@
Dream Focus: stated that the article, whose AFD was closed without comment, met
WP:LISTPURP because enough articles on individual Marvel dimensions exist to provide navigational value for the list, which should have rendered moot any delete argument based on dearth of sources that talk about the concept as a group. The other five delete arguments are either based on essays (which can't be used to delete articles) or fail
WP:ATA (
WP:IDL and
WP:PERX). The aforementioned fact that the AFD was closed without comment prevented this issue from being directly addressed.
ミラP01:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I wasn't going to take a position on this drv, but that statement's... just... boggling. The deleted list covered these dimensions (or universes, or whatever) primarily in terms of
this universe - the fictional places' series, issue, date, and authorship of first publication, with a brief in-universe description on about half the entries. The list you're describing as superior has almost exclusively the latter. —
Cryptic02:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)reply
None of those details particularly matter if we're arguing the list is unneeded in the first place. Prettying up an unnecessary list doesn't give it purpose. If the justification of this DRV is that blue links = list, then that list already covers the topic adequately.
TTN (
talk)
02:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse there were arguments on both sides regarding whether the list was valid for navigation, and a consensus to delete, so selecting this particular position would have been a supervote. Correct close.
SportingFlyerT·C06:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)reply
One of the worst things about Wikipedia deletion processes is ATA, an essay that consists entirely of a list of things that some editors think other editors shouldn't be allowed to say. The fact that an argument is listed at ATA doesn't mean that argument should be disregarded by the closer. But the mere votes without reasoning or analysis carry no weight. I'm concerned by what Cryptic says above, that this deleted content is superior to our current coverage of the same topic in another article. We might benefit from restoring this list to draft to enable some merging.—
S MarshallT/
C11:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse DRV's purpose, in this article's case, is to contest the closing of a deletion discussion, not to muse if the content should be kept in one way or the other elsewhere. There is no other way this particular discussion could have been closed, given the provided rationales. I note that Miraclepine is happy to discount all the delete !votes as being inadequate, but fails to mention that 3/4 of the keep !votes offer exactly zero to the discussion and were likely disregarded as mere votes. Correct interpretation of consensus.
RetiredDuke (
talk)
12:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)reply
@
RetiredDuke: I am contest[ing] the closing of a deletion discussion, because the closer left no extra comment and failed to address the navigation argument. I did not mention the keep votes because I figured that the closer would disregard them regardless of comment.
ミラP22:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse three of the four Keep !votes have no rationale at all and it's reasonable to downweight those. The argument that the list has navigational value didn't go down well in the discussion and I'm not that surprised, few of the entries in the list had any sort of link and even fewer linked to standalone articles (many links just went to
Features of the Marvel Universe). The deleted page is a 15 KB table listing these "dimensions" without going into detail about them, I think any merge would have to be very selective. I wouldn't be opposed to restoring it to draft space if someone has a serious proposal for one though. Hut 8.516:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse, delete !voters don't necessarily need to address arguments put forward by keep !voters to achieve consensus. Delete !voters provided policy/guideline based rationales for deletion, including after arguments were made to be kept. The consensus here seems clear to me and was properly interpreted by the closer. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
21:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse- It seems Miraclepine wants to chuck out all the delete votes for citing essays they agree with, while treating the unsubstantiated "keepormerge" votes that get copy-pasted onto every AfD with extreme reverence. Consensus was very clear here and the closing administrator got it right.
ReykYO!12:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I understand what you're suggesting, and I disagree. I don't think any of us are arguing the article should have been kept - we're reviewing whether delete was a proper close given the circumstances. From what I can tell, you're asking us to discount all of the !votes bar one because they cite essays, but I disagree. Only one delete !vote directly cites an essay, and while you're correct they're not policy, essays are often cited at AfDs and taken into consideration with the close. This is a par-for-the-course AfD, and the delete close was a proper reading of the consensus.
SportingFlyerT·C03:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)reply
4, 5, and 6, aren't directly based on policy, guideline, or even essay.
There was only one valid vote based on a guideline (
WP:LISTN), but even that one was addressed by an equally valid keep vote which brought up another avenue to that guideline: blue-links.
(
edit conflict) I see the delete !voters advancing a policy based reason for why it's not notable. The inclusion by one of an essay merely offers a shortcut to their POV of how policy applies in this circumstance. As such I do see both policy based discussion and enough participants that neither criteria for a
relist is met. I've addressed above why I think the delete consensus, rather than no consensus, was the correct close of this AfD. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
03:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
@
Dream Focus: stated that the article, whose AFD was closed without comment, met
WP:LISTPURP because enough articles on individual Marvel dimensions exist to provide navigational value for the list, which should have rendered moot any delete argument based on dearth of sources that talk about the concept as a group. The other five delete arguments are either based on essays (which can't be used to delete articles) or fail
WP:ATA (
WP:IDL and
WP:PERX). The aforementioned fact that the AFD was closed without comment prevented this issue from being directly addressed.
ミラP01:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I wasn't going to take a position on this drv, but that statement's... just... boggling. The deleted list covered these dimensions (or universes, or whatever) primarily in terms of
this universe - the fictional places' series, issue, date, and authorship of first publication, with a brief in-universe description on about half the entries. The list you're describing as superior has almost exclusively the latter. —
Cryptic02:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)reply
None of those details particularly matter if we're arguing the list is unneeded in the first place. Prettying up an unnecessary list doesn't give it purpose. If the justification of this DRV is that blue links = list, then that list already covers the topic adequately.
TTN (
talk)
02:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse there were arguments on both sides regarding whether the list was valid for navigation, and a consensus to delete, so selecting this particular position would have been a supervote. Correct close.
SportingFlyerT·C06:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)reply
One of the worst things about Wikipedia deletion processes is ATA, an essay that consists entirely of a list of things that some editors think other editors shouldn't be allowed to say. The fact that an argument is listed at ATA doesn't mean that argument should be disregarded by the closer. But the mere votes without reasoning or analysis carry no weight. I'm concerned by what Cryptic says above, that this deleted content is superior to our current coverage of the same topic in another article. We might benefit from restoring this list to draft to enable some merging.—
S MarshallT/
C11:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse DRV's purpose, in this article's case, is to contest the closing of a deletion discussion, not to muse if the content should be kept in one way or the other elsewhere. There is no other way this particular discussion could have been closed, given the provided rationales. I note that Miraclepine is happy to discount all the delete !votes as being inadequate, but fails to mention that 3/4 of the keep !votes offer exactly zero to the discussion and were likely disregarded as mere votes. Correct interpretation of consensus.
RetiredDuke (
talk)
12:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)reply
@
RetiredDuke: I am contest[ing] the closing of a deletion discussion, because the closer left no extra comment and failed to address the navigation argument. I did not mention the keep votes because I figured that the closer would disregard them regardless of comment.
ミラP22:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse three of the four Keep !votes have no rationale at all and it's reasonable to downweight those. The argument that the list has navigational value didn't go down well in the discussion and I'm not that surprised, few of the entries in the list had any sort of link and even fewer linked to standalone articles (many links just went to
Features of the Marvel Universe). The deleted page is a 15 KB table listing these "dimensions" without going into detail about them, I think any merge would have to be very selective. I wouldn't be opposed to restoring it to draft space if someone has a serious proposal for one though. Hut 8.516:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse, delete !voters don't necessarily need to address arguments put forward by keep !voters to achieve consensus. Delete !voters provided policy/guideline based rationales for deletion, including after arguments were made to be kept. The consensus here seems clear to me and was properly interpreted by the closer. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
21:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Endorse- It seems Miraclepine wants to chuck out all the delete votes for citing essays they agree with, while treating the unsubstantiated "keepormerge" votes that get copy-pasted onto every AfD with extreme reverence. Consensus was very clear here and the closing administrator got it right.
ReykYO!12:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I understand what you're suggesting, and I disagree. I don't think any of us are arguing the article should have been kept - we're reviewing whether delete was a proper close given the circumstances. From what I can tell, you're asking us to discount all of the !votes bar one because they cite essays, but I disagree. Only one delete !vote directly cites an essay, and while you're correct they're not policy, essays are often cited at AfDs and taken into consideration with the close. This is a par-for-the-course AfD, and the delete close was a proper reading of the consensus.
SportingFlyerT·C03:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)reply
4, 5, and 6, aren't directly based on policy, guideline, or even essay.
There was only one valid vote based on a guideline (
WP:LISTN), but even that one was addressed by an equally valid keep vote which brought up another avenue to that guideline: blue-links.
(
edit conflict) I see the delete !voters advancing a policy based reason for why it's not notable. The inclusion by one of an essay merely offers a shortcut to their POV of how policy applies in this circumstance. As such I do see both policy based discussion and enough participants that neither criteria for a
relist is met. I've addressed above why I think the delete consensus, rather than no consensus, was the correct close of this AfD. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
03:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.