This is an article on Indian song from film
Phantom (2015 film).
First AfD was closed as "no consensus" by admin
RoySmith on 6 September 2015, then nominator of AfD challenged outcome on
RoySmith's talk page where RoySmith suggested him to "re-nominate it but read
Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion before that" which says AfD closed as "no consensus" should not relist at least for 2 months. Though
Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion is just an essay and not proper Wikipedia policy still some essays can be well established norms specially when an admin suggesting it to read it. But still nominator re-nominated article on 6 October 2015, just one month after closure of 1st AfD. 2nd AfD actually had very less discussion/votes than 1st AfD and closed as "delete" by admin
Sandstein. I am creator of that article but this "delete" closure was also challenged by very experienced
User:Richhoncho. Read all discussion here. I had some big issues with nominator and some of voters on that AfD in past, I don't want to discuss that. Since first AfD I wanted to improve that article but
I was blocked twice because of edit warring on that article with nominator, nominator himself
was blocked once for that article for edit warring with me during first AfD. So because of my 2 blocks came from that article I felt discouraged and left editing that article and article remained quite underdeveloped. My only request is that restore the article as it was re-nominated within one month or at least allow me to recreate it.(Note: I have no complain regarding any admin or any other involved editor). --
Human3015TALK 19:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
DRV should not be used to "attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias". Your nomination talks of the behaviour of AFD nominator (which is me) and how since your unblock on 1st September you were left with only 40 days to edit the article but the article wasn't edited even once in this tiny time. Do you want to add something substantial to consider in DRV? §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
Talk /
Edits} 02:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I don't think that I should discuss this issue with you. I already said that I have no complain against any editor. You can keep on your allegations. Anyway, you can read in block messages that blocking admin suggested me to not touch the article. I will not reply to your any further comments, we can continue our "traditional fight" somewhere else. Regards.
Human3015TALK 08:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment only. I got involved by accident and have no view regarding the outcome of the AfD or this deletion review. On scanning
the most popular song pages listing I noted that there was one redlink out of 1000 entries and that was for this article so I questioned with the closer (
Sandstein), whether an article getting close to 15,000 WP hits in a month is truly non-notable. The popular pages list shows this article getting 14908 hits in September and being 161st most popular song article, and, for August, 7823 hits, being the 780th most popular song article.
It appears to me that Hollywood film songs can be bought separate from the film, and if successful, chart and create their "separate" notability. This does not appear to happen in the Bollywood (and similar) film industries. There is little or no "singles market" on the Indian sub-continent, but high use of YouTube etc (these days). So some of these songs can be MORE popular than the latest Lady Gaga, Madonna, whoever is the big thing of the moment artist, yet fail WP notability guidelines.
As I said I have no opinion on the outcome here and have responded because my question to the closer was picked up on and used as a reason for this DR. --
Richhoncho (
talk) 09:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
...and you should read
WP:MUST,
WP:EANP and it's companion piece,
WP:ONLYESSAY, a re-reading of my comments might also be in order - under the circumstances consider yourself self-trouted. --
Richhoncho (
talk) 13:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Closer's comment: I don't really understand the argument Human3015 is trying to make here. Any misconduct or blocks of himself or others aren't relevant to the AfD closure, which I read as concluding that the song isn't notable (yet). If the renomination had been too soon, the discussion would have reflected that. As always, if new relevant sources are found, the article can be recreated. Some have been offered on my talk page, but without an explanation of why these sources weren't cited in the article or put forward in the AfD discussion. That's why I'm not, myself, interested in restoring the article, but if others see this differently I won't object to a restoration with new sources. Sandstein 10:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse. My earlier comment, that
Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion suggests 2 months before renomination, is being put forth as a reason to declare the 2nd AfD invalid. This isn't a law-school contracts class, where the goal is to analyze everything to death and find some little procedural flaw which invalidates the contract. We're here to write an encyclopedia. Dragging this argument through two AfDs and a DRV isn't helping that goal. For the record, I have no problem with the 2nd AfD. Let's move on to something more important. --
RoySmith(talk) 15:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment A number of years back, I worked very hard here to establish the current good practice that rapid renomination was in general not a good idea. (At the time, articles were being renominated in quick succession 5 or 6 or even more times , even after successive keeps, before by the laws of chance participation they got deleted). Various fixed rules were suggested, but it was generally thought that it depends on the circumstances. Personally, I think the times listed in the essay are considerably longer than even I would have wanted. I would normally advise at least a month after most non-consensus closes where the reason for non-consensus was a failure to agree despite substantial participation (as was the case here at AfD1) , because the longer the time the better the chance of getting consensus instead of just repeating the disagreement. (In case it's nonconsensus because of inadequate participation, most re-nominators also wait a while, because if it comes as an entirely fresh issue it may attract more comment.) . I have just now modified the essay to reflect what I think current practice. DGG (
talk ) 05:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)reply
You'll want to update the This page in a nutshell box, too. --
RoySmith(talk) 22:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: Article is in
my sandbox. As suggested by one experienced user
on my talk page, I will improve article in my sandbox until song gets any nominations for awards then I will move it to main space. I have only one request that do not nominate my sandbox for deletion. --
Human3015TALK 09:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Simply winning a nomination or even some random award doesn't make it any more notable. Also, DRV says "3.if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". Please get it clarified if DRV is must for such recreations. §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
Talk /
Edits} 03:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Article in question is a non-notable neologism, synonymous with
tu quoque, that doesn't have any treatment by reliable secondary sources as required by
neologism rule and therefore was nominated for violating it. On AfD discussion I've also presented
proof that Wiki is being used to promote and validate this new word. Here is another example where wiki is being used to promote and validate this neologism, this time by Washington Post
[1] (the link was ironically provided by the editor who voted to "keep"). Article also includes synthesis that attempts to tie neologism with an idea that it represents, when the word itself is never even mentioned in a source. Neologism rule was specifically created for cases like this, but although article meets all the requirements for deletion it's been kept instead.
During discussion nobody have had presented a counter-argument that article doesn't break the neologism policy. Instead, commentators simply reiterated that there are supposedly plenty of sources (nevermind that sources provided merely use the word, and such case is explicitly addressed in neologism rule as not sufficient; one of the sources doesn't even have the word anywhere at all). One of the editors suggested possibility of merging article with
tu quoque. Then, editor Davey2010 closed discussion as "Keep", cause in his view consensus was to "obviously keep". I've messaged him that consensus should be based on arguments and no arguments that actually addressed violation of the rule were presented. After some contemplation he reopened discussion. The very next day two more "votes" to keep were cast with an empty reiteration of an "ample of reliable sources" and he closed discussion again as "an obvious keep", even though according to him, and I quote:
"Admittingly the NEO side hasn't been address" [sic]. To me it seems as a clear misinterpretation of consensus in favor of keeping the article that violates rule sufficient for it's deletion.
Niyaro (
talk) 14:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Closer comment - Before anyone bites my head off as I said on the AFD I probably shouldn't have closed it early the first time round but after reopening there were more Keeps coming and all with different reasons - Although individual sources wasn't posted- the results on Google was so it met GNG, I closed it the second time as it seemed pointless to drag it on any further, I admitted on tp NEO wasn't addressed but it was up to the nom to dig further which he didnt ... He'd just left the AFD to its own devices so if noone mentions NEO then it's not really my problem, But anyway I personally would say there was overall consensus to keep, If anyone wants to relist I have no objections. –
Davey2010Talk 14:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
What do you mean "noone mentions NEO"? The article was brought for AfD specifically for violating the neologism rule. In every post that was made by me, and I made several of them, the rule have been linked, quoted or directly mentioned as the reason for deletion. And that's including the opening post. You are either being extremely dishonest or you haven't actually read discussion before closing it, which is beyond ridiculous.
Niyaro (
talk) 11:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
That's the point - You mentioned NEO but No one else did..., So clearly everyone disagreed it failed NEO or didn't think it was relevant, Nope you're right I've been doing AFD for the past 2 fucking years and I only close on fucking numbers eh!, Give me fucking strength!. –
Davey2010Talk 16:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I apologize for the rant above (which I've amended now anyway), No point arguing & losing my shit!. –
Davey2010Talk 17:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
That's the second time you do that. You know, crossing out your swearing or personal attacks don't make them disappear, so stop doing that.
Niyaro (
talk) 13:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)reply
And that's once again blatantly not true, since other editors tried to counter my "non-notable neologism" argument by claiming that the term (or phrase as one called it) is notable because it can be seen used in plenty of sources (like
Мандичка below).
[2][3][4]. This clearly shows that other editors were on the same page as me and were discussing article in light of
WP:NEO policy. What actually got ignored is a citation from
WP:NEO that says that sources that merely use the word are not suitable, and just because it got ignored doesn't make it any less true.
Niyaro (
talk) 13:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse keeping. First, deletion review is only to be used if someone believes the closer of the discussion (in this case Davey2010) interpreted the consensus incorrectly. Since all seven responses to the discussion were in favor of keeping the article, and nobody supported deleting it over a one-week period, I don't see how Davey2010 misinterpreted anything. Secondly, neologisms can be notable and over and over we listed how it was notable (with links to said reliable secondary sources). So nobody in the discussion was ignoring policy.
—МандичкаYO 😜 23:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Yes, deletion review is being used, because someone believes that consensus was misinterpreted. That's exactly what I've said in my opening post, with an arguments why. No need to repeat that. No need to repeat your vote for keep, too, since you've already put exactly same argument in AfD. And you are misinterpreting consensus as well, cause it doesn't matter how many people voted for something. It's not a voting contest. Arguments matter. And those who voted had exactly same argument that was answered several times. But let me answer it again, by once again quoting neologism rule: "an editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms". And you're precisely ignoring this very policy, since from all the sources provided so far the only thing that is about the term itself is that it was coined by The Economist journalist, which is definitely not notable to warrant wiki-article. You clearly confuse notability of the topic (which is
Appeal to hypocrisy and is clearly notable) with notability of the neologism itself. And here is what neologism rule says about that: "in a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." Well, guess what,
Appeal to hypocrisy already exists. And, thankfully, it doesn't have ridiculous claims, made by the same The Economist journalist, that "Russians often overuse the tactic."
Niyaro (
talk) 11:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Notably, the current article has been skewed to claim it was first coined in 2008 - this was done by someone
who amusingly stated "I have never heard of this, and if at all common at one time; it was merely political and in perhaps one or two countries" and then made other leading edits claiming "Major rm and cleanup per WP:NOTMANUAL, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:OR, WP:LEAD, WP:OR, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NEO." This is a Cold War-era term and was in fact coined during the Cold War, as has been stated by several reliable sources. It was not invented in 2008, but it was reintroduced and explained then. This is a 20th-century neologism, not a recent one. And because the article was linked to on Reddit (along with other links) does not "prove" the Wikipedia article is being used to promote the term, which is fairly ridiculous considering how often this term is used by respected journalists and experts who are not shills of Wikipedia. It would appear, however, that the opposite is being attempted - to delete the Wikipedia article in an attempt to discredit the term.
—МандичкаYO 😜 14:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Notably, you once again avoid answering citations from
WP:NEO directly relevant to this article. You attempts to present this neologism as if it was "reintroduced" doesn't change that it is still neologism with no presence in any dictionary and WP:NEO still applies. Furthermore, contrary to your assertion, the only source in the article that claims that the term was used before is Edward Lucas from The Economist and according to this paper from Google Scholar, written by Associate Professor from Institute of International Relations and Political Science[5] Edward Lucas is the one who coined the term. If it's not neologism, but an old widely used word then surely you'll find a lot of proof for that. I'll save you the trouble for searching: there are no results for this neologism in Google Scholar earlier than 2012
[6], no results in Google newspapers whatsoever, which includes newspapers from 19th century[7], no results in Google Trends prior to 2014
[8], and google search limited by date from 1900 to 2007 gives 16 result all of them are dynamically generated pages with recent (2010-2015 year) content injected into them causing them to fool google. No dictionaries, no online archives of old newspapers, no nothing. Additionally, if you read my opening post you'll see that The Washington Post also linked Wiki
[9], so it's not only Reddit users who are using Wiki article to promote this neologism, but journalists themselves.
Niyaro (
talk) 13:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse with
WP:MINNOW to
User:Davey2010 for NACing when he could and should have let someone else do it. The deletion discussion could not have been reasonably closed any other way.
Stifle (
talk) 09:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm not getting into a debate or nothing but I simply couldn't see the point in it being left open as IMHO even it was closed in a week I reckon we'd still be here anyway - I did admit above I shouldn't of closed it the first time round but meh we all make mistakes, –
Davey2010Talk 11:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)reply
It could be reasonably closed by following
WP:NEO policy. Unless, of course, you are in favor of turning Wiki into journalists battleground.
Niyaro (
talk) 13:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)reply
So journalists now are behind this conspiracy to promote whataboutism too, because one paper linked to the Wiki article? LOL. The Washington Post fills its articles with external links and regularly links to Wikipedia. Look how many external links are in that article alone. The reason why nobody is paying any attention to your WP:NEO claims is because everyone can see that multiple sources discuss the term in-depth, not just use it as you insist. Not a single person believes this article fails WP:NEO. It's pretty obvious you're promoting your own agenda and are trying to delete the article because you personally don't like it. I'm done here.
—МандичкаYO 😜 20:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
List of cases of police brutality in the United States – No Consensus. Those arguing to endorse were certainly in the majority here, but I don't see the overall weight of opinion being so firmly on the endorse side that I'm willing to call it a consensus. There are some well-reasoned arguments to overturn, from non-involved editors; this further leads me to believe there is no substantial meeting of minds here, and thus no consensus. Procedurally, of course, that means the AfD decision stands.
I would like to add one comment, however. There was a statement that There were even admins voting for keep. Arguments from admins cary no greater weight than those from non-admins. The weight your argument is given is determined by how well you show it is supported by our policies, not by what hats you wear. – --
RoySmith(talk) 13:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Deleting admin seems to have formed their own view and deleted this article, despite opinions being almost equally divided. Points were raised by both sides.
Per discussion here such divided opinions should be closed as no consensus.
AusLondonder (
talk) 10:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse deletion: The closing admin properly observed that most of the keep votes were not policy based.
Niteshift36 (
talk) 12:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse - AfD discussions are not a vote. While the numbers of keeps vs. deletes are similar, the keep !votes were generally of the "It's useful" and "I like it" variety. The delete !votes, OTOH, were generally policy/guideline based, citing problems with the list that the keep !votes simply did not address. - SummerPhDv2.0 12:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse deletion: The closing admin properly observed that "delete" votes were based on policy, while "keep" votes were based on personal preference. --
Notecardforfree (
talk) 14:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Overturn note many of the endorsing parties voted for deletion. I think that the closer made some conclusory claims without really analyzing why he feels deletion was proper under the standard and the content of the article. Shouldn't the discussion be over whether the closer's actions were proper procedurally? Not re-hashing the merits? There were even admins voting for keep. The result was clearly no consensus and that favors keeping--JumpLike23(talk) 16:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
On the contrary, the closing admin weighed the strength of the various keep/delete arguments and reached a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence. They even explained their thought-process and why they believed the "delete" arguments were stronger. Therefore, the closure was proper here. --
Notecardforfree (
talk) 16:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
For the record: he decided: "The result was delete. Opinions are divided. But I find the "delete" arguments significantly more persuasive in the light of applicable policies and guidelines. The "delete" side advances numerous, prima facie valid arguments for deletion, such as the lack of clear, objective and usefully limiting inclusion criteria, as well as BLP concerns. The "keep" arguments mostly do not address or gloss over these concerns." Here, he does not cite what specific policies and guidelines the closer was relying upon. Thus, it is very difficult to respond. --JumpLike23(talk) 16:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The closing admin said they considered arguments from both sides and found that the policy arguments advanced by the "delete" votes were stronger and more persuasive. --
Notecardforfree (
talk) 23:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse as a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion. The close would not preclude creation of a substantially different list article with clearly and appropriately defined inclusion criteria.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk) 16:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Where does this admin discretion come from? Is there a policy allowing for it? The problem is that the proponents for deletion do not believe a criteria can ever exist and would not support a list for police brutality or terrorism--due to multiple definitions--yet many such lists exist on wiki. I never got a thoughtful response. Should we go ahead and delete all lists on police brutality --JumpLike23(talk) 16:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The fact that other lists exists doesn't make this one proper.
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a reason to keep.
Again, no serious response to the fact that multiple other lists exist with the exact same title. None of the examples are analogous...nothing in that refers to lists. Those of us who supported keep cited policy and even included definitional issues in the actual article. Those were not addressed by the closer per
WP:CLOSEAFD. There is no supervote power included in that guideline. The result was no consensus. The debate should have continued if nothing else.--JumpLike23(talk) 21:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Your characterization of the closing as a "supervote" is misleading. The closing admin considered arguments presented by both sides and found that the "keep" votes "gloss[ed] over" relevant policies and guidelines.
WP:LSC and
WP:SALAT were directly on point, and the closing admin acted well-within their discretion. --
Notecardforfree (
talk) 23:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
By "included definitional issues", you aren't referring to that law dictionary nonsense are you?
Niteshift36 (
talk) 00:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Overturn The closer says clearly that opinions were divided and so there was no consensus. He then picks the argument he likes best but that's not consensus; that's a supervote. His claims about strength of argument seem quite tendentious. For example, the nomination cited no specific policy whereas there were Keep votes which cited specific policies and quoted scholarly sources. Note also that we have numerous
pages and
lists about police brutality and so it seems quite bizarre to be singling out this one. Note also that the police themselves are known to be
whitewashing such topics and so the possibilty of partisanship may be a factor. As the topic is extensively monitored and analysed by scholars, the Department of Justice, &c, it seems absurd to suppose that there's no scope for improvement. All that seems needed is some refinement such as distinguishing cases of excessive force, unreasonable search, &c.
Andrew D. (
talk) 17:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
And because there was an incident of someone from NYPD editing articles (and I looked at the article you cite and those changes are pretty mild), you start talking about whitewashing and partisanship. That's a lack of AGF. You don't even have enough evidence to start floating an idea like that, let alone suggest it may be a factor here.
Niteshift36 (
talk) 20:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I agree that COI isn't an issue but this user makes the same compelling points that many of made that were super-vetoed and not responded to.--JumpLike23(talk) 21:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Very good point regarding the supervote of the closing admin. As you rightly state, they themselves admitted "opinions were divided" and then chose what side he viewed as most correct. The list is common as you note and has received media coverage.
WP:NOTCENSORED should come into play as well. Those wanting to remove seem determined to cover-up acts of police brutality, even when well-sourced.
AusLondonder (
talk) 22:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
You apparently did no real research. I voted (reluctantly) for delete, but after spending a lot of time editing that list, removing unsourced material and trying to establish a reasonable criteria for inclusion. For you to breeze in and start making allegations about cover-up's is pretty insulting. BTW, several of those who voted never edited the article at all, making your cover-up allegation look less than credible. Sourcing the incidents was never the issue, so I'm not sure why you think "well-sourced" is something to talk about. The issue was the criteria for inclusion.
Niteshift36 (
talk) 00:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
jumplike23 &
AusLondonder: As I am sure you are well aware, a division of opinion is not evidence of a lack of consensus. Rather, consensus is determined by "quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" (see
WP:CON). Here, the closing admin weighed the quality of arguments presented by both sides of the dsipute and determined that the quality of the "delete" arguments were stronger than the quality of the "keep" arguments. Indeed, the closing admin said the "keep" votes "gloss[ed] over" relevant policies and guidelines. There were no procedural flaws in this close. --
Notecardforfree (
talk) 00:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Procedural flaws are very noticeable. As noted below, lists often have disputes over inclusion criteria. That does not = deletion in violation of
WP:GNG. In addition to that, consensus was simply not in existence in favour of deletion
AusLondonder (
talk) 00:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Overturn - I did not participate in the AfD but I looked it over. I don't believe there was a clear consensus based on quality of arguments. Many lists have arguments over criteria and in the end it always comes down to what the reliable sources say. I don't see why that could not be considered in this case. That was pointed out right before the discussion was closed - this idea merited further discussion IMHO.
—МандичкаYO 😜 00:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Wikimandia, in addition to
WP:LSC and
WP:SALAT, there were other policy arguments that favored deletion. These included
WP:BLP violations (BLP was cited by the closing admin as one of the reasons why deletion was warranted),
WP:NPOV violations, and potential
WP:LIBEL violations. The closing admin specifically noted that deletion was appropriate in light of these "numerous, prima facie valid arguments for deletion". Although you may disagree with the strength of individual arguments, the closing admin followed procedure by weighing these policy arguments in their determination that deletion was appropriate. There was no abuse of discretion, and therefore we must let this stand. --
Notecardforfree (
talk) 01:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
To answer your question about
Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists,
WP:LSC requires the inclusion criteria to be "unambiguous" and "objective." In the deletion discussion, I explained (at length) why the list violated
WP:LSC. I haven't had a chance to review the other lists mentioned above, but if inclusion in them is based on speculation or the subjective beliefs of inexpert commentators, then they may also violate applicable Wikipedia policies. --
Notecardforfree (
talk) 17:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse - the closing admin made his decision based on policy. The only way the list could be kept from perpetually violating various basic policies would be to clear, then fully protect it and only add entries after clear consensus on its talk page. However, I suspect the talk page would be one long, never ending argument.
VMS Mosaic (
talk) 00:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Further points to consider:
The deletion of a well-sourced, academically and topically relevant and notable list is embarrassing and counter-productive to Wikipedia and its mission
WP:NOTCENSORED should be considered. The removal of a list which American police forces and politicians so detested is an extraordinary act of self-censorship. Some of the editors "voting" delete have long histories of right-wing POV pushing. Simply covering up the extraordinarily poor and violent record of American police won't make it go away
"Some of the editors "voting" delete have long histories of right-wing POV pushing" Your own POV notwithstanding, if you're going to throw AGF out the windown, why not go all in and start naming names? No passive-aggressive dancing around, spit it out.
Niteshift36 (
talk) 21:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - As the editor who nominated the article for deletion, and the primary foil to Niteshift36's attempts to keep the article (see the article talk page), I'd love to see a detailed exposé of my "right-wing POV pushing". - SummerPhDv2.0 02:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment The extreme POV "the extraordinarily poor and violent record of American police" is exactly why this list is nothing more than extreme POV pushing. The comment shows an utter failure to understand
WP:NPOV. It is the perfect example of why the closing admin was correct.
VMS Mosaic (
talk) 05:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
No, because this is a discussion page. I wouldn't insert that in an article. Nor is that a reason for deletion in any circumstance. Are you delusional? Some sources about US police violence (
1) and the books SWAT Madness and Rise of the Warrior Cop
AusLondonder (
talk) 05:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm absolutely happy to debate what equals police brutality and also each individual case included on the list. But to suggest deletion is preferable is disturbing, lazy and censorious.
AusLondonder (
talk) 05:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
You don't live here (as far as I can tell, or ever have) and yet you proclaim yourself an expert on police brutality in the US? There are around 920,000 officers with power of arrest in the US. It would be utterly unbelievable if a very, very, very small number of them didn't committed some type of brutality. In any case, most of the national news cases of purported brutality have been shown to be completely false including Ferguson. If editors who are unable to be neutral like you are going to be heavily involved in managing this list, then there is zero hope that it will ever meet
WP:NPOV.
VMS Mosaic (
talk) 06:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Bringing up nationality is wrong and puerile. Often outsiders can be better at taking a non-emotional, less partisan approach. I'm not an expert, nor did I ever claim to be (you're certainly not) but the sources are. Stop your appalling arrogance and check your facts.
"US police kill more in days than other countries in years" Why is US prison population third highest (proportionally) in the world? By the way, no requirement exists for absolute talkpage neutrality. I have NEVER edited the page by, the way, which you have ignored. Finally, enlighten us, what did Fox Radio tell you was a myth about Ferguson? Was the killing of an unarmed African American teen a New World Order plot to take the guns away?
AusLondonder (
talk) 10:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but you just showed your utter absolute ignorance about Ferguson. The Obama justice department said there was absolutely nothing wrong with the Ferguson policeman's actions. Fox news was the only media outlet to get it right as the facts came out. This is why outsiders should keep their noses out of things they (like you) know nothing about except what was wrongly reported by extremely biased media outlets. I don't give a sh*t about your nationality, but I do care about outsider ignoramuses who, like you, don't have the slightest clue what they are talking about. As far as the Guardian, even Wikipedia says it is a far left organization, but putting that aside, there are over 100 million guns in the US, many in the hands of criminals, so there are of course many fatal shootings by police and of police (a black officer was killed this week by a shot to the forehead). As far as the prison population, it is due to the idiotic war on drugs supported by ignoramuses on both the left and the right. Many Americans are finally waking up to just how stupid the war on drugs is. I have no idea what you are talking about as far as talk page neutrality; all I know is that what one says on a talk page can only be assumed to be what the writer believes.
VMS Mosaic (
talk) 12:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
One more note: you call me appallingly arrogant, but yet haughtily proclaim you know more about America than an American? Who went and made you God?
VMS Mosaic (
talk) 13:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Closer's comment: I don't have much to add to the closing rationale, except to note that while I'm not an American, my general impression is that police violence is a problem in the US, as in many other countries, and that as an editor I think that a list of notable or otherwise significant incidents of police brutality might well be useful to Wikipedia (although a synoptic treatment of the topic, showing developments based on statistics and legal or academic sources, rather than news articles, is much more important). However, I have to close the discussion as it was had, and in it the arguments for deletion were clearly more grounded in policy and practice than those for keeping. I agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz that a recreation is possible if editors agree on unambiguous inclusion criteria based on reliable sources, perhaps focusing on something narrower than "
police brutality", for which the definition seems to be contested. – Admins should hat much of the above discussion, because this is not a forum for discussing the politics of the issue. Sandstein 11:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Your comments indicate that you agree that the topic is basically sound. This was my point in the discussion - that the topic is notable and well-covered by good sources. What you fail to explain is why the issue of exact criteria trumps this. This does not seem to be a policy-based argument because it is our well-established principle that Wikipedia is a work-in-progress - that articles do not have to be
perfect and so hashing out the details, such as exact criteria, is an expected task in developing the topic. You say that editors should work this out before bringing back the topic but the trouble is that you have deleted the place where this is supposed to happen – the article's talk page. Such action is clearly
disruptive in that it prevents editors from improving the topic. Deletion also makes the edit history and details of previous drafts inaccessible and so this is disruptive too.
Andrew D. (
talk) 11:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The problem is that the topic is not well-covered by "good sources". Most media (I might say all foreign media) never reported the actual truth about Ferguson, that the Obama US Justice Department officially declared that the policeman's action were not only not wrong, but were appropriate. Many so called good sources still maintain that it was a case of police brutality. While I understand that Wikipedia requires only "good sources" regardless of what the actual truth is (i.e., Wikipedia is about what can be sourced instead of being about the truth), my fear here is that the POV pushers will only use the "good sources" that agree with them and ignore the "good sources" that tell the other side just as they ignore them in the case of Ferguson.
VMS Mosaic (
talk) 13:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
So, as someone with a legal background let me say, there will never unambiguous inclusion criteria based on reliable sources, that would have to come from within wikipedia That is because "Police brutality is the use of any force exceeding that reasonably necessary to accomplish a lawful police purpose." The key word is reasonableness which naturally results in a balancing test. As the source I included in the actual article noted, what is reasonable will vary across the United States. So, Sandstein, now that you are here, what more are you looking for? The only realistic standard can be notability. Mr. Mosaic, you are really testing me with your out of bounds comments. Please refrain from brining in your personal views that are clearly irrelevant to our project. --JumpLike23(talk) 18:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
What makes you think I care the least bit about how much I am testing you? You really need to read
WP:OWN in regard to "our" (i.e., your) project. Yes, my personal POV is that this list is highly unlikely to ever be more than the personal POVs of various editors. If that can be shown not to be the case, I will change my !vote.
VMS Mosaic (
talk) 23:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
jumplike23, it sounds like you are conflating "brutality" with "excessive force" (we discussed this at length on the AfD page). If you have a legal background, then I'm sure you are well aware of this distinction. In any event, the inclusion criteria problem was only one of the "numerous" reasons why the closing admin agreed deletion was appropriate. --
Notecardforfree (
talk) 19:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
That NBC piece really doesn't answer the question. It also uses the terms police brutality and excessive force interchangeably.
Niteshift36 (
talk) 00:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)reply
that is exactly my point, that is, that there is a definition of police brutality. You are deciding that you reject the conflation...no sources do such. --JumpLike23(talk) 07:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)reply
That piece never defines it, so it "proves" nothing.
Niteshift36 (
talk) 20:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Overturn The opinions were clearly divided, and therefore should have been no consensus. The entries can be included so long as they have reliable sources indicating that it is "
police brutality". Otherwise, we can just merge the page, or move it to a draft.
Kiwifist (
talk) 23:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse deletion. AfDs are not a vote. The closer is expected to weigh up the strengths of the arguments against policy. So while this one was a difficult close, it was well within the discretion of the closer. And good grief, how could that list ever be encyclopaedic? We can't allow a list to grow to every reported case of police brutality in the US. The only sensible way of keeping it within bounds would be to limit entries to those that have risen to having their own article. That wasn't the deleted article and per
WP:TNT the best course is to blow it up and let someone else start over. An eminently sensible close.
SpinningSpark 14:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse, valid closure. We empower admins to judge consensus, not count heads.
Stifle (
talk) 09:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)reply
User:Stifle, if you think this discussion was a consensus I have no words for you.
AusLondonder (
talk) 07:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)reply
This is dangerously close to being un
WP:CIVIL. If you disagree with this !vote, please explain how the admin was in error in judging consensus.
VMS Mosaic (
talk) 07:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Good coming from you! Please don't talk to me again. I will not reply to you,
User:VMS Mosaic.
AusLondonder (
talk) 03:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse. As alluded to by others,
WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS states: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." Contrasting most of those recommending "overturn", the closer's rationale made it clear that he understands that when !votes are divided, then the strength of the supporting arguments needs to be evaluated. (I did not participate in the Afd, but my reading of the discussion leads me to believe he properly took into account the various opinions and the weight of those opinions.) -
Location (
talk) 05:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This page looks like it has been
improved significantly since it was nominated for AFD in 2013, and been in Draft space for a while now. I think it should be restored to mainspace so that more people will work on it.
2601:240:C701:45F0:D4D0:C320:BB31:BF69 (
talk) 05:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment, the correct procedure is to submit the article for review at AFC, there is a link to do this in the template at the top of the article.
SpinningSpark 13:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Just noticed that DRV says "3.if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". So it seems that the nominator IP is right. Also, I have seen (and probably taken myself) some AfC articles to AfD and then to deletion. So what exactly is the procedure? §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
Talk /
Edits} 03:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
What is the significant new information? Article was deleted in 2013. I don't see anything in the article that discusses anything more recent than that.
—МандичкаYO 😜 03:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Just to clarify, I was asking only for clarification on the procedure. I have no opinion on this subject topic. §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
Talk /
Edits} 04:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
It would be if significant new information came to light, which is not the case here. For example, if an article on a writer was deleted for lack of notability but then it was discovered the subject won a Pulitzer Prize, therefore easily passes notability.
—МандичкаYO 😜 05:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
So irrespective of new information, should an article deleted at AfD go to AfC or DRV for recreation? §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
Talk /
Edits} 05:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
If significant new information comes to light, DRV. Otherwise, AfC.
—МандичкаYO 😜 06:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The point in this case is that the page has already been restored, along with all of irs history, when it was moved to draft space. There is nothing to undelete, hence there is nothing to bring to DRV. This is definitely the wrong venue for deciding whether a draft is ready to be moved to mainspace, which in any case is something that any confirmed user can do.
SpinningSpark 07:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This is an article on Indian song from film
Phantom (2015 film).
First AfD was closed as "no consensus" by admin
RoySmith on 6 September 2015, then nominator of AfD challenged outcome on
RoySmith's talk page where RoySmith suggested him to "re-nominate it but read
Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion before that" which says AfD closed as "no consensus" should not relist at least for 2 months. Though
Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion is just an essay and not proper Wikipedia policy still some essays can be well established norms specially when an admin suggesting it to read it. But still nominator re-nominated article on 6 October 2015, just one month after closure of 1st AfD. 2nd AfD actually had very less discussion/votes than 1st AfD and closed as "delete" by admin
Sandstein. I am creator of that article but this "delete" closure was also challenged by very experienced
User:Richhoncho. Read all discussion here. I had some big issues with nominator and some of voters on that AfD in past, I don't want to discuss that. Since first AfD I wanted to improve that article but
I was blocked twice because of edit warring on that article with nominator, nominator himself
was blocked once for that article for edit warring with me during first AfD. So because of my 2 blocks came from that article I felt discouraged and left editing that article and article remained quite underdeveloped. My only request is that restore the article as it was re-nominated within one month or at least allow me to recreate it.(Note: I have no complain regarding any admin or any other involved editor). --
Human3015TALK 19:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
DRV should not be used to "attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias". Your nomination talks of the behaviour of AFD nominator (which is me) and how since your unblock on 1st September you were left with only 40 days to edit the article but the article wasn't edited even once in this tiny time. Do you want to add something substantial to consider in DRV? §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
Talk /
Edits} 02:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I don't think that I should discuss this issue with you. I already said that I have no complain against any editor. You can keep on your allegations. Anyway, you can read in block messages that blocking admin suggested me to not touch the article. I will not reply to your any further comments, we can continue our "traditional fight" somewhere else. Regards.
Human3015TALK 08:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment only. I got involved by accident and have no view regarding the outcome of the AfD or this deletion review. On scanning
the most popular song pages listing I noted that there was one redlink out of 1000 entries and that was for this article so I questioned with the closer (
Sandstein), whether an article getting close to 15,000 WP hits in a month is truly non-notable. The popular pages list shows this article getting 14908 hits in September and being 161st most popular song article, and, for August, 7823 hits, being the 780th most popular song article.
It appears to me that Hollywood film songs can be bought separate from the film, and if successful, chart and create their "separate" notability. This does not appear to happen in the Bollywood (and similar) film industries. There is little or no "singles market" on the Indian sub-continent, but high use of YouTube etc (these days). So some of these songs can be MORE popular than the latest Lady Gaga, Madonna, whoever is the big thing of the moment artist, yet fail WP notability guidelines.
As I said I have no opinion on the outcome here and have responded because my question to the closer was picked up on and used as a reason for this DR. --
Richhoncho (
talk) 09:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
...and you should read
WP:MUST,
WP:EANP and it's companion piece,
WP:ONLYESSAY, a re-reading of my comments might also be in order - under the circumstances consider yourself self-trouted. --
Richhoncho (
talk) 13:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Closer's comment: I don't really understand the argument Human3015 is trying to make here. Any misconduct or blocks of himself or others aren't relevant to the AfD closure, which I read as concluding that the song isn't notable (yet). If the renomination had been too soon, the discussion would have reflected that. As always, if new relevant sources are found, the article can be recreated. Some have been offered on my talk page, but without an explanation of why these sources weren't cited in the article or put forward in the AfD discussion. That's why I'm not, myself, interested in restoring the article, but if others see this differently I won't object to a restoration with new sources. Sandstein 10:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse. My earlier comment, that
Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion suggests 2 months before renomination, is being put forth as a reason to declare the 2nd AfD invalid. This isn't a law-school contracts class, where the goal is to analyze everything to death and find some little procedural flaw which invalidates the contract. We're here to write an encyclopedia. Dragging this argument through two AfDs and a DRV isn't helping that goal. For the record, I have no problem with the 2nd AfD. Let's move on to something more important. --
RoySmith(talk) 15:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment A number of years back, I worked very hard here to establish the current good practice that rapid renomination was in general not a good idea. (At the time, articles were being renominated in quick succession 5 or 6 or even more times , even after successive keeps, before by the laws of chance participation they got deleted). Various fixed rules were suggested, but it was generally thought that it depends on the circumstances. Personally, I think the times listed in the essay are considerably longer than even I would have wanted. I would normally advise at least a month after most non-consensus closes where the reason for non-consensus was a failure to agree despite substantial participation (as was the case here at AfD1) , because the longer the time the better the chance of getting consensus instead of just repeating the disagreement. (In case it's nonconsensus because of inadequate participation, most re-nominators also wait a while, because if it comes as an entirely fresh issue it may attract more comment.) . I have just now modified the essay to reflect what I think current practice. DGG (
talk ) 05:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)reply
You'll want to update the This page in a nutshell box, too. --
RoySmith(talk) 22:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: Article is in
my sandbox. As suggested by one experienced user
on my talk page, I will improve article in my sandbox until song gets any nominations for awards then I will move it to main space. I have only one request that do not nominate my sandbox for deletion. --
Human3015TALK 09:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Simply winning a nomination or even some random award doesn't make it any more notable. Also, DRV says "3.if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". Please get it clarified if DRV is must for such recreations. §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
Talk /
Edits} 03:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Article in question is a non-notable neologism, synonymous with
tu quoque, that doesn't have any treatment by reliable secondary sources as required by
neologism rule and therefore was nominated for violating it. On AfD discussion I've also presented
proof that Wiki is being used to promote and validate this new word. Here is another example where wiki is being used to promote and validate this neologism, this time by Washington Post
[1] (the link was ironically provided by the editor who voted to "keep"). Article also includes synthesis that attempts to tie neologism with an idea that it represents, when the word itself is never even mentioned in a source. Neologism rule was specifically created for cases like this, but although article meets all the requirements for deletion it's been kept instead.
During discussion nobody have had presented a counter-argument that article doesn't break the neologism policy. Instead, commentators simply reiterated that there are supposedly plenty of sources (nevermind that sources provided merely use the word, and such case is explicitly addressed in neologism rule as not sufficient; one of the sources doesn't even have the word anywhere at all). One of the editors suggested possibility of merging article with
tu quoque. Then, editor Davey2010 closed discussion as "Keep", cause in his view consensus was to "obviously keep". I've messaged him that consensus should be based on arguments and no arguments that actually addressed violation of the rule were presented. After some contemplation he reopened discussion. The very next day two more "votes" to keep were cast with an empty reiteration of an "ample of reliable sources" and he closed discussion again as "an obvious keep", even though according to him, and I quote:
"Admittingly the NEO side hasn't been address" [sic]. To me it seems as a clear misinterpretation of consensus in favor of keeping the article that violates rule sufficient for it's deletion.
Niyaro (
talk) 14:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Closer comment - Before anyone bites my head off as I said on the AFD I probably shouldn't have closed it early the first time round but after reopening there were more Keeps coming and all with different reasons - Although individual sources wasn't posted- the results on Google was so it met GNG, I closed it the second time as it seemed pointless to drag it on any further, I admitted on tp NEO wasn't addressed but it was up to the nom to dig further which he didnt ... He'd just left the AFD to its own devices so if noone mentions NEO then it's not really my problem, But anyway I personally would say there was overall consensus to keep, If anyone wants to relist I have no objections. –
Davey2010Talk 14:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
What do you mean "noone mentions NEO"? The article was brought for AfD specifically for violating the neologism rule. In every post that was made by me, and I made several of them, the rule have been linked, quoted or directly mentioned as the reason for deletion. And that's including the opening post. You are either being extremely dishonest or you haven't actually read discussion before closing it, which is beyond ridiculous.
Niyaro (
talk) 11:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
That's the point - You mentioned NEO but No one else did..., So clearly everyone disagreed it failed NEO or didn't think it was relevant, Nope you're right I've been doing AFD for the past 2 fucking years and I only close on fucking numbers eh!, Give me fucking strength!. –
Davey2010Talk 16:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I apologize for the rant above (which I've amended now anyway), No point arguing & losing my shit!. –
Davey2010Talk 17:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
That's the second time you do that. You know, crossing out your swearing or personal attacks don't make them disappear, so stop doing that.
Niyaro (
talk) 13:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)reply
And that's once again blatantly not true, since other editors tried to counter my "non-notable neologism" argument by claiming that the term (or phrase as one called it) is notable because it can be seen used in plenty of sources (like
Мандичка below).
[2][3][4]. This clearly shows that other editors were on the same page as me and were discussing article in light of
WP:NEO policy. What actually got ignored is a citation from
WP:NEO that says that sources that merely use the word are not suitable, and just because it got ignored doesn't make it any less true.
Niyaro (
talk) 13:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse keeping. First, deletion review is only to be used if someone believes the closer of the discussion (in this case Davey2010) interpreted the consensus incorrectly. Since all seven responses to the discussion were in favor of keeping the article, and nobody supported deleting it over a one-week period, I don't see how Davey2010 misinterpreted anything. Secondly, neologisms can be notable and over and over we listed how it was notable (with links to said reliable secondary sources). So nobody in the discussion was ignoring policy.
—МандичкаYO 😜 23:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Yes, deletion review is being used, because someone believes that consensus was misinterpreted. That's exactly what I've said in my opening post, with an arguments why. No need to repeat that. No need to repeat your vote for keep, too, since you've already put exactly same argument in AfD. And you are misinterpreting consensus as well, cause it doesn't matter how many people voted for something. It's not a voting contest. Arguments matter. And those who voted had exactly same argument that was answered several times. But let me answer it again, by once again quoting neologism rule: "an editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms". And you're precisely ignoring this very policy, since from all the sources provided so far the only thing that is about the term itself is that it was coined by The Economist journalist, which is definitely not notable to warrant wiki-article. You clearly confuse notability of the topic (which is
Appeal to hypocrisy and is clearly notable) with notability of the neologism itself. And here is what neologism rule says about that: "in a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." Well, guess what,
Appeal to hypocrisy already exists. And, thankfully, it doesn't have ridiculous claims, made by the same The Economist journalist, that "Russians often overuse the tactic."
Niyaro (
talk) 11:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Notably, the current article has been skewed to claim it was first coined in 2008 - this was done by someone
who amusingly stated "I have never heard of this, and if at all common at one time; it was merely political and in perhaps one or two countries" and then made other leading edits claiming "Major rm and cleanup per WP:NOTMANUAL, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:OR, WP:LEAD, WP:OR, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NEO." This is a Cold War-era term and was in fact coined during the Cold War, as has been stated by several reliable sources. It was not invented in 2008, but it was reintroduced and explained then. This is a 20th-century neologism, not a recent one. And because the article was linked to on Reddit (along with other links) does not "prove" the Wikipedia article is being used to promote the term, which is fairly ridiculous considering how often this term is used by respected journalists and experts who are not shills of Wikipedia. It would appear, however, that the opposite is being attempted - to delete the Wikipedia article in an attempt to discredit the term.
—МандичкаYO 😜 14:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Notably, you once again avoid answering citations from
WP:NEO directly relevant to this article. You attempts to present this neologism as if it was "reintroduced" doesn't change that it is still neologism with no presence in any dictionary and WP:NEO still applies. Furthermore, contrary to your assertion, the only source in the article that claims that the term was used before is Edward Lucas from The Economist and according to this paper from Google Scholar, written by Associate Professor from Institute of International Relations and Political Science[5] Edward Lucas is the one who coined the term. If it's not neologism, but an old widely used word then surely you'll find a lot of proof for that. I'll save you the trouble for searching: there are no results for this neologism in Google Scholar earlier than 2012
[6], no results in Google newspapers whatsoever, which includes newspapers from 19th century[7], no results in Google Trends prior to 2014
[8], and google search limited by date from 1900 to 2007 gives 16 result all of them are dynamically generated pages with recent (2010-2015 year) content injected into them causing them to fool google. No dictionaries, no online archives of old newspapers, no nothing. Additionally, if you read my opening post you'll see that The Washington Post also linked Wiki
[9], so it's not only Reddit users who are using Wiki article to promote this neologism, but journalists themselves.
Niyaro (
talk) 13:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse with
WP:MINNOW to
User:Davey2010 for NACing when he could and should have let someone else do it. The deletion discussion could not have been reasonably closed any other way.
Stifle (
talk) 09:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm not getting into a debate or nothing but I simply couldn't see the point in it being left open as IMHO even it was closed in a week I reckon we'd still be here anyway - I did admit above I shouldn't of closed it the first time round but meh we all make mistakes, –
Davey2010Talk 11:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)reply
It could be reasonably closed by following
WP:NEO policy. Unless, of course, you are in favor of turning Wiki into journalists battleground.
Niyaro (
talk) 13:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)reply
So journalists now are behind this conspiracy to promote whataboutism too, because one paper linked to the Wiki article? LOL. The Washington Post fills its articles with external links and regularly links to Wikipedia. Look how many external links are in that article alone. The reason why nobody is paying any attention to your WP:NEO claims is because everyone can see that multiple sources discuss the term in-depth, not just use it as you insist. Not a single person believes this article fails WP:NEO. It's pretty obvious you're promoting your own agenda and are trying to delete the article because you personally don't like it. I'm done here.
—МандичкаYO 😜 20:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
List of cases of police brutality in the United States – No Consensus. Those arguing to endorse were certainly in the majority here, but I don't see the overall weight of opinion being so firmly on the endorse side that I'm willing to call it a consensus. There are some well-reasoned arguments to overturn, from non-involved editors; this further leads me to believe there is no substantial meeting of minds here, and thus no consensus. Procedurally, of course, that means the AfD decision stands.
I would like to add one comment, however. There was a statement that There were even admins voting for keep. Arguments from admins cary no greater weight than those from non-admins. The weight your argument is given is determined by how well you show it is supported by our policies, not by what hats you wear. – --
RoySmith(talk) 13:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Deleting admin seems to have formed their own view and deleted this article, despite opinions being almost equally divided. Points were raised by both sides.
Per discussion here such divided opinions should be closed as no consensus.
AusLondonder (
talk) 10:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse deletion: The closing admin properly observed that most of the keep votes were not policy based.
Niteshift36 (
talk) 12:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse - AfD discussions are not a vote. While the numbers of keeps vs. deletes are similar, the keep !votes were generally of the "It's useful" and "I like it" variety. The delete !votes, OTOH, were generally policy/guideline based, citing problems with the list that the keep !votes simply did not address. - SummerPhDv2.0 12:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse deletion: The closing admin properly observed that "delete" votes were based on policy, while "keep" votes were based on personal preference. --
Notecardforfree (
talk) 14:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Overturn note many of the endorsing parties voted for deletion. I think that the closer made some conclusory claims without really analyzing why he feels deletion was proper under the standard and the content of the article. Shouldn't the discussion be over whether the closer's actions were proper procedurally? Not re-hashing the merits? There were even admins voting for keep. The result was clearly no consensus and that favors keeping--JumpLike23(talk) 16:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
On the contrary, the closing admin weighed the strength of the various keep/delete arguments and reached a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence. They even explained their thought-process and why they believed the "delete" arguments were stronger. Therefore, the closure was proper here. --
Notecardforfree (
talk) 16:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
For the record: he decided: "The result was delete. Opinions are divided. But I find the "delete" arguments significantly more persuasive in the light of applicable policies and guidelines. The "delete" side advances numerous, prima facie valid arguments for deletion, such as the lack of clear, objective and usefully limiting inclusion criteria, as well as BLP concerns. The "keep" arguments mostly do not address or gloss over these concerns." Here, he does not cite what specific policies and guidelines the closer was relying upon. Thus, it is very difficult to respond. --JumpLike23(talk) 16:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The closing admin said they considered arguments from both sides and found that the policy arguments advanced by the "delete" votes were stronger and more persuasive. --
Notecardforfree (
talk) 23:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse as a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion. The close would not preclude creation of a substantially different list article with clearly and appropriately defined inclusion criteria.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk) 16:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Where does this admin discretion come from? Is there a policy allowing for it? The problem is that the proponents for deletion do not believe a criteria can ever exist and would not support a list for police brutality or terrorism--due to multiple definitions--yet many such lists exist on wiki. I never got a thoughtful response. Should we go ahead and delete all lists on police brutality --JumpLike23(talk) 16:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The fact that other lists exists doesn't make this one proper.
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a reason to keep.
Again, no serious response to the fact that multiple other lists exist with the exact same title. None of the examples are analogous...nothing in that refers to lists. Those of us who supported keep cited policy and even included definitional issues in the actual article. Those were not addressed by the closer per
WP:CLOSEAFD. There is no supervote power included in that guideline. The result was no consensus. The debate should have continued if nothing else.--JumpLike23(talk) 21:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Your characterization of the closing as a "supervote" is misleading. The closing admin considered arguments presented by both sides and found that the "keep" votes "gloss[ed] over" relevant policies and guidelines.
WP:LSC and
WP:SALAT were directly on point, and the closing admin acted well-within their discretion. --
Notecardforfree (
talk) 23:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
By "included definitional issues", you aren't referring to that law dictionary nonsense are you?
Niteshift36 (
talk) 00:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Overturn The closer says clearly that opinions were divided and so there was no consensus. He then picks the argument he likes best but that's not consensus; that's a supervote. His claims about strength of argument seem quite tendentious. For example, the nomination cited no specific policy whereas there were Keep votes which cited specific policies and quoted scholarly sources. Note also that we have numerous
pages and
lists about police brutality and so it seems quite bizarre to be singling out this one. Note also that the police themselves are known to be
whitewashing such topics and so the possibilty of partisanship may be a factor. As the topic is extensively monitored and analysed by scholars, the Department of Justice, &c, it seems absurd to suppose that there's no scope for improvement. All that seems needed is some refinement such as distinguishing cases of excessive force, unreasonable search, &c.
Andrew D. (
talk) 17:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
And because there was an incident of someone from NYPD editing articles (and I looked at the article you cite and those changes are pretty mild), you start talking about whitewashing and partisanship. That's a lack of AGF. You don't even have enough evidence to start floating an idea like that, let alone suggest it may be a factor here.
Niteshift36 (
talk) 20:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I agree that COI isn't an issue but this user makes the same compelling points that many of made that were super-vetoed and not responded to.--JumpLike23(talk) 21:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Very good point regarding the supervote of the closing admin. As you rightly state, they themselves admitted "opinions were divided" and then chose what side he viewed as most correct. The list is common as you note and has received media coverage.
WP:NOTCENSORED should come into play as well. Those wanting to remove seem determined to cover-up acts of police brutality, even when well-sourced.
AusLondonder (
talk) 22:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
You apparently did no real research. I voted (reluctantly) for delete, but after spending a lot of time editing that list, removing unsourced material and trying to establish a reasonable criteria for inclusion. For you to breeze in and start making allegations about cover-up's is pretty insulting. BTW, several of those who voted never edited the article at all, making your cover-up allegation look less than credible. Sourcing the incidents was never the issue, so I'm not sure why you think "well-sourced" is something to talk about. The issue was the criteria for inclusion.
Niteshift36 (
talk) 00:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
jumplike23 &
AusLondonder: As I am sure you are well aware, a division of opinion is not evidence of a lack of consensus. Rather, consensus is determined by "quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" (see
WP:CON). Here, the closing admin weighed the quality of arguments presented by both sides of the dsipute and determined that the quality of the "delete" arguments were stronger than the quality of the "keep" arguments. Indeed, the closing admin said the "keep" votes "gloss[ed] over" relevant policies and guidelines. There were no procedural flaws in this close. --
Notecardforfree (
talk) 00:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Procedural flaws are very noticeable. As noted below, lists often have disputes over inclusion criteria. That does not = deletion in violation of
WP:GNG. In addition to that, consensus was simply not in existence in favour of deletion
AusLondonder (
talk) 00:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Overturn - I did not participate in the AfD but I looked it over. I don't believe there was a clear consensus based on quality of arguments. Many lists have arguments over criteria and in the end it always comes down to what the reliable sources say. I don't see why that could not be considered in this case. That was pointed out right before the discussion was closed - this idea merited further discussion IMHO.
—МандичкаYO 😜 00:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Wikimandia, in addition to
WP:LSC and
WP:SALAT, there were other policy arguments that favored deletion. These included
WP:BLP violations (BLP was cited by the closing admin as one of the reasons why deletion was warranted),
WP:NPOV violations, and potential
WP:LIBEL violations. The closing admin specifically noted that deletion was appropriate in light of these "numerous, prima facie valid arguments for deletion". Although you may disagree with the strength of individual arguments, the closing admin followed procedure by weighing these policy arguments in their determination that deletion was appropriate. There was no abuse of discretion, and therefore we must let this stand. --
Notecardforfree (
talk) 01:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
To answer your question about
Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists,
WP:LSC requires the inclusion criteria to be "unambiguous" and "objective." In the deletion discussion, I explained (at length) why the list violated
WP:LSC. I haven't had a chance to review the other lists mentioned above, but if inclusion in them is based on speculation or the subjective beliefs of inexpert commentators, then they may also violate applicable Wikipedia policies. --
Notecardforfree (
talk) 17:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse - the closing admin made his decision based on policy. The only way the list could be kept from perpetually violating various basic policies would be to clear, then fully protect it and only add entries after clear consensus on its talk page. However, I suspect the talk page would be one long, never ending argument.
VMS Mosaic (
talk) 00:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Further points to consider:
The deletion of a well-sourced, academically and topically relevant and notable list is embarrassing and counter-productive to Wikipedia and its mission
WP:NOTCENSORED should be considered. The removal of a list which American police forces and politicians so detested is an extraordinary act of self-censorship. Some of the editors "voting" delete have long histories of right-wing POV pushing. Simply covering up the extraordinarily poor and violent record of American police won't make it go away
"Some of the editors "voting" delete have long histories of right-wing POV pushing" Your own POV notwithstanding, if you're going to throw AGF out the windown, why not go all in and start naming names? No passive-aggressive dancing around, spit it out.
Niteshift36 (
talk) 21:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - As the editor who nominated the article for deletion, and the primary foil to Niteshift36's attempts to keep the article (see the article talk page), I'd love to see a detailed exposé of my "right-wing POV pushing". - SummerPhDv2.0 02:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment The extreme POV "the extraordinarily poor and violent record of American police" is exactly why this list is nothing more than extreme POV pushing. The comment shows an utter failure to understand
WP:NPOV. It is the perfect example of why the closing admin was correct.
VMS Mosaic (
talk) 05:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
No, because this is a discussion page. I wouldn't insert that in an article. Nor is that a reason for deletion in any circumstance. Are you delusional? Some sources about US police violence (
1) and the books SWAT Madness and Rise of the Warrior Cop
AusLondonder (
talk) 05:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm absolutely happy to debate what equals police brutality and also each individual case included on the list. But to suggest deletion is preferable is disturbing, lazy and censorious.
AusLondonder (
talk) 05:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
You don't live here (as far as I can tell, or ever have) and yet you proclaim yourself an expert on police brutality in the US? There are around 920,000 officers with power of arrest in the US. It would be utterly unbelievable if a very, very, very small number of them didn't committed some type of brutality. In any case, most of the national news cases of purported brutality have been shown to be completely false including Ferguson. If editors who are unable to be neutral like you are going to be heavily involved in managing this list, then there is zero hope that it will ever meet
WP:NPOV.
VMS Mosaic (
talk) 06:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Bringing up nationality is wrong and puerile. Often outsiders can be better at taking a non-emotional, less partisan approach. I'm not an expert, nor did I ever claim to be (you're certainly not) but the sources are. Stop your appalling arrogance and check your facts.
"US police kill more in days than other countries in years" Why is US prison population third highest (proportionally) in the world? By the way, no requirement exists for absolute talkpage neutrality. I have NEVER edited the page by, the way, which you have ignored. Finally, enlighten us, what did Fox Radio tell you was a myth about Ferguson? Was the killing of an unarmed African American teen a New World Order plot to take the guns away?
AusLondonder (
talk) 10:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but you just showed your utter absolute ignorance about Ferguson. The Obama justice department said there was absolutely nothing wrong with the Ferguson policeman's actions. Fox news was the only media outlet to get it right as the facts came out. This is why outsiders should keep their noses out of things they (like you) know nothing about except what was wrongly reported by extremely biased media outlets. I don't give a sh*t about your nationality, but I do care about outsider ignoramuses who, like you, don't have the slightest clue what they are talking about. As far as the Guardian, even Wikipedia says it is a far left organization, but putting that aside, there are over 100 million guns in the US, many in the hands of criminals, so there are of course many fatal shootings by police and of police (a black officer was killed this week by a shot to the forehead). As far as the prison population, it is due to the idiotic war on drugs supported by ignoramuses on both the left and the right. Many Americans are finally waking up to just how stupid the war on drugs is. I have no idea what you are talking about as far as talk page neutrality; all I know is that what one says on a talk page can only be assumed to be what the writer believes.
VMS Mosaic (
talk) 12:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
One more note: you call me appallingly arrogant, but yet haughtily proclaim you know more about America than an American? Who went and made you God?
VMS Mosaic (
talk) 13:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Closer's comment: I don't have much to add to the closing rationale, except to note that while I'm not an American, my general impression is that police violence is a problem in the US, as in many other countries, and that as an editor I think that a list of notable or otherwise significant incidents of police brutality might well be useful to Wikipedia (although a synoptic treatment of the topic, showing developments based on statistics and legal or academic sources, rather than news articles, is much more important). However, I have to close the discussion as it was had, and in it the arguments for deletion were clearly more grounded in policy and practice than those for keeping. I agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz that a recreation is possible if editors agree on unambiguous inclusion criteria based on reliable sources, perhaps focusing on something narrower than "
police brutality", for which the definition seems to be contested. – Admins should hat much of the above discussion, because this is not a forum for discussing the politics of the issue. Sandstein 11:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Your comments indicate that you agree that the topic is basically sound. This was my point in the discussion - that the topic is notable and well-covered by good sources. What you fail to explain is why the issue of exact criteria trumps this. This does not seem to be a policy-based argument because it is our well-established principle that Wikipedia is a work-in-progress - that articles do not have to be
perfect and so hashing out the details, such as exact criteria, is an expected task in developing the topic. You say that editors should work this out before bringing back the topic but the trouble is that you have deleted the place where this is supposed to happen – the article's talk page. Such action is clearly
disruptive in that it prevents editors from improving the topic. Deletion also makes the edit history and details of previous drafts inaccessible and so this is disruptive too.
Andrew D. (
talk) 11:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The problem is that the topic is not well-covered by "good sources". Most media (I might say all foreign media) never reported the actual truth about Ferguson, that the Obama US Justice Department officially declared that the policeman's action were not only not wrong, but were appropriate. Many so called good sources still maintain that it was a case of police brutality. While I understand that Wikipedia requires only "good sources" regardless of what the actual truth is (i.e., Wikipedia is about what can be sourced instead of being about the truth), my fear here is that the POV pushers will only use the "good sources" that agree with them and ignore the "good sources" that tell the other side just as they ignore them in the case of Ferguson.
VMS Mosaic (
talk) 13:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
So, as someone with a legal background let me say, there will never unambiguous inclusion criteria based on reliable sources, that would have to come from within wikipedia That is because "Police brutality is the use of any force exceeding that reasonably necessary to accomplish a lawful police purpose." The key word is reasonableness which naturally results in a balancing test. As the source I included in the actual article noted, what is reasonable will vary across the United States. So, Sandstein, now that you are here, what more are you looking for? The only realistic standard can be notability. Mr. Mosaic, you are really testing me with your out of bounds comments. Please refrain from brining in your personal views that are clearly irrelevant to our project. --JumpLike23(talk) 18:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
What makes you think I care the least bit about how much I am testing you? You really need to read
WP:OWN in regard to "our" (i.e., your) project. Yes, my personal POV is that this list is highly unlikely to ever be more than the personal POVs of various editors. If that can be shown not to be the case, I will change my !vote.
VMS Mosaic (
talk) 23:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
jumplike23, it sounds like you are conflating "brutality" with "excessive force" (we discussed this at length on the AfD page). If you have a legal background, then I'm sure you are well aware of this distinction. In any event, the inclusion criteria problem was only one of the "numerous" reasons why the closing admin agreed deletion was appropriate. --
Notecardforfree (
talk) 19:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
That NBC piece really doesn't answer the question. It also uses the terms police brutality and excessive force interchangeably.
Niteshift36 (
talk) 00:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)reply
that is exactly my point, that is, that there is a definition of police brutality. You are deciding that you reject the conflation...no sources do such. --JumpLike23(talk) 07:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)reply
That piece never defines it, so it "proves" nothing.
Niteshift36 (
talk) 20:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Overturn The opinions were clearly divided, and therefore should have been no consensus. The entries can be included so long as they have reliable sources indicating that it is "
police brutality". Otherwise, we can just merge the page, or move it to a draft.
Kiwifist (
talk) 23:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse deletion. AfDs are not a vote. The closer is expected to weigh up the strengths of the arguments against policy. So while this one was a difficult close, it was well within the discretion of the closer. And good grief, how could that list ever be encyclopaedic? We can't allow a list to grow to every reported case of police brutality in the US. The only sensible way of keeping it within bounds would be to limit entries to those that have risen to having their own article. That wasn't the deleted article and per
WP:TNT the best course is to blow it up and let someone else start over. An eminently sensible close.
SpinningSpark 14:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse, valid closure. We empower admins to judge consensus, not count heads.
Stifle (
talk) 09:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)reply
User:Stifle, if you think this discussion was a consensus I have no words for you.
AusLondonder (
talk) 07:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)reply
This is dangerously close to being un
WP:CIVIL. If you disagree with this !vote, please explain how the admin was in error in judging consensus.
VMS Mosaic (
talk) 07:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Good coming from you! Please don't talk to me again. I will not reply to you,
User:VMS Mosaic.
AusLondonder (
talk) 03:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse. As alluded to by others,
WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS states: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." Contrasting most of those recommending "overturn", the closer's rationale made it clear that he understands that when !votes are divided, then the strength of the supporting arguments needs to be evaluated. (I did not participate in the Afd, but my reading of the discussion leads me to believe he properly took into account the various opinions and the weight of those opinions.) -
Location (
talk) 05:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This page looks like it has been
improved significantly since it was nominated for AFD in 2013, and been in Draft space for a while now. I think it should be restored to mainspace so that more people will work on it.
2601:240:C701:45F0:D4D0:C320:BB31:BF69 (
talk) 05:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment, the correct procedure is to submit the article for review at AFC, there is a link to do this in the template at the top of the article.
SpinningSpark 13:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Just noticed that DRV says "3.if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". So it seems that the nominator IP is right. Also, I have seen (and probably taken myself) some AfC articles to AfD and then to deletion. So what exactly is the procedure? §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
Talk /
Edits} 03:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
What is the significant new information? Article was deleted in 2013. I don't see anything in the article that discusses anything more recent than that.
—МандичкаYO 😜 03:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Just to clarify, I was asking only for clarification on the procedure. I have no opinion on this subject topic. §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
Talk /
Edits} 04:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
It would be if significant new information came to light, which is not the case here. For example, if an article on a writer was deleted for lack of notability but then it was discovered the subject won a Pulitzer Prize, therefore easily passes notability.
—МандичкаYO 😜 05:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
So irrespective of new information, should an article deleted at AfD go to AfC or DRV for recreation? §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
Talk /
Edits} 05:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
If significant new information comes to light, DRV. Otherwise, AfC.
—МандичкаYO 😜 06:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The point in this case is that the page has already been restored, along with all of irs history, when it was moved to draft space. There is nothing to undelete, hence there is nothing to bring to DRV. This is definitely the wrong venue for deciding whether a draft is ready to be moved to mainspace, which in any case is something that any confirmed user can do.
SpinningSpark 07:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
