|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Out of process closure. This deletion was made after less than two days being open, due to the closing administrator incorrectly arguing that the result was irrecoverably tainted by sock puppetry. The existence of sock puppetry and meat puppetry is not uncommon at AfD; it is the job of closing administrators to weigh the legitimacy of all comments there. Sock puppetry does not mean that an article should be auto-deleted out of process to prevent theoretical future sock puppetry in the same debate. Moreover, whether one thinks of this as deletion-worthy or not, the fact is that this was not an uncontroversial ("snow") deletion, as the closing administrator intimated when I asked him to revert his action. I don't ask for anything more than a relisting here so that the AfD process may work itself through in the normal manner. It is an arguable deletion challenge; what should be unarguable is that this speedy closure was out of process and should not be allowed to stand. Carrite ( talk) 16:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
As one of the people suggesting the renaming that because the centerpiece of the outcome I hate to have to press this, but one of the elements of the decision has proven to be disruptive. The statement that Category:Advocates of pseudoscience, the replacement category, "will only serve as a holding category for subcategories" and "therefore should be empty as to articles" set off a race to strip the category from articles before anyone could create a new subcategory to contain them. We also have a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 22#Pseudoscientific fooers to get rid of new subcategories. I agree that the new categories are problematic, but this is brought about by a fundamental flaw in the decision: it violates the policy that " Wikipedia is not censored". There are plentiful modern advocates of bogus science who are not readily lumped into some easily-named or pre-existent category, and who refuse to admit their fringiness, even though it is exceedingly easy to find authoritative voices to so classify them. Therefore their supporters here are having little difficulty protecting these articles from accurate categorization, thus censoring the categorization system. I suggest two alternatives:
I do not oppose any of the rest of the decision and would prefer that this discussion be limited to the specific issue I've brought up. Mangoe ( talk) 01:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was deleted for not having any sources. It suffered from a framing problem: its title refers to a proposed vintage/heritage streetcar system in Tacoma, Washington whose notability was contested. Several sources were brought forward during the discussion (though not immediately added) indicating that the project might exist. The other part of the article, which contained a source, discussed the history of Tacoma's original streetcars, which ended operation in 1938. Some of this is discussed in Tacoma Link. As I read the discussion there would be a consensus for a reworked article with a lessened emphasis on the vintage/heritage project. I see no consensus for deletion; even the one person who came out strongly for deletion thought that an article, suitably reworked, could exist at a different location. AfD is not cleanup. Disappointingly the close did not address the existence of sources nor the history part of the article. I followed up with DangerousPanda (see User_talk:DangerousPanda#Tacoma_Streetcar) but he did not expand on his rationale. He also reiterated that there "was no possible other way to close an article with zero sources". Leaving aside whether that's a valid reason to delete, sources were brought forward late in the discussion and they weren't addressed. I think this should have been closed as no consensus, with a mandate to hold a move discussion and refactor the article. Barring that, I'd like clarity that an article on the history of Tacoma's streetcars won't be treated as a re-creation of deleted content. Mackensen (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Out of process closure. This deletion was made after less than two days being open, due to the closing administrator incorrectly arguing that the result was irrecoverably tainted by sock puppetry. The existence of sock puppetry and meat puppetry is not uncommon at AfD; it is the job of closing administrators to weigh the legitimacy of all comments there. Sock puppetry does not mean that an article should be auto-deleted out of process to prevent theoretical future sock puppetry in the same debate. Moreover, whether one thinks of this as deletion-worthy or not, the fact is that this was not an uncontroversial ("snow") deletion, as the closing administrator intimated when I asked him to revert his action. I don't ask for anything more than a relisting here so that the AfD process may work itself through in the normal manner. It is an arguable deletion challenge; what should be unarguable is that this speedy closure was out of process and should not be allowed to stand. Carrite ( talk) 16:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
As one of the people suggesting the renaming that because the centerpiece of the outcome I hate to have to press this, but one of the elements of the decision has proven to be disruptive. The statement that Category:Advocates of pseudoscience, the replacement category, "will only serve as a holding category for subcategories" and "therefore should be empty as to articles" set off a race to strip the category from articles before anyone could create a new subcategory to contain them. We also have a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 22#Pseudoscientific fooers to get rid of new subcategories. I agree that the new categories are problematic, but this is brought about by a fundamental flaw in the decision: it violates the policy that " Wikipedia is not censored". There are plentiful modern advocates of bogus science who are not readily lumped into some easily-named or pre-existent category, and who refuse to admit their fringiness, even though it is exceedingly easy to find authoritative voices to so classify them. Therefore their supporters here are having little difficulty protecting these articles from accurate categorization, thus censoring the categorization system. I suggest two alternatives:
I do not oppose any of the rest of the decision and would prefer that this discussion be limited to the specific issue I've brought up. Mangoe ( talk) 01:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was deleted for not having any sources. It suffered from a framing problem: its title refers to a proposed vintage/heritage streetcar system in Tacoma, Washington whose notability was contested. Several sources were brought forward during the discussion (though not immediately added) indicating that the project might exist. The other part of the article, which contained a source, discussed the history of Tacoma's original streetcars, which ended operation in 1938. Some of this is discussed in Tacoma Link. As I read the discussion there would be a consensus for a reworked article with a lessened emphasis on the vintage/heritage project. I see no consensus for deletion; even the one person who came out strongly for deletion thought that an article, suitably reworked, could exist at a different location. AfD is not cleanup. Disappointingly the close did not address the existence of sources nor the history part of the article. I followed up with DangerousPanda (see User_talk:DangerousPanda#Tacoma_Streetcar) but he did not expand on his rationale. He also reiterated that there "was no possible other way to close an article with zero sources". Leaving aside whether that's a valid reason to delete, sources were brought forward late in the discussion and they weren't addressed. I think this should have been closed as no consensus, with a mandate to hold a move discussion and refactor the article. Barring that, I'd like clarity that an article on the history of Tacoma's streetcars won't be treated as a re-creation of deleted content. Mackensen (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |