Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 8

Slut (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm objecting to the early close by a non-admin User:ktr101 giving no apparent reason for not letting the debate run its seven days. It has been noted by others besides myself, that the article slut could possibly be made to be encyclopedic, but it in its current form it is not. The problem is that the current page is solely an etymology in the style of the OED which fails WP:NOT. KelleyCook (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. I closed it because there seemed to be sufficient support. I'm also willing to help make it better if others want to do so as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was also an overwhelming vote of keep, along with two redirect votes. The proportion of keep to deletes was enough for me to determine that it was probably going to be kept. Also, there wasn't that much of a lively debate, as it wasn't edited in the 16 hours prior to me closing it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way Kelley, non-admins are allowed to close AFDs if it looks like the discussion will continue to be in the "keep" camp. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse keep no realistic chance that letting the debate run longer would have resulted in a "delete" consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I would not have closed the debate this early, but endorse as inevitable. Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Editor who brought this to review states that "the article slut could possibly be made to be encyclopedic, but it in its current form it is not." That acknowledges that the outcome was correct, so there's no reason given for reopening except, pehaps, a desire to see more WP:SNOW accumulate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, relist and let it run for the full 7 days, after which it should be closed by an experienced admin. I doubt that this is ever going to be an article suitable for an encyclopedia. Early closure by non-admins is not appropriate for non-clear cut discussions where the closer believes "it was probably going to be kept" - "definitely" would be a better scenario than "probably". Several editors wanted a redirect, which means that the article would not be kept but would be replaced with a redirect to a more appropriate target. This was hardly an 'overwhelming' vote to keep, with only 5 Keep !votes to the nominator's delete, one other delete/redirect, and 3 for redirect, after the AFD had run for little more than 2 days. --Michig (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that it would definitely happen because I didn't want to appear cocky if I said that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are sometimes cases where a keep outcome is obviously going to be the result, e.g. when more than 10 non-SPA editors have contributed to the discussion and all have !voted to keep with arguments that demonstrate an understanding of policy. This is the type of case where an early snow closure is appropriate. You wouldn't have appeared cocky in such a case - it needs to be that clear cut to close a discussion after such a short time.--Michig (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse A reasonable snow result, given the complete lack of consensus for deletion. AFD is purely to decide deletion and so other editing decisions such as rewriting or redirection are not relevant. If anyone wants to work further upon the article then they are still free to obtain consensus and action accordingly at the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your view that "AFD is purely to decide deletion", can I refer you to Wikipedia:Afd#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed, specifically "After seven days have passed, the discussion is moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, and a disinterested (i.e. one who has not participated in the deletion discussion) admin or editor in good standing (observing the recommendations for non-admin closure) will assess the discussion and make a decision to Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, or Transwiki the article based on a judgment of the consensus of the discussion." There are thus 5 possible outcomes of an AFD discussion (6 if we include 'No consensus') - discussions should not be closed early unless one of those 5 outcomes is obviously going to be the result. That certainly wasn't the case here.--Michig (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that it might have been better if the full seven days had been allowed but see little point in reopening the discussion now. I disagree about the purpose of AFD. The purpose of AFD is to empower an admin to use his delete button or to deny the use of this option. Other options are a matter of ordinary editing which anyone may perform. An AFD may give some helpful guidance as a side-effect of the discussion but this is not its primary purpose. We do not require AFDs to have general editorial discussions about the development of articles as this is what talk pages are for. In far too many cases, we see drive-by editors ignoring article talk pages and going straight to AFD. This is improper behaviour contary to our deletion policy and so should not be encouraged. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree AFD is used far too often, but our deletion policy and stated AFD outcomes are what they are, and both AFD and DRV should be based on them. Our individual views on what AFD should be are not the issue here. As a side issue, looking at the AFD talk page, it looks like AFD is going to become much wider in scope than articles put forward for deletion, so it will soon not even be limited to discussing articles that an editor feels should be deleted. I find it a little bemusing that so many editors have come here claiming a clear consensus for keeping the article, with only 5 out of 10 contributors in favour of keeping it, and some of their arguments including the fact that there are plenty of references, a suggested ignorance regarding Wiktionary's existence, and the word being used in the title of several books, none of which seem to me like arguments that should be given much weight. I guess clear consensus ain't what it used to be.--Michig (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The only delete !vote was stricken. There is no reason that the redirect option can not still be explored and discussed on the article's talk page. J04n(talk page) 18:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My stricken delete !vote should be interpreted as "Delete the article and replace with a redirect". It wasn't a vote to keep the article.--Michig (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand that but there is no reason why it still can't be redirected, that discussion should be on the article's talk page rather than AfD. If no one is saying delete there is no reason to continue discussion. I do agree though that it was closed earlier than ideal. I watch listed it planning to look it over in detail and by the time I did it was already closed. J04n(talk page) 22:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I closed it a bit earlier than you wanted. Since it wasn't edited in over 12 hours, I didn't see much use in it being kept up longer since the discussion appeared dead by Wiki standards. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist per Michig. And additionally because this closure did not meet WP:Speedy keep (among other things, the nominator advanced an argument to delete), and it was therefore not appropriate for an early non-admin closure. Per WP:Non-admin closure (admittedly an essay not a guideline), a non-admin should close only after a full listing period, or if the speedy keep criteria apply. Per the essay, which I think should be applied in this case, non-admins should not apply WP:SNOW: see WP:Non-admin closure#Inappropriate closures. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep as it was unlikely that any delete buttons were going to be pushed. However, IMHO this wasn't a good candidate for a WP:SNOW close because of the redirect arguments. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep' but in general it is better to keep open for the full time even if totally obvious unless the nom (or article creator) withdraws or it clearly is not in good faith. Frankly, it might have appeared that deleting something so obvious expansible as this could have been a little pointy, so I can understand the snow closure. But I myself would not have done that with a nom from an established editor. Letting it go the remaining days would have prevented us wasting the time & effort here. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep but a minnow to the closer: there was no need to close this early. Please don't do it again... Hobit (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse outcome as re-listing this would be process for the sake of process, but the closure here was a mistake. A few hours one way or another on seven days is one thing, but this AfD was closed a full four days early as a NAC, and was not a speedy keep scenario. Whatever time was meant to be saved by this action; countless multiples will be wasted in this avoidable DRV. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – there would have been no possible other way for for AFD to close the way it was going. I probably would have IAR'd also. –MuZemike 04:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, WP:SNOW, and WP:IAR. There was clear consensus that the article should be kept, and there wasn't a snowball's chance that that was going to change. Continuing to keep the AFD open would have only served to beat the dead horse for a bit longer. Umbralcorax (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep for the simple reason that the nomination is against deletion policy. This sentence of the DRV nom: It has been noted by others besides myself, that the article slut could possibly be made to be encyclopedic, but it in its current form it is not. The problem is that the current page is solely an etymology in the style of the OED which fails WP:NOT. shows that the nom believes that problems with the article are only of the kind that can be solved by editing and expansion. The article therefore ought to be kept by default, per WP:ATD. That said, I agree that closing before the full 7 days is not the best thing to do, usually, but it was pretty much a WP:SNOW case. I endorse the minnow :) per Hobit. --Cyclopia^talk 23:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure because this was a legitimate scenario for application of WP:SNOW. That said, I do not endorse Ktr101's decision to close this so early himself. WP:NAC may only be an essay, but it is a generally accepted one – that is, people don't look kindly upon non-admins pulling the plug on these types of XfDs so early. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Just so any other person commenting knows, I regret closing it early. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tempest, meet teapot. :-) It was a small thing (and some have argued reasonable) but not so obvious as to be a good NAC. We all learn by making mistakes, and this was a darn little one. So no worries. Hobit (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Keep The close was not necessary to be this early, but there appears to be a legitimate application of WP:SNOW. Alansohn (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse only procedural purists would want to run this another time - and only the most naive among them would truly expect a different result, so rather than re-run it for procedure's sake, let's build the encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow endorse. Bearian (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese_immigration_to_Sydney,_Australia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Arguments made for deletion in the original deletion discussion clearly don't apply to this significantly different article (which uses some material from the original, but a small percentage, and has already had useful content development work in userspace). I assert that this isn't really recreation of deleted material therefore, but more importantly, it's just a good fit for mainspace in it's current state. I'm uncertain if anyone is disputing that, mind, so maybe this is just a 'best to follow the correct procedure' sort of thing? I'm enjoying working on this article, and look forward to whipping it into better shape in mainspace :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion There's no claim being made that the original AfD was invalid or that the close was incorrect, and it concluded only 11 days ago. The substantial concerns haven't been addressed; chopping more than 3/4 of the article has turned it from an OR POV essay into one that doesn't actually say much of anything and is still relatively unsourced. No additional sources have been consulted or looked at since the AfD. The user would be advised to take on board the concerns raised (i.e. read the books, see what they contain and properly cite them) and act on them substantially, then bring it back to DRV once this process is complete. Orderinchaos 04:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  If it's important, I'm happy to assert that the original AfD doesn't apply to this article as is (in fact, I think I already have? Maybe review my post above, and see if you agree?) - further; I believe the article to be;

  1. On a notable subject
  2. Reliably sourced
  3. underway in whipping up into shape by a good looking, well mannered, exemplary wikipedian

  I believe the original deletion arguments were;

  1. that the article was unsourced
  2. that the article was a copyright violation in some way
  3. that the sources for the article were not reliable

  is it possible to indicate which of the above you agree / disagree with? Privatemusings (talk) 07:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Merely restating your point however many times does not make it more valid - I disagreed with it then, and now. I am struggling to identify what you mean by "whipping up into shape" - your only changes have been removal of 3/4 of the content, two failed attempts to re-add the original disputed lead, and some spelling and grammar corrections. Five hook references go to a book without page numbers - I'm unsure if you've actually read the book in question, or any of the others provided to you on the talk page by Bejnar. The biggest actual content change (beyond the aforesaid removal) was my minor rewrite of the lead. If I saw some serious progress on these and an attempt to develop an encyclopaedic view of the subject rather than merely parroting a racy essay from another site, I might be more minded to support recreation, but I'm seeing a very blase attitude of creation without responsibility - something I note that SatuSuro brought up on your talk page today. Orderinchaos 08:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

which no.s do you disagree with? Privatemusings (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be clearly obvious from the above that I have given a rationale for disagreeing with 2 and 3. As for 1, a good friend of mine who's far more au fait with cultural topics than I am has highlighted a clear issue in the scope: "Sydney is not a country, it was part of the colony of New South Wales and later Australia. So one can't "immigrate to Sydney". The figures being used are port arrivals; as is the case with any port, it may serve a very large territory, so do we actually know every last person who arrived in Sydney stayed in New South Wales? The topic has holes all over it. I was going to help but I honestly can't find anything in <removed - specialist> Library which would actually help - that in itself suggests it might not be such a good topic to write about as the less sources there are, the more you have to rely on individual sources, and the more trouble you're going to get into if one of them has a problem." I can't see a single point I disagree with there, and I have his permission, so have posted verbatim. Orderinchaos 20:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. It was a rubbish article 11 days ago, and despite the changes, it's still an unsalvageable mess. Rebecca (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  execpt it's really not, is it? It's a notable subject, reliably sourced, and in my view an interesting read. If you disagree with the later, that's cool, but if you disagree with the either of the first two, could you explain why? (also, do you still feel that the article is a copyright violation? - this was your rationale for deletion originally, no?) Privatemusings (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Rebecca's actual rationale at the AfD was "The article is bollocks. Started as a POV copyvio, not salvageable." Orderinchaos 09:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, as I mentioned, if Rebecca still considers it a copyvio? (it never was really, was it?) Privatemusings (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted No point undeleting with a minimalist stub like that, which has an obvious undue on the early settlers, and only embarrasses the DoS and any attempt for a joint venture. There are other more placid, less flamboyant and uncontested articles that PM could use, like the one about Boy Charlton's pool. The nature of this topic will only bring fights and maybe irritate the folks DoS that their stuff is being cut up so much, although as the stance of the essay seemed quite non-mainstream, it was inevitable YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed - one of our users is getting an article on Glebe Island into shape - it was looking good last time I saw the draft. Orderinchaos 08:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where can this draft be seen ? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I endorse Spartaz' very reasonable close, and I would like to draw attention to his exact words: "I am specifically closing with the note that recreation of a NPOV verified replacement is specifically permitted." I think, Privatemusings, that you can go ahead and write a proper article without coming to DRV, and I think it would be simplest for all concerned if this were withdrawn or speedily closed as a drama-reduction measure.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse exactly as S Marshall. Hobit (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• well I'm happy to start the article anew, and discuss the incorporating of the dictionary of sydney stuff nice and slowly on the talk page - I don't mind whether or not this review stays open, or gets closed, or whatever folk think best..... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure The arguments to keep at this AfD were fundamentally based on WP:SOFIXIT – the idea that the problems with the article could be addressed through regular editing. While that is true, those advocating deletion had the stronger arguments by far – that the article violated WP:NOR and WP:V, and that salvaging it would be unusually difficult. As such, the closing admin made the right call, particularly by allowing re-creation of a version that did not violate the aforementioned policies. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SMPlayer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I found [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7] which is enough to make this pass WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore The sources found by Joe Chill establish that SMPlayer passes the notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse original close. Not a DRV matter, editor should simply write a sourced nonstub and add a note regarding differences from the deleted form to the talk page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse and Restore now meets WP:N, no reason not to provide the old version as a starting point. Hobit (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but restore it to give Joe Chill a base to build the article off of, and add these sources in. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is why I brought it to DRV. Restoring the old version will make it easier for there to be a referenced article. Joe Chill (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore - article can meet WP:GNG, no reasons to keep it deleted, no matter the AfD. --Cyclopia^talk 23:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore per Hobit. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore the article and let Joe Chill expand and source it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore/Overturn, or at least send Joe Chill a copy of the deleted article to work on. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore, why make Joe Chill start from scratch if the framework of the article already exists? He is an editor in good standing with a strong history of understanding notability guidelines in regards to articles of this nature. J04n(talk page) 14:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is not really a DRV matter as Bradjamesbrown said. When I find significant sources after some AfD closed, I ask for the article to be userified to me, edit it accordingly, and then move it back to article space—this preserves full edit history. Of course, if anyone thinks the material is still unsuitably sourced, they can request CSD#G4. Overall this requires less manpower than having a bunch of people !vote restore here. Pcap ping 07:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]