Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2019 April 13
2019 April 15 >

14 April 2019

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kst (software) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I believe consensus was interpreted incorrectly. With only four participants and (if we include the nominator) a split decision and otherwise a leaning in favour of keep, if I had been attending this, I would have relisted. Closer was contacted but not receptive to criticism. [1] Samsara 19:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Void close and relist. I'm not particularly impressed by the strength of the keep arguments, but it's really hard to see how this could be called a consensus to delete. Relisting it for another week seems like the obvious call. I'd back out the close and relist the existing debate. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and Relist - As RoySmith says, the Keep arguments are not persuasive, but the Delete arguments are not so persuasive as to justify a supervote by the closer. A No Consensus call would have been in order after two or more weeks of listing. A doubtful case should not end in deletion. Relist. I have no idea how I would have !voted, because I haven't read the delete article. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and relist. Woefully inadequate closing explanation for a close that does not reflect the discussion. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to redirect at closer's discretion per the conversation on the closer's talk page. I don't see any need to reopen this, but my understanding is the closer is fine with a redirect negotiated by the weak keep !voter, and that seems like an outcome consistent with the arguments here. SportingFlyer T· C 04:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and relist. I am considering a WP:RESCUE. It may not happen or be successful - but I am seriously considering it. If not rescue'd it will likely be redirect to the place already indicated but I'd like some sort of reference there if the redirect occurs. A appreciate the negotiation with the closer and his cordiality however to a degree I've been at AfD and DRV a lot recently and the pain/gain of me opening this to DRV when I am not reasonably confident of an overturn and even if overturn'd not sufficiently confident of a WP:RESCUE without full commitment to do it meant negotiating a redirect was a pragmatic decision. If I went WP:BOLD and placed the redirect without consulting the closer I could of been open to circumventing the result of the AfD. Given concerns expressed above about the nature of the close I respectfully suggest without prejudice it is not returned to closers discretion. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 10:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Side discussion about XFDcloser and minor edits
  • Comment. Not directly related to the AfD, but as part of the closure process, [2] with this summary, marked as WP:MINOR, Removing link(s): .... which removed the complete line: Kst - a plotting and data viewing program ... which is more than a wikilink and does not qualify to be marked as minor per WP:MINOR. The closer implied this was done as part of automated process and I am wondering if so if the process should be challenged as incorrect. There is some question of WP:LISTCRITERIA on the list it was removed from, however I feel removal from the list on a minor edit was certainly wrong in my opinion; deletion of the content on non-minor edit or if the list requirement was strict notability would also be OK, as would be simply removal of the wikilink. I hope this is within scope of the deletion review to consider this ... it is a separate procedural matter than the result of the deletion review. Thankyou.
Most XfDs these days (including the one in question) are closed using XFDcloser. That script performs multiple edits on the closer's behalf, such as the removal of backlinks, which it marks as minor edits. The place to suggest changing that would be on the XFD talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for the guidance, I've raised points on the XDFcloser talk page. Not having used the script (I have an associate helper installed but not used it, certanly not in delete close mode), I observe from the XDFcloser documentation: (1) the script is interactive; (2) the user is responsible for any actions; (3) To quote the documentation: Unlinking backlinks - For AfD and FfD discussions, there is an option to unlink backlinks (including file usage). For links within list items, it is sometimes more appropriate to remove the list item rather than unlinking it – in such cases, the script will ask whether to keep the unlinked item or remove it: (and I regard sometimes meaning retention on the list would be the more normal course). From this I can only assume the Closer opted to remove the item from the list rather than unlinking it. I therefore respectfully suggest given the above the decision of the closer to remove from this particular list in this circumstance rather than unlinking was inappropriate and within the process of deletion and I therefore challenge it (NB: I have already manually re-entered the item on the list ... but this happened because I spotted it as the page was already on my watchlist and I was specifically looking to organise citing of the item). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 08:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I'll admit, the removal of back-links is the part of closing an AfD that I probably do the poorest at. I'll spend a lot of time dissecting the arguments to reach a keep/delete/whatever decision, but once I've gotten to delete, I tend to just accept all the unlink and remove-from-list suggestions without much thought. I'm not saying that's best practice, but it's what I tend to do. Perhaps I should just leave the redlinks behind? At least that way, it's obvious that something's broken and the people who watch those articles will come along and fix it? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. We also perhaps should not have been at AfD or here at all. The redirect used on Talk:KImageMapEditor should have indicated that was a possibility at WP:PRODNOM and WP:BEFORE and at a minimum identified and summarized as options and Kst could have followed the same pathway Perhaps its me, cos I know I'm weird, but the If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." simply WP:BAITs me and possibly did the dePRODer in this instance. I appreciate it can be a difficult if people dePROD without explanation or significant article improvement but it would be better if improvements were made to Template:Proposed deletion so PRODers feel comfortable using the standard templates and dePRODers are guided appropriately ... actually I've just think I've noticed the PROD template does not lead people to WP:CONTESTED and in fact may lead them from searching for it. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 10:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and relist - I believe in rescuing articles with potential. I will add that after reviewing the xfd, I agree that it doesn't quite meet GNG. Perhaps the rescue effort will be convincing. Atsme Talk 📧 16:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and relist (AfD nominator). The main fault is with the closer lack or rationale. Two delete, one countered keep, and a week keep - it could be argued as delete IF the closer made any argument. They didn't, so it is reasonable to call it a bad close and overturn and see if another week or so changes anything. As the closer has not commented here yet, despite 24h or so elapsing, I'd also respectfully suggest that the closer may need more practice before closing future debates. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Closer rightfully ignored both the keep votes. One said lots of ghits, so it's notable with no further evidence. The other provided an article in a non-reliable serial (per Ulrichsweb, it's just a magazine, not a refereed publication), and non-reliable sources should be ignored when closing discussions. And finally, the second voter also provided a scholarly publication (DOI 10.1117/12.790006), but it provides no significant information; it just makes a few passing references on the eighth page (PDF page 9) without covering kst significantly. Nyttend ( talk) 23:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC) reply
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.
Draft:Lee Dae-hwi ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I believe Lee Dae-hwi is now independently notable to get his own article in Wikipedia. He is now independently active as a songwriter, emcee and entertainer. Please kindly re-review my article. Thank you. Otterlyhwi ( talk) 05:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Overturn - the AFD for Lee Dae-hwi in 2017 had only three participants, who erred in failing to recognize criterion #9 of WP:MUSICBIO: Lee was notable for winning the third place in a major music competition. Since then his band Wanna One has disbanded, and Lee has had significant careers in television and songwriting, and launched a second band. I believe the article should be restored (either from article history or the new draft article). - Zanhe ( talk) 05:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Allow recreation, suggest draft. There's no need to go through DRV if the situation has changed since the AfD. This is particularly true if the AfD was two years ago, and even more so given how sparsely attended it was. However, I (strongly) suggest that the new article be started in draft space; this will give time for it to be developed without risk of being re-deleted, and the review of the new drafts will be useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Allow Review - I declined this draft because there had been a deletion discussion that redirected the article to the band. There has been enough change so that the draft should be reviewed without the Redirect being a negative factor. This isn't an overturn in the usual sense, because there was no error by the closer, but a case of time having passed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Allow Review, AFD optional not my field, but 1/consensus can change and 2/musicians frequently become more notable with time. DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Allow review which I think means dropping the stick as to whether he was notable in 2017 or not - it might be helpful to temp-undelete the article that was deleted to make sure this isn't in WP:G4 space, but if he's notable now, we should be able to accept the article. (I have absolutely no idea if he is considering the sources are almost exclusively Korean.) SportingFlyer T· C 04:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Allow review - I looked at the draft before coming here but wasn't convinced he's notable on his own - perhaps in time. Atsme Talk 📧 15:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply
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.
Geometry of roots of real polynomials ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The article was deleted but the nominator said content was merged into Quadratic equation#Graphical solution (see merge here [3]). The closing admin should have denied the consensus and redirected the page, merged the page, or listed every contributor of the merged content by a dummy edit. See also: Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia Christian75 ( talk) 09:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Overturn I added mathematical content to the page in question and made relevant comments on its talk page iirc. Deletion has removed all record of this good faith activity which was in no way controversial or otherwise requiring suppression. There's more to be done with this topic but deletion like this is disruptive because it discourages good faith activity and forces editors to rely upon their memory. Such disruption is contrary to WP:DGFA, "When in doubt, don't delete". And it appears that the closer made the deletion decision based upon their own opinion of the matter -- a blatant supervote. Andrew D. ( talk) 10:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
I'd just like to point out the irony of Andrew opposing copyright infringement when it's his copyright being infringed upon. [4] Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 23:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: If this is overturned in some way and there is a redirect to preserve edit history, then the target of the redirect at Geometry of roots of real polynomials should be algebraic geometry or something similar. The content of the article was that of Quadratic equation#Graphical solution, but the title did not reflect that. — MarkH21 ( talk) 17:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect - Having not read the deleted article, I don't know what article the redirect should be to. As noted in the AFD, the title suggests roots on the complex plane. That's intermediate algebra. I have forgotten all of the math that I learned in college, but that is high school math. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
    • The deleted article suggested roots on the complex plane, but the title does not suggest anything about the complex plane. The polynomials can have any number of variables (just one polynomial in two variables would give an plane algebraic curve) and there could be more than one polynomial equation (i.e. a system of polynomial equations). "The geometry of roots of polynomials" is pretty much the definition of algebraic geometry. Indeed, if we consider complex roots then it is classical algebraic geometry (covered in the algebraic geometry article). If we consider only real roots then it is real algebraic geometry. Since only the field of polynomial coefficients is specified in the title (and not the field of definition of the roots), the redirect should point to just algebraic geometry. — MarkH21 ( talk) 19:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think there is any need for restoration to preserve edit history. Despite the edit summary the edit cited above does not appear to have actually copied any material from the deleted article. Instead it's a different treatment of the some of the same subject matter, with rewritten text. If you do want to redirect it somewhere then Algebraic geometry is probably best, since although Quadratic equation covers some of the subject matter of the deleted page the scope of the title of the deleted page is all polynomials rather than just quadratics. Hut 8.5 18:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn attribution is a legal requirement if the content is used, so nominators and deleters are contributing to copyright infringement if the writer's names are removed. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 22:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • The history of the article has been temporarily undeleted for the purpose of this deletion review.. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse An accurate reading of consensus, and no merge attribution needed per the final comment in the discussion by D.Lazard. Cheers to DGG for the temp undelete. SportingFlyer T· C 04:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn: apply merged templates; possibly redirect as above or elsewhere (e.g. Polynomial). D.Lazard indicated on summary on 14 February he had indicated a merge process from Geometry of roots of real polynomials. The established practice is WP:MERGETEXT and if that procedure was performed we would not be here. I also observe D.Lazard who was also the AfD nom. mentioned the merge and used the word merge at the AfD but did not explicitly mention they were the person who performed that merge not provide an explicit diff pointer to the merge. While none of this wrong it leaves D.Lazard slightly open the concern the purpose may have been to concern his purpose may have been remove others content in preference to own content. We must WP:AGF this is not the case and no attempt have been made to do that covertly; I would have preferred that information explicitly mentioned on the AfD. Unless this was a clear later WP:CFORK the unattributed discard of work has implications and issues. Surprising evidence for proof for copy violations can reside in the audit trail of old revisions. So I am with both Andrew Davidson and Graeme Bartlett. There is little issue in overturning and ensuring best practice, there can be dangers in endorsement. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 19:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC) reply
This accusation of bad faith is a personal attack. Also this editor accuses me of pushing "my own content" against other's content. Moreover, These accusations are based on a blatant deformation of what I have written. I have clearly established that no text has been merged, and thus that the procedure WP:MERGETEXT does no apply, and this has been confirmed by the closing administrator. Also, the end of the post contains an accusation of possible copyvio. This is simply not acceptable. D.Lazard ( talk) 09:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I am trying to say those actions leave you vunerable to an accusation of bad faith ... not that I am accusing you of bad faith. But as my wife often says to me it is not what you say but how you say it ... or something like that. I am fundamentally suggesting contest including previous references and sources that can possibly be re-used elsewhere may be lost. Please accept by apologies for any offence etc. etc. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 23:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect and restore history. I haven't examined the AfD in full, but the general rule is that we prefer a redirect to delete if there's a reasonable redirect target and there's no good reason to hide the history (i.e. problems with WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO, etc). That no actual text was copied (I haven't examined this myself; I'm going on the analysis of others, above) just means we're not obligated to redirect to comply with licensing requirements. It doesn't mean we're obligated not to redirect, and WP:CHEAP argues that we should. Unclear why this is such a point of contention; it seems like a no-brainer to me. I don't see that the nom had contacted the deleting admin before opening this DRV. My guess is if they had, this could have all been settled a lot faster and with less drama. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply
PS, There's several plausible redirect targets mentioned above. I have no opinion about which is the best. Pick one. It can always be changed later, by anybody. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply
"We prefer a redirect to delete": I agree for titles that are not confusing and not ambiguous. But the AfD discussion shows clearly that the title may have several interpretations. So, whichever a reader is searching, there is a good probability that the redirect leads it to the wrong article, and, in this case a redirect must be avoided. D.Lazard ( talk) 09:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
OK, that's a reasonable argument, and re-reading WP:R#DELETE, especially item 2 ("The redirect might cause confusion"), I've come to agree. I've struck my comment. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
If there is no reasonable redirect available where substantial page history can be retained I believe restoring the page history of Geometry of roots of real polynomials to the talk page of Quadratic equation keeps is an alternative way retaining the page history I believe. That might satisfy everybody. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 23:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, the consensus seems to be clear for deletion. I agree with others above who have concluded that no actual merge occurred, so there is no need to retain the history. -- Tavix ( talk) 18:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_April_14&oldid=1039512494"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2019 April 13
2019 April 15 >

14 April 2019

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kst (software) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I believe consensus was interpreted incorrectly. With only four participants and (if we include the nominator) a split decision and otherwise a leaning in favour of keep, if I had been attending this, I would have relisted. Closer was contacted but not receptive to criticism. [1] Samsara 19:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Void close and relist. I'm not particularly impressed by the strength of the keep arguments, but it's really hard to see how this could be called a consensus to delete. Relisting it for another week seems like the obvious call. I'd back out the close and relist the existing debate. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and Relist - As RoySmith says, the Keep arguments are not persuasive, but the Delete arguments are not so persuasive as to justify a supervote by the closer. A No Consensus call would have been in order after two or more weeks of listing. A doubtful case should not end in deletion. Relist. I have no idea how I would have !voted, because I haven't read the delete article. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and relist. Woefully inadequate closing explanation for a close that does not reflect the discussion. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to redirect at closer's discretion per the conversation on the closer's talk page. I don't see any need to reopen this, but my understanding is the closer is fine with a redirect negotiated by the weak keep !voter, and that seems like an outcome consistent with the arguments here. SportingFlyer T· C 04:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and relist. I am considering a WP:RESCUE. It may not happen or be successful - but I am seriously considering it. If not rescue'd it will likely be redirect to the place already indicated but I'd like some sort of reference there if the redirect occurs. A appreciate the negotiation with the closer and his cordiality however to a degree I've been at AfD and DRV a lot recently and the pain/gain of me opening this to DRV when I am not reasonably confident of an overturn and even if overturn'd not sufficiently confident of a WP:RESCUE without full commitment to do it meant negotiating a redirect was a pragmatic decision. If I went WP:BOLD and placed the redirect without consulting the closer I could of been open to circumventing the result of the AfD. Given concerns expressed above about the nature of the close I respectfully suggest without prejudice it is not returned to closers discretion. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 10:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Side discussion about XFDcloser and minor edits
  • Comment. Not directly related to the AfD, but as part of the closure process, [2] with this summary, marked as WP:MINOR, Removing link(s): .... which removed the complete line: Kst - a plotting and data viewing program ... which is more than a wikilink and does not qualify to be marked as minor per WP:MINOR. The closer implied this was done as part of automated process and I am wondering if so if the process should be challenged as incorrect. There is some question of WP:LISTCRITERIA on the list it was removed from, however I feel removal from the list on a minor edit was certainly wrong in my opinion; deletion of the content on non-minor edit or if the list requirement was strict notability would also be OK, as would be simply removal of the wikilink. I hope this is within scope of the deletion review to consider this ... it is a separate procedural matter than the result of the deletion review. Thankyou.
Most XfDs these days (including the one in question) are closed using XFDcloser. That script performs multiple edits on the closer's behalf, such as the removal of backlinks, which it marks as minor edits. The place to suggest changing that would be on the XFD talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for the guidance, I've raised points on the XDFcloser talk page. Not having used the script (I have an associate helper installed but not used it, certanly not in delete close mode), I observe from the XDFcloser documentation: (1) the script is interactive; (2) the user is responsible for any actions; (3) To quote the documentation: Unlinking backlinks - For AfD and FfD discussions, there is an option to unlink backlinks (including file usage). For links within list items, it is sometimes more appropriate to remove the list item rather than unlinking it – in such cases, the script will ask whether to keep the unlinked item or remove it: (and I regard sometimes meaning retention on the list would be the more normal course). From this I can only assume the Closer opted to remove the item from the list rather than unlinking it. I therefore respectfully suggest given the above the decision of the closer to remove from this particular list in this circumstance rather than unlinking was inappropriate and within the process of deletion and I therefore challenge it (NB: I have already manually re-entered the item on the list ... but this happened because I spotted it as the page was already on my watchlist and I was specifically looking to organise citing of the item). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 08:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I'll admit, the removal of back-links is the part of closing an AfD that I probably do the poorest at. I'll spend a lot of time dissecting the arguments to reach a keep/delete/whatever decision, but once I've gotten to delete, I tend to just accept all the unlink and remove-from-list suggestions without much thought. I'm not saying that's best practice, but it's what I tend to do. Perhaps I should just leave the redlinks behind? At least that way, it's obvious that something's broken and the people who watch those articles will come along and fix it? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. We also perhaps should not have been at AfD or here at all. The redirect used on Talk:KImageMapEditor should have indicated that was a possibility at WP:PRODNOM and WP:BEFORE and at a minimum identified and summarized as options and Kst could have followed the same pathway Perhaps its me, cos I know I'm weird, but the If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." simply WP:BAITs me and possibly did the dePRODer in this instance. I appreciate it can be a difficult if people dePROD without explanation or significant article improvement but it would be better if improvements were made to Template:Proposed deletion so PRODers feel comfortable using the standard templates and dePRODers are guided appropriately ... actually I've just think I've noticed the PROD template does not lead people to WP:CONTESTED and in fact may lead them from searching for it. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 10:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and relist - I believe in rescuing articles with potential. I will add that after reviewing the xfd, I agree that it doesn't quite meet GNG. Perhaps the rescue effort will be convincing. Atsme Talk 📧 16:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and relist (AfD nominator). The main fault is with the closer lack or rationale. Two delete, one countered keep, and a week keep - it could be argued as delete IF the closer made any argument. They didn't, so it is reasonable to call it a bad close and overturn and see if another week or so changes anything. As the closer has not commented here yet, despite 24h or so elapsing, I'd also respectfully suggest that the closer may need more practice before closing future debates. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Closer rightfully ignored both the keep votes. One said lots of ghits, so it's notable with no further evidence. The other provided an article in a non-reliable serial (per Ulrichsweb, it's just a magazine, not a refereed publication), and non-reliable sources should be ignored when closing discussions. And finally, the second voter also provided a scholarly publication (DOI 10.1117/12.790006), but it provides no significant information; it just makes a few passing references on the eighth page (PDF page 9) without covering kst significantly. Nyttend ( talk) 23:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC) reply
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.
Draft:Lee Dae-hwi ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I believe Lee Dae-hwi is now independently notable to get his own article in Wikipedia. He is now independently active as a songwriter, emcee and entertainer. Please kindly re-review my article. Thank you. Otterlyhwi ( talk) 05:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Overturn - the AFD for Lee Dae-hwi in 2017 had only three participants, who erred in failing to recognize criterion #9 of WP:MUSICBIO: Lee was notable for winning the third place in a major music competition. Since then his band Wanna One has disbanded, and Lee has had significant careers in television and songwriting, and launched a second band. I believe the article should be restored (either from article history or the new draft article). - Zanhe ( talk) 05:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Allow recreation, suggest draft. There's no need to go through DRV if the situation has changed since the AfD. This is particularly true if the AfD was two years ago, and even more so given how sparsely attended it was. However, I (strongly) suggest that the new article be started in draft space; this will give time for it to be developed without risk of being re-deleted, and the review of the new drafts will be useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Allow Review - I declined this draft because there had been a deletion discussion that redirected the article to the band. There has been enough change so that the draft should be reviewed without the Redirect being a negative factor. This isn't an overturn in the usual sense, because there was no error by the closer, but a case of time having passed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Allow Review, AFD optional not my field, but 1/consensus can change and 2/musicians frequently become more notable with time. DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Allow review which I think means dropping the stick as to whether he was notable in 2017 or not - it might be helpful to temp-undelete the article that was deleted to make sure this isn't in WP:G4 space, but if he's notable now, we should be able to accept the article. (I have absolutely no idea if he is considering the sources are almost exclusively Korean.) SportingFlyer T· C 04:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Allow review - I looked at the draft before coming here but wasn't convinced he's notable on his own - perhaps in time. Atsme Talk 📧 15:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply
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.
Geometry of roots of real polynomials ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The article was deleted but the nominator said content was merged into Quadratic equation#Graphical solution (see merge here [3]). The closing admin should have denied the consensus and redirected the page, merged the page, or listed every contributor of the merged content by a dummy edit. See also: Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia Christian75 ( talk) 09:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Overturn I added mathematical content to the page in question and made relevant comments on its talk page iirc. Deletion has removed all record of this good faith activity which was in no way controversial or otherwise requiring suppression. There's more to be done with this topic but deletion like this is disruptive because it discourages good faith activity and forces editors to rely upon their memory. Such disruption is contrary to WP:DGFA, "When in doubt, don't delete". And it appears that the closer made the deletion decision based upon their own opinion of the matter -- a blatant supervote. Andrew D. ( talk) 10:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
I'd just like to point out the irony of Andrew opposing copyright infringement when it's his copyright being infringed upon. [4] Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 23:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: If this is overturned in some way and there is a redirect to preserve edit history, then the target of the redirect at Geometry of roots of real polynomials should be algebraic geometry or something similar. The content of the article was that of Quadratic equation#Graphical solution, but the title did not reflect that. — MarkH21 ( talk) 17:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect - Having not read the deleted article, I don't know what article the redirect should be to. As noted in the AFD, the title suggests roots on the complex plane. That's intermediate algebra. I have forgotten all of the math that I learned in college, but that is high school math. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
    • The deleted article suggested roots on the complex plane, but the title does not suggest anything about the complex plane. The polynomials can have any number of variables (just one polynomial in two variables would give an plane algebraic curve) and there could be more than one polynomial equation (i.e. a system of polynomial equations). "The geometry of roots of polynomials" is pretty much the definition of algebraic geometry. Indeed, if we consider complex roots then it is classical algebraic geometry (covered in the algebraic geometry article). If we consider only real roots then it is real algebraic geometry. Since only the field of polynomial coefficients is specified in the title (and not the field of definition of the roots), the redirect should point to just algebraic geometry. — MarkH21 ( talk) 19:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think there is any need for restoration to preserve edit history. Despite the edit summary the edit cited above does not appear to have actually copied any material from the deleted article. Instead it's a different treatment of the some of the same subject matter, with rewritten text. If you do want to redirect it somewhere then Algebraic geometry is probably best, since although Quadratic equation covers some of the subject matter of the deleted page the scope of the title of the deleted page is all polynomials rather than just quadratics. Hut 8.5 18:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn attribution is a legal requirement if the content is used, so nominators and deleters are contributing to copyright infringement if the writer's names are removed. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 22:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • The history of the article has been temporarily undeleted for the purpose of this deletion review.. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse An accurate reading of consensus, and no merge attribution needed per the final comment in the discussion by D.Lazard. Cheers to DGG for the temp undelete. SportingFlyer T· C 04:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn: apply merged templates; possibly redirect as above or elsewhere (e.g. Polynomial). D.Lazard indicated on summary on 14 February he had indicated a merge process from Geometry of roots of real polynomials. The established practice is WP:MERGETEXT and if that procedure was performed we would not be here. I also observe D.Lazard who was also the AfD nom. mentioned the merge and used the word merge at the AfD but did not explicitly mention they were the person who performed that merge not provide an explicit diff pointer to the merge. While none of this wrong it leaves D.Lazard slightly open the concern the purpose may have been to concern his purpose may have been remove others content in preference to own content. We must WP:AGF this is not the case and no attempt have been made to do that covertly; I would have preferred that information explicitly mentioned on the AfD. Unless this was a clear later WP:CFORK the unattributed discard of work has implications and issues. Surprising evidence for proof for copy violations can reside in the audit trail of old revisions. So I am with both Andrew Davidson and Graeme Bartlett. There is little issue in overturning and ensuring best practice, there can be dangers in endorsement. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 19:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC) reply
This accusation of bad faith is a personal attack. Also this editor accuses me of pushing "my own content" against other's content. Moreover, These accusations are based on a blatant deformation of what I have written. I have clearly established that no text has been merged, and thus that the procedure WP:MERGETEXT does no apply, and this has been confirmed by the closing administrator. Also, the end of the post contains an accusation of possible copyvio. This is simply not acceptable. D.Lazard ( talk) 09:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I am trying to say those actions leave you vunerable to an accusation of bad faith ... not that I am accusing you of bad faith. But as my wife often says to me it is not what you say but how you say it ... or something like that. I am fundamentally suggesting contest including previous references and sources that can possibly be re-used elsewhere may be lost. Please accept by apologies for any offence etc. etc. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 23:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect and restore history. I haven't examined the AfD in full, but the general rule is that we prefer a redirect to delete if there's a reasonable redirect target and there's no good reason to hide the history (i.e. problems with WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO, etc). That no actual text was copied (I haven't examined this myself; I'm going on the analysis of others, above) just means we're not obligated to redirect to comply with licensing requirements. It doesn't mean we're obligated not to redirect, and WP:CHEAP argues that we should. Unclear why this is such a point of contention; it seems like a no-brainer to me. I don't see that the nom had contacted the deleting admin before opening this DRV. My guess is if they had, this could have all been settled a lot faster and with less drama. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply
PS, There's several plausible redirect targets mentioned above. I have no opinion about which is the best. Pick one. It can always be changed later, by anybody. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply
"We prefer a redirect to delete": I agree for titles that are not confusing and not ambiguous. But the AfD discussion shows clearly that the title may have several interpretations. So, whichever a reader is searching, there is a good probability that the redirect leads it to the wrong article, and, in this case a redirect must be avoided. D.Lazard ( talk) 09:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
OK, that's a reasonable argument, and re-reading WP:R#DELETE, especially item 2 ("The redirect might cause confusion"), I've come to agree. I've struck my comment. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
If there is no reasonable redirect available where substantial page history can be retained I believe restoring the page history of Geometry of roots of real polynomials to the talk page of Quadratic equation keeps is an alternative way retaining the page history I believe. That might satisfy everybody. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 23:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, the consensus seems to be clear for deletion. I agree with others above who have concluded that no actual merge occurred, so there is no need to retain the history. -- Tavix ( talk) 18:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_April_14&oldid=1039512494"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE