Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2021 September 15
2021 September 17 >

16 September 2021

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

DRVPURPOSE: (5) Per In my view the the key most important root cause of issue with this XfD was its raising with 24 hours of the good faith closure of the previous XfD by Daniel without, to my knowledge, referral to Daniel to question that 'no consensus' close. Seems to violate BEFORE B.5 and the expected review outcomes would be speedy keep or ... alternatively ... if necessary review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PROIV and endorse that XfD result (no consensus) or overturn that XfD. Per DRVPURPOSE: (1) feel there may be questions (excluding the BEFORE issue), if the consensus was interpreted correctly but to a degree that is moot and borderline. Close has offered re-open but that doesn't really cover this matter and the length of time at XfD would be regarded I think as very unhealthly. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 13:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC) reply

To give clarification to a good faith reverted edit: The prose above has turned out a little unclear and can easily be mis-read. It is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PROIV (2nd nomination) which is the primary focus of this review. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 15:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC) reply
I would like to see the discussion reopened or overturned to no consensus. If low participation in the previous discussion was the reason for renomination so quickly, I feel participants in the first deletion discussion should have been pinged. I don't believe this happened. NemesisAT ( talk) 15:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Yowzee wow, lots of irregularities here!
    1) The nominator of this DRV linked to the subject AfD, which was open at the time, from a question in Blablubbs' RfA, and Primefac removed the question here. I think Primefac was right to do that because linking an open AfD from an RfA is a pretty irregular thing to do. This link clearly increased participation in the discussion but it didn't have the effect the nominator expected. I don't know how that fact affects this DRV, or even if it should.
    2) Boleyn didn't follow WP:RENOM. He doesn't strictly have to follow RENOM because it's an essay, but the fact that he didn't makes me uneasy. If you want to challenge the outcome of a very recently-closed AfD then you should go to DRV. We've seen this before -- users whose attitude is, the relistings will continue until the article is deleted -- and the community has always, historically, disapproved.
    3) None of the AfDs considered any of the alternatives to deletion, and it's written into the deletion policy that we should exhaust the alternatives before deleting a page.
    S Marshall's view: this is rather a mess. Neither the deletion policy nor the process have been followed, with mistakes on both sides. IMV what we need to decide now is if there's any reasonably plausible merge target. If one exists, then I think there are clear grounds to overturn.— S Marshall  T/ C 16:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Marshall "didn't have the effect the nominator expected" ... please confirm by "nominator" you mean me, the "nominator" of this DRV, as it could mean anything else. If this is the case please don't vaguewave "have the effect the nominator expected" please precisely define "the effect that I expected". The essay in question indicates the stress elongated XfD's have,: a discouragement to sourcing. As supplier of possibly the two most significant sources to the previous XfD, and just after a recent block for an outburst .... that nomination seemed almost taunting, perhaps targeted, with bold shouting of "12 years" in it to boot. I just about held back from an incivil response and a further block, but made the question at the RfA which would had been quite interesting if the the AfD hadn't been open. A somewhat psychotic methinks. Anyway per Primefac's comment on my talk page I accepted his decision on reflection, determine his suggestion regarding ANI was not worth a boomerang hit between the legs and simply struck and recused from the XfD as I had been accused of CANVAS'ing so best really to back off. I perhaps could have argued it wasn't a canvas but determined probably best to back off and go exploring River Lavant culverts like a troll. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 17:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • If nothing else the article did not cite any third-party sources at the time of deletion - every citation and link was to something written or published by the company which maintains the software. The article was therefore in violation of WP:V, which says that articles should be based on third-party reliable sources, that we shouldn't have an article on something where there are no sources of this kind, and that the burden of proof is on those seeking to keep the content. WP:V is core policy and can't be overruled by an AfD discussion of any type. The most we can do here is draftify it to allow for improvement. There were some sources mentioned in the AfD but at least one of them doesn't appear to mention the subject at all. Hut 8.5 19:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and redo with hopefully more eyes on it this time. Immediate relisting without pinging immediate past participants is a party foul and should not be rewarded. Jclemens ( talk) 19:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn. Deletion process was not followed in that the article was renominated for deletion almost immediately after a previous nomination was closed, without a very good reason. If relisting is decided upon, which I would discourage, I would recommend starting from scratch rather than reopening the last AFD. Stifle ( talk) 08:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn - an "out of process" nomination from this nominator (who has a full 30% of their deletion nominations closed as keep)...? One day they'll be dealt with, but until then, we have DRV. St★lwart 111 11:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn. If anyone still wants to challenge the article, wait a while. But as one of the people who helped develop the informal guidelines on renoms, there's no fixed minimum for renom after a non-consensus. It's not necessary to wait at least 6 months, as after a keep. Quick renom after non-consensus were not uncommon in the past. (And just in terms of strategy, immediate renomination are unlikely to succeed) Doing it this way-- regardless of the essay or of strategy,--is an poor judgment that just leads to repeated and unnecessary conflict. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC) reply
To be clear I read the the following from WP:RENOM: "If the XfD discussion was closed as “no consensus”, generally do not renominate the page for at least two months.", the language used being the same as per a keep. The essay also suggests "When you do renominate, try to make a better nomination statement than was made last time." Given my involvement in the first AfD, and with fully embellished citations of two particular sources, that felt rather taunting, and I was just on the verge of being UNCIVIL and ending up with a further block, in the end I backed off due to risks of that. The onus is on those wishing to keep, as to a degree so is the stress and risks of the psychotic event, and strain of resource management of RL, sometimes to the detriment of the latter. I have seen a closer closer with the comment such as "no objection to immediate re-nomination". Any surely it is a complete disrespect of the closer's judgement to enquire about their closure first? The closure also possibly has the object to suggest WP:STUBIFY is considered along with adding sources mentioned in the AfD; and a week (with an extension if requested), would be a reasonable requirement; and pretty much suggested by my reading of Earwig/Maturin comments. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 22:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment as the person who instigated the 2nd AfD thanks for the comments, definitely something for me to take onboard here as I misjudged it. My reason for swiftly re-nominating was given, but wasn't strong enough. Just to be clear though, some of the assumptions here of bad faith are off the mark. I work through the articles that have been in CAT:NN the longest, but I am well aware that many are notable, and many I remove from that category. Others are taken to AfD. They tend to be tricky ones, so, as has been said, 70% of them are deleted or merged/redirected, which, given their complexity, is me getting it right a reasonable percentage of the time, especially as any notability discussion is dependent to a large extent on who participates. People tend to to even try to tackle these as they have been there that long and are tricky, but I think they deserve to continue without a tag, or be deleted if that's the judgement. I am definitely not argumentative if articles are found more notable than they are in my opinion, and wouldn't consider myself keen to delete everything. All the best, Boleyn ( talk) 18:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • @ Boleyn: If you are talking about by assumptions of bad faith then specifically mention me. You seem to be claiming it would be OK for you to renominated immediately if the reason was stronger .... does this mean emboldening more text in the nominatation than 12 years. It takes very little effort to raise a vaguewave AfD nomination and it has few consequences, if actually takes a helluva lot of effort (cost/resource) to sort the things out. If you decided to donate 1 hours wages to charity or the Wikimedia foundation every time an AfD nomination was kept would you still decide to nominate as many or as quickly? Food for thought maybe? I'm not sure you've owned the issue, or shown you will respect a closer.-- Djm-leighpark ( talk) 00:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I suspect they mean me; I've pointed out their disruption in multiple discussions and urged admins to have the guts to block them. The majority of their nominations are launched mere minutes (or seconds!) after edits elsewhere, confirming absolutely zero consideration of WP:BEFORE. The result is a log full of dozens and dozens of nominations (from this one nominator) with flimsy deletion rationales and little participation. A good number of the 30% that are kept are speedy closed, or WP:SNOW closed. But they continue to believe they are doing nothing wrong. *shrugs*. St★lwart 111 01:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Response my comment was aimed at the general atmosphere of some comments, and wasn't meant as any kind of attack - just explaining my editing had been misinterpreted. user:Djm-leighpark, the reason I would sometimes swiftly re-nominate would usually be if it has closed due to zero, or close to it, participation, and the closer has written that there is njo prejudice agaist a swift renomination in their closing statement. user:Stalwart111, I have explained above why my noms would often come close to each other, as I would analyse them, then wait until the numbers at AfD weren't too high, then add them in. This was suggested to me and others working through CAT:NN years ago, and is something I have done since then, so if CAT:NN editors are particularly active and some are going to AfD, it doesn't cause knock-on problems in getting enough participants in AfD discussions. Anyway, thanks for your comments. I will look at the points made in terms of obviously making an error on this one, and also if I need to nominate at the time I have analysed it to make it really clear how I am editing, rather than thinking about AfD queues. All the best, Boleyn ( talk) 06:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Boleyn: I only The result was no consensus and nothing like no prejudice against a swift renomination in the close of the prior AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PROIV). If you think the closer's made a bad there's aks the closer and there's DRV ... I think,for a many year old article with no copyvio the most closers would likely advise wait, give a further chance for the article to be edited outside of DRV. And I would also say bring forward what you consider to be the best 3 sources from the previous nominations and discuss them ... perhaps show good faith by adding them to the article. I'd also note closer's could sometimes be helpful in suggesting when AfD sources are added to the article and when an article may need to be WP:STUBIFYed due to large amounts failing WP:V and/or significant COI editing. (Mind you half the time that would probably end up with the title or lead sentence being citebombed!) And a pause allows time to recharge battaries, a different set of people to be available, a fresh look. I could go on, I have RL. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 07:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC) reply
As above, I have already said that I made an error on this one, user:Djm-leighpark. Boleyn ( talk) 07:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC) reply
The first error was the nom. A second error was not to retract it on 5 September 2021 and admit it on 26 September 2021 likely to avoid a possible ANI appearance. If you wonder why I seem so aggressive and sarcastic this has cost me already a lot of volunteer time and left me sort of mentalled and stuff, to which peoples will likely say take a break, but there's a job to be done on PRO*IV after you're out of this; that job wlll probably be mine, and i'll likely get bits knocked off like I'm at the Battle of the River Plate while I'm doing it. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 08:30, 27 September 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_September_16&oldid=1047585872"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2021 September 15
2021 September 17 >

16 September 2021

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

DRVPURPOSE: (5) Per In my view the the key most important root cause of issue with this XfD was its raising with 24 hours of the good faith closure of the previous XfD by Daniel without, to my knowledge, referral to Daniel to question that 'no consensus' close. Seems to violate BEFORE B.5 and the expected review outcomes would be speedy keep or ... alternatively ... if necessary review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PROIV and endorse that XfD result (no consensus) or overturn that XfD. Per DRVPURPOSE: (1) feel there may be questions (excluding the BEFORE issue), if the consensus was interpreted correctly but to a degree that is moot and borderline. Close has offered re-open but that doesn't really cover this matter and the length of time at XfD would be regarded I think as very unhealthly. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 13:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC) reply

To give clarification to a good faith reverted edit: The prose above has turned out a little unclear and can easily be mis-read. It is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PROIV (2nd nomination) which is the primary focus of this review. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 15:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC) reply
I would like to see the discussion reopened or overturned to no consensus. If low participation in the previous discussion was the reason for renomination so quickly, I feel participants in the first deletion discussion should have been pinged. I don't believe this happened. NemesisAT ( talk) 15:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Yowzee wow, lots of irregularities here!
    1) The nominator of this DRV linked to the subject AfD, which was open at the time, from a question in Blablubbs' RfA, and Primefac removed the question here. I think Primefac was right to do that because linking an open AfD from an RfA is a pretty irregular thing to do. This link clearly increased participation in the discussion but it didn't have the effect the nominator expected. I don't know how that fact affects this DRV, or even if it should.
    2) Boleyn didn't follow WP:RENOM. He doesn't strictly have to follow RENOM because it's an essay, but the fact that he didn't makes me uneasy. If you want to challenge the outcome of a very recently-closed AfD then you should go to DRV. We've seen this before -- users whose attitude is, the relistings will continue until the article is deleted -- and the community has always, historically, disapproved.
    3) None of the AfDs considered any of the alternatives to deletion, and it's written into the deletion policy that we should exhaust the alternatives before deleting a page.
    S Marshall's view: this is rather a mess. Neither the deletion policy nor the process have been followed, with mistakes on both sides. IMV what we need to decide now is if there's any reasonably plausible merge target. If one exists, then I think there are clear grounds to overturn.— S Marshall  T/ C 16:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Marshall "didn't have the effect the nominator expected" ... please confirm by "nominator" you mean me, the "nominator" of this DRV, as it could mean anything else. If this is the case please don't vaguewave "have the effect the nominator expected" please precisely define "the effect that I expected". The essay in question indicates the stress elongated XfD's have,: a discouragement to sourcing. As supplier of possibly the two most significant sources to the previous XfD, and just after a recent block for an outburst .... that nomination seemed almost taunting, perhaps targeted, with bold shouting of "12 years" in it to boot. I just about held back from an incivil response and a further block, but made the question at the RfA which would had been quite interesting if the the AfD hadn't been open. A somewhat psychotic methinks. Anyway per Primefac's comment on my talk page I accepted his decision on reflection, determine his suggestion regarding ANI was not worth a boomerang hit between the legs and simply struck and recused from the XfD as I had been accused of CANVAS'ing so best really to back off. I perhaps could have argued it wasn't a canvas but determined probably best to back off and go exploring River Lavant culverts like a troll. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 17:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • If nothing else the article did not cite any third-party sources at the time of deletion - every citation and link was to something written or published by the company which maintains the software. The article was therefore in violation of WP:V, which says that articles should be based on third-party reliable sources, that we shouldn't have an article on something where there are no sources of this kind, and that the burden of proof is on those seeking to keep the content. WP:V is core policy and can't be overruled by an AfD discussion of any type. The most we can do here is draftify it to allow for improvement. There were some sources mentioned in the AfD but at least one of them doesn't appear to mention the subject at all. Hut 8.5 19:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and redo with hopefully more eyes on it this time. Immediate relisting without pinging immediate past participants is a party foul and should not be rewarded. Jclemens ( talk) 19:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn. Deletion process was not followed in that the article was renominated for deletion almost immediately after a previous nomination was closed, without a very good reason. If relisting is decided upon, which I would discourage, I would recommend starting from scratch rather than reopening the last AFD. Stifle ( talk) 08:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn - an "out of process" nomination from this nominator (who has a full 30% of their deletion nominations closed as keep)...? One day they'll be dealt with, but until then, we have DRV. St★lwart 111 11:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn. If anyone still wants to challenge the article, wait a while. But as one of the people who helped develop the informal guidelines on renoms, there's no fixed minimum for renom after a non-consensus. It's not necessary to wait at least 6 months, as after a keep. Quick renom after non-consensus were not uncommon in the past. (And just in terms of strategy, immediate renomination are unlikely to succeed) Doing it this way-- regardless of the essay or of strategy,--is an poor judgment that just leads to repeated and unnecessary conflict. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC) reply
To be clear I read the the following from WP:RENOM: "If the XfD discussion was closed as “no consensus”, generally do not renominate the page for at least two months.", the language used being the same as per a keep. The essay also suggests "When you do renominate, try to make a better nomination statement than was made last time." Given my involvement in the first AfD, and with fully embellished citations of two particular sources, that felt rather taunting, and I was just on the verge of being UNCIVIL and ending up with a further block, in the end I backed off due to risks of that. The onus is on those wishing to keep, as to a degree so is the stress and risks of the psychotic event, and strain of resource management of RL, sometimes to the detriment of the latter. I have seen a closer closer with the comment such as "no objection to immediate re-nomination". Any surely it is a complete disrespect of the closer's judgement to enquire about their closure first? The closure also possibly has the object to suggest WP:STUBIFY is considered along with adding sources mentioned in the AfD; and a week (with an extension if requested), would be a reasonable requirement; and pretty much suggested by my reading of Earwig/Maturin comments. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 22:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment as the person who instigated the 2nd AfD thanks for the comments, definitely something for me to take onboard here as I misjudged it. My reason for swiftly re-nominating was given, but wasn't strong enough. Just to be clear though, some of the assumptions here of bad faith are off the mark. I work through the articles that have been in CAT:NN the longest, but I am well aware that many are notable, and many I remove from that category. Others are taken to AfD. They tend to be tricky ones, so, as has been said, 70% of them are deleted or merged/redirected, which, given their complexity, is me getting it right a reasonable percentage of the time, especially as any notability discussion is dependent to a large extent on who participates. People tend to to even try to tackle these as they have been there that long and are tricky, but I think they deserve to continue without a tag, or be deleted if that's the judgement. I am definitely not argumentative if articles are found more notable than they are in my opinion, and wouldn't consider myself keen to delete everything. All the best, Boleyn ( talk) 18:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • @ Boleyn: If you are talking about by assumptions of bad faith then specifically mention me. You seem to be claiming it would be OK for you to renominated immediately if the reason was stronger .... does this mean emboldening more text in the nominatation than 12 years. It takes very little effort to raise a vaguewave AfD nomination and it has few consequences, if actually takes a helluva lot of effort (cost/resource) to sort the things out. If you decided to donate 1 hours wages to charity or the Wikimedia foundation every time an AfD nomination was kept would you still decide to nominate as many or as quickly? Food for thought maybe? I'm not sure you've owned the issue, or shown you will respect a closer.-- Djm-leighpark ( talk) 00:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I suspect they mean me; I've pointed out their disruption in multiple discussions and urged admins to have the guts to block them. The majority of their nominations are launched mere minutes (or seconds!) after edits elsewhere, confirming absolutely zero consideration of WP:BEFORE. The result is a log full of dozens and dozens of nominations (from this one nominator) with flimsy deletion rationales and little participation. A good number of the 30% that are kept are speedy closed, or WP:SNOW closed. But they continue to believe they are doing nothing wrong. *shrugs*. St★lwart 111 01:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Response my comment was aimed at the general atmosphere of some comments, and wasn't meant as any kind of attack - just explaining my editing had been misinterpreted. user:Djm-leighpark, the reason I would sometimes swiftly re-nominate would usually be if it has closed due to zero, or close to it, participation, and the closer has written that there is njo prejudice agaist a swift renomination in their closing statement. user:Stalwart111, I have explained above why my noms would often come close to each other, as I would analyse them, then wait until the numbers at AfD weren't too high, then add them in. This was suggested to me and others working through CAT:NN years ago, and is something I have done since then, so if CAT:NN editors are particularly active and some are going to AfD, it doesn't cause knock-on problems in getting enough participants in AfD discussions. Anyway, thanks for your comments. I will look at the points made in terms of obviously making an error on this one, and also if I need to nominate at the time I have analysed it to make it really clear how I am editing, rather than thinking about AfD queues. All the best, Boleyn ( talk) 06:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Boleyn: I only The result was no consensus and nothing like no prejudice against a swift renomination in the close of the prior AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PROIV). If you think the closer's made a bad there's aks the closer and there's DRV ... I think,for a many year old article with no copyvio the most closers would likely advise wait, give a further chance for the article to be edited outside of DRV. And I would also say bring forward what you consider to be the best 3 sources from the previous nominations and discuss them ... perhaps show good faith by adding them to the article. I'd also note closer's could sometimes be helpful in suggesting when AfD sources are added to the article and when an article may need to be WP:STUBIFYed due to large amounts failing WP:V and/or significant COI editing. (Mind you half the time that would probably end up with the title or lead sentence being citebombed!) And a pause allows time to recharge battaries, a different set of people to be available, a fresh look. I could go on, I have RL. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 07:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC) reply
As above, I have already said that I made an error on this one, user:Djm-leighpark. Boleyn ( talk) 07:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC) reply
The first error was the nom. A second error was not to retract it on 5 September 2021 and admit it on 26 September 2021 likely to avoid a possible ANI appearance. If you wonder why I seem so aggressive and sarcastic this has cost me already a lot of volunteer time and left me sort of mentalled and stuff, to which peoples will likely say take a break, but there's a job to be done on PRO*IV after you're out of this; that job wlll probably be mine, and i'll likely get bits knocked off like I'm at the Battle of the River Plate while I'm doing it. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 08:30, 27 September 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_September_16&oldid=1047585872"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE