1. The article in question received a number of "delete" votes prior to article expansion including a large number of edits affecting the articles coverage, tone and structure. Had the vote taken place after this significant changes were made, the result would have been in favour of "keep."
2. Voters who requested deletion did not respond to arguments in favour of "keep."
2.1. Arguments were made for keeping the page (e.g. why the article topic was valid, etc.). This arguments were not discussed prior to deletion.
2.2. Arguments made for "delete" received comments and responses which pointed to logical flaws in citing particular WP policies as cause for deletion (e.g. WP:Fork). It was argued that these policies do not apply to the article under discussion. No response or further discussion was made.
3. The final cause for deletion was not specified. This is especially concerning as WP policies cited as reasons for deletion may have been irrelevant to the discussion or not sufficiently demonstrated how they applied in this case.
4. "Consensus" (cited subsequently by deleting admin as reason for article deletion) for the final deletion decision was never reached, considering that the deletion discussion was never completed and responses never addressed.
I.am.a.qwerty (
talk)
15:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Endorse - while an extensive explanation as to which WP policies were applied might be nice, it certainly isn't required and a lack thereof certainly isn't a reason to overturn a close. The aim of AFD is to build consensus. Other editors are free to express their opinion and you are free to express yours. There is no requirement for each to respond to your questions or comments and responding to each opinion
is often considered disruptive anyway. The fact that not all of your opinions or points of view received a response is also not a reason to keep a discussion open or overturn the result of a closed one. The article did receive delete !votes prior to expansion (which, if I'm reading it right, happened on 20 August) but continued to receive independent and policy-based !votes thereafter (suggesting those contributing did read the article rather than simply following previous contributors) two of which called for the title to be
salted. St★lwart11101:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Closer's comment Apologies for the late comment but I wasn't notified that this had been brought to DRV. As I explained to the requesting editor
on my talk page: "The reason for the deletion was that there was a strong consensus in favour of that outcome for the reasons stated in the deletion arguments, i.e. that the article was a
WP:POVFORK of
Islam in Australia. That is why I commented in the close that a section could be created in that article if there was consensus to do so."
Philg88 ♦
talk04:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Endorse - I did read some of the additions after the discussion for deletion started and none of them changed the way I voted. I'd like to give others enough credit to presume they likely did the same. As per the argument that votes for a keep where not addressed. Some of them were. However I don't think any time that there is not a comment against a keep vote that it somehow gives the keep vote any greater weight. Alternatively I don't think that a comment against a delete vote give is lesser weight. Weight must be apportioned to a vote on the grounds of the argument for the vote alone and nothing more or less. I feel it was pretty clear in the discussion that consensus was on the side of a delete.
AlanS (
talk)
06:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Endorse. The consensus was fairly clear, in my opinion. The arguments about fundamental, unresolvable synthesis were particularly strong. Their strength is obvious from the face of the article, which was a fairly random collection of events, thoughts and groups. Neither the changes to the article during the discussion, nor any of the keep arguments, surmounted this problem. In close discussions, it is helpful for the closer to provide reasons. But I don't think it was required here. As Philg88 explains above, it is self-evident from the face of the discussion what the reasons for deletion were. --
Mkativerata (
talk)
07:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Endorse Closure appears very appropriate based on arguments provided, as well as based on Wikipedia policies as a whole. The supposed "significant" changes do not change the
WP:CFORK issues. Closing admins typically review current version compared to discussions, seeing as we already know that changes take place during AFD discussions the panda ₯’09:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Endorse. The closer enacted the only possible outcome here. There was a clear and well-reasoned consensus to delete. The expansion did not address any of the issues raised by those who had voted to delete, and the keep votes were backed up with weaker arguments that were well countered.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
14:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Although I have no particular opinion on the article itself, this close was a clear reading of an unambiguous consensus. No question as to it being the correct action.
Frickeg (
talk)
13:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Endorse per The Drover's Wife. I note that I.am.a.qwerty is still trying to create anti-Muslim WP:COATRACK articles by starting a new
Islamic organisations in Australia article mainly containing material deleted from this article (giving the impression that most Islamic organisations in Australia are extremist groups). I've removed this from the new article, but it's getting to be like whack a mole...
Nick-D (
talk)
22:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Endorse the close: " Please start a discussion on the talk page of Islam in Australia as to whether this should be covered in its own section there. Philg88 ♦talk 06:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)". This article is (would be), obviously, a spinout of
Islam in Australia if done properly, and could be an unacceptable POVFORK if not. Before considering a spinout article, there needs to be direct coverage in the parent article. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
09:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
After looking at this again, I don't think that any of the previous discussions resulted in consensus that the notability of the event in general implies the notability of the individual, annual events. These articles would therefore need to undergo deletion review also, or maybe you can discuss this with the original AfD closer. Sandstein 06:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
If, in the future, there are enough sources that establish independent notability for the events, then the redirects can be undone and individual articles written for the annual events.
But this is an editorial decision that can be made if new sources about the individual annual events surface. At this DRV, I am only asking for the articles to be restored and redirected.
Support - a sensible option. I do not believe per
WP:SPORTSEVENT there is sufficient significant coverage to enable individual season articles to be written with sufficient sourced prose to avoid contravening
WP:NOTSTATS, but these are plausible search terms.
Fenix down (
talk)
09:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Support - seems like a sensible, good-faith request after fairly extensive discussion and collaboration between editors in good standing. I'm also not convinced they would be individually notable but restoration and redirection seems to be in the best interests of the project. St★lwart11111:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
I don't see what could possibly be objectionable about this request. I suggest that it be acted on without holding this open for seven days. --
Mkativerata (
talk)
08:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)reply
1. The article in question received a number of "delete" votes prior to article expansion including a large number of edits affecting the articles coverage, tone and structure. Had the vote taken place after this significant changes were made, the result would have been in favour of "keep."
2. Voters who requested deletion did not respond to arguments in favour of "keep."
2.1. Arguments were made for keeping the page (e.g. why the article topic was valid, etc.). This arguments were not discussed prior to deletion.
2.2. Arguments made for "delete" received comments and responses which pointed to logical flaws in citing particular WP policies as cause for deletion (e.g. WP:Fork). It was argued that these policies do not apply to the article under discussion. No response or further discussion was made.
3. The final cause for deletion was not specified. This is especially concerning as WP policies cited as reasons for deletion may have been irrelevant to the discussion or not sufficiently demonstrated how they applied in this case.
4. "Consensus" (cited subsequently by deleting admin as reason for article deletion) for the final deletion decision was never reached, considering that the deletion discussion was never completed and responses never addressed.
I.am.a.qwerty (
talk)
15:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Endorse - while an extensive explanation as to which WP policies were applied might be nice, it certainly isn't required and a lack thereof certainly isn't a reason to overturn a close. The aim of AFD is to build consensus. Other editors are free to express their opinion and you are free to express yours. There is no requirement for each to respond to your questions or comments and responding to each opinion
is often considered disruptive anyway. The fact that not all of your opinions or points of view received a response is also not a reason to keep a discussion open or overturn the result of a closed one. The article did receive delete !votes prior to expansion (which, if I'm reading it right, happened on 20 August) but continued to receive independent and policy-based !votes thereafter (suggesting those contributing did read the article rather than simply following previous contributors) two of which called for the title to be
salted. St★lwart11101:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Closer's comment Apologies for the late comment but I wasn't notified that this had been brought to DRV. As I explained to the requesting editor
on my talk page: "The reason for the deletion was that there was a strong consensus in favour of that outcome for the reasons stated in the deletion arguments, i.e. that the article was a
WP:POVFORK of
Islam in Australia. That is why I commented in the close that a section could be created in that article if there was consensus to do so."
Philg88 ♦
talk04:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Endorse - I did read some of the additions after the discussion for deletion started and none of them changed the way I voted. I'd like to give others enough credit to presume they likely did the same. As per the argument that votes for a keep where not addressed. Some of them were. However I don't think any time that there is not a comment against a keep vote that it somehow gives the keep vote any greater weight. Alternatively I don't think that a comment against a delete vote give is lesser weight. Weight must be apportioned to a vote on the grounds of the argument for the vote alone and nothing more or less. I feel it was pretty clear in the discussion that consensus was on the side of a delete.
AlanS (
talk)
06:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Endorse. The consensus was fairly clear, in my opinion. The arguments about fundamental, unresolvable synthesis were particularly strong. Their strength is obvious from the face of the article, which was a fairly random collection of events, thoughts and groups. Neither the changes to the article during the discussion, nor any of the keep arguments, surmounted this problem. In close discussions, it is helpful for the closer to provide reasons. But I don't think it was required here. As Philg88 explains above, it is self-evident from the face of the discussion what the reasons for deletion were. --
Mkativerata (
talk)
07:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Endorse Closure appears very appropriate based on arguments provided, as well as based on Wikipedia policies as a whole. The supposed "significant" changes do not change the
WP:CFORK issues. Closing admins typically review current version compared to discussions, seeing as we already know that changes take place during AFD discussions the panda ₯’09:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Endorse. The closer enacted the only possible outcome here. There was a clear and well-reasoned consensus to delete. The expansion did not address any of the issues raised by those who had voted to delete, and the keep votes were backed up with weaker arguments that were well countered.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
14:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Although I have no particular opinion on the article itself, this close was a clear reading of an unambiguous consensus. No question as to it being the correct action.
Frickeg (
talk)
13:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Endorse per The Drover's Wife. I note that I.am.a.qwerty is still trying to create anti-Muslim WP:COATRACK articles by starting a new
Islamic organisations in Australia article mainly containing material deleted from this article (giving the impression that most Islamic organisations in Australia are extremist groups). I've removed this from the new article, but it's getting to be like whack a mole...
Nick-D (
talk)
22:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Endorse the close: " Please start a discussion on the talk page of Islam in Australia as to whether this should be covered in its own section there. Philg88 ♦talk 06:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)". This article is (would be), obviously, a spinout of
Islam in Australia if done properly, and could be an unacceptable POVFORK if not. Before considering a spinout article, there needs to be direct coverage in the parent article. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
09:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
After looking at this again, I don't think that any of the previous discussions resulted in consensus that the notability of the event in general implies the notability of the individual, annual events. These articles would therefore need to undergo deletion review also, or maybe you can discuss this with the original AfD closer. Sandstein 06:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
If, in the future, there are enough sources that establish independent notability for the events, then the redirects can be undone and individual articles written for the annual events.
But this is an editorial decision that can be made if new sources about the individual annual events surface. At this DRV, I am only asking for the articles to be restored and redirected.
Support - a sensible option. I do not believe per
WP:SPORTSEVENT there is sufficient significant coverage to enable individual season articles to be written with sufficient sourced prose to avoid contravening
WP:NOTSTATS, but these are plausible search terms.
Fenix down (
talk)
09:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Support - seems like a sensible, good-faith request after fairly extensive discussion and collaboration between editors in good standing. I'm also not convinced they would be individually notable but restoration and redirection seems to be in the best interests of the project. St★lwart11111:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
I don't see what could possibly be objectionable about this request. I suggest that it be acted on without holding this open for seven days. --
Mkativerata (
talk)
08:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)reply