Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2021 September 28
2021 September 30 >

29 September 2021

  • List of longest-living United States senators – Endorsed. The consensus here is that the original decision by the closer is endorsed, including the deletion of the similar Indian lists - none of the endorsers here or those who said "delete" on the original AFD said they wanted to treat those separately. On the separate "philosophy" question, regarding the emotional nature of some "keep" !votes, the reason for discounting those !votes was (as noted by Alalch Emis here) that those keep !votes did not give a valid reason, rather than that they were emotional or NPA. So the closer was not inventing a new reason to discount !votes here. It doesn't seem to me that any separate RFCs are necessary to clarify that point, but of course editors are free to start RFCs if they think there's some doubt about something.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 09:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of longest-living United States senators ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I am asking for to overturn the close to a no Consensus close based on AfD participation and based on a procedurally flawed nomination. The closer discounted ivotes based on the fact that the some participants were emotional (one involved a PA) and I acknowledge that the keep participants did not make policy and guideline based arguments. I did ask the AfD closer to reconsider. My experience is that the closer is flippant when editors have issues with their closures. 1, 2, 3. I remember a particularly egregious close at DRV and this closer simply ignored the many editors who took issue with their close.

These lists fits exactly into our guideline for lists on WP:LISTCRITERIA and if we look at straight keep/delete opinion 8 (including nominator) favored deletion and 6 favored keeping (yes I know the policy on counting). A no-consensus close does not prohibit a renomination. An example of our consensus procedure will be seen in this DRV: If we had the same result of delete/keep ivotes here this DRV will be a no-consensus and it will result in maintaining the deletion of these four lists.

The second part of my rationale involves a flawed procedure. The nominator added other completely unrelated lists to this AfD nomination after there was a delete participant. List of oldest living members of the Lok Sabha, List of oldest living members of the Rajya Sabha were added after debate started. You can see the nominator added the unrelated lists after the AfD began - this is the original nom with two US related deletions. After the first delete ivote the nominator added unrelated Indian Politician lists. Lightburst ( talk) 17:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply

I also ask to undelete these lists for the DRV participants. Lightburst ( talk) 18:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse The closer did not discount opinions because some participants appeared to be emotional -- their advocacy did not include policy-based arguments (as you say yourself), and what it did contain was attacks. So when the portion of !votes thus referred to is discounted, what remains is a consensus to delete. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 18:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Thank you. Procedurally - as an AfD participant I was not aware that the Indian list were added. Perhaps they should be split out. We cannot know if participants all understood that there were four lists. I know how these DRVs go but we should also be concerned with the procedure of slipping in unrelated deletions. Lightburst ( talk) 18:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply
I did include policy arguments, for instance, "a direct quote from your link: 'If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates.'" in response to someone citing a Wikipedia policy against "OTHERSTUFF"; in response to complaints about "SYNTHESIS" I quoted from that link where routine calculations (including the calculation of ages) is wholly permissible, "In the end, those are still calculations. I don't see any rule saying there can only be a limited number of calculations included on a page?????? From Wikipedia:Calculations 'calculating a person's age is almost always permissible.'"; in response to complaints about "TRIVIA" I rebutted that with yet another quote from that link, "I don't believe this violates Wikipedia:Trivia because, as the link states, "A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and 'unselective' list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information". This is clearly the latter, a selectively populated list with a narrow theme."; and I paraphrased "NPOSSIBLE" to rebut yet another commenter's complaint, "According to Wikipedia:NPOSSIBLE, articles should be considered based on whether the sources can exist, not on whether the current article links to extant sources. Additionally, some sources have been collected above, proving that sourcing for this article's topic DOES exist". It appears to me that these inconvenient arguments quoting and rebutting people's policies have been ignored in favor of amorphous complaints about "personal attacks". Overall, the deleter ignored strong arguments and selectively chose weak arguments as reasons to delete these pages, preferring a misrepresentation of the "strongest" provided arguments for the "keep" side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:484:c580:3420:e02f:bf5c:b330:ddc0 ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse the closer discounted "arguments" like this which just consist of insulting people who disagree with them. Apart from the fact that personal attacks are strongly discouraged here, comments like this simply aren't valid arguments. The count of six people supporting keeping includes several comments which did not advance a coherent rationale, such as "STOP DELETING EVERYTHING IN SIGHT!", and it would have been entirely legitimate for the closer to discount or downweight them. The other articles this was nominated with are all closely related and nobody in the discussion drew a distinction between them. Hut 8.5 18:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Right WP:CIR - It is too bad a person needs about a year of experience to learn all the ins and outs and acronyms here. I myself had many acronyms hurled at me when I started, and I pleaded for mercy which only got more acronyms. I tend to not penalize people for not understanding how the sausage is made. Lightburst ( talk) 18:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply
I did, in fact, draw a distinction between the US Senators & Representatives articles and the Indian congress articles. See this, "In the American system, the US Congress is equally as important as the US president."
Not using acronyms isn't the issue, it's the complete lack of any coherent argument in some of those comments which is the bigger problem with them. Nor should anybody be surprised that comments which just insult people are ignored. Nobody in that discussion, including you, argued that the situation of any of those articles was any different to the others. The only argument you've put forward for the bundled nomination being invalid is that some of the articles were added after one person had commented, which is nitpicking at best. Hut 8.5 21:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply
The discussion could have been better, but it was sufficiently thorough. Relisting would very likely be more of the same. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 20:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply
      • I went out of my way to find sources that disputed others' contentions that this article was not encyclopedic. It does not look like you took that into consideration when the article was deleted; instead the deleter said the opposition was "personal attacks". I did complain that the rules seemed arbitrary and nonsensical, but I would hardly describe that as a personal attack, just an expression of frustration that a page I liked to look at was being deleted and it was not clear how I could stop it. Please reconsider deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:484:c580:3420:e02f:bf5c:b330:ddc0 ( talk • contribs) 20:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse – many of the keep !votes were "based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact" or were "logically fallacious", so the WP:DGFA allows the closer to discount them. The delete !votes were by and large grounded in our policies and guidelines, while the keeps by and large simply weren't. In light of that (and the fact that the deletes were numerically in the majority as well), a delete closure was clearly appropriate. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 20:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply
    • According to your link, WP:DGFA, three of the four main guidelines for deletion were violated in this case. See "Whether consensus has been achieved by determining a "rough consensus" (see below). Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants. When in doubt, don't delete." There was not a "rough consensus" because the strongest arguments for the keep side were ignored by the deleter in favor of accusations of personal attacks. The deleter did not respect the feelings of Wikipedia participants, who did not want the page deleted, regardless of how articulate they were. Finally, because there should have been doubt, the bias should have been towards don't delete, flagrantly violated in this instance.
  • Endorse I went back through and only encountered like one coherent “keep” argument. The others were just variants on “don’t delete it” “it’s popular” “you suck for wanting to delete this” “it’s useful and interesting” etc. We really shouldn’t call AfD votes “votes” because they’re really competing arguments and not simply “ayes” or “nays”. Dronebogus ( talk) 00:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse- That's really the only way the discussion could have ended. Commentary such as "STOP DELETING EVERYTHING IN SIGHT" and "you suck for wanting to delete this" does not actually contain a reason for keeping the article. I'm also disappointed, but unsurprised, that coddling the hurt feelings of people who wanted to keep the article is being presented as a reason to overturn consensus, when the feelings of the targets of all those personal attacks are apparently irrelevant. I say unsurprised because personal abuse of AfD nominators and delete !voters has become so routine and commonplace that hardly anyone remarks on it anymore. The closer of this AfD is one of a very, very small number of admins who does push back against it. Reyk YO! 10:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Wikipedia has a longstanding and ongoing problem with gerontology-related OR. You could easily reverse the outcome of this AfD by producing independent, reliable sources about the longest-lived people who have served as US senators, but I don't think those sources exist. If they don't, then a much weaker alternative is to claim it's a navigational list, but that's not a source-based argument and the community doesn't agree with it. I can't see how Sandstein could have closed in any other way.— S Marshall  T/ C 13:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Thanks Marshall. for your measured and articulate response. The record will show that I have appealed several of Sandstein's closes. I never expect to have their decisions overturned. I acknowledged that the participants in this AfD did not know what they were doing. We can all agree that they did know that they wanted to keep. But that is not enough for the Wikipedians. Passion gets laughter from the participants here. Hut 8.5 points out that I am nitpicking. Procedure matters, and as I stated, when I first participated I did not see that the nomination had two unrelated Indian lists added. Sandstein will continue to be snarky and dismissive and I will continue to advocate for participants who do not know how to participate well enough to please the long-time participants here. Again Marshall, thank you for your professionalism. Lightburst ( talk) 15:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC) reply
I challenge you to find a long-serving admin who's not dismissive in a perfunctory way that can come across as snarky when they've been dealing with Wikidisputes as long as Sandstein or another half-dozen admins I can think of who have been doing this for 10+ years. It's a challenge for pretty much every helping profession: after a decade of the same complaints by different people, it's challenging and time consuming to respond to every one as if it were new and fresh, as it is to the requestor in many cases, when it absolutely old hat to the admin in question. Jclemens ( talk) 17:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Yes, and particularly after some 15 years of complaints by people who hold sincere and strong views that are at odds with community consensus, but who seem to think that complaining to or about me is going to change that. Nonetheless, I do try to treat every good-faith request courteously and professionally (if perhaps briefly, given time constraints). I welcome feedback by editors (other perhaps than the ones who are currently angry at me because I've taken admin actions they disagree with) if they want to look at my talk page and tell me if they think I come across as inappropriately "snarky or dismissive". I would like to think that I tend not to do that, but it is of course not always easy to notice by oneself. Sandstein 18:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC) reply
IMO it's fine to be succinct if the answers given contain the requested information. If others see conciseness as flippant, that's on them. Reyk YO! 08:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Sandstein did not mock Lightburst. But in the discussion above, the "keep" !voters are given very short shrift. Nobody exactly laughs at them, but nobody above is taking them seriously at all. In context, I would understand those !votes as expressions of distress, from people who feel their views are ignored and their work is casually obliterated. And they have a point: we as a community don't really care what they think, and we don't want this content. All we want is for it to be gone with the minimum of process and fuss. I've sometimes thought that the right solution might be for them to set up a separate gerontology wiki with their own rules.— S Marshall  T/ C 10:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC) reply
That's not a bad idea, but I really think for it to work we need a federated setup for Wikipedia. I've thought this for a long time in fiction, that we would be better off linking to specialist Wikis like Memory Alpha when the level of specificity and "fancruft" exceeds a certain threshold, and point both links and interested editors to these other wikis. Without cross-wiki links, we are simply oublietting (Yes, Verbing weirds language) the editors and content. Jclemens ( talk) 16:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Another WP:Supervote by Sandstein? This time the coherent Keep arguments were dismissed in favor of a "impeachment is routine" argument. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Efforts to impeach Joe Biden (2nd nomination). Roughly 8-8. Contesting here would be rubbish. And a redirect is a delete. Lightburst ( talk) 03:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC) reply
I would suggest that if you want to contest another deletion, start a DRV for it. Alternatively, if you think Sandstein is making a habit of supervoting, a better venue to raise this complaint would be ANI. It's unlikely to accomplish very much here. I took a look at the impeachment AfD and saw that two votes were just bare "keep ~~~~", one was a personal attack on the nominator, one a simple "keep per suchandsuch", one was some irrelevancy about Matt Gaetz. That left about three !votes, including your own, that tried to make an argument for keeping and plenty on the other side who made good arguments to merge or redirect. Reyk YO! 10:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Thanks Reyk. You an I know how ANI goes: It is a sh&^ show on a good day. And overturning here...As I showed in one of my links above - 11-6 in favor of overturn at DRV was closed as no-consensus by Sandstein. So to recap, 8-8 on an AfD is redirect with the closer choosing a non-policy non-guideline argument. But here an 8-8 would be respected as a no-consensus. I know we do not purely count, but at the same time yes we do. We dismiss IP editors or those who say "per above", but maybe we shouldn't. One other question I have here is would this project have kept an article (with multiple RS, started by an admin) with Trump in the title? Forgive me for ranting and taking time away from building the encyclopedia. I will go try to be productive now. Lightburst ( talk) 13:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC) reply
We don't dismiss IP editors -- see WP:IPDIS; or discount per exes -- see second paragraph of WP:PERX — Alalch Emis ( talk) 16:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC) reply
We don't, but our attitude to them has changed. In days that Lightburst and I both remember well, when an IP editor made an argument unlikely to be taken into account in the close, someone would speak to them about how to make a good argument at AfD. Nowadays we simply disregard them. Wikipedia has become much less engaging for new editors as a result. We're also considerably happier to endorse a close that disregards the !vote count.
I think that this reflects two key changes. First, people writing promotional content ("spammers") have adapted to Wikipedia, and second, Wikipedia has adapted to spammers. These discussions weren't about promotional content -- but they've been caught in the same net, because we've learned to pay less heed to IP editors and to overrule the !vote count. I think Lightburst might be taken aback by the extent of the changes to this place.— S Marshall  T/ C 14:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC) reply
I think you'll find that the IP editors were not ignored in this discussion. There were responses to all of the IP participants except the one who wrote STOP DELETING EVERYTHING IN SIGHT. There were even discussions amongst IP editors. pburka ( talk) 14:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • This information is available in tables at List of former United States senators. I suggest changing lifespan to “age at death, lifespan”, to enable reader sorting by age at death. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - Either we, at DRV, are reviewing the closer's emphasis on strength of arguments, or the closer's attention to a vote count, or a combination of the two. The Keep arguments were extremely weak, and disregarding them was appropriate. If the closer had been relying primarily on a vote count, the closer should still have discounted IP votes to some extent, because the shifting of IP addresses and the use of multiple devices makes it impossible to ensure that the IP votes are all from different humans. Either way, it was a good close. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC) reply
I think it is right to give IPs arms-length consideration at AfD. Either they are new and not well versed in Wikipedia standards, mainly Wikipedia-notability, or they are very probably violating WP:SOCK by editing project space while logged out. IP editors lack long term accountability, which is fine in mainspace where the edit is what matters, but is not ok in the back room processes.
I disagree that Wikipedia is less engaging with genuine looking newcomers editing mainspace. If there is sense to their pattern of editing, and some kind of introduction on their Userpage, they get treated as a person. If they have a blue-linked but blank main userpage, and they edit like a WP:SPA, they are probably a WP:UPE using a throwaway account. I try talking to these accounts, but they won’t reply in flowing English, because, I have decided, the don’t want to give away personal style hints that will connect them to their main account.
If Wikipedia is less engaging with newcomers, I think it is because there are so few genuine newcomers. And a large part of the reason is that genuine newcomers get sucked from mainspace into AfC where they are isolated and burned. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment this is largely turning into an off-topic discussion about Wikipedia philosophy, which is all well and good but has no place at a simple debate over reassessing a deleted article that consensus already seems clear about. I’d recommend taking this somewhere more appropriate if you’d like to discuss the implications of the deletion for Wikipedia culture and not the validity of the deletion itself. Dronebogus ( talk) 05:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • While I agree with the sentiment, this is a volunteer deliberative body that at its best identifies conflicts in Wikipedia policies and/or practices, a process which can, at its best, highlight needs for revision and generate discussion leading to RfCs. Honestly? That's probably the more important outcome than simply deciding whether a deletion is overturned or not. Jclemens ( talk) 01:07, 6 October 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_29&oldid=1048846387"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2021 September 28
2021 September 30 >

29 September 2021

  • List of longest-living United States senators – Endorsed. The consensus here is that the original decision by the closer is endorsed, including the deletion of the similar Indian lists - none of the endorsers here or those who said "delete" on the original AFD said they wanted to treat those separately. On the separate "philosophy" question, regarding the emotional nature of some "keep" !votes, the reason for discounting those !votes was (as noted by Alalch Emis here) that those keep !votes did not give a valid reason, rather than that they were emotional or NPA. So the closer was not inventing a new reason to discount !votes here. It doesn't seem to me that any separate RFCs are necessary to clarify that point, but of course editors are free to start RFCs if they think there's some doubt about something.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 09:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of longest-living United States senators ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I am asking for to overturn the close to a no Consensus close based on AfD participation and based on a procedurally flawed nomination. The closer discounted ivotes based on the fact that the some participants were emotional (one involved a PA) and I acknowledge that the keep participants did not make policy and guideline based arguments. I did ask the AfD closer to reconsider. My experience is that the closer is flippant when editors have issues with their closures. 1, 2, 3. I remember a particularly egregious close at DRV and this closer simply ignored the many editors who took issue with their close.

These lists fits exactly into our guideline for lists on WP:LISTCRITERIA and if we look at straight keep/delete opinion 8 (including nominator) favored deletion and 6 favored keeping (yes I know the policy on counting). A no-consensus close does not prohibit a renomination. An example of our consensus procedure will be seen in this DRV: If we had the same result of delete/keep ivotes here this DRV will be a no-consensus and it will result in maintaining the deletion of these four lists.

The second part of my rationale involves a flawed procedure. The nominator added other completely unrelated lists to this AfD nomination after there was a delete participant. List of oldest living members of the Lok Sabha, List of oldest living members of the Rajya Sabha were added after debate started. You can see the nominator added the unrelated lists after the AfD began - this is the original nom with two US related deletions. After the first delete ivote the nominator added unrelated Indian Politician lists. Lightburst ( talk) 17:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply

I also ask to undelete these lists for the DRV participants. Lightburst ( talk) 18:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse The closer did not discount opinions because some participants appeared to be emotional -- their advocacy did not include policy-based arguments (as you say yourself), and what it did contain was attacks. So when the portion of !votes thus referred to is discounted, what remains is a consensus to delete. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 18:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Thank you. Procedurally - as an AfD participant I was not aware that the Indian list were added. Perhaps they should be split out. We cannot know if participants all understood that there were four lists. I know how these DRVs go but we should also be concerned with the procedure of slipping in unrelated deletions. Lightburst ( talk) 18:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply
I did include policy arguments, for instance, "a direct quote from your link: 'If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates.'" in response to someone citing a Wikipedia policy against "OTHERSTUFF"; in response to complaints about "SYNTHESIS" I quoted from that link where routine calculations (including the calculation of ages) is wholly permissible, "In the end, those are still calculations. I don't see any rule saying there can only be a limited number of calculations included on a page?????? From Wikipedia:Calculations 'calculating a person's age is almost always permissible.'"; in response to complaints about "TRIVIA" I rebutted that with yet another quote from that link, "I don't believe this violates Wikipedia:Trivia because, as the link states, "A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and 'unselective' list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information". This is clearly the latter, a selectively populated list with a narrow theme."; and I paraphrased "NPOSSIBLE" to rebut yet another commenter's complaint, "According to Wikipedia:NPOSSIBLE, articles should be considered based on whether the sources can exist, not on whether the current article links to extant sources. Additionally, some sources have been collected above, proving that sourcing for this article's topic DOES exist". It appears to me that these inconvenient arguments quoting and rebutting people's policies have been ignored in favor of amorphous complaints about "personal attacks". Overall, the deleter ignored strong arguments and selectively chose weak arguments as reasons to delete these pages, preferring a misrepresentation of the "strongest" provided arguments for the "keep" side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:484:c580:3420:e02f:bf5c:b330:ddc0 ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse the closer discounted "arguments" like this which just consist of insulting people who disagree with them. Apart from the fact that personal attacks are strongly discouraged here, comments like this simply aren't valid arguments. The count of six people supporting keeping includes several comments which did not advance a coherent rationale, such as "STOP DELETING EVERYTHING IN SIGHT!", and it would have been entirely legitimate for the closer to discount or downweight them. The other articles this was nominated with are all closely related and nobody in the discussion drew a distinction between them. Hut 8.5 18:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Right WP:CIR - It is too bad a person needs about a year of experience to learn all the ins and outs and acronyms here. I myself had many acronyms hurled at me when I started, and I pleaded for mercy which only got more acronyms. I tend to not penalize people for not understanding how the sausage is made. Lightburst ( talk) 18:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply
I did, in fact, draw a distinction between the US Senators & Representatives articles and the Indian congress articles. See this, "In the American system, the US Congress is equally as important as the US president."
Not using acronyms isn't the issue, it's the complete lack of any coherent argument in some of those comments which is the bigger problem with them. Nor should anybody be surprised that comments which just insult people are ignored. Nobody in that discussion, including you, argued that the situation of any of those articles was any different to the others. The only argument you've put forward for the bundled nomination being invalid is that some of the articles were added after one person had commented, which is nitpicking at best. Hut 8.5 21:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply
The discussion could have been better, but it was sufficiently thorough. Relisting would very likely be more of the same. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 20:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply
      • I went out of my way to find sources that disputed others' contentions that this article was not encyclopedic. It does not look like you took that into consideration when the article was deleted; instead the deleter said the opposition was "personal attacks". I did complain that the rules seemed arbitrary and nonsensical, but I would hardly describe that as a personal attack, just an expression of frustration that a page I liked to look at was being deleted and it was not clear how I could stop it. Please reconsider deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:484:c580:3420:e02f:bf5c:b330:ddc0 ( talk • contribs) 20:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse – many of the keep !votes were "based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact" or were "logically fallacious", so the WP:DGFA allows the closer to discount them. The delete !votes were by and large grounded in our policies and guidelines, while the keeps by and large simply weren't. In light of that (and the fact that the deletes were numerically in the majority as well), a delete closure was clearly appropriate. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 20:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply
    • According to your link, WP:DGFA, three of the four main guidelines for deletion were violated in this case. See "Whether consensus has been achieved by determining a "rough consensus" (see below). Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants. When in doubt, don't delete." There was not a "rough consensus" because the strongest arguments for the keep side were ignored by the deleter in favor of accusations of personal attacks. The deleter did not respect the feelings of Wikipedia participants, who did not want the page deleted, regardless of how articulate they were. Finally, because there should have been doubt, the bias should have been towards don't delete, flagrantly violated in this instance.
  • Endorse I went back through and only encountered like one coherent “keep” argument. The others were just variants on “don’t delete it” “it’s popular” “you suck for wanting to delete this” “it’s useful and interesting” etc. We really shouldn’t call AfD votes “votes” because they’re really competing arguments and not simply “ayes” or “nays”. Dronebogus ( talk) 00:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse- That's really the only way the discussion could have ended. Commentary such as "STOP DELETING EVERYTHING IN SIGHT" and "you suck for wanting to delete this" does not actually contain a reason for keeping the article. I'm also disappointed, but unsurprised, that coddling the hurt feelings of people who wanted to keep the article is being presented as a reason to overturn consensus, when the feelings of the targets of all those personal attacks are apparently irrelevant. I say unsurprised because personal abuse of AfD nominators and delete !voters has become so routine and commonplace that hardly anyone remarks on it anymore. The closer of this AfD is one of a very, very small number of admins who does push back against it. Reyk YO! 10:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Wikipedia has a longstanding and ongoing problem with gerontology-related OR. You could easily reverse the outcome of this AfD by producing independent, reliable sources about the longest-lived people who have served as US senators, but I don't think those sources exist. If they don't, then a much weaker alternative is to claim it's a navigational list, but that's not a source-based argument and the community doesn't agree with it. I can't see how Sandstein could have closed in any other way.— S Marshall  T/ C 13:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Thanks Marshall. for your measured and articulate response. The record will show that I have appealed several of Sandstein's closes. I never expect to have their decisions overturned. I acknowledged that the participants in this AfD did not know what they were doing. We can all agree that they did know that they wanted to keep. But that is not enough for the Wikipedians. Passion gets laughter from the participants here. Hut 8.5 points out that I am nitpicking. Procedure matters, and as I stated, when I first participated I did not see that the nomination had two unrelated Indian lists added. Sandstein will continue to be snarky and dismissive and I will continue to advocate for participants who do not know how to participate well enough to please the long-time participants here. Again Marshall, thank you for your professionalism. Lightburst ( talk) 15:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC) reply
I challenge you to find a long-serving admin who's not dismissive in a perfunctory way that can come across as snarky when they've been dealing with Wikidisputes as long as Sandstein or another half-dozen admins I can think of who have been doing this for 10+ years. It's a challenge for pretty much every helping profession: after a decade of the same complaints by different people, it's challenging and time consuming to respond to every one as if it were new and fresh, as it is to the requestor in many cases, when it absolutely old hat to the admin in question. Jclemens ( talk) 17:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Yes, and particularly after some 15 years of complaints by people who hold sincere and strong views that are at odds with community consensus, but who seem to think that complaining to or about me is going to change that. Nonetheless, I do try to treat every good-faith request courteously and professionally (if perhaps briefly, given time constraints). I welcome feedback by editors (other perhaps than the ones who are currently angry at me because I've taken admin actions they disagree with) if they want to look at my talk page and tell me if they think I come across as inappropriately "snarky or dismissive". I would like to think that I tend not to do that, but it is of course not always easy to notice by oneself. Sandstein 18:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC) reply
IMO it's fine to be succinct if the answers given contain the requested information. If others see conciseness as flippant, that's on them. Reyk YO! 08:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Sandstein did not mock Lightburst. But in the discussion above, the "keep" !voters are given very short shrift. Nobody exactly laughs at them, but nobody above is taking them seriously at all. In context, I would understand those !votes as expressions of distress, from people who feel their views are ignored and their work is casually obliterated. And they have a point: we as a community don't really care what they think, and we don't want this content. All we want is for it to be gone with the minimum of process and fuss. I've sometimes thought that the right solution might be for them to set up a separate gerontology wiki with their own rules.— S Marshall  T/ C 10:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC) reply
That's not a bad idea, but I really think for it to work we need a federated setup for Wikipedia. I've thought this for a long time in fiction, that we would be better off linking to specialist Wikis like Memory Alpha when the level of specificity and "fancruft" exceeds a certain threshold, and point both links and interested editors to these other wikis. Without cross-wiki links, we are simply oublietting (Yes, Verbing weirds language) the editors and content. Jclemens ( talk) 16:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Another WP:Supervote by Sandstein? This time the coherent Keep arguments were dismissed in favor of a "impeachment is routine" argument. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Efforts to impeach Joe Biden (2nd nomination). Roughly 8-8. Contesting here would be rubbish. And a redirect is a delete. Lightburst ( talk) 03:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC) reply
I would suggest that if you want to contest another deletion, start a DRV for it. Alternatively, if you think Sandstein is making a habit of supervoting, a better venue to raise this complaint would be ANI. It's unlikely to accomplish very much here. I took a look at the impeachment AfD and saw that two votes were just bare "keep ~~~~", one was a personal attack on the nominator, one a simple "keep per suchandsuch", one was some irrelevancy about Matt Gaetz. That left about three !votes, including your own, that tried to make an argument for keeping and plenty on the other side who made good arguments to merge or redirect. Reyk YO! 10:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Thanks Reyk. You an I know how ANI goes: It is a sh&^ show on a good day. And overturning here...As I showed in one of my links above - 11-6 in favor of overturn at DRV was closed as no-consensus by Sandstein. So to recap, 8-8 on an AfD is redirect with the closer choosing a non-policy non-guideline argument. But here an 8-8 would be respected as a no-consensus. I know we do not purely count, but at the same time yes we do. We dismiss IP editors or those who say "per above", but maybe we shouldn't. One other question I have here is would this project have kept an article (with multiple RS, started by an admin) with Trump in the title? Forgive me for ranting and taking time away from building the encyclopedia. I will go try to be productive now. Lightburst ( talk) 13:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC) reply
We don't dismiss IP editors -- see WP:IPDIS; or discount per exes -- see second paragraph of WP:PERX — Alalch Emis ( talk) 16:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC) reply
We don't, but our attitude to them has changed. In days that Lightburst and I both remember well, when an IP editor made an argument unlikely to be taken into account in the close, someone would speak to them about how to make a good argument at AfD. Nowadays we simply disregard them. Wikipedia has become much less engaging for new editors as a result. We're also considerably happier to endorse a close that disregards the !vote count.
I think that this reflects two key changes. First, people writing promotional content ("spammers") have adapted to Wikipedia, and second, Wikipedia has adapted to spammers. These discussions weren't about promotional content -- but they've been caught in the same net, because we've learned to pay less heed to IP editors and to overrule the !vote count. I think Lightburst might be taken aback by the extent of the changes to this place.— S Marshall  T/ C 14:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC) reply
I think you'll find that the IP editors were not ignored in this discussion. There were responses to all of the IP participants except the one who wrote STOP DELETING EVERYTHING IN SIGHT. There were even discussions amongst IP editors. pburka ( talk) 14:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • This information is available in tables at List of former United States senators. I suggest changing lifespan to “age at death, lifespan”, to enable reader sorting by age at death. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - Either we, at DRV, are reviewing the closer's emphasis on strength of arguments, or the closer's attention to a vote count, or a combination of the two. The Keep arguments were extremely weak, and disregarding them was appropriate. If the closer had been relying primarily on a vote count, the closer should still have discounted IP votes to some extent, because the shifting of IP addresses and the use of multiple devices makes it impossible to ensure that the IP votes are all from different humans. Either way, it was a good close. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC) reply
I think it is right to give IPs arms-length consideration at AfD. Either they are new and not well versed in Wikipedia standards, mainly Wikipedia-notability, or they are very probably violating WP:SOCK by editing project space while logged out. IP editors lack long term accountability, which is fine in mainspace where the edit is what matters, but is not ok in the back room processes.
I disagree that Wikipedia is less engaging with genuine looking newcomers editing mainspace. If there is sense to their pattern of editing, and some kind of introduction on their Userpage, they get treated as a person. If they have a blue-linked but blank main userpage, and they edit like a WP:SPA, they are probably a WP:UPE using a throwaway account. I try talking to these accounts, but they won’t reply in flowing English, because, I have decided, the don’t want to give away personal style hints that will connect them to their main account.
If Wikipedia is less engaging with newcomers, I think it is because there are so few genuine newcomers. And a large part of the reason is that genuine newcomers get sucked from mainspace into AfC where they are isolated and burned. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment this is largely turning into an off-topic discussion about Wikipedia philosophy, which is all well and good but has no place at a simple debate over reassessing a deleted article that consensus already seems clear about. I’d recommend taking this somewhere more appropriate if you’d like to discuss the implications of the deletion for Wikipedia culture and not the validity of the deletion itself. Dronebogus ( talk) 05:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • While I agree with the sentiment, this is a volunteer deliberative body that at its best identifies conflicts in Wikipedia policies and/or practices, a process which can, at its best, highlight needs for revision and generate discussion leading to RfCs. Honestly? That's probably the more important outcome than simply deciding whether a deletion is overturned or not. Jclemens ( talk) 01:07, 6 October 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_29&oldid=1048846387"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE