "purely administrative role" exemption to WP:INVOLVED, and even if they didn't, I don't see how they'd matter, since in both cases one action benefited 3abos and the other did not. Therefore, I can see no grounds for procedural overturn of the AfD. —  PinkAmpers & ^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Speaking only for myself, I responded to a report at WP:ANEW. While reviewing the report, I made certain edits to the article. I redirected it and then self-reverted once I realized that part of the battle in the article was over whether it should be redirected. Then, I removed the G10 because I didn't think it applied (still don't, although I'm open to being convinced otherwise). Then, I blocked the editor based on an obvious case of edit-warring. I don't see how any of this makes me "involved"; it was just part of my administrative review of the report. I was not in a content dispute with the editor before taking any action or, for that matter, afterwards.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• As i said, I agree with you. Just thought it would be best to address any possible procedural complaints preemptively. I'll shut up now. :P —  PinkAmpers & ^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, hard to see how anyone could make a determination different than what was made. Insomesia ( talk) 00:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. There was no way this discussion was going to have any other result - the closer fairly evaluated the consensus. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn or allow recreation with new content. Highly outside of process closure. The article had some valid sources that were removed at the time of nomination. In addition, I found additional sources that use the term: [1] and [2] and I think this article also covers the subject. It obviously shouldn't exist in the format 3abos left it in, but the subject is notable and deserving of an article. The section under Homophobia is a good start.--v/r - T P 03:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Could you explain what was out of process? Looked like a reasonable WP:SNOW to me. Hobit ( talk) 04:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
    • The article was butchered 10 minutes after being nominated for deletion including the removal of this source which I think actually supports the article subject. The delete !votes give no appearance that they were aware of this.--v/r - T P 04:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
      • That is serious, and if there was such a choppage, I would be surprised if many editors caught it. I did not. Perhaps someone should restore temporarily so we can dissect this? (You'll forgive me, I'm sure, for not pushing buttons around this article while the DRV is active.) For what it's worth, it's my view that the consensus was for deletion of the content, not the topic, most participants focusing on terms like "attack" and "unsalvagable bias". As a result, if you want to take a stab at an article there, I don't see that this close bars that. -- j⚛e decker ^talk 05:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
        • agree the article was absolutely demolished as soon as i created it. this is another source that was removed [ [3]] 3abos ( talk) 05:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
          • I am the user that deleted the majority of the references. One was the blog hosted on Huffington Post mentioned above. It was used as source for a statement of fact, and as such is not a WP:RS. One other source was what appeared to be a content spam site about phobias, was used to source a statement about treatment and as such fails WP:MEDRS. The rest were as far as I can recall news articles. Most didn't even mention the word heterophobia, and none of them supported the claims that they were supposed to source (one sourced a quote, but not the assertion that the incident was heterophobic). I mentioned the lack of quality sources on the talk page but got no indication of anyone disagreeing with me. All in all, I didn't remove any references that made the article more worth keeping. Sjö ( talk) 06:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
            • To save time for admin review, this was the choppage in question, which removed 8 of 10 sources, and slapped {{ verify source}} tags on the two remaining ones. I cannot see how that is anything but polemical editing. I agree that the SNOW close was obvious, but the question of source removal and subsequent AfD'ing probably needs a much closer look. In particular, I find that the argument that WP:MEDRS supported the removal quite specious: just because something has "phobia" as part of the title does not mean that it is necessarily claimed to be a medical-grade phobia. Indeed, by my review, this looks like a very political, rather than medical, dispute. Jclemens ( talk) 07:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• While useful for admins, links to deleted edits obviously can't be seen by the rest of the editing community who are being asked to review this (I know you understand this and noted it and I'm not suggesting any bad faith - just a point of fact). But it means we (I commented at the AFD) only have what we can recall of our own reviews of the article. Other editors who never saw it have no idea what it looked like. The editor in question has explained why he removed sources. The edit may well have been "polemical" but we mere mortals have no way of telling one way or the other. Given that what was left was horrendous and given we are asked to assume good faith, you'll appreciate non-admins are in a difficult position on this one. Stalwart 111 08:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Fixed by Spartaz. Stalwart 111 11:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• I echo what Jclemens said. I recently was in a discussion with another user over Narcissism and WP:MEDRS was brought up. It's used too often. MEDRS should only be used for medical claims. Removing social/political content because it's not supported by a medical reference doesn't make sense. Anyway, I'm not arguing 3abos's version of the article is worthy of keeping. I argue that the article subject is notable and deletion discussions are supposed to weigh the merits of the subject and not the contents of the article. The article can be improved with editing.--v/r - T P 14:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion SNOW applied as far as I can see. That said, if an editor in good standing wants to create an article that meets our sourcing requirements, we should let them. Hobit ( talk) 04:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn I do not see how this article is "anti-gay" it is not anti-gay(happy) or anti-sad it is neutral. It had valid academic sources that got removed from people with their own POVs 3abos ( talk)

  You are bright enough to understand that words can have more than one meaning, yes? Why do you continue to trivialize the subject matter at hand by referring to "gay" in the "synonymous with happy" manner, rather than by the "synonymous with homosexuality" definition? Do you think you're being clever? Because trust me, bro, you ain't. Tarc ( talk) 05:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply

  I do this to make a point. The dictionaries define it as happy. The word "gay" was coined by the media to refer to homosexuals. The media is influential enough to make words up and change the meaning. just like the words "homophobia" was made up and more recently "heterophobia". Nevertheless the latter is become more in use day-by-day by media and journalists. Isn't it fair that there be a neutral article on wikipedia for it? 3abos ( talk) 05:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply

  I am the user that removed the majority of the references. As far as I can recall I didn't remove any academic sources, but I tagged two sources with "verify source". The sources I removed were as I remember it a blog, a content spam site and several news articles. Sjö ( talk) 06:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Neutral I was going to say overturn per the information offered by TParis, but given the comment directly above mine, I don't trust an article written by 3abos. If it's a legitimate topic and someone else wants to write the article, let them do so.  Ryan  Vesey 05:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse (edit: no prejudice against controlled/protected recreation) - even if this weren't a candidate for deletion on the basis of the existence of sources (which I could accept) it was certainly a candidate for WP:TNT. If the sources available supported the sort of ridiculous diatribe that existed before it was deleted, I can't possibly see how they would be considered reliable sources. I can accept that sources might exist to justify an article (as they do in support of the section at Homophobia) written neutrally and without the bigotry, but I couldn't possibly support the un-deletion of the previous article. Stalwart 111 07:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply

With the history now undeleted, we can see what a mess it actually was. Redirected by consensus, the redirect was reverted by 3abos (several times it seems). The last week of this article's history is just a lesson in edit-warring with a bunch of bad faith thrown in for good measure. If there are reliable sources enough to create a stand-alone article then I have no problem with one being created under protection. But it's obvious 3abos should be topic-banned from editing it. Stalwart 111 11:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Not a matter for DRV and this is already at ANI Stalwart 111 12:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• I have undeleted the history under the redirect to assist non-admins in assessing the sources that were removed during the AFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Awesome, thanks! Stalwart 111 11:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Spartaz. -- j⚛e decker ^talk 14:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse per insomnia Pass a Method talk 11:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• We should assess this close in four parts, to mirror the four parts of Joe Decker's decision:-

1. To close the AfD early under WP:SNOW;
2. To delete the history;
3. To redirect; and
4. To protect the redirect.

On the snow close: DRV sometimes struggles with snow closes. Our role is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed, but a snow close is always IAR, so Joe Decker isn't pretending to have followed the procedure in this case; he's simply made a decision to snow close on his own authority as a sysop. I usually say that we should list material at AfD for a full discussion if a good faith user objects to the early close. In this case I see Joe Decker's decision to close early as appropriate and proportional, and I endorse it.

On deleting the history: Joe Decker has made no attempt to show why it was necessary to delete the history. In his place I would not have deleted it. I would welcome a discussion about this specific issue but my position in the meantime is that the history has been restored for this deletion review and it should not be re-deleted on close. Our terms of use require that our contributors receive full credit, and basic principles of transparency require that contribution histories should be retained absent a pressing reason for deletion. A decision to delete then redirect—while not totally impossible within our processes—should be made only at need and I don't see the need.

On the redirection: If the redirect had been an editorial decision by Joe Decker I would not have endorsed it. But properly understood, the redirection was an implementation of the consensus at the third AfD, so putting it in was an appropriate and proportional use of sysop's powers and I endorse it.

On the protection: The article's history is revealing and I take the view that the protection was a reasonable decision in view of the repeated recreation of this content and tendentious editing in the topic area. I therefore endorse it.

So taken together, I mostly endorse this close, and suggest that the closer of this DRV takes no action concerning it (but also doesn't re-delete the history).— S Marshall T/ C 12:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply

No concerns about leaving the history restored. My reasons at the time notwithstanding (I can natter about them if folks wish), I think, the history deletion has proven counterproductive, particularly in view of concerns about source stripping. -- j⚛e decker ^talk 14:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• I don't disagree with the SNOW close, but I do have one gripe: if I'm reading the logs correctly 3abos was still blocked for another when the AfD was closed; that 3abos was blocked was actually pointed out by PinkAmpersand. So they never had the opportunity to comment, and even if that commentary wouldn't have mattered (judging from the comments they made here) I still think the closer should have waited out of courtesy. Drmies ( talk) 15:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply

  Your point is taken, and your understanding of the timing is entirely correct. What I had "in view" at the time of close was an editor who'd created an article after a previous deletion, a creation which had generated an unprecedentedly vociferous AfD at the margins of G10 and whose creator was at that time temporarily blocked for edit warring. I'm not certain either choice (with respect to waiting for the edit warring block to expire) would have proven entirely satisfactory, but so it goes. -- j⚛e decker ^talk 16:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply

  Although I understand Drmies's point, I think it's within the discretion of the closer to determine whether one has to wait for the article creator's comments. In an instance where the closer believes that nothing the creator could say would alter the outcome, the closer should be able to act. In addition, the presence of this article was arguably disruptive, which is why DC G10'd it, and there's something to be said for deleting it as quickly as possible as long as it's done within process. What if 3abos's block had been longer than 24 hours? Do we have to wait, no matter how long it is? It's a bit like a report at ANEW. Often I don't block a reported editor if they haven't been given a chance to respond to the report, but sometimes I do. It's a judgment call.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• On the notability of any possible article, as opposed to this specific incarnation: To quote my own words in nominating this article, I propose we revert to Sandstein's redirect to that section, and fully protect the page until and unless someone can propose an objective version that passes WP:42. I stand by this, and I think that you'd be hard-pressed to say that the AfD consensus was that there should never be an article at this title. Rather, the consensus was that this version of the article contained virtually no salvageable content, and, as such, whether or not there ever was an article, the current content would not in any way be incorporated into it. I think that if a user wants to draft a new article in their userspace and use it as the basis for an RFUP, there'd be nothing wrong with that, and it seems the majority of my fellow contributors agree with this. (As for the history deletion, I think that that was a perfectly fair interpretation of numerous "delete and redirect" !votes, but I agree that while Joe did nothing wrong in deleting it, if people are going to object to it, there's nothing inflammatory enough in it to warrant re-deletion.) —  PinkAmpers & ^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Assuming for the sake of argument that there is an article to be written on this subject, the nominator should not be the person to write it, and the version deleted by AfD is not it. T. Canens ( talk) 20:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Just a question as this article is part on a 'series on discrimination'. Would the decision be taken based on the number of votes? because usually with discrimination it is the majority who is attacking the minority and it is clear that from some of the above posts are clearly political and not Neutral. 3abos ( talk) 20:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • OK, that's precisely the kind of thing you shouldn't be saying if you wish to be perceived as reasonable and objective. I have tried to explain to you what is and isn't acceptable, but it seems you're not listening to me. Drmies ( talk) 20:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
    • I apologise. But it was a question. Yes, it was a question with a preposition. But nevertheless I asked a question in good faith. Sorry if i offended or made you angry. 3abos ( talk) 21:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Sustain close basically by IAR, because the article as it was is hopeless beyond rescue, and if a new article is written, the obvious course is to try first to expand the existing section to which the term is redirected. I would have done the same close, altho not by SNOW. It would have been better to allow time for a fuller discussion. Not allowing time for the article creator to comment was an error. If it had been done, we would very likely have come to the same conclusion, but at least the removed sources would have been indicated, and the discussion would have been definitive. (If an article is so radically unsatisfactory that removing sources will not improve it to the point of acceptability, it is usually a better idea to leave them it during an AfD discussion. It's of course different if there's some chance of showing the article as acceptable with the material removed, as with making what appears to be a hopelessly promotional article less so. ). Especially in cases like the present one it's never a good idea to try a shortcut, tempting though it may be: it's counterproductive, because all too often it just provides reason for an appeal. So altho there are good procedural grounds for reversal, this is really the equivalent of what would be said there, and we would do well to conclude the issue. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• So what is the consensus? 3abos ( talk) 23:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC) reply

It has been agreed upon on the Talk page for Homophobia that the content was sourced-well and should have its own page. I believe THIS was a neutral discussion! 3abos ( talk) 00:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Seriously? That's not at all what has been "agreed upon" - that thread is just you asking why your POV edits were reverted from Homophobia. One person has agreed that it might be better as a solo article (though he hasn't commented here), as an alternative to those page-watchers having to revert you. You dumped content into that article after a mis-reading of the AFD close. Closing an AFD as "redirect" does not mean the entire article gets cut-paste moved into another article. In fact, even a "merge" close wouldn't have that result. There's no agreement there that it should be on its own, there's no agreement that it was well-sourced (in fact the exact opposite was suggested). You need to quit it with the hysterical POV-pushing, mate. Stalwart 111 01:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Alan O'Connor ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I'm curious if this is about the Cork Gaelic footballer who is the only red link on this team list from last year's All-Ireland Championship. It was deleted via PROD because "Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league", which does not apply to Gaelic footballers who cannot play in "a fully pro league". If it is this person he would certainly pass WP:NGAELIC. And here are some sources in case they are needed if it does prove to be this person. RTE Independent Examiner Perhaps someone could check or confirm this? 86.40.111.10 ( talk) 01:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply