- The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This discussion was closed as "keep" by Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) without a rationale [1], then closed as "delete" by Tbsdy lives (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with a rationale [2]. Subsequently, a budding edit war developed and I then protected the AFD [3]. DRV is probably the best place to sort the mess out. Disclosure: I voted "delete" in the AFD. Ucucha 03:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My concern is that there has not been any reasoning given as to why it should be kept by Jayjg. This is actually a controversial deletion discussion, and when I was about to close I got an edit conflict. In other words, had I clicked on the submit button not a minute earlier I would have been the closing admin who made the decision. Now I would not have overturned Jayjg's keep decision had their been a detailed explanation of why it was closed as keep. However, there was none, though Jay did say that he had good reasons for his decision and he can explain them to me. However, my point is that he should have explained them on the AFD page. :The article is currently deleted, as I overturned the deletion discussion with my own detailed reasoning. My deletion reasoning was:
- The result was delete. I have overturned Jayjg's previous keep closure, as he hasn't provided any detailed explanation of why he chose that way.
- The delete vs. keep camp is pretty cleanly split based on notability Those who say delete have stated that the website has not been noted in scholarly articles or in the popular press. However, those who are arguing to keep have said that there are two references that refer to this website - one is the Rough Guide to the Internet, and the other is Absolute Beginner's Guide to the Bible, both of which have not been demonstrated to be notable or verifiable sources of information.
- This is a controversial close, I know, especially as I have overridden an administrator who I personally have a great deal of respect for, and I know many others do as well. However, I cannot see any reason why the article should be kept. Please take to DRV if more notable references are found or a different reason for undeletion is provided.
- I have reported my decision on WP:AN/I, but this is why I overturned the decision. I welcome debate around my action. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have no comment about the validity of either close. (I have not read the discussion.) I reverted Tbsdy's close on the basis that he cannot unilaterally overrule another administrator's close. When an editor disagrees with an AfD close, s/he should ask the closing admin to provide a rationale for the close, not override it. Cunard (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily. If the closer does not have a valid closure reason I don't see anything wrong with changing the deletion reason. After all, the other editor was reverted on a mere technicality. I've seen deletions validly closed before 7 days, yet someone else overrode this decision. Not that I'm trying to by POINTy here, I did this solely because this was a contraversial deletion discussion and it needed more than just a keep or delete comment. I took about 15 minutes to give my detailed reasoning, I could have just typed in delete and Jay's decision would not have counted. Now I'm not saying that Jay did this in bad faith at all, I am merely pointing out that if you want to close something like this AFD you need to explain why. It's all about accountability and transparency. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with an AfD close, you should take it to DRV. Reverting the closing admin is wheel-warring. Cunard (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you should reread that article. I did no wheel warring whatsoever. I never once used my admin tools to unblock another admin's decision, and when the AFD was protected then I did not edit it again. I also note that not only an admin can close an AFD. I suggest you be careful in your comments about my actions as an administrator, as they mischaracterize my actions and are being made in bad faith. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The situation looked like a wheel war to me, but after looking at the situation again, you likely did not notice Jayjg's revert before you deleted the article. Here's a timeline of the actions on the AfD:
03:23 – closed by Jayjg as "keep".
03:26 – Jayjg's close is reverted by yourself.
03:32 – your reversion is reverted by Jayjg
03:33 – you delete the article (This is what I considered wheel-warring.)
03:34 – you reverted Jayjg's reversion.
03:36 – I reverted back to Jayjg's close.
03:38 – the page is protected by Uchacha. Cunard (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict x 2)overturn delete, with no prejudice against a new afd listing. Once it was originally closed by an admin, disagreement with the original close probably should have been brought here, not overturned unilaterally. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn second close to keep Frankly, I have very mixed views on this. First, I'm familiar with the work in question and Tbsdy did make a reasonable argument for his close which I would have found to be acceptable enough if it were the only close. However, Jay had already closed before that event. Overriding a pre-existing close is not intrinsically bad. However, it needs very good reasons, a specific very important policy basis to overturn or a clear misinterpretation of consensus on the part of the first closer. Neither of those have occurred. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While I too would have welcomed more comment in the close, I can see nothing improper in the "keep" close by Jayjg. This article should be restored and this DRV should be discussing Jayjg's actions, not those of Tbsdy, who just have brought the closure here and not reverted it. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's improper to close a discussion like this one without an explanation that details the reasoning behind the closure. I also note I did not take this to DRV, and also that I have reversed my deletion of the article. I will soon be taking this back to AFD, this time hopefully the closing admin will give a proper explanation of why they are keeping/deleting. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse original Keep. With over 2:1 keeps to deletes, and reasonable opinions on them, there's no way that I can see this AfD coming out as a "delete". Granted, the sources on the article are a bit thin, but that's why we have an AfD, is to get community opinions on whether or not they are sufficient. I would also like to say that I am very disappointed in Tbsdy's actions here. It's one thing to have a good faith disagreement with another admin on how they handled something, but it's another to unilaterally overule them. Admins should not be unilaterally reversing other admins' decisions, period. That Tbsdy is further saying that he wants to submit this article for another AfD in a few days, tells me that Tbsdy is too close to this situation. Tbsdy, this was a bad call on your part, please stand down. --Elonka 04:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way am I too close to this situation? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You should have recused from closing this because you wrote at User talk:Jayjg, "It is actually pretty controversial amongst skeptics and non-skeptics. As an evangelical Christian myself I have often been to this website, which I find faintly ridiculous." Cunard (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In no way did my personal belief system in any way influence my decision to keep or delete. If anything, I prefer anti-evangelical articles to be kept - I always find that when they are presented neutrally the thing they are attacking doesn't look so bad. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (e/c) Tbsdy, it's understandable that it was frustrating for you to be ready to close the AfD as "delete", and see someone else had closed it as "keep" before you could hit "Save page". But that does not excuse you overturning their close. What you should have done, was to list the article here at DRV and question their close. Instead, that you just went in and changed the AfD and deleted the article, was unwise. It's extremely bad form for one admin to overrule another admin in that way. Further, look at how you are reacting on this DRV, responding to nearly every single comment. That's a classic example of someone who's too invested in a situation. My recommendation is to take a break. You're a good admin, but just made a bad call in this situation. Go work on something else for awhile, then come back and try to take everyone's comments onboard, as constructive criticism. And then we can all get back to the rest of the project, rather than worrying about just this one article. :) --Elonka 04:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've put my apologies below. Jay has offered to give detailed reasoning. If he doesn't provide it, I'll relist this on AFD. I'll be happy one way or another with the decision so long as reasoning is provided. Also... I have responded to everyone, not because I'm personally invested in this article, but because I like responding to the comments of others. I'm sorry if you feel that I'm out of turn here, but I don't think that is the reality of the situation. But if others don't have that impression, I'm willing to live with it :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DRV was the proper place for Tbsdy lives to go if the close was questioned, after contacting Jayjg and not receiving an answer which satisfied. Overturning the close was improper. "Surely it's also improper to close a controverisal debate without the closer giving a reason" may be theoretically valid, and become a rule in the future, but closing controversial debates without explicit reasoning happens very frequently and is not prohibited and so is not improper at present. As long as there is some possible reasoning - there clearly is - just take the reasoning of some of the keeps - and a keepish consensus/majority, there is little ground for procedural Deletion Review. So the keep should stand, with the normal respect given for quick renomination to "keeps" rather than "no consensuses".John Z (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse original keep There is no requirement that the closing admin provide any rationale for his decision; there is also no evidence that Tbsdy made any attempt to contact the closing admin on his talk page to discuss the matter civilly, except as an after-the-fact "Oh, BTW, I reversed your decision". I can see nothing wrong with the original closure as such, while I appreciate that different admins may make different conclusions, I can't see where there is a clear delete consensus at that page, so I don't see where Jayjg's close was controversial. I also don't see where Tbdsy did anything that is of normal recourse for disagreements. No attempt was made to discuss with Jayjg before undoing, and no attempt was made to bring this here to DRV before undoing. --Jayron32 04:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Troutslap Jayjg several times for not writing a rationale. Get someone else that thinks keep is the right outcome to write a rationale if Jayjg won't, and then endorse the keep. It's wonkery to overturn a keep just for not having a reason, if that's the only reason. If there are procedural errors, or other reasons for the overturn, let's hear them. TBSDY is right, a closing admin SHOULD give a reason. But the right approach is to go ask for one. And if none is forthcoming, take it to DRV, not unilaterally overturn. Finally, as I said at AN/I, if you want to do a close and it will take a while, throw up a "I'm closing this, wil have an outcome soon" note on it and color it archive color so people know. ++Lar: t/c 04:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies
It appears that from folks comments that I was out of line here. For this I apologise and in future I will take to DRV. I would like to clarify that I reversed Jay's decision and then informed him, I in no way hid what I did or went behind Jay's back when I made my decision. However, I disagree with Jayron - a closing admin really should give a reasoning. Those who were expressing the keep opinion were saying that the article had sources, but others were quite reasonably saying that the sources were not notable in their own right. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources don't need to be notable. They need to be reliable. And it doesn't seem like a very strong argument was made against the sources in that regard. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By closing it as "keep", the closing admin performed an administrative action. You reverting the close - no matter for what reason - constitutes reverting another admin's actions and thus is wheel-warring. I agree that when closing complicated discussions, the closer should provide a detailed rationale but they don't have to. Next time, remember that talking to people who made an edit you disagree with is always preferable. Regards SoWhy 17:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from the closing admin. Well, I've closed hundreds of AfDs in the past few months, and I must say that I never expected that this would be the most controversial one. To be honest, I'd never heard of the website before I looked at the AfD. I was just quietly going along, closing the overdue deletion discussions in the Old AfD list, and had closed this one as "keep", when I was shocked to discover that even as I was tagging the article's Talk: page with the oldafdfull "keep", notice, Tbsdy had "re-closed" the AfD as a "delete", stating that he was doing so because I had provided no reasoning for my decision. While there is no requirement to list a reason when closing an AfD, I've always been happy to provide one when asked, and this article is no exception. Both sides generally made arguments they felt were policy-based, and on the raw count the !votes were 10 delete, 16 keep, and 1 "keep and merge". Summarizing them, the "deletes" felt that the sources were not nearly in-depth or detailed enough regarding the site to establish notability, while the "keeps" felt that mentions in reliable sources (perhaps combined with a large number of ghits) were sufficient to establish notability. The sourcing looked a little thin to me as well, but this is obviously, at least to some extent, a matter of opinion, and people of good will can disagree on these matters. Those arguing to keep were generally well-established editors, many with tens of thousands of edits (or in one case over 120,000 edits) to their credit - not WP:SPA accounts with little familiarity with Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines, and interest in only one article. I felt that I had to respect the consensus of that preponderance of editors, and their considered judgment in the matter. Jayjg (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please paste that into the AfD itself, if you haven't already, you can pretty much go with most of it verbatim, it does a fine job of explanation, IMHO. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 05:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now, to provide a chance for better sourcing (if any). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse original Keep close a delete close would have been inappropriate. A "no consensus" close would be fine... except that the keep !voters had a clear majority and reasonable arguments. Furthermore, when those with a specific POV argue that content should be deleted from Wikipedia, that is itself reason for greater scrutiny, and I see nothing about this AfD that could justify closing to the minority's position. Jclemens (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm hardly a regular closer of AfDs, but on the odd occaision that I come across a long one like this, the first thing I do is add the
{{closing}} tag, so the edit conflicts that started this all off are avoided. Can I recommend that admins use this more often? GedUK 09:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse/keep. Could not have reasonably been closed any other way. As many people have noted, the proper way to contest a disputed AFD closure is to discuss with the closer then come here, not to overwrite the closure with your own preference. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse original keep. One might argue, if a bit strained, that this was a No Consensus, but claiming it as a Delete is simply not justifiable, based on the discussion. I also think notability is well-established in this case - it's a web phenomenon, and looking through the first 20 or so Google hits, it obviously is notable, even if coverage in reliable sources is somewhat sparse. Tbsdy, you messed up thrice - in your evaluation of the discussion, in your decision to unilaterally overturn without discussing this with Jayjg, and then in hastily deleting the article when it was clear that this would be controversial. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, close as no consensus. I hate "the truth is somewhere in the middle" arguments, but it's abundantly clear that there was no consensus to keep or delete the article. As with all "no consensus" closes, the article should be kept by default. --Ashenai (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Should be a no consensus close. I don't like that outcome, and I think those voting keep have a curious sense of what significant coverage constitutes, but I cannot see a consensus either way here. Quantpole (talk) 10:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What a bloody mess. I would like to endorse everything Stifle said above, and tangentially add that I have personally searched for "The Skeptic's Annotated Bible" on Wikipedia in the past. I would've been surprised if this encyclopaedia had lacked an article about it.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse "keep" close Trout slap for Jayjg for not providing a rationale, major trout slap for Tbsdy for reverting another admin's administrative actions without talking to them first. Then, as for assessing the discussion itself, consensus is clearly in favor of keeping (also per above) with a number of delete !votes based on the pre-sourced version of the article and the rest either disagreeing with whether the amount of sourcing is enough and the others criticizing neutrality concerns, which should be addressed through editing. A "no consensus" closure would be understandable as well, although I think the arguments in favor of keeping are stronger. But a "delete" closure cannot be derived from this discussion. Regards SoWhy 17:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse keep as there were sufficient sources to demonstrate notability. It would have been much better to have explained the close, and this should be required, and this dispute is another example of why. It's not all that helpful to close a disputed AfD without giving reasons. But until we have such as rule, such a close is not invalid, and there is no basis for reverting for that reason. Nor is there basis for reverting an admin close if the close is merely wrong, because Deletion Review is the place to discuss that. Sometimes such an admin close can be reverted properly, if done much too early or if done in a way that is demonstrably absurd, but anyone doing it would normally be expected to discuss it first with the closer. I have very rarely seen an admin revert another's close without discussing. It's not wheel-warring, but it is not usually done except in the clearest of circumstances. (A non-admin close can & usually should be reverted if it is not within the limits set for such closes. )There's no point in changing to non-consensus, though that would in my opinion also have been an acceptable close, because it can simply be nominated again in 6 months or so. ` DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse original "keep" close. Not much to say beyond what is written above. The arguments in the discussion weighed towards a keep, or possibly a no consensus default to keep. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse keep as a reasonable close. I'd have closed it as no consensus and think that's pretty clearly the right outcome as A) the sourcing isn't clearly over the bar and B) there was no consensus about the sourcing. Hobit (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse keep and original closure - adequate sources to show notability.—Sandahl (♀) 20:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
