Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2021 February 28
2021 March 2 >

1 March 2021

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

I closed this AfD as "redirect", as I determined that to be the consensus, particularly after several longstanding editors suggested it as a second choice after "delete". However, Planetdust has objected to this, and I don't think we're going to reach agreement on my talk page, so I am bringing discussion here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks! The outcome should've been no consensus, since there were substantiated positions for all possible outcomes (keep, redirect, delete). "Redirect" is not a good compromise since the article redirected to is not quite a meaningful substitute (one artist / part-owner of the record label). I.e. information on industry awards, links between other notable artists etc will be lost to Wikipedia. I believe it's clear that the wholesale removal of (notable & well sourced) information is of quite a different nature than keeping it against the strong feelings of a few activist editors.
It has been pointed out by another editor and myself that the delete / redirect votes were given before or while oddly ignoring new independent reliable sources, proving notability & specifically addressing the label in depth, added to the article while the discussion was still on. Despite this and taking pretty much all objections to sources into account, the "longstanding editors" just kept claiming without any evidence that there are only primary or promotional sources – unfortunately this helped in creating a perception that this was a discussion with WP:NPV in mind. This should have raised a red flag to the closing editor.
Thus, I believe the decision should have been to implement the steps applicable to "no consensus", which is the category specifically addressing cases such as this one – WP:CLOSEAFD. Thanks! Planetdust ( talk) 15:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply
WP:IDHT, there was a clear consensus. Creating a relevant section on Goldmann page is all that's required. Note, probable COI user also appears to have employed a sock in an attempt to skew consensus. Additionally, it appears [1] Stefan Goldmann, Macro label co-owner, is the son of Friedrich Goldmann. This extended spat with Jerome Kohl points to a WP:COI with respect to the articles Marco records, Stefan Goldmann, Friedrich Goldmann, and Villa Kamogawa. Acousmana ( talk) 16:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: There are 2 users, Acousmana & Doomsdayer520, acting in concert and consistently manipulating and diverting the discussion, not shying away from character assaults aimed at another editor and I. They are also jointly targeting another article which I started. [1] There, deletion was started by Acousmana – note the blatant misrepresentation of the state of sourcing and other editor's statements by Doomsdayer520. Just as above: not the merit of the topic or the sources was the focus, but deletion no matter what. Note how even here Acousmana is unable to engage with the statement that ample sourcing has been provided (so I've had an "extended spat" with a troll years ago – how's this an argument for deletion of anything?). It is eye-popping that "clear consensus" is claimed when this could serve as a textbook example of what consensus doesn't look like. Planetdust ( talk) 20:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Jerome Kohl was a "troll"? Interesting. I stand by the WP:COI assertion, can present further evidence if required. Macro content has been moved to the Goldmann article. This is a good outcome considering deletion was equally valid. Acousmana ( talk) 22:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Planetdust, the deceased Jerome Kohl was a valued and beloved editor. Call him a "troll" again and I will block you with immediate effect. Tread lightly. El_C 10:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse No consensus doesn't seem like a viable close here, as the delete !votes substantially stronger in both number and argument. I think the nominator is incorrect about the substantiated position for "keep" votes as well. Therefore, the closer's option was to delete or redirect, and since there was a viable redirect target, ATD seems like the correct response here. Good close. SportingFlyer T· C 16:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - I was going to have a go at trying to make an argument for "keep", because there's evidence this is a fairly important German label that has had cultural impact, but I just don't have the time right now. The presented rationales are much stronger for "delete" than for "keep", and I don't see how the closer could have done otherwise. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - the only correct closes, in my view, were 'delete' or 'redirect'. Redirect favoured because of WP:ATD. There was clear consensus from the arguments presented that this topic does not qualify for a stand-alone article. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The editor's closing decision is the result of manipulation by 2 editors in the discussion and should clearly be set to no consensus. Certainly no stronger arguments by "delete" voters, since heavily biased: Total ignorance of the sources present in the article at the time of closing is a red flag for trolling and vandalism. Just as 78.26 said: there's evidence this is a fairly important German label that has had cultural impact .... I don't see how the current decision can stand, Ritchie333. Planetdust ( talk) 20:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Planetdust: I would cordially invite you to re-think your presentation above. Unfounded accusations of bad faith such as this should not stand. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 20:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, this entire AfD was a textbook case of WP:BLUDGEON, and this DRV is already heading towards a similar situation also. Encourage uninvolved administrators to intervene if this gets much worse. Daniel ( talk) 20:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note Daniel was one of the "delete" voters in that discussion. So character assaults, misrepresentation and manipulation are fine, but asking others to look at the sources is bludgeon = "clear consensus". Planetdust ( talk) 21:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - The issue is whether Redirect was a valid closure.
      • Redirect was a valid closure.
      • It didn't require a clear consensus. Sometimes the closer can compromise. It was a valid closure.
      • No Consensus would have been a valid closure.
      • Shouting at the other participants in an AFD or a DRV is not a way to "win" a content dispute.

Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse. Correct close. I see two very poor “keep” !votes, and a strong consensus around the “delete”/“redirect” boundary that definitely falls on the side of “redirect”. “Keep” could not be defended as the result, and “no consensus” would be a failure to read consensus. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
User:Planetdust should read and reflect on WP:BADGER and WP:STICK. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to delete per Planetdust's behavior there and here. No, not really, but deletion would have been a reasonable conclusion, the article got a redirection instead from a very charitable closing admin, and yet here we are, a new venue subject to the same badgering and textwalling seen in the AfD. Look, if the deletion of one article is such a tragedy, don't try to put it on Wikipedia. Jclemens ( talk) 08:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse there was a clear consensus that we shouldn't have a standalone article about the subject. Closing as Redirect is reasonable given that it's a plausible search term which is covered in the target article, nobody offered an argument against redirection, and several people supporting deletion said they would be happy with a redirect. There was plenty of discussion of sources in the AfD, but if the nominator has three good sources which weren't discussed I'd be happy to look at them. Hut 8.5 12:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Reply: @ Hut 8.5: – sure. 3 that were added to the article, yet ignored (I've translated the German titles here):
a) Feature in Tip Magazine "12 Berlin music labels from Ostgut to Macro to Deutsche Grammophon" [2] This one calls them "the 12 most important labels in Berlin".
b) Feature at DJ Lab: "Portrait: Macro – Innovation as Common Denominator" [3]
c) Textura – Macrospective [4] – Review of anniversary label compilation, with a section on label curation policy & about artists and styles.
Also, 2 more extensive press features about the label (I didn't add them since they appeared in print media only and aren't online):
d) Carlos de Brito: "Macro Records: Eine Gelegenheit um aus dem Rahmen zu fallen", Groove Magazin, 07-08 2009 (#117).
e) Philipp Steffens: "Macro Recordings – Fünf aus Fünzig", Faze Mag, 2016
  1. ^ Rob Young: “Stefan Goldmann – Close to the edit”, WIRE Magazine, #314, April 2010
  2. ^ "12 Berliner Musiklabels von Ostgut über Macro bis Deutsche Grammophon". Tip Magazin. Retrieved 26 February 2021.
  3. ^ "Simon Ackers: Porträt: Macro – Innovation als gemeinsamer Nenner. Feature at DJ Lab". DJ Lab. Retrieved 24 February 2021.
  4. ^ "Stefan Goldmann & Finn Johannsen: Macrospective". Textura. Retrieved 24 February 2021.
  • Comment bulk of these are the product of music PR rather than genuine music journalism, most likely generated/commissioned/pitched by the label, for instance, note submission guidelines for Textura, anyone could pitch to them, and the item is unattributed. This is a textbook example of how independent labels set about establishing notability, it's common practice. Acousmana ( talk) 14:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah, of the ones I can see those don't look very impressive. [2] is very brief, [3] is a review of one of their records which occasionally mentions the label (even if it's reliable), and [4] is so promotional I'm having a hard time believing the company didn't have something to do with writing/publishing it. Hut 8.5 17:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I think I can help here. The link provided above by Acousmana leads to a statement that Textura accepts music submissions, I believe like all music media – not article pitches, like some. This is DJ Lab's disclaimer: "Bitte sehen Sie von Anfragen bezüglich Verlinkungen und Gastartikeln grundsätzlich ab. Beide Arten von Mails werden direkt gelöscht." ("Please refrain from request for links or guest articles. Mails with both kinds of requests are deleted directly." [5]. Mastheads of Tip Mag [6], Faze [7], Groove [8] – Planetdust ( talk) 20:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • The inability of a "new sources exist" proponent to count to three correlates with all the proferred sources failing in one way or another. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment to User:Planetdust - You are also arguing with all of the other editors at the Villa Kamogawa AFD. I have not yet seen an AFD or DRV where someone changed the outcome by arguing with all of the other editors. I am sure that it has happened at least once, with tens of thousands of deletion discussions. But I wouldn't recommend trying to be the second. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment why are we re-arguing the article merits here? Might as well just re-open the discussion. A DRV is intended to evaluate the merits of the close, which is based upon the arguments present at closing time. Or so I thought, perhaps I've fallen behind the times. Planetdust, if you'll stop badgering everybody, and apologize for calling long-term, highly productive editors who edit across an extremely broad spectrum of topics "trolls", (and redact such an absurd claim), I'll take the time to explain why *I* think this may (or may not) be a notable label on your talk page. Record labels are a specialty of mine, although post-1990 labels lose a lot of my interest. Otherwise, based on your contribution history and interaction style, I'll think your sole purpose here is to promote topics related to Stefan Goldmann. By the way, are you familar with the requirements of WP:COI? 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 02:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
78.26 – WP:COI read & understood. If my early decision to limit my editorial efforts on Wikipedia to 3-4 closely related topics arouses suspicion I'll have to live with that. To understand the WP better: Is the case of an administrative assistant at a politics department [9] who inserted 14 of his own writings 16 times as sources, + another 9 under further reading in the Stockhausen article (a composer), while simultaneously policing others's edits in there something within the scope of WP:COI? Planetdust ( talk) 09:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • despicable attack on a notable deceased editor, who made significant contributions to the encyclopedia, was editor of a respected contemproary music journal, and who clearly stated what his connections with various topics were. What have you done for this community other than attempt to fluff your own pillow? Nothing. Acousmana ( talk) 11:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Right, you can personally attack a deceased editor (again, a highly accomplished, valued and beloved one), labeling him a "troll" without incident, but when it comes to yourself, it is not okay. I find that telling. El_C 14:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • To my mind, that debate could sum to "delete" or "redirect", at closer's discretion. It definitely doesn't sum to "no consensus" or "keep". I agree with Planetdust that "no consensus" would be the best compromise; but on Wikipedia, a decision is usually better than a compromise, and our discussion closers aren't required to compromise with interested parties.— S Marshall  T/ C 10:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
I will repeat what I said to User:Planetdust on the talk page of this daily log. Hounding does occasionally happen in Wikipedia, and must be dealt with; but it is rare compared to nonsensical claims by hypersensitive editors that they are being hounded when other editors reply to them. There is no hounding here, but there are civility violations by Planetdust, who is being aggressive, and is then crying "Hounding" when other editors reply. This is a content forum. If User:Planetdust really thinks that they are being hounded, they can go to WP:ANI; but their hands are not clean. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:36, 3 March 2021 (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/2021_March_1&oldid=1039506050"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2021 February 28
2021 March 2 >

1 March 2021

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

I closed this AfD as "redirect", as I determined that to be the consensus, particularly after several longstanding editors suggested it as a second choice after "delete". However, Planetdust has objected to this, and I don't think we're going to reach agreement on my talk page, so I am bringing discussion here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks! The outcome should've been no consensus, since there were substantiated positions for all possible outcomes (keep, redirect, delete). "Redirect" is not a good compromise since the article redirected to is not quite a meaningful substitute (one artist / part-owner of the record label). I.e. information on industry awards, links between other notable artists etc will be lost to Wikipedia. I believe it's clear that the wholesale removal of (notable & well sourced) information is of quite a different nature than keeping it against the strong feelings of a few activist editors.
It has been pointed out by another editor and myself that the delete / redirect votes were given before or while oddly ignoring new independent reliable sources, proving notability & specifically addressing the label in depth, added to the article while the discussion was still on. Despite this and taking pretty much all objections to sources into account, the "longstanding editors" just kept claiming without any evidence that there are only primary or promotional sources – unfortunately this helped in creating a perception that this was a discussion with WP:NPV in mind. This should have raised a red flag to the closing editor.
Thus, I believe the decision should have been to implement the steps applicable to "no consensus", which is the category specifically addressing cases such as this one – WP:CLOSEAFD. Thanks! Planetdust ( talk) 15:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply
WP:IDHT, there was a clear consensus. Creating a relevant section on Goldmann page is all that's required. Note, probable COI user also appears to have employed a sock in an attempt to skew consensus. Additionally, it appears [1] Stefan Goldmann, Macro label co-owner, is the son of Friedrich Goldmann. This extended spat with Jerome Kohl points to a WP:COI with respect to the articles Marco records, Stefan Goldmann, Friedrich Goldmann, and Villa Kamogawa. Acousmana ( talk) 16:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: There are 2 users, Acousmana & Doomsdayer520, acting in concert and consistently manipulating and diverting the discussion, not shying away from character assaults aimed at another editor and I. They are also jointly targeting another article which I started. [1] There, deletion was started by Acousmana – note the blatant misrepresentation of the state of sourcing and other editor's statements by Doomsdayer520. Just as above: not the merit of the topic or the sources was the focus, but deletion no matter what. Note how even here Acousmana is unable to engage with the statement that ample sourcing has been provided (so I've had an "extended spat" with a troll years ago – how's this an argument for deletion of anything?). It is eye-popping that "clear consensus" is claimed when this could serve as a textbook example of what consensus doesn't look like. Planetdust ( talk) 20:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Jerome Kohl was a "troll"? Interesting. I stand by the WP:COI assertion, can present further evidence if required. Macro content has been moved to the Goldmann article. This is a good outcome considering deletion was equally valid. Acousmana ( talk) 22:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Planetdust, the deceased Jerome Kohl was a valued and beloved editor. Call him a "troll" again and I will block you with immediate effect. Tread lightly. El_C 10:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse No consensus doesn't seem like a viable close here, as the delete !votes substantially stronger in both number and argument. I think the nominator is incorrect about the substantiated position for "keep" votes as well. Therefore, the closer's option was to delete or redirect, and since there was a viable redirect target, ATD seems like the correct response here. Good close. SportingFlyer T· C 16:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - I was going to have a go at trying to make an argument for "keep", because there's evidence this is a fairly important German label that has had cultural impact, but I just don't have the time right now. The presented rationales are much stronger for "delete" than for "keep", and I don't see how the closer could have done otherwise. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - the only correct closes, in my view, were 'delete' or 'redirect'. Redirect favoured because of WP:ATD. There was clear consensus from the arguments presented that this topic does not qualify for a stand-alone article. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The editor's closing decision is the result of manipulation by 2 editors in the discussion and should clearly be set to no consensus. Certainly no stronger arguments by "delete" voters, since heavily biased: Total ignorance of the sources present in the article at the time of closing is a red flag for trolling and vandalism. Just as 78.26 said: there's evidence this is a fairly important German label that has had cultural impact .... I don't see how the current decision can stand, Ritchie333. Planetdust ( talk) 20:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Planetdust: I would cordially invite you to re-think your presentation above. Unfounded accusations of bad faith such as this should not stand. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 20:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, this entire AfD was a textbook case of WP:BLUDGEON, and this DRV is already heading towards a similar situation also. Encourage uninvolved administrators to intervene if this gets much worse. Daniel ( talk) 20:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note Daniel was one of the "delete" voters in that discussion. So character assaults, misrepresentation and manipulation are fine, but asking others to look at the sources is bludgeon = "clear consensus". Planetdust ( talk) 21:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - The issue is whether Redirect was a valid closure.
      • Redirect was a valid closure.
      • It didn't require a clear consensus. Sometimes the closer can compromise. It was a valid closure.
      • No Consensus would have been a valid closure.
      • Shouting at the other participants in an AFD or a DRV is not a way to "win" a content dispute.

Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse. Correct close. I see two very poor “keep” !votes, and a strong consensus around the “delete”/“redirect” boundary that definitely falls on the side of “redirect”. “Keep” could not be defended as the result, and “no consensus” would be a failure to read consensus. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
User:Planetdust should read and reflect on WP:BADGER and WP:STICK. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to delete per Planetdust's behavior there and here. No, not really, but deletion would have been a reasonable conclusion, the article got a redirection instead from a very charitable closing admin, and yet here we are, a new venue subject to the same badgering and textwalling seen in the AfD. Look, if the deletion of one article is such a tragedy, don't try to put it on Wikipedia. Jclemens ( talk) 08:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse there was a clear consensus that we shouldn't have a standalone article about the subject. Closing as Redirect is reasonable given that it's a plausible search term which is covered in the target article, nobody offered an argument against redirection, and several people supporting deletion said they would be happy with a redirect. There was plenty of discussion of sources in the AfD, but if the nominator has three good sources which weren't discussed I'd be happy to look at them. Hut 8.5 12:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Reply: @ Hut 8.5: – sure. 3 that were added to the article, yet ignored (I've translated the German titles here):
a) Feature in Tip Magazine "12 Berlin music labels from Ostgut to Macro to Deutsche Grammophon" [2] This one calls them "the 12 most important labels in Berlin".
b) Feature at DJ Lab: "Portrait: Macro – Innovation as Common Denominator" [3]
c) Textura – Macrospective [4] – Review of anniversary label compilation, with a section on label curation policy & about artists and styles.
Also, 2 more extensive press features about the label (I didn't add them since they appeared in print media only and aren't online):
d) Carlos de Brito: "Macro Records: Eine Gelegenheit um aus dem Rahmen zu fallen", Groove Magazin, 07-08 2009 (#117).
e) Philipp Steffens: "Macro Recordings – Fünf aus Fünzig", Faze Mag, 2016
  1. ^ Rob Young: “Stefan Goldmann – Close to the edit”, WIRE Magazine, #314, April 2010
  2. ^ "12 Berliner Musiklabels von Ostgut über Macro bis Deutsche Grammophon". Tip Magazin. Retrieved 26 February 2021.
  3. ^ "Simon Ackers: Porträt: Macro – Innovation als gemeinsamer Nenner. Feature at DJ Lab". DJ Lab. Retrieved 24 February 2021.
  4. ^ "Stefan Goldmann & Finn Johannsen: Macrospective". Textura. Retrieved 24 February 2021.
  • Comment bulk of these are the product of music PR rather than genuine music journalism, most likely generated/commissioned/pitched by the label, for instance, note submission guidelines for Textura, anyone could pitch to them, and the item is unattributed. This is a textbook example of how independent labels set about establishing notability, it's common practice. Acousmana ( talk) 14:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah, of the ones I can see those don't look very impressive. [2] is very brief, [3] is a review of one of their records which occasionally mentions the label (even if it's reliable), and [4] is so promotional I'm having a hard time believing the company didn't have something to do with writing/publishing it. Hut 8.5 17:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I think I can help here. The link provided above by Acousmana leads to a statement that Textura accepts music submissions, I believe like all music media – not article pitches, like some. This is DJ Lab's disclaimer: "Bitte sehen Sie von Anfragen bezüglich Verlinkungen und Gastartikeln grundsätzlich ab. Beide Arten von Mails werden direkt gelöscht." ("Please refrain from request for links or guest articles. Mails with both kinds of requests are deleted directly." [5]. Mastheads of Tip Mag [6], Faze [7], Groove [8] – Planetdust ( talk) 20:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • The inability of a "new sources exist" proponent to count to three correlates with all the proferred sources failing in one way or another. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment to User:Planetdust - You are also arguing with all of the other editors at the Villa Kamogawa AFD. I have not yet seen an AFD or DRV where someone changed the outcome by arguing with all of the other editors. I am sure that it has happened at least once, with tens of thousands of deletion discussions. But I wouldn't recommend trying to be the second. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment why are we re-arguing the article merits here? Might as well just re-open the discussion. A DRV is intended to evaluate the merits of the close, which is based upon the arguments present at closing time. Or so I thought, perhaps I've fallen behind the times. Planetdust, if you'll stop badgering everybody, and apologize for calling long-term, highly productive editors who edit across an extremely broad spectrum of topics "trolls", (and redact such an absurd claim), I'll take the time to explain why *I* think this may (or may not) be a notable label on your talk page. Record labels are a specialty of mine, although post-1990 labels lose a lot of my interest. Otherwise, based on your contribution history and interaction style, I'll think your sole purpose here is to promote topics related to Stefan Goldmann. By the way, are you familar with the requirements of WP:COI? 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 02:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
78.26 – WP:COI read & understood. If my early decision to limit my editorial efforts on Wikipedia to 3-4 closely related topics arouses suspicion I'll have to live with that. To understand the WP better: Is the case of an administrative assistant at a politics department [9] who inserted 14 of his own writings 16 times as sources, + another 9 under further reading in the Stockhausen article (a composer), while simultaneously policing others's edits in there something within the scope of WP:COI? Planetdust ( talk) 09:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • despicable attack on a notable deceased editor, who made significant contributions to the encyclopedia, was editor of a respected contemproary music journal, and who clearly stated what his connections with various topics were. What have you done for this community other than attempt to fluff your own pillow? Nothing. Acousmana ( talk) 11:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Right, you can personally attack a deceased editor (again, a highly accomplished, valued and beloved one), labeling him a "troll" without incident, but when it comes to yourself, it is not okay. I find that telling. El_C 14:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • To my mind, that debate could sum to "delete" or "redirect", at closer's discretion. It definitely doesn't sum to "no consensus" or "keep". I agree with Planetdust that "no consensus" would be the best compromise; but on Wikipedia, a decision is usually better than a compromise, and our discussion closers aren't required to compromise with interested parties.— S Marshall  T/ C 10:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
I will repeat what I said to User:Planetdust on the talk page of this daily log. Hounding does occasionally happen in Wikipedia, and must be dealt with; but it is rare compared to nonsensical claims by hypersensitive editors that they are being hounded when other editors reply to them. There is no hounding here, but there are civility violations by Planetdust, who is being aggressive, and is then crying "Hounding" when other editors reply. This is a content forum. If User:Planetdust really thinks that they are being hounded, they can go to WP:ANI; but their hands are not clean. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:36, 3 March 2021 (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/2021_March_1&oldid=1039506050"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE