List of compositions for viola: A to B ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I closed this AfD as "keep", although I could be persuaded to drop this to "no consensus" or to relist the AfD. However, my close was reverted by the nominator - WP:CLOSEAFD does not say to do that, but to come here instead. So I am pre-emptively starting a deletion review. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

I disagree that the "Keep" votes were in any way stronger, nor did any of the people I responded to follow up on my criticisms. Gerda Arendt in particular provides little to no rationale other than "it's useful", "old", and that they admit they're biased. The only vote to make any sound argument is PianoDan, but I disagree with him as one of the main issues isn't the perceived notability of music for viola, just that having a list of something at such a macro-level isn't what Wikipedia is here for. If the list only had pieces for which Wikipedia had articles for, then I would not be opposed to keeping a single page (without it being spread over the current eight it is now; no other list on Wikipedia does that aside from this one as further proof of its indiscriminateness). However, that would not be the best move as categories can achieve the same basic goal of organizing articles on Wikipedia about viola music.

Furthermore, your decision to close it as "Keep" rather than relist it (the option I would've chosen as a vote was made recently, and the discussion was still ongoing) raises some questions. Not even all of the Delete votes (which outnumbered the Keep, mind you) simply pointed to a policy as you said. And even though some did, that just shows that the consensus is against indisciminate collections of repertoire such as this one in which less words suit the argument perfectly, rather than a wordy non-policy based reason to keep. Why? I Ask ( talk) 15:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Not a single policy-based deletion !vote to be found. "listcruft" isn't policy, and IINFO doesn't apply. Sandstein should know better. IINFO has four subsections; if you can't cite one, especially when discussing a list-class article, it's probably just an IDONTLIKEIT vote. "It's too long and comprehensive" is an inherent admission that, if consensus permitted, the list could be trimmed to notable entries, and thus, deletion is not the only option. Jclemens ( talk) 15:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  There are four parts listed at IINFO, but those are not the only ones that constitute indiscriminate. You don't need to cite a specific one for something to be described as indiscriminate. Editor consensus has shown that overly large lists or very specific lists are indiscriminate. In fact there's other policies for this: WP:SALAT which states lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections and WP:NOT DIRECTORY which overtly specifies no simple listings. If there was a list of viola concertos or such that had only notable entries (e.g., cited/Wikipedia articles), then maybe I could live with that. Every viola piece ever, though, is silly. Why? I Ask ( talk) 16:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  Tellingly you correctly cite "consensus has shown" rather than "policy-based consensus has shown". NOTDIR doesn't apply either, as no one is suggesting it was or should be used as a directory. Jclemens ( talk) 19:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  Yes, consensus has shown that the policy WP:IINFO can be applied to lists. I can find successful deletions of lists from 2006 that use IINFO as a rationale. Why? I Ask ( talk) 00:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  Because IINFO has been misapplied for at least that long? Jclemens ( talk) 00:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  No, because the community rightfully believes that indiscriminate listings fall under IINFO. A list of viola pieces, with the composer, date, etc., is data. A list of every viola piece ever without regards to notability or even types of compositions is indiscriminate. Why? I Ask ( talk) 01:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  If the community thinks that's "indiscriminate," then the community is wrong and needs to read WP:DISCRIMINATE. Jclemens ( talk) 05:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  Cool, and that's an essay that I and a substantial portion of the community disagree with. Other synonyms for indiscriminate include general, broad-based, or nonselective. Those can also be used to describe what people might use when calling a list indiscriminate. They wouldn't be wrong in doing so when a list such as this aims to include every viola piece ever. The essay boxes itself into one interpretation of a definition that not many agree with, and one that the actual policy itself disagrees with. An organized list of updates for Windows 10 or such would certainly be discriminate by the essay's definition. But it would be indiscriminate by the policy's own words. Why? I Ask ( talk) 05:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment - User:Why? I Ask - If you don't know the gender of a user and don't want to use the singular they, you can always use their name rather than guessing. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  @ Robert McClenon One-hundred percent my mistake; I swore that I saw someone refer to them with male pronouns one time. I must have misremembered. My honest mistake. Why? I Ask ( talk) 01:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

• Weak Endorse - There does not really appear to be a consensus to Keep, and maybe the close should be overturned to No Consensus, but what is the point to that? Duh. And this appeal is only being considered because the closer chose voluntarily to request Deletion Review, when they could reasonably instead have reported the reversion of the closure at WP:ANI. Reverting a closure is very much the wrong way to disagree with the closure of an AFD. That's two salmonids for the appellant. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  I would be perfectly fine with a No Consensus (although a re-list would be preferred considering new comments were trickling in). The issue is that deletion outcomes set precedents, especially considering that not many repertoire lists have been nominated for deletion. It was my mistake to revert the outcome even though I disagreed with it. I figured if I did it quickly enough and re-listed for a more clear consensus, there wouldn't be an issue; I really didn't want to waste more time with a deletion review (especially considering I felt the rationale for closing as a Keep over No Consensus or Re-listing was exceptionally weak). Why? I Ask ( talk) 04:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse because Ritchie had a reasonable close after a reading of rationales. Two of the delete arguments were based on the essay: WP:LISTCRUFT and the others were of the driveby variety. The keep rationales were comprehensive. One could argue for a no consensus close, but that distinction would not change the outcome of keep. Lightburst ( talk) 17:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  And I would like a "No Consensus" close if you had read the above. Either way, several Keep votes also neglected to base their arguments on any policy. Why? I Ask ( talk) 19:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse keep close, NC also possible. There were reasonable if debatable arguments for keep. There were a few reasonable if debatable arguments for delete based largely on being just an indiscriminate list of information. There were numerous delete arguments quoting "listcruft", which can be assigned minimal weight: "listcruft" is a nonspecific, pejorative word, at best indicating uselessness or superfluousness, at worst just IDONTLIKEIT. It is given 10 possible meanings, quite different in nature, in the essay WP:LISTCRUFT. Absent greater clarity (and evidence of actually engaging with the list and/or the article), it is reasonable for the closer to discount poorly articulated votes like these. Martinp ( talk) 00:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse – per WP:CSC, every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia, and that unequivocally rejects the "indiscriminate collection" argument. The close reflects good judgement in keeping this list as it is a notable encyclopedic topic with value to our readers. Atsme 💬 📧 10:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  It does now that I've edited it; it didn't at the time. Why? I Ask ( talk) 06:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse (keep or no consensus), although I read “no consensus” with “delete” not being a possible reading. Advise Why? I Ask to read WP:RENOM, although if I were at the AfD I would argue against deletion in favour of merged the many repertoire into one sortable table. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment I just thought I'd add that this article, which resulted in a Keep decision at the AFD, has already been altered, massively, by Why? I Ask since this Deletion reivew was started. It has been massively stripped of content, merged and turned into a redirect before this DR discussion has even been closed. I guess if you don't get your way in an AFD discussion to delete an article, you can just remove 90% of the content of a page and turn it into a redirect instead. This seems very inappropriate especially since the editor initiated this deletion review but I guess was too impatient to wait for a closure or they didn't care for the direction this discussion was headed in. I'd vote for Article restoration to the status of the article, and any other articles listed in the AFD, when the AFD was originally closed and revert these huge changes in content. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  I didn't initiate the deletion review, mind you, and the list that existed prior was overly large and lacked any references. I believe it's WP:Burden that says you can add them back with reliable sources that demonstrate notability. And I really don't care where this discussion goes; my goal is to build an encyclopedia. It's not to sit around and wait. The result of the discussion was that lists of repertoire can be encyclopedic. That, I'll yield. I personally just wanted it result in a delete for a TNT. But including over 10,000 entries by composers who have not even had that piece recorded is not what Wikipedia is here for. I plan to expand it back a little bit with reliable sources in the future, but for now, it can at least contain the list of viola compositions for which Wikipedia has a page for. Why? I Ask ( talk) 06:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  Yeah, that's called WP:FAIT and is a form of WP:DE, specifically point 1. Please take the opportunity to restore the article to the post-close status yourself, now that you have been notified your actions were at best premature. Jclemens ( talk) 07:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  There's nothing that says I can't edit a page while discussions are open. The old version did not comply with Wikipedia policy or guidelines (check either WP:CSC or, more generally, WP:VER). Furthermore, there seemed to be a general consensus against deleting the list, but merging it down to what is provided by reliable sources (per Tim Riley and Smokey Joe). If you want it reverted, then please, provide reliable citations for each entry that declare its notability. Why? I Ask ( talk) 07:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  (P.S., check what term WP:CSC uses in the first bullet point to describe what this method prevents.) Why? I Ask ( talk) 07:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Those arguing for keep explained, generally in detail, why the list had merit and how it could be improved with editing to resolve the few issues. With the exception of the nominator, none of those arguing for deletion even attempted to refute those detailed arguments. No consensus would have been within the closer's discretion but keep imo does better reflect the consensus. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Forget-me-not Lakes (Wyoming) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Per this discussion with the closer, although the Keep !votes cite WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG, no actual sources that provide significant coverage or "information beyond coordinates and statistics" as required by those guidelines have been shown to exist. The only source aside from topo maps and GNIS is a brief passing mention in a guide to local climbing routes. Simply citing a guideline is not enough; there must be evidence that the article actually meets that guideline, and it is the closer's responsibility to disregard arguments that do not do so. This should be a Relist with a comment that editors seeking to keep the article need to provide sources. – dlthewave ☎ 17:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

• Relist No sources at all were demonstrated that would make the article pass notability criteria, AfD nominations are WP:NOTAVOTE and should not be closed as Keep due to WP:VAGUEWAVE assertions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 18:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the consensus was clear. Lightburst ( talk) 21:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. This is not the place to discuss again the close on the merits. Since I've already asserted keep in this process, my non-neutral view is apparent but we do agree that the central issue of the discussion WAS concerning significant coverage. The question is one of sufficiency or adequacy, which is a reasonable measurement to argue. User:Dlthewave's nomination statement makes an assertion that such coverage was insufficient (so they prodded), then after the page creator User:MONGO (an editor with many years and many more FA's in the arena of North American physical geography) removed the prod and added several sources, Dlthewave nominated the somewhat improved page (and many such other pages) at AfD, and the head count didn't go in their direction, a larger number happening to assert the sufficiency of the sources already applied, a reasonable position to take. Doczilla closed and weighted as they felt accurately measured the discussion. All this is accurate and hard to dispute. There are questions still to be resolved, in chronological order: 1) Why did Dlthewave fail to ask MONGO about the sourcing before the prod? 2) Why did Dlthewave choose to nominate for deletion so quickly, given the page was in the process of being improved by the page creator? 3) Why did Dlthewave fail to engage with me as requested after I asked them to stop prodding or nomming similar pages (which they kindly did) until we had discussed the the central issue, SIGCOV. I was actually expecting and hoping for a discussion why we disagreed on the central issue (In a comment had used the term judgement, which I knew was bold), but they failed to discuss. Reasonable cases were made, and Dlthewave's position in this DRV case is virtually identical to their position in the AfD discussion. Procedurally, this seems a reasonable close. I wouldn't have any difficulty with a relist, if such was the outcome. BusterD ( talk) 21:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - There was enough participation so that a Relist was not required, and there was a consensus to Keep. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

May I ask how you assessed that consensus and why the Keep !votes carry the weight in your opinion? – dlthewave ☎ 02:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

User:Dlthewave - You have asked. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Ok, how did you assess that consensus and why do the Keep !votes carry the weight in your opinion? – dlthewave ☎ 04:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse keep closure. I recognize that the notability of very small natural geographical features can be debated, but there was a clear majority against deletion, so I cannot read out a consensus to delete here. Those who voted "keep" did cite the relevant WP:GEOLAND guideline, and they were not ignoring anything very significant in so doing. Nor is there any policy reason that mandates deletion here, since the articles do meet WP:V and WP:NOR policies. The article is short, and there may not be so much material to expand the article further, but encyclopedias in general have plenty of short articles. I see nothing to fault the result of the close here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  I agree there was no consensus to delete, but a majority is not relevant to whether there was also a consensus to keep. The question is not whether to overturn to delete (which would be unjust) but whether to overturn to "relist". The nominator of the DRV specifically says "This should be a Relist". Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 11:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

• Relist - I disagree that consensus was clear. A majority opinion was but this did not take adequate account of WP:NOTAVOTE. To achieve consensus a discussion is required per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, and I think the discussion here is incomplete because policy based reasons were raised as to why the article should be deleted that were not addressed as described above. It clearly is the case that more people wanted to retain than to delete, but that is not the same thing as consensus, and ending this case as a keep without even relisting for an additional week of discussion does beg the question why anyone should engage in a time consuming process of hunting for sources and, on finding there are insufficient, taking the effort to check the policy arguments and make a response challenging interpretation of the policy thus far cited, based on the text of the policy, if the case is already won, simply because enough people have simply stated a page meets policy without evidencing it. An alternative to relist is to overturn the decision to "no consensus". Consensus was not achieved. I also note that in a response above there is mention of the number of FAs an editor has, and this is indicative of some of the discussions around this and related nominations. It appears that some of the judgement may be forming around the personality and achievements of the editors involved. Although understandable, the decisions should be based on the quality of the arguments and not who is making them. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 08:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  Please forgive me for unduly characterizing the page creator, someone, I'll grant, I have had positive interactions with over the years. I happen to know of their vast experience in this content area. On the issue of sufficient RS I have ample reason to trust their judgement more than I might trust the nominator's judgement, which I have questioned. I requested and gave a chance to the nominator to convince me otherwise in this very reviewed procedure, but they chose to avoid entering the arena entirely. BusterD ( talk) 09:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  But again, the judgement of the nominator in making the nomination is not relevant at deletion review. The question for DRV is whether the close adequately reflected the consensus (or lack of it). In this AfD, it seemed like too many people were indeed prepared to trust the judgement of another editor when making their !vote. That is not the way it is supposed to work. I completely understand why it happens; I am not criticising anyone here, but questioning whether the arguments were fully considered. I am not saying we overturn to delete here - I am saying that the discussion is unfinished because all we have is a set of perfectly understandable judgement calls. Perfectly understandable, but insufficient to demonstrate significant coverage. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 09:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. I did not vote in this discussion, but if I had, I would have voted delete. However, I agree that the consensus in the discussion was to keep. Even though I thought the keep arguments were weak, they were valid arguments and the close was a proper reading of their participation. Jacona ( talk) 12:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The discussion had a consensus to keep. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 19:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. While User: Sirfurboy🏄 pointed out seemingly valid points against keeping the article, I think, in a broad sense, there was a leaning towards a keep consensus. Joesmithroots ( talk) 00:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse – the close was accurately based on WP:PAG, specifically CONTN, NEXIST and GEOLAND. Atsme 💬 📧 09:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Sjakkalle and Atsme. Brunton ( talk) 13:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse' The article meets GEOLAND and it appears the closer did more than just do a vote count.-- MONGO ( talk) 05:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Also added a passage and two more references. Sorry this article is not about Lake Superior or Lake Baikal as there would of course be more coverage.-- MONGO ( talk) 06:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Could not have been closed as “delete”. Read advice at WP:RENOM. —- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  The deletion review requests relist, not delete. WP:RENOM refers to renomination of a page for deletion and not DRV. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 11:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  Deny relist. The nomination did not persuade enough others. Maybe a better nomination would help. A relist, which means the same nomination, would be hopeless. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. The closer correctly interpreted the consensus of the discussion. I am disappointed to see the nominator here, yet again, challenging unambiguous AfD closes that didn't go their way. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I'll say it again since this is the third or fourth time we've been through this with this particular editor. The fact that you disagree with consensus does not make it not consensus. This was unambiguous. No way it could have been closed any other way. If you disagree with consensus, that's fine, but it was clearly closed in accordance with consensus. You can't start a DRV every time you disagree with the close. This has to stop. Smartyllama ( talk) 13:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC) reply