Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 April 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kevin (talk | contribs) at 03:50, 21 April 2013 (→‎List of Wikipedia controversies‎: endorse). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 2013 April 15
2013 April 17 >

16 April 2013

List of Wikipedia controversies‎

List of Wikipedia controversies‎ (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This AfD was closed less than 3 hours after it opened, even before several of the contributors to the article had had a chance to discuss the deletion request. There was aggressive off-site canvassing on this AfD within minutes of it being posted, which undoubtedly prompted several of the "keep" !voters to make their presence felt before the wider community had a chance to look at it. There is no need for hurry in dealing with deletion requests and this closure was grossly premature. Many of the issues I raised, such as sourcing and compliance with WP:LISTN, remain unresolved. I'm seeking to have the deletion request relisted and this time run for a proper length of time so that the wider community can comment on the matter. Prioryman (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - Prioryman, you're way to emotional whenever any Wikipediocracy-related topic comes around, and it hardly surprising that your bad-faith nomination was met with near-universal rejection. This was a perfectly reasonable interpretation of WP:SNOW, which calls for early closure if there is no likely chance of the outcome changing. Like it or not, the project has been embroiled in several controversies over the years, so a list of them is not all that unreasonable. As our vainglorious Article Rescue Squadron is fond of pointing out, WP:ATD is policy, so if there are BLP concerns and whatnot with the article, those can be addressed via regular editing practices, not deletion. Tarc (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not thrilled with this - I'm not thrilled with this. There's certainly a reasonable argument that this constitutes novel synthesis. It's one thing when you have something like List of lists of lists where all of the elements of the lists are Wikipedia articles. But lots of these incidents are not especially notable and do not themselves have Wikipedia articles. Some of the elements are not really controversies at all and are better categorized as tabloid trash (like the thing about Jimbo dumping Rachel Marsden - how in the world is this a "Wikipedia controversy"?) I think there's certainly a legitimate argument about the appropriateness of this article. But rather than having that legitimate argument, debate was rapidly cut off. I'm not under any delusion that Wikipedia is going to someday turn into an encyclopedia and delete three-quarters of the self-referential articles ... but that doesn't mean that discussions about them should be forbidden. --B (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. That was the consensus, and it will probably remain the consensus. A certain degree of interest in oneself is natural to an organization. The main problem is just with the title -- much as I dislike the word "controversy, I find it hard to think of an alternative in this situation. FWIW, the incident referred to just above was a WP controversy, because looking on it as a relative newcomer at the time, it seemed to cast doubt over the general judgment of an individual who had at that time essentially sole power. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and re-list. Two hours and forty minutes was not enough time to determine the consensus. This is because there is at least some possibility that the people who wanted to keep may just have been slightly faster off the mark than those who would have voted to delete, rather than being more numerous. Cardamon (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and re-list The discussion seems tainted by off-site canvassing and promotion which make the early returns suspect. The !votes up to the point of the close were not unanimous and there were no calls for a snow close. As the discussion itself seems controversial and the topic involves BLP considerations, we should follow due process rather than IAR. Warden (talk) 05:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If someone honestly thinks there is a chance that further discussion will decide differently then vote re-list, but I don't think that's very likely. Whether you consider the list as needing to serve as a navigational aid to notable controversies or a grouping that needs to meet notability requirements, it clearly meets all the criteria necessary for inclusion.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 07:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. IMO no legitimate argument was raised against it in the AFD and it was obviously snow-keep. Relisting is unlikely to change that unless someone can come up with another policy it may violate. And unless someone gets REALLY creative, I dont see that happening anytime soon. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep . The AfD nomination was flawed, and its concerns were addressed by the discussion at AfD; thus the snow closure. The list has plenty of reliable sources confirming the notability of the topic; most of the individual items have plenty of reliable sources. Improving the list would be valuable. Of course lists always have problems of upkeep, but our policy is to keep such lists. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist Given the "local" nature of this it's possible that only one set of editors got there quickly. I really find it unlikely that this will be deleted (and I'll be !voting to keep if it gets relisted) but B raises reasonable points. There is a case to be made for deletion and folks should have a chance to make it. Hobit (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist let it run for a little bit longer than it did the first time, so more editors will be aware of it. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 14:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Prioryman only gave me 10 minutes to consider his reps during the middle of my night before raising this DRV I haven't actually closely reviewed the close although I'd be a liar if I claimed not to have kept an eye on this DRV. My expectation is that this will close at worse as no-consensus to overturn as I think the AFD outcome was stark staringly obvious and the evidence of notability for wikipedia controversies was clearly evidenced in the discussion. As such, I can't see that AFD ever closing as delete and I think a snow close is technically acceptable here. That said, when I closed it, I only read the arguments and didn't look at the timestamps and I would agree with hindsight that 3 hours is a short timescale and that ideally we should have allowed more time for arguments to emerge. I'm fairly agnoistic at this point about whether we should relist this as the outcome is already clear (to me anyway) but I have no objection to someone reopening the discussion (don't relist - just open the old one) but I doubt very much given Prioryman's agression that we will profit much by doing so except the feed the drahma addicts. Spartaz Humbug! 16:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A little ironic for you to complain about lack of time under the circumstances, doncha think? It's always in the middle of the night somewhere - the AFD was only allowed to run between 3 am and 6 am as far as Australia is concerned (if I've got the time difference right). I wonder how people would feel if an AFD attracting a lot of interest was closed after 3 hours at 6 am on North American time zones? Johnbod (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big old difference between 10 minutes and 3 hours and as I indicated above I hadn't picked up it had only run 3 hours myself. Given time to evaluate this myself, its quite likely I would have relisted this without requiring a DRV but instead we are process wanking here for a week. Do you get off on these little snide snarky comments or do you honestly think they make discussions more useful? Spartaz Humbug! 05:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist "Be bold, be bold, and everywhere be bold", but "be not too bold". Give it a day and it will sort itself out. Otherwise we may have to add this controversy to the article!!!! LOL Redddbaron (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The result of the discussion was a clear snow keep. DRV is not for people to file for appeals when they don't agree with the clear results of an AfD. With all due respect to Prioryman, he appears to have an unhealthy fixation on any topic regarding Wikipediocracy, appears to have a WP:COI, and should refrain from these types of nominations. Continuing to push this gives the appearance of a personal agenda and is quickly becoming disruptive. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 18:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strange then that this review is very far from a snow keep, isn't it? Best to avoid personal attacks. Johnbod (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
False accusations of personal attacks are personal attacks. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 21:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was really no need to alter anything, Mr. Devil's advice here was woefully off the mark. All an "overturn" vote in a DRV is is a call to reverse the closing admin's finding, which in this case was an early close. A WP:SNOW close as keep would never be directly overturned to a delete. Tarc (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you should say never, but, at any rate, it does help to try and avoid confusion.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and re-list. I think that the article needs to be kept, but there needs to be a more thorough discussion of its scope than it has gotten. There is a total lack of perspective in the article, with major issues thrown in alongside with pin-pricks. It definitely should be kept, and I personally found it educational, for it told me about a lot of things that I didn't know and needed to know. But there was also a lot of indiscriminate minor issues. Clearly Wikipedia doesn't do a good job of writing about itself, along with a great many other things that it doesn't do well. Coretheapple (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - Considering the off-site canvassing associated with this AfD, it should be relisted and allowed to run for the full 7 days, to ensure that those who were not canvassed have an opportunity to contribute. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 21:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I don't see how relisting this will result in anything else but a snow keep, and I also have problems with the nominator's rationale. As stated in the AFD, it amounts to little more than "I don't like it". I don't necessarily disagree with his point about off-Wiki shenanigans, but that's neither here nor there. As an AFD close, it's spotless. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A clear SNOW keep is, by definition, not time constrained. And we're not talking about prediction, but consensus, which I see there, even without considering the flawed nomination, which is also often valid cause for snow keeps. I wouldn't draw a parallel with criticism of anything else, since the only clear argument for deletion in this case (as far as I'm concerned) would have been the fact it is too "meta" for inclusion in mainspace, but that was never brought up, and there are plenty of other navel-gazing articles about Wikipedia that can serve to establish precedent for keeping this one. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but Relist - There is simply no reason to have closed the original AfD in less than 24 hours. Doing so only increased the drama. Although, the article title clearly indicates that this is really about drama. The preferred approach would be to integrate the content into the main article. Obvious sourcing question for a reopened AfD: Which reliable secondary sources which treat the collection as a group? aprock (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - When an AfD is closed within a few hours of the AfD being created as a WP:SNOW keep, but then multiple editors ask to relist it at DRV, I think that alone is reason to relist it. If it belongs, great, but WP:SNOW implies something that has been shown to be not quite the case here, what's being said here at DRV. - SudoGhost 07:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very fair point. As I indicated above I'd be fine with any admin relisting this and that now looks to be the outcome of this DRV. The only question is whether anyone wants to do an early close on a DRV complaining about an early close. I bet the relisted AFD still closes as keep but that's for another day. Spartaz Humbug! 08:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a point of principle, I'd say that no AfD should closed in less than 24 hours, except for obviously disruptive or malicious ones. There should be a lower time limit for WP:SNOW closures. If one can snow close an AfD after 2 hours 40 minutes why not 1 hour? Why not 30 minutes? A non-malicious AfD should be allowed to run for at least a certain pre-defined minimum period. Prioryman (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I said earlier, I hadn't picked up on the length of time allowed for discussion when I closed it, just the comments and the evidence of sourcing that demonstrated that wiki controversies had some notability. In retrospect allowing more time wouldn't have hurt and its a learning point for me for the future but I'm not entirely sure that we need to be prosecriptive about it. How does your argument about allowing discussions time to develop equate with allowing me 10 minutes to consider your objection during the middle of my night before deciding to raise the DRV? Sauce of the goose surely? Spartaz Humbug! 08:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as clearly accurate reading of discussion, likely disruptive nature of nomination, and negligible expoectation of a different outcome. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Missing from this debate are details on where the canvassing occurred. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I think it would have been better left open longer, but the close was reasonable given the discussion, and it seems very unlikely that a longer listing would give a different result. I don't see any point in relisting just to satisfy the process. Kevin (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maria-tallchief-mike-theiler.jpg (closed)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_April_16&oldid=551403650"