Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 28 Deletion review archives: 2008 March March 30 >

29 March 2008

  • Megalithic geometry – Keep close reversed by closing admin in response to new information regarding wider context. – Guy ( Help!) 18:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Closing admin reversed decision based on new information of wider context. Guy ( Help!) 18:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Megalithic geometry (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD, AfD2)

Debate was closed as keep, but I believe the delete rationales were stronger, as well as being more numerous. This is a theory which is proposed by very few people and discussed in only a small number of books, all of which are connected with the same individual, Alan Butler. The major contributor to the current article, and the person largely resposnibel for its existence, as far as I can tell, has no significant edits outside this subject, so may well not really understand why his opinion that the numbers all add up is not actually relevant in deciding whether this is a notable theory. It was previously deleted and then redirected to a section in another article, and I think we should restore that, because the delete rationales correctly (IMO) identified that this is a fringe pseudohistory theory. Guy ( Help!) 22:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Procedural objection (as closing administrator); requester failed to follow instructions and comply with the requirement to have a discussion with the closing administrator prior to filing a deletion review. This request should be closed without any further action or discussion until such requirement is met. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I notified you, I am not required to discuss it first, and if it's a requirement then it's one that's routinely ignored when people request reviews of my deletions. Guy ( Help!) 10:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I wikilinked the instructions above, go read them, and to help you, they are here, too:
Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and delete Jerry followed the notability guidelines by the letter and closed this as keep, because sources were found talking about it. However when dealing with a fringe theory - that is, purposeful mis-information - some care should be taken when including it in an encyclopedia. All of the sources mentioned do not look at the theory as a fringe theory, instead they are all completely uncritical of it. So closing this because sources for notability have been found does not hold. Now add to that a discussion with a 10:3 majority arguing for deletion and really only one single purpose account vehemently "defending" his/her article. Common sense tells me: delete. -- Minimaki ( talk) 02:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn: As a student of archaeology, I must say that the subject of this article is truly something that Wikipedia does not require. Both AFDs were in favor of deletion for similar reasons. "Notability" is not something that Wikipedia considers for theories, particularly those that are being pursued by a single author who is not notable for inclusion, and the theory should go with it, as both AFDs clearly state. If JzG hadn't already listed this here, I would have brought this up for DRV myself. "Keep" was not the right decision.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 05:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and delete, consensus in the second AFD was clearly in favor of deletion. True, AFD isn't a vote, but AFD not being a vote is not an excuse to ignore strong, valid arguments. -- Core desat 08:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and delete. While I believe that the closing rationale was thoughtful and well-written, and indeed within policy as currently written, this is an occasion where our notability policy is flawed. In issues related to fringe theories being pushed by their non-notable promoters, (as well as, for example, issues where advocacy sources are involved) we need to be extra vigilant and set a bar that keeps unencyclopaedic material out. This should go, regardless of the fact that the closing rationale would indeed have been justifiable for most articles. Relata refero ( talk) 11:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and delete. A good-faith closure, but the rationale was flawed. The arguments for deletion were compelling; personally, if I had been the closer I would have closed it as a deletion. In Jerry's defence, the nexus between notability and sourcing is a complex one and is not at all easy to work out. But as Jimmy Wales has said, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not" (cf. WP:UNDUE). -- ChrisO ( talk) 11:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and delete which was clearly the consensus. The closer gave an elaborate argument why his interpretation was right, but he had no business doing that. His job is to decide on the consensus. For the record, I myself said "keep" at the AfD, but it was clear that consensus was against me, in good arguments from reliable wikipedians. The closing admin has the responsibility of deciding which arguments are not based on policy at al, but when policies conflict, he does not get to decide which is the more important. His opinions for keep are reasonable, but he should have given them in the debate as I did. Then maybe he could have affected the argument. DGG ( talk) 13:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and delete as out of process close, without proper grounds asserted for discounting the articulated consensus. Eusebeus ( talk) 14:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and delete per above. Hut 8.5 15:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse keep closure (as closing administrator) - The administrator's guide to deletion ( link) specifically says to ignore !votes to delete which cite as reason a lack of sources, if sources are subsequently provided to negate the intent of the !votes. There are clearly sources which show this fringe nutbag theory as having received significant coverage and/or multiple non-trivial mentions, and if any of the above respected wikipedians would please review the actual article as it is currently written, you will see that it clearly describes the theory as a pseudo archaeology and it provides a critical source. This was the expected result when I kept the article... that editors would in good faith find sources to back up the otherwise own research that they put forth in their discussions where they discredit this theory. The fact that the theory is flawed and zany does not mean that we don't cover it. We don't decide which religion is right and only print articles about one religion. We don't decide if evolution or creation is right and purge the encyclopedia of all that is contrary to our choice. We neutrally and blindly choose articles that are sourced and verifiable and otherwise meet our notability standards, which are really quite simple and elegant. The subject of this article meets our notability criteria, the article meets our neutrality policy, it does not contain own research, it is not a coat rack, it is sourced and verifiable to reliable sources independent of the subject. I can't think of a single valid reason to delete it. I can think of a reason why people would WANT to delete it. We don't like the theory, and we wish it did not exist. We don't like fringe theorists, and we wish that they did not receive press coverage. In short, we don't like it. And that is a quintessential argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Keep per Jerry's extremely reasonable arguments. And while we're at it, that article has serious NPOV problems. I may think that the Flat Earth Society is full of wackjobs, but the article on that topic is (fairly) NPOV. This one is horrible and needs to be fixed. Finally, the delete arguments seemed to me to be arguments that it isn't science and variations on I don't like it and largely should have been ignored (as the closer did). Hobit ( talk) 15:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Keep per Jerry's cool-headed summary of the situation. There is no pushing here, only people who 'don't like' certains ideas. The article might need some editing, that's true, but I have spent enough time earlier sourcing everything that has been written in it. -- Little sawyer ( talk) 15:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Administrators are given latitude to disregard local consensus where it directly conflicts with policy. Here, the closer allowed his own opinion on notability—a guideline describing common practice of editors in deletion discussions—to override a local consensus based primarily on NPOV—not just official policy, but our first foundation issue. An ideal close would have required deletion even in the face of unanimous keeps, given the complete lack of critical sources on this pseudoscientific fringe theory. Even the attempt to salvage the article through extreme stubbification constitutes original research—again, official policy, and one that was created specifically to counteract fringe articles presented as fact, as the article was during the afd and will no doubt quickly become again, judging from the article's history and edits such as this. What we got instead cannot be described any more charitably than "grossly negligent", and the primary defense put forward is wikilawyering over drv listing procedure, including a self-serving overemphasis of the point (misread date, grngh). Overturn and delete. — Cryptic 16:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Wow, what an unkind and excessively heavy-handed accusation against a wikipedian with a good contribution record. This is a sad day for wikipedia. Self-serving overemphasis? That is uncalled-for and beyond bad faith. I would like it if you would strikethrough that. On February 28th, I added the ambox to the pre-existing instructions, because new users would often miss it, as the remainder of the instructions were in a bright orange box. This was the result of discussions in the DRV talk page, which resulted from a period of excessive frivolous DRV's. It is my observation that since the ambox was added, and since people like NewYorkBrad left comments supporting the contents of the instructions on several occasions, that this has become much less of a problem lately. If that's your idea of self-serving..... are you saying that a month ago I premeditated the mention of that instruction, so I could support an out=of-process close? What exactly are you saying? How about strikethrough that, huh? Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Still thinking. I'm bothered that the administrator calls it a neutral article, and I wonder if he knew the Times article by the authors was in Arts & Entertainment.-- Doug Weller ( talk) 16:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I don't want to be accused of over-contributing to this DRV, but since I was edit conflicted just now, and I see you left a question regarding me... I'll answer it. I did not know what section of the Times the article was in. I do not believe that that has any bearing on whether or not the article is in a reliable source. As long as it is not a paid advertisement, I can't see any reason to not consider it as a valid source. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and delete. Along with the good arguments in the AfD that the article is not sufficiently neutral and reports uncritically of a real-world walled garden, there are severe ownership issues going on that can be seen in its recent edit history. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I deleted the article now, per comments by DGG, Eusebeus, Hut 8.5, and Cryptic that I had no business closing this as I did, I closed this out of process, without proper grounds, and that I am just grossly negligent, wikilawyering and "self-serving. I did not realize I was such a bad wikipedian. My apologies to the community. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I don't know if there is some self-serving, but of course as the creator of this article I am disppointed. Jerry has been maintaining all along that the article met Wiki terms and that it should be kept. Why don't we put it back and edit it properly as a pseudo-archaeology article as it should be?-- Little sawyer ( talk) 17:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Confederacy of Independent Systems (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Article was deleted earlier this year on the grounds that it was entirely plot summary. I could be wrong here, but it seems most of the Star Wars articles are written in the same manner. We ought to consider restoring this article. Blueboy 96 23:10, 28 March 2008 (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/2008_March_29&oldid=1140400799"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 28 Deletion review archives: 2008 March March 30 >

29 March 2008

  • Megalithic geometry – Keep close reversed by closing admin in response to new information regarding wider context. – Guy ( Help!) 18:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Closing admin reversed decision based on new information of wider context. Guy ( Help!) 18:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Megalithic geometry (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD, AfD2)

Debate was closed as keep, but I believe the delete rationales were stronger, as well as being more numerous. This is a theory which is proposed by very few people and discussed in only a small number of books, all of which are connected with the same individual, Alan Butler. The major contributor to the current article, and the person largely resposnibel for its existence, as far as I can tell, has no significant edits outside this subject, so may well not really understand why his opinion that the numbers all add up is not actually relevant in deciding whether this is a notable theory. It was previously deleted and then redirected to a section in another article, and I think we should restore that, because the delete rationales correctly (IMO) identified that this is a fringe pseudohistory theory. Guy ( Help!) 22:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Procedural objection (as closing administrator); requester failed to follow instructions and comply with the requirement to have a discussion with the closing administrator prior to filing a deletion review. This request should be closed without any further action or discussion until such requirement is met. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I notified you, I am not required to discuss it first, and if it's a requirement then it's one that's routinely ignored when people request reviews of my deletions. Guy ( Help!) 10:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I wikilinked the instructions above, go read them, and to help you, they are here, too:
Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and delete Jerry followed the notability guidelines by the letter and closed this as keep, because sources were found talking about it. However when dealing with a fringe theory - that is, purposeful mis-information - some care should be taken when including it in an encyclopedia. All of the sources mentioned do not look at the theory as a fringe theory, instead they are all completely uncritical of it. So closing this because sources for notability have been found does not hold. Now add to that a discussion with a 10:3 majority arguing for deletion and really only one single purpose account vehemently "defending" his/her article. Common sense tells me: delete. -- Minimaki ( talk) 02:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn: As a student of archaeology, I must say that the subject of this article is truly something that Wikipedia does not require. Both AFDs were in favor of deletion for similar reasons. "Notability" is not something that Wikipedia considers for theories, particularly those that are being pursued by a single author who is not notable for inclusion, and the theory should go with it, as both AFDs clearly state. If JzG hadn't already listed this here, I would have brought this up for DRV myself. "Keep" was not the right decision.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 05:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and delete, consensus in the second AFD was clearly in favor of deletion. True, AFD isn't a vote, but AFD not being a vote is not an excuse to ignore strong, valid arguments. -- Core desat 08:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and delete. While I believe that the closing rationale was thoughtful and well-written, and indeed within policy as currently written, this is an occasion where our notability policy is flawed. In issues related to fringe theories being pushed by their non-notable promoters, (as well as, for example, issues where advocacy sources are involved) we need to be extra vigilant and set a bar that keeps unencyclopaedic material out. This should go, regardless of the fact that the closing rationale would indeed have been justifiable for most articles. Relata refero ( talk) 11:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and delete. A good-faith closure, but the rationale was flawed. The arguments for deletion were compelling; personally, if I had been the closer I would have closed it as a deletion. In Jerry's defence, the nexus between notability and sourcing is a complex one and is not at all easy to work out. But as Jimmy Wales has said, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not" (cf. WP:UNDUE). -- ChrisO ( talk) 11:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and delete which was clearly the consensus. The closer gave an elaborate argument why his interpretation was right, but he had no business doing that. His job is to decide on the consensus. For the record, I myself said "keep" at the AfD, but it was clear that consensus was against me, in good arguments from reliable wikipedians. The closing admin has the responsibility of deciding which arguments are not based on policy at al, but when policies conflict, he does not get to decide which is the more important. His opinions for keep are reasonable, but he should have given them in the debate as I did. Then maybe he could have affected the argument. DGG ( talk) 13:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and delete as out of process close, without proper grounds asserted for discounting the articulated consensus. Eusebeus ( talk) 14:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and delete per above. Hut 8.5 15:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse keep closure (as closing administrator) - The administrator's guide to deletion ( link) specifically says to ignore !votes to delete which cite as reason a lack of sources, if sources are subsequently provided to negate the intent of the !votes. There are clearly sources which show this fringe nutbag theory as having received significant coverage and/or multiple non-trivial mentions, and if any of the above respected wikipedians would please review the actual article as it is currently written, you will see that it clearly describes the theory as a pseudo archaeology and it provides a critical source. This was the expected result when I kept the article... that editors would in good faith find sources to back up the otherwise own research that they put forth in their discussions where they discredit this theory. The fact that the theory is flawed and zany does not mean that we don't cover it. We don't decide which religion is right and only print articles about one religion. We don't decide if evolution or creation is right and purge the encyclopedia of all that is contrary to our choice. We neutrally and blindly choose articles that are sourced and verifiable and otherwise meet our notability standards, which are really quite simple and elegant. The subject of this article meets our notability criteria, the article meets our neutrality policy, it does not contain own research, it is not a coat rack, it is sourced and verifiable to reliable sources independent of the subject. I can't think of a single valid reason to delete it. I can think of a reason why people would WANT to delete it. We don't like the theory, and we wish it did not exist. We don't like fringe theorists, and we wish that they did not receive press coverage. In short, we don't like it. And that is a quintessential argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Keep per Jerry's extremely reasonable arguments. And while we're at it, that article has serious NPOV problems. I may think that the Flat Earth Society is full of wackjobs, but the article on that topic is (fairly) NPOV. This one is horrible and needs to be fixed. Finally, the delete arguments seemed to me to be arguments that it isn't science and variations on I don't like it and largely should have been ignored (as the closer did). Hobit ( talk) 15:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Keep per Jerry's cool-headed summary of the situation. There is no pushing here, only people who 'don't like' certains ideas. The article might need some editing, that's true, but I have spent enough time earlier sourcing everything that has been written in it. -- Little sawyer ( talk) 15:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Administrators are given latitude to disregard local consensus where it directly conflicts with policy. Here, the closer allowed his own opinion on notability—a guideline describing common practice of editors in deletion discussions—to override a local consensus based primarily on NPOV—not just official policy, but our first foundation issue. An ideal close would have required deletion even in the face of unanimous keeps, given the complete lack of critical sources on this pseudoscientific fringe theory. Even the attempt to salvage the article through extreme stubbification constitutes original research—again, official policy, and one that was created specifically to counteract fringe articles presented as fact, as the article was during the afd and will no doubt quickly become again, judging from the article's history and edits such as this. What we got instead cannot be described any more charitably than "grossly negligent", and the primary defense put forward is wikilawyering over drv listing procedure, including a self-serving overemphasis of the point (misread date, grngh). Overturn and delete. — Cryptic 16:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Wow, what an unkind and excessively heavy-handed accusation against a wikipedian with a good contribution record. This is a sad day for wikipedia. Self-serving overemphasis? That is uncalled-for and beyond bad faith. I would like it if you would strikethrough that. On February 28th, I added the ambox to the pre-existing instructions, because new users would often miss it, as the remainder of the instructions were in a bright orange box. This was the result of discussions in the DRV talk page, which resulted from a period of excessive frivolous DRV's. It is my observation that since the ambox was added, and since people like NewYorkBrad left comments supporting the contents of the instructions on several occasions, that this has become much less of a problem lately. If that's your idea of self-serving..... are you saying that a month ago I premeditated the mention of that instruction, so I could support an out=of-process close? What exactly are you saying? How about strikethrough that, huh? Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Still thinking. I'm bothered that the administrator calls it a neutral article, and I wonder if he knew the Times article by the authors was in Arts & Entertainment.-- Doug Weller ( talk) 16:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I don't want to be accused of over-contributing to this DRV, but since I was edit conflicted just now, and I see you left a question regarding me... I'll answer it. I did not know what section of the Times the article was in. I do not believe that that has any bearing on whether or not the article is in a reliable source. As long as it is not a paid advertisement, I can't see any reason to not consider it as a valid source. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and delete. Along with the good arguments in the AfD that the article is not sufficiently neutral and reports uncritically of a real-world walled garden, there are severe ownership issues going on that can be seen in its recent edit history. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I deleted the article now, per comments by DGG, Eusebeus, Hut 8.5, and Cryptic that I had no business closing this as I did, I closed this out of process, without proper grounds, and that I am just grossly negligent, wikilawyering and "self-serving. I did not realize I was such a bad wikipedian. My apologies to the community. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I don't know if there is some self-serving, but of course as the creator of this article I am disppointed. Jerry has been maintaining all along that the article met Wiki terms and that it should be kept. Why don't we put it back and edit it properly as a pseudo-archaeology article as it should be?-- Little sawyer ( talk) 17:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Confederacy of Independent Systems (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Article was deleted earlier this year on the grounds that it was entirely plot summary. I could be wrong here, but it seems most of the Star Wars articles are written in the same manner. We ought to consider restoring this article. Blueboy 96 23:10, 28 March 2008 (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/2008_March_29&oldid=1140400799"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE