Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 August 15

Chalmers Tschappat (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe the close of this ignores a number of pre-established methods on how notability and concepts like BURDEN are to work when it comes to sub-notability guidelines.

I will add that the process of this AFD had two possible mis-steps which should be considered if this was a problem: first, I personally was asked by Dirtlawyer1 (talk · contribs) to participate in the AFD as I've been involved in discussing how the nature of notability and subject-specific notability guidelines should play out, and thus they involved me as an "expert" in this area (see [1]) which the closing admin Spinningspark (talk · contribs) appears to think is a problem. Second, because some of the discussion was going at a tagnent, a user moved many of the non-!vote comments/threads to the talk page (I added a note that this was done), which also may have been considered an issue.

But that's process issues, there's still other factors with this AFD. Notability has long been established as a "presumption", particularly when it comes to the SNGs - we allow topics that meet certain criteria to have articles as to allow time for editors to locate existing sources or for new sources to come about to be able to try to improve the article (in this case, a proper application of WP:NGRIDIRON. But at the end of the day, if the sourcing cannot be improved and a reasonable source search has been done, then the burden goes to those that want to keep the article to prove that the article should be kept. Specifically, this means that one can no longer use the presumption of NGRIDIRON, and must show standard GNG-type coverage (or at least, demonstrate that there are sources even if they can't get their hands on them immediately). And here we are talking about a player that played for only a few games, back in the 1920s, has passed away, so any expectation of new sources coming about is just not there. Other editors at the AFD reported what they searched and lack of any significant results. The closer seemed to believe that this was a case to try to establish this concept and thus seemed to ignore these points (which were brought up in the AFD), but it really is something already present in guidelines on deletion policy and notability, and I know personally I have discussed this point with the NSPORTS/sports-related editors on the same manner with the same consensus.

There is some argument whether the material added to the article over the AFD meets the GNG, but as was pointed out, it merely showed the player existed and was on rosters - sufficient for the initial presumption of NGRIDIRON but not the coverage that is required for GNG-style notability.

At minimum, I am extremely uncomfortable with this being closed as a unreasoned "keep", with a 3-3 split. A "no consensus" would be much more appropriate if the issue was a question of the GNG-vs-SNG matter. MASEM (t)

• The closure as "keep" was appropriate since the individual plainly passed NGRIDRON. To the extent that Masem believes that passing the SNG is insufficient, that is a discussion that is properly directed to the appropriate talk page, most likely at WP:NSPORT, but it is not a reason to overturn the ruling of the closing admin on this AfD. Cbl62 (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there were only two (not three) delete votes. Even the nominator ended up suggesting he may have erred in making the nomination by the time the discussion was ended. Cbl62 (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I suggested that I may have erred in nominating, making such a statement doesn't (nor should it) change my !vote.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, like all SNGs, NGRIDIRON is a presumption that is given to allow time for sources to be located or to come about. When someone goes to more-than-a-passing effort to look for sources and finds none, and we can reasonably expect no sources have been found, BEFORE has been met and the SNG presumption is invalidated, placing the burden on those wanting to keep to find them. The argument that you can never challenge NGRIDRON is against the established nature of the SNGs and turns them into inherited notability, which we don't allow. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WABBITSEASON There's no need to repeat the same argument over and over.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I participated in the AFD and agreed with the closure. I found the argument that the presumption of notability has a deadline to be... well... presumptuous. It has long been standing procedure that even if a person plays a single down of a regular season game in the NFL, then the notability is presumed. The argument that the presumption has a deadline is something I can find no reference to anywhere. Notability does not expire, why would the presumption of notability expire? It seemed to me that the arguments were more against WP:NGRIDIRON rather than the article in question, for the article in question certainly met that guideline. If any editor has a problem with WP:NGRIDIRON then that is where the discussion should take place. Editors should be able to see guidelines as reasonably reliable and not have to defend against them on the fly. As to the canvassing issue, all I know is that when I asked people to come to an AFD to participate, I got spanked for canvassing. I'm disappointed that others seem to think they deserve a free pass on that one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, you need to read WP:CANVASSING and understand when notice of discussions is appropriate and when it is not. Not all notices are inappropriate. There are two apparent exceptions that apply to Masem's invited participation in this discussion (expertise in the particular area under discussion, and prior participation in related discussions). You will note that not only was this done openly, but Masem appropriately disclosed how he came to the AfD in the AfD discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Dirtlawyer, you are aware that there is dissent in that opinion in this specific case with your involvement in the discussion at User talk:Spinningspark#AfD canvassing.

Uh, yes, Paul, I am aware that the closing admin has another opinion. As you can see, I initiated the discussion to which you linked and I was one of two active participants in that discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• further comment Dirtlawyer, your comments at User talk:Masem#NGRIDIRON vs. GNG state "Masem, I invite your participation in this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chalmers Tschappat. This AfD presents a potential test of the limits of the presumption extended by NGRIDIRON, especially in the face of a demonstrable inability to satisfy GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Your expertise is solicited. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)" This, to me, is a clear example of campaigning, defined as "Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner."--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, I believe that my notice to Masem, including a brief summary of the policy and guideline issues presented by the circumstance of this AfD, is a succinct and neutral statement of those issues and possible consequences. You apparently believe otherwise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Paul, you are of course entitled to your opinion. However, if I were "campaigning" for a particular outcome in this AfD, as you suggest, don't you think that it's a little bit odd that I never registered an !vote in the AfD? What I want is consistently interpreted and enforced notability guidelines, and everyone involved here knows or should know that there is inconsistency in how we have enforced the actual language of NGRIDIRON and GNG. You need to AGF, and dial down your rhetoric. Like you, I am a regular editor of sports articles in general and American football in particular, and I only have the best interests of the encyclopedia and WP:CFB at heart. Hopefully, you can summon enough GF to accept that reality, instead of engaging in this discussion as if it were some sort of blood feud. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • From WP:N: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. And while notability doesn't expire, the presumption that a topic is notable can be challenged. And it has been established before at Talk:NSPORTS this is how it works. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see the word "deadline" in any of that. Further, the article in question was clearly not an indiscriminate collection of information. See WP:discriminate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are no secondary sources, so as such, it fails WP:NOR (no secondary sources to explain importance), WP:V (to some degree, as some of the sources aren't independent) and WP:GNG. And no, we don't specify a deadline because that would be gamed (both ways), but instead use common sense - we aren't suddenly going to have new sources appear about a player like this from the 1920s today. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I remember the argument in AFD about how the New York Times shouldn't be used as a source. At least one other editor besides myself disagreed with that interpretation. As for verifiability, the information is indeed all verifiable (which is how it got in the article in the first place). The rest is just re-hashing of the same old argument.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • And I pointed out via WP:PRIMARYNEWS/WP:PSTS that that thinking was wrong; newspaper articles simply reporting details are primary sources, long established policy on WP. That's the same process that has been in place for many years and was ignored here in favor of a few !votes trying to parrot "it passes NGRIDIRON, you can't challenge it!" which is a non-starter. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:WABBITSEASON we've done this already.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I did not nominate this AfD, but I believed that it presented an excellent test case of a sports notability issue that has bothered me for some time. Accordingly, I am the editor who tried to focus the AfD discussion on what I believe is the core issue presented:

Whether an American football player who played in two AFPA/NFL regular season games in 1921, a fact supported only by a sports statistics website (see pro-football-reference.com) and by no significant coverage in any other independent, reliable sources, could rely solely on the one-game presumption of notability per NGRIDIRON as an absolute, or whether in the absence of any other significant coverage regarding the subject's pro playing career such presumption of notability could be rebutted.

If not, then the word "presumption" does not have its usual and ordinary meaning in the English language, and NGRIDIRON does not extend a presumption of notability, but instead creates an absolute grant of notability regardless of what reliable sources are or are not available. This is an open issue generally, and it is at the heart of this particular AfD. By summarily dismissing the discussion of core guidelines and policies as beyond the scope of the AfD, the closing administrator prematurely ended a perfectly valid discussion of the applicable guidelines and policies, logged a "clear keep" outcome in the face of a closely divided policy discussion, disregarded a narrowly divided !vote, and effectively registered a so-called "super vote" consistent with the admin's own policy preferences (see discussion on admin's user talk page). Moreover, until another editor initiated this DRV, the closing admin was unwilling to provide any explanation of his "keep" closing rationale, and chose to focus instead on accusations of inappropriate "canvassing" even in the face of one or more good-faith exceptions built into the canvassing guidelines. I have no interest in besmirching any editor's intentions, and I strongly urge everyone to dial down their level of rhetoric, stop making extraneous accusations, and focus on the applicable policies and guidelines instead. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• EndorseOverturn to no consensus [changed per discussion below]. I'd have !voted delete on this one and I'm not quite comfortable with the close (for one, the allegation of canvassing might have been made a bit too readily). This AfD was a good case to illustrate the application of the subject-specific guideline as mere presumption, not a guarantee, of notability, and to deem the subject of the article not notable on account of a lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. But that didn't mean that the delete side had a king hit in this debate. First, that view is contentious. Second, there was an arguable case that there might be significant coverage out there. To overturn this to "delete" would involve DRV imposing one view of how our guidelines work on the community when it is clear that, at least in the area of sports, that application is still quite contentious. On that point, the fact that this discussion is already longer than the Russia/Ukraine one below is telling. I agree with the nominator that "no consensus" would have been the better close. But the difference between "keep" and "no consensus" is immaterial and we shouldn't be concerned with formalisms like that. The only difference I've ever seen suggested is that it is accepted that a "no consensus" AfD can be renominated earlier. But no-one could reasonably object to giving this one another go in a few months time, at which point the argument that there might be sources out there could start to look a whole lot weaker. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mkativerata, no one has advocated overturning the closing admin's "keep" and converting it to a "delete." At the time of the close, there was obviously neither a clear consensus for "keep" or "delete". Accordingly, the remedy in this DRV should be either (a) to reopen the AfD, and let the discussion play out, or (b) re-close the AfD as "no consensus". Otherwise, we are left with a "clear keep" close in the face of a closely argued discussion and a narrowly divided !vote, and that makes the least sense of all. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, I agree it should have been "no consensus", it's just that I don't think DRV should be concerned with that distinction. Although I am starting to think that if there were ever a case for DRV to change a keep to no consensus, it would be this one...--Mkativerata (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does need to be. I've seen 2nd (or beyond) AFDs coming off a keep, where the arguments (which are technically wrong per WP:ATA) go "Kept before, keep again, no change has been proposed", and while those are supposed to be ignored by the closer, they typically are extremely hard to counter and argue against. Yes, from what the non-reg user's POV, they see nothing but extra tags, but it does affect future discussions on the article. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the trench warfare of AfD I can see that happening... I'm convinced. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to "no consensus" per my own comments above. Given the absence of a clear consensus among the AfD discussion participants, a "no consensus" outcome at this DRV seems to be the best outcome in lieu of the ill-considered original "keep" closing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I respect Dirtlawyer and think this could have been reasonably closed as "keep" or "no consensus." I see no reason to change the closing admin's note, which clearly says there is "no consensus" on the broader issue. That said, the thing I do find somewhat troubling, as Paul noted above, is Dirtlawyer's invitation to Masem, whose anti-sports bias predilection has been demonstrated over and over, and not to any other participants in WP:NSPORTS to be troubling. While I absolutely do assume good faith, the invitation to one anti-sports editor creates an awful appearance. Cbl62 (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, Cbl, but I don't see Masem's alleged anti-sports "bias" that Paul has railed against (or "predilection," if you prefer). What I see is an editor and an administrator who has fought for greater consistency in notability-related issues. I don't always agree with Masem (see our recent discussion in the Mark Dodge AfD), but I spend a lot of time reading and not commenting on the talk pages at WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS because there is a lot of collective wisdom and insight regarding notability to be found in those talk page discussions -- and a good bit of it is to be found in Masem's comments. We would do far better as sports editors to understand and absorb the legitimate notability concerns being raised by non-sports editors, and the Chalmers Tschappat article is a good example of that. No one produced a single significant source for the guy's 2-game pro football career. Not one. As for the unexplained clear "keep" close in this particular AfD, I think the closing admin clearly overreached by closing it as such when there was obviously no consensus one way or the other after a week's worth of policy discussion. And just like I respect and always consider your arguments, even if I don't always agree with them, I extend that same courtesy to Masem -- and for the same reason: you both know and understand more about these notability issues than all but a handful of other regular AfD participants. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Reasonable close. The argument that a presumption of notability is somehow qualified is new to me and a single poorly-attended AfD is not the place to change a policy. The closer rightly discounted delete !votes which amounted to "I don't like it." Mackensen (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The presumtion of notability has long been part of notability guidelines, and is not a novel concept. This is a rare case where the presumption makes sense to be challenged. --MASEM (t) 01:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to "no consensus". This was a contentious AFD for sure, and I did not think that it would be. That being said, I feel that it could have remained open for a few more days to try and elicit more !votes to try and get a clearer consensus than what there was. To me it was pretty much deadlocked in which both sides raised valid arguments. It seemed to me that the keep !votes were set on only using NSPORT as the sole criteria for keeping, and pretty much ignoring the GNG.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 01:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I voted keep in the main deletion discussion, and agreed with the closure. For the record, there were only two "delete" votes (Dirtlawyer1 has deliberately stated that his comment was not a vote, one way or the other). And I do have a bit of a problem with the direct invitation to Masem to participate, as, plain and simple, Masem is not an expert on 1920's pro football. As a matter of fact, Masem is not a even a regular contributor to gridiron football articles at all. And, that's what asking an expert means. Inviting a person with meaningful expertise, knowledge, and experience on the subject matter at hand to participate in the discussion, not inviting an "expert" at inter-Wiki politicking. As far as moving part of the discussion to the talk page, I have no great opinions on that, one way or the other, though, in general, I wouldn't recommend doing it again in the future without first getting permission from the people whose comments are being moved. And, I feel it's worth pointing out that it was Cbl62, one of the "keep" voters who pointed out that part of the discussion had been moved. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EJ, AfD nominators are counted as a "delete" vote, unless they specifically state another desired outcome. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Aside, I've open discussion of the core issue (whether we need to re-establish that consensus) at WT:N#The application of the "presumption" of notability, irregardless of this DRV result. --MASEM (t) 01:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The practice with respect to the specialized notability guidelines varies with guideline. In at least one case, WP:PROF, it is explicitly stated that it is an alternative to the general notability guide and that meeting either one is sufficient. In the case of sports, the accepted policy seems in practice to be similar--we have consistently given article status to every individual who meets the relevant NSPORTS guideline, regardless of how little information is present. Most of the disputes have been about the level to set the NSPORTS guideline for the particular sport, and here the accepted policy is that the relevant wikiproject or workgroup does not get to set it by itself as if it were autonomous, but whatever it proposes is subject to de facto acceptance by the general community. There have also been occasional disputes about individuals who technically meet the GNG, but not the sports guideline, with variable results. For the other guidelines, opinions about the inter-relationship vary. (Personally, I think the entire concepts of "notability" and "presumption of notability" are extremely fuzzy, and their only WP-specific meaning is "what we decide to keep as an article".) Had I closed this one, I would have closed as an unqualified keep, because I think that for American Football we have consistently kept every individual of his stature. Whether we should or not depends on whether we want to. Personally, I think it slightly absurd, but I would not tinker with the established general guidelines to establish my view. And I remind everyone that notability is not a policy. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no tinkering. Again, "presumption" is a term that starts at WP:N and extends to all SNGs. That means it can be challenged. That's the problem with the "keep" here is that it outright ignores that. --MASEM (t) 05:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • MASEM}, I altogether disagree with you that all SNGs are to be treated equally. Each SNG can have its own manner of applicability, as the consensus for that particular guideline (consensus, that is, of the entire community , not a particular workgroup unless the community supports it) can determine. The notability guideline permits exceptions in any direction--of additional requirements in some area, or lesser in other, or totally different way of looking at it in yet others, or sometimes merely convention assumptions. Each case is separate. Personally, I see the NSPORTS guidelines as intended to be additional limitations, but this has been debated in various ways for many years now. We are free to chose what interpretation we want, and the question is whether we have in fact chosen. I think we do need to definitively choose, because there are a great many sportsperson articles potentially involved. And , as usual, I would prefer any definite choice to a continued lack of decision. DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are though, at the end of the day. SNGs cannot override the general standards expected for notability and encyclopedia articles, though they can be more restrictive. Notability from any source is a presumption that can be challenged if the exhaustion of sources does not give an encyclopedic article. This is, in fact, a point that NSPORTS includes (That they are guidelines towards meeting the GNG at some point). And the number of articles "at risk" is not a factor - most of those from NSPORTS were created from mass creation years ago, and to do an effective challenge, one has to show clear evidence for absence of GNG-type sourcing which is much more detailed than just plugging the name into Google and coming up empty. --MASEM (t) 21:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • • • I continue to disagree, about as directly as possible, that your view has ever been policy or chould be policy, or is a correct or even a possible interpretation. Surely you realise that we at WP make the rules. we can also define their scope, and say when we will use them, and what the permitted variation , and the exceptions. All of this is subject not to an external force, but to our own definitions, for this and every rule (except for the limitations of foundation policy of copyright a BLP). If we want to say, for example, that everyone in the Olympics is to be given an article, regardless of whatever may or may not have been written about them, we can do so. If we wish to say that every ruler of a country is to be given an article, regardless of whether their existence depends on a single line in a chronicle, we can do so. If we wish to say that every winner of certain major prize should have an article, regardless of whether we have any other verifiable information, we can do so -- -and in these cases we do in fact say exactly that, and the limitations of WP:N do not apply. We could of course, decide to not say that at all, and rely on the strict interpretation of the GNG in these cases--and I am not at the moment arguing which of the two is in each case would be in my opinion the better course, or what intermediate ought to be pursued as a compromise. We can include whatever we collectively think proper to include. How else can it possibly be? Who dictates such rules to us? You? Me? The Foundation? The proposition you are defending relies about our forced obedience to someone--and that is not WP. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • We have long discussed what function the SNGs do, and it is been tried before to treat them as "inclusion guidelines", which fails to work. With the concept of inherited notability already discounted out from WP:N, the idea of a class of topics immediately qualifying for an article has been rejected. That's why the SNG provide guidelines for when it is very likely that because of the caliber of the topic, it will likely be reasonable article and give time for sources to be found and/or created, but we're not saying that 100% of the topics that fit the criteria automatically get an article. There's a checks and balance here. The only area we outright say that an article should exist irregardless of sourcing is for named places, because we've come to agree that we are also part gazetteer and thus providing that functionality. And I do want to stress that the NSPORTS project has agreed that their guidelines are not absolutes, and that showing a lack of sourcing is a fair reason to delete even if a NSPORTS criteria is met. I'm not talking about some made up idea that I only have, it's clear consensus over numerous years and discussions. --MASEM (t) 18:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • But what you're describing doing here and what you are actually attempting to do are two different things. You state "showing a lack of sourcing is a fair reason to delete even if a NSPORTS criteria is met." But the sources are provided and WP:NSPORTS/WP:GRIDIRON/whatever guidelines have also been met. Both conditions are met. You are arguing essentially that neither have been met. I believe that the closer of the AFD understood that, which is why it was closed as Keep. That's a guess, but it's a reasonable one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Paul, please look at the Tschappat article again: the subject's claim to notability is based solely on his having played in two APFA/NFL games in 1921. There is no significant coverage of his APFA/NFL in multiple, independent, reliable sources. The only sources for his two-game pro career are sports stats websites like Pro-Football-Reference.com and databaseFootball.com. We have never accepted sports stats sites as significant coverage. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Pro-Football-Reference.com is considered reliable and therefore the information should be considered verified. The significant coverage that you demand will likely be found in offline sources from the 1920s that have not made it to the internet yet. And I don't believe that even a small portion of offline sources have been checked. We've gone over this time and again. You say there is no significant coverage, but you really can only claim that there is no significant coverage on the internet. The internet isn't everything. WP:OFFLINE--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, Paul, you're either missing or intentionally ignoring the point: yes, Pro-Football-Reference.com is reliable, but it's not significant, in the same way we do not accept coverage from Rivals.com and Scout.com as significant for determining the notability of high school and college athletes. As for the offline sources, please see my extended comments at the WP:N discussion started by Masem, regarding the search for Ohio newspaper sources using Newspapers.com: Newspapers.com produced over 600 articles from Ohio newspapers about the Dayton Triangles (Tschappat's APFA/NFL team) during the 1920s. A Google News Archive search produced another 80 articles about the Dayton Triangles during the same time period. Not one of those almost 700 Ohio news articles about the Dayton Triangles produced a single mention of Tschappat. So, let's not kid ourselves that we don't have a representative sample of Ohio newspaper coverage that likely would have produced any significant coverage about Tschappat if any significant coverage ever existed. It was not an accident that I picked Tschappat as a test case regarding the NGRIDIRON presumption. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not missing your point, I'm just not buying your argument. Apparently neither have others. You're welcome to argue against as much as you like, it's just that many disagree with your application.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Paul, this is DRV, not AfD. It's no longer about the merits of the "argument"; it's about whether the closing administrator's AfD close was "reasonable," and most folks aren't willing to overturn an AfD unless it's completely unreasonable. You basically got away with one at AfD by confusing the issue. Ask Cbl62 if he believes Pro-Football-Reference.com constitutes significant coverage as required by GNG (it's not, and we've never accepted it as such), and then we'll go back to arguing about the NGRIDIRON presumption and claiming that there's some great hidden reservoir of significant coverage hidden behind the paywalls of dozens of Ohio newspapers or in the hard-copy archives of the Dayton Daily Mulletwrapper. Sorry, but the Newspapers.com search for the Dayton Triangles shows that there was plenty of Ohio newspaper coverage for the team, and Tschappat got none of it. If this guy were a college player with the same amount of coverage, we'd all be laughing as we !voted to delete the article. Just admit that you believe NGRIDIRON is an absolute, irrebuttable ticket to notability for one-game wonders and that's your bottom line. Then there's nothing left to argue about if we're being honest. But please let's not pretend there was anything like significant coverage for this guy's pro career on which his claim of notability is based. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, this is DRV not AF, which is why I keep posting the link to WP:WABBITSEASON. Why do you keep making AFD-style arguments here? And then blame me for making AFD-style arguments? Geez, "asked and answered" --Paul McDonald (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. There is no dispute over whether the guy meets the relevant guideline, and said guideline exists specifically to avoid loss of energy in DRVs such as this. Discussion of whether the current rule is sufficiently strict is beyond the scope of this process, as is discussion of editorial solutions such as redirecting the title to the relevant team list. Masem is free to pursue either or both of those alternatives. --erachima talk 04:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse DGG and erachima have both summed this up very well, and Masem should be ashamed for complaining that the result didn't match up with the numbers. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The real issue, IMHO, is that sport people seem to have, in many cases, a special passport to be considered notable as WP:NSPORT has, in some of its sub-sections, the looser inclusion criteria of the whole encyclopedia. No strong feelings about the current case, as I basically do not know the relevant sport, but how the hell a footballer who played ten minutes in the Albanian First Division or a footballer who played a season in the Italian fourth division should be presumed notable individuals is still a mystery. Cavarrone 06:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Because "X is presumed notable" is Wikipedese for "constant discussions of X have been deemed disruptive", which is turn is Wikipedese for "for the love of god shut up about X." --erachima talk 06:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse It is a borderline case and I may have closed as no-consensus. However the close was a reasonable interpretation of the debate. Chillum 14:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The notability "presumption" applies to GNG and SNG equally. Paraphrasing for brevity: A topic is presumed to merit an article if ... It meets either the GNG or an SNG (officially) listed ... and ... It is not excluded under WP:NOT.[2] "Presumed" is not there solely as a temporary state in case new information can be found. It is also there because editors may think a topic should not have an article even if it meets the notability guidelines – even if the criteria have been met we are still allowed to !vote delete because the presumption for having an article is rebuttable. The notability guidelines are there to help us see whether or not WP:NOT means an article should exist. In themselves the guidelines are by way of advice and do not require us to !vote in any particular way. If information in an article is verifiable (and in this case verified) and people want to keep the article because they consider it encyclopedic, they are allowed to express such views and have their opinions fully taken into account. Thincat (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - in practice, the bastard children of WP:N are usually treated as though meeting them is sufficient for inclusion. Of course, in compelling cases that sway much of the community, exceptions can be made. Meeting a notability guideline (up to and including WP:N) doesn't mean an article should be included, nor does failing to meet it mean it must be excluded (going back at least to RAMBOT's rampage), but that's the default presumption. And there's nothing particularly exceptional here. WilyD 14:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problems of Onomastics (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This AfD was closed by Spinningspark as "keep". However, in the discussion there was one very strong "keep" !vote (Dcs002), whose main arguments were discarded by Spinningspark. In addition, Dcs002 changed their !vote to "merge" later in the discussion. There was one "merge" !vote (Mark viking). Finally, there were two "keep or merge" !votes. DGG gave his opinion, but did not provide sources for that. Forbidden User claimed this was a "borderline GNG pass", but did not explain how (the article has one reference to a website not connected with the journal, but that is a dead link). As the nom, I indicated that a merge was acceptable to me, too. My reading of the discussion is a very clear (unanimous) consensus to merge the article, but not a consensus to keep. I discussed this with the closing admin here to no avail, so here we are. Randykitty (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to overturn I'd have gone with merge but it is a great pity that the matter was brought to AFD when no reason was given for why the name of the journal should be a red link. I suggest sorting all this out on the talk page. We would do well to think more about how content would best be presented in an encyclopedia and less about whether an article should be deleted. Thincat (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh? "no reason was given"? I thought my nom was quite detailed. --Randykitty (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were succinct in your detail, and thank you for that. Thincat (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, if I can use 30 words instead of 300, I will do that. For my edification, could you perhaps tell me what I should have added to the nom that wasn't already said with "no independent sources"? --Randykitty (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. We have main space redirects for all sorts of topics that are individually not "notable". AFD is not intended for proposing merges or redirections {WP:BEFORE, C4 "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article."). It would have been helpful to have said why a priori you considered these unsuitable and why a red link was preferable. Thincat (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps you should read the AfD again. I did not start the AfD with an intention to merge or redirect, that is talk page stuff. I proposed deletion and gave clear arguments for that. For the sake of obtaining a consensus, I stated that I could live with a merge (,not that I thought this was the best solution). It seems like you have a fundamental problem with taking articles to AfD, because some redirect can almost always be found. Can we now concentrate on the question at hand, which is to determine whether the consensus in this discussion was to "keep" or to "merge"? --Randykitty (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are now talking past each other, which is a shame. I would have closed the AFD as merge Thincat (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. I've endorsed Spinningspark's other close below on the basis that it was within discretion. I'm not convinced that this was; at the relisted debate there should be an onus on those wanting to keep to back up their view with some sources.—S Marshall T/C 15:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There was some sourcing suggested at the time. Several sources actually. They were not the greatest quality, but they were something. Spinningspark said on his user talk page about his decision to keep that "there was credible evidence of notability presented, some of it by the "merge" camp themselves, even though they still thought it did not meet GNG." So it seems, in his opinion, that standard was actually met. I brought up two sources, and Mark viking, who was the first to !vote to merge, brought up a few more. None were ideal sources, but all were independent and verifiable. Spinningspark also said he's inclined to treat journal notability a bit differently because so little is written about them. He didn't say it directly, but I get the impression that he thinks that, with the addition of the sources mentioned, the journal appears notable enough to merit its own article. If he believes notability has been met, is it then within his discretion to keep? Dcs002 (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, two answers to that. Firstly my personal position on notability as it applies to academic journals is summed up in my essay at WP:SJ. I'd obviously prefer it if we could keep the article. But secondly, I don't feel that DRV can or should make decisions about what the closer believes at the time of closing. We can only decide what we believe, and I personally don't believe the community's normal threshold of sourcing has been met.—S Marshall T/C 08:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to merge. Everyone in the debate saw a merger as a sensible outcome. Everyone. That's the consensus. Wikipedia has worked well in this AfD but I think the closing admin missed it. Yes, merging is something that can be done outside an AfD. But AfD can also impose a merge outcome, as it did here, and when it does, DRV should uphold it. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Spinningspark said on his talk page, in addition to the comments about notability I quoted above, "To my mind, those arguing for 'merge' failed to make a convincing policy based argument as to why the material would be acceptable in another article but not be acceptable in this article." To my understanding, he is saying we didn't give policy-based reasons why "merge" is preferable to "keep". It also sounds like he's saying consensus isn't enough without considering policy, and that we didn't consider policy (to Spinningspark's satisfaction) when !voting to merge.

@Randykitty, what is it you are asking of us in this review discussion? You summarized our votes accurately, but our consensus wasn't enough in Spinningspark's judgement, and he gave clear reasons for his decision. I think we need to say something new here that wasn't said in the AfD discussion, and I think we need to address the specific reasons he gave for his decision. Otherwise, why would anyone overturn an admin's decision? He schooled me on why my arguments to keep were not valid, but he said that the arguments to keep made by others were the reason he closed as a keep. Those arguments were all based on the unique nature of academic journals and the unique difficulties inherent in establishing notability among academic journals via the usual means, particularly non-English journals. Those who argued to keep (including myself) all agreed that, given the special nature of academic journals, notability had been satisfied ("borderline" in one person's opinion) by the sources provided.

So if this article actually is viable as a standalone, why would it be preferable to merge the content into a tiny stub of an article that might be next for the chopping block because it contains almost no meaningful content? Maybe it would be best to keep this article for now and see if the Russian Language Institute article can be built up enough to handle meaningful content about a specific journal it sponsors, or the next AfD talk we'll be having will be "This article is all about one journal, not the language institute, and an institute can't be made notable because it sponsors one journal." Maybe we should just let this go and focus our collective energy on bringing both articles up to standard. I don't mean waiting for someone else to do it, because that approach has been tried and failed. I mean we should do it. If nothing else we should get the Russian Language Institute article into a fit state to receive the content from the journal page. Then we will have a more affirmative case to make that the merged article will be a better home for the content rather than just doing it as a compromise. We didn't make that case in the AfD discussion. Spinningspark is correct in that assessment. Dcs002 (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that the AfD discussion resulted in a unanimous consensus to merge and that none of the arguments in favor of notability was within policy, I'd like to see the "keep" closure overturned into either a "merge" or a relist (although I don't think the latter would result in any new viewpoints or sources). --Randykitty (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion was (and is again) that the arguments in favor of notability were based (some directly, most in spirit) on WP:NJournals, under the heading Notes and examples, item 6, which says of Humanities journals, "the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information." That is where Worldcat came from. I brought that up, though I might have had inaccurate expectations of what it meant. However, at least one other editor agreed, and the tenor of the arguments was the same as with this item in WP:NJournals - that journals are treated different from other sources, and that finding RS that directly review them or reference them is uniquely difficult. There seems to be a tendency to err on the side of inclusion, and as Spinningspark said, policy follows practice, not the reverse, which was my mistake. I have not cast a !vote yet. I want to make sure I understand everything more clearly this time. I !voted to merge during the AfD because I didn't think the notability standards were going to be met, and a merge would preserve the content. But given Spinningspark's comments in his close and on his talk page, it seems his opinion that they had been met, given the sourcing brought up in the AfD discussion. I don't mean to be difficult, but I think we need to address his/her reasons for the keep in order to make a meaningful argument against the close. Dcs002 (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to "keep or merge" Though my personal preference is to keep any established journal from a reputable scientific publisher, that has not so far been our practice. Our usual practice however has been to merge, and I !voted accordingly , saying "keep, but a merge would also be acceptable". Were I closing on the presumption that I had no personal views on the subject, I would have closed either "merge" or "keep or merge"; I do not think that an unqualified keep really represented the consensus. "notability"' is subjective, and what we decide to do with an article depends less on guidelines than on what we decide best fits the circumstances. I don't see that as avoidable. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is "keep or merge" a valid option for the closing admin? So then our challenge would be to go through consensus-building to decide which, with "delete" off the table? If so, I like that option. But again, if we eventually do "merge", the Russian Language Institute article is going to need serious expansion to accommodate this content. Dcs002 (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute... if "Keep or Merge" is the way this closes, then how is that different from accepting the original "Keep" close and proposing "Merge" on the article's talk page? We'd still have to decide in either case through yet another discussion, and we already have that discretion with a "Keep" close, as I understand anyway. Why are we not just discussing "Merge" on the article's talk page? Is there a nuance I am missing? (I assume there is.) It seems that would be a less formidable task than overturning a closed AfD. Dcs002 (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Reputable publisher to support notability? I think we have that. The Ural Federal University (UrFU, as Ural University Press) publishes Problems of Onomastics. Their English webpage says:

UrFU publishes 8 scientific journals which are on the list of scientific publications recommended by the Supreme Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation and is working on the development of 6 journals that will be indexed by Scopus

What would it take to establish whether UrFU is a reputable publisher? They seem to be a reputable university, with doctoral programs in many fields, and an international ranking in the top quartile (2,205/~11,000) by 4 International Colleges and Universities. [3] A press release from Elsevier [4] (unrelated to this journal) says UrFU has >28,000 students and is "one of the top ranked scientific centres in Russia." A few books from the publisher (Ural University Press) are cited here [5] and here [6], and there are others. This law faculty member at the University of Cambridge [7] lists two of the seven books he has written as published by Ural University Press. So, would sources like these establish them as a reputable publisher, and would that, in addition to the other sources mentioned in the AfD discussion, establish notability of this journal? Dcs002 (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By a reputable publisher I mean any scientific publisher, or any major university or major scientificsociety. I mean to exclude the many parasitic e-publishers facilitated by the internet, There are several areas of fuzziness. First, there are a few e-publishers who initially published a large range of mostly contentless journals, but have been able to grow at least some of them into clear notability (where clear notability is inclusion in Journal Citation Reports), So far, we have been handling these journals on a one by one basis, and I am not sure we have always done justice to the ones that have been improving. Second, many European universities andf scientific societies have for manhy years--sometimes dating back to the early 19th century-- published a large number of small journals, publishing mainly the works of their own faculty, or local society. These were of considerable importance in the 19th century (see Experiments on Plant Hybridization, one of the best known scientific papers ever, published by Mendel's local Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Brünn and in some fields such as taxonomy, and archeology, remain of key importance. In most cases, however, they are of national local interest, in the sense that the scientists there take good care to publish anything important in more visible international journals. (The present title is in this class). Normally, we have merged them to the university or society, partly for lack of ability to discriminate better (I am fairly certain than quite a number of Chinese and Japanese journals of this nature are worth more extend coverage, but I cannot be of much assistance)

Third, there are a few hundred journals , generally of a popular science nature, published by commercial publishers; there are also a few tens of thousands of trade publications that sometimes have important material. I know no way to judge here--we have normally been very conservative, including only the most important, but sometimes this inclusion has been based on personal knowledge. DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this journal shows none of the signs of being a predatory journal - a concept Randykitty brought up during the original AfD (related to a source I suggested, not to this journal specifically), and which seems closely related to one of your points. I don't know if this helps, but the editorial board of Problems of Onomastics includes mostly non-affiliates of UrFU (seven are UrFU affiliates, fifteen are not), and members are from seven countries other than Russia, including Poland, Germany, The US, Austria, Serbia, Finland, and the Czech Republic. (One Russian member holds a second appointment in the UK.) Add to that the fact that the journal accepts manuscripts in not only Russian, but English, German, French, Polish, Czech, Bulgarian, and Serbian, though they translate submissions and publish them in Russian and (as of 2013) English. (English is the international language of academics, so they seem clearly to be international in focus.) In addition, under Aims and Scope (from their website), "Preference is generally given to the Slavic, Finno-Ugric, Romance and Germanic languages," and not just Russian. (Betraying my ignorance, is Russian a Slavic language? If not, they seem to desire a focus on non-Russian languages, or at least a balance.) Of the four Russian onomastics journals listed in Worldcat, this one seems to be the one that breaks away from national interest into a more "visible international journal," as you said. Independent RS will probably not support anything in this paragraph, but independent RS might provide similar information about the editorial boards, submission languages, publication languages, and languages of focus in the articles of other Russian onomastics journals. If so, I think that will be a powerful argument for notability for this journal. Dcs002 (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Perhaps the closing admin stretched his/her discretion when closing the AfD discussion, perhaps not. I'm still confused about the back and forth between policy and subjective interpretation requiring consensus. (I don't necessarily endorse the manner in which it was closed - I still don't know enough about closer's discretion - but at this point I endorse the decision to keep the article.) I think we had a consensus to "merge or keep", but it was closed as a keep, and I now think we should keep this article, not merge it. That's my bottom line. The more I look at this, the clearer it becomes that this is a notable and important academic journal in the field of onomastics, reaching outside Russian interests into Eastern and Central Europe and well beyond. The sources and content discussed here and in the original AfD need to be added to the article, and it really needs help as it stands, but I am satisfied as to its notability. No doubts left. No slam-dunk single sources, but so many sources and reasonable arguments why these sources should be adequate, and they all point in the same direction. If notability is subjective, then so be it. That is my !vote. Dcs002 (talk) 06:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• off-track discussion I'm afraid this discussion has gotten off-track, re-hashing arguments that were already expressed at length during the AfD. As far as I can see, no new insights have come up and no new sources have been presented here that were not already discussed during the AfD. Please keep in mind that DRV is not AfD 2.0. I would like to ask all participants to keep Wikipedia:Deletion review#Commenting in a deletion review in mind and to comment on whether or not the close correctly represented the unanimous consensus in the AfD discussion or not. Perhaps some uninvolved editor should collapse the off-topic discussion. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty, I need to try your patience once more. Long-winded, but not off-topic. This is not rehashing anything (see below), and, with respect, "whether or not the close correctly represented the unanimous consensus in the AfD discussion" is not quite our topic either. Rather, the first question is whether the closer interpreted our consensus correctly per WP:CLOSEAFD. I see no evidence that he misinterpreted our consensus. He said "those arguing for 'merge' failed to make a convincing policy based argument." (Part of WP:CLOSEAFD.) On top of that, we gave several !votes to merge followed by arguments to keep, and I for one did the opposite (argued to "Keep" but changed my !vote to "Merge"). We agreed upon what we would accept, not what we thought was best policy-wise. Our !votes were in agreement, but our arguments were not. We left the closer lots of wiggle room by not being decisive. WP:CLOSEAFD says consensus is "based on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." That's a reasonable interpretation of the closer's decision based on the discussion we had, especially as the closer explained this directly in his comments. I think Spinningspark interpreted our consensus correctly, that we were ready to compromise, but then failed to make the case that a "Merge" would serve policy better than "Keep". It wasn't relisted, deleted, or merged, as if notability were in question, but kept. If the arguments to keep were stronger in policy than those to merge, the closer has to weigh those arguments. I think we waffled when we needed to be decisive.

Now to the new content: The reputability of the publisher was not discussed in the original AfD, only the notability of the journal as directly expressed in RS, and there are now new sources for the publisher's reputability. I think reputable publishers practice quality control, like requiring blind peer review in their journals, etc. Therefore, I think the journal does inherit reputability (if not notability) from its publisher. Additionally, the composition of the journal's board and the diversity of languages (even Romance and Germanic) covered weren't part of the original AfD either. It demonstrates an international focus rather than local, or Russian only. I have only just discovered this info, and I think it bears on notability, our topic - the justification for nominating it for deletion and for the closing of Keep. I think we all agree that notability in journals requires different handling from other subjects, and DGG said above that "'notability' is subjective, and what we decide to do with an article depends less on guidelines than on what we decide best fits the circumstances." I think these new facts support "Keep", and I think "Keep" best fits these circumstances.

The closer seemed to think there was sufficient evidence of notability presented, and I concur that certainly now there is sufficient evidence. The closer said, "I am therefore inclined to give less weight to Dcs002's argument and the result would have been "delete" were it not for the "keep" arguments presented by others." Those other arguments all supported notability. Based on what I have learned since this DRV discussion began, I agree that the journal is notable, and think we should keep the article. The close did not follow our !votes, but it correctly kept a notable article. Dcs002 (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I won't respond yet again to your interpretation of the consensus at the AfD, which of course I strongly disagree with. As for the publisher's reputability: notability is not inherited. Up to a point, notability is indeed subjective. However, in the absence of all sources even hinting at notability, the case seems pretty much clear. --Randykitty (talk) 11:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement of what we needed to determine about our consensus was incorrect. That would be leading us off-topic. You also suggested getting someone to "collapse the off-topic discussion," so I felt the need to demonstrate how the discussion was on-topic. And I said reputability, not notability (I made that point clear) was inherited from a reputable publisher, and reputability bears on notability. You have again mis-stated my arguments and responded to what I didn't say. (See straw man.) "In the absence of all sources even hinting at notability?" Do you need to see all the new sources (I think now seven of them have been suggested) in the article itself before you will consider them? I'll take some time and work on it. I had hoped to avoid doing that work until we decided the fate of the article. Dcs002 (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please look over the article again. I have added the content and sources that have come up in this discussion and in the AfD discussion, including the Russian Science Citation Index and the Higher Attestation Commission (both verified). I think I got all the new content. There are now 11 citations independent of the journal from 8 sources that are independent from each other, and 6 of those sources bear directly on the journal (Higher Attestation Commission, Mihály Hajdú's history (old journal only, but literally inherited by new journal), COPE Ethics, Worldcat, Index Copernicus, and the Russian Citation Index), while the other 2 bear on the publisher (Elsevier and QS University Rankings). Based on these new sources and the new content added as a result of this discussion, I ask that you all please reconsider whether this article is now demonstrated as notable. Thanks. Dcs002 (talk) 08:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh. You do insist on re-hashing things already dealt with inn the AfD. None of the indexes listed is even close to being selective, they just try to cover everything: Worldcat (tries to cover everything ever published), Index Copernicus (not even close to being selective and on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory indexes producing fake journal rankings), Russian Science Citation Index of the Scientific Electronic Library (tries to cover everything published in Russia), COPE (every journal can become a member as long as they don't behave unethically). The listing by the Higher Attestation Commission is not very meaningful either, given again that basically any Russian journal is included. You did the same thing to the article as here: adding great walls of text on subjects that are beside the topic: adding large sections on the institutions that publish this journal. Those institutions have their own articles and that stuff doesn't belong in this article. So, no, you did not add anything that was not already discussed in the AfD, your distinction between "reputable" and "notable" is just wikilawyering, and no new references showing notability have been added either. As for all this being off-topic, please read Wikipedia:Deletion review#Commenting in a deletion review as I recommended above: this discussion is not for re-hashing arguments given during the AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Randykitty, I am reverting what you have removed from the article. I have added all of the sourcesw that I and others have brought up. When you remove content because you alone decide it is not a good source when there have already been dissenting views expressed (such as Worldcat) you undermine the ability of anyone else to see for themselves what this article looks like in its new form. and you therefore undermine this process, which fairly includes addition of new information. If it is wall-of-texty, let6 that be fixed, but do not remove content that someone might think helps to establish notability. Let people make up their own minds instead of taking away content yourself that others might consider important (whether they've said so or not). The point is notability, and by unilaterally stripping content that might in some people's opinions strengthen notability, you unilaterally deny deny people the chance to decide for themselves. With everything on the table, is this article notable? If you still don't think so, that's your !vote. Let others decide for themselves. Please! Clean-up can come after we've had the notability discussion. Dcs002 (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought that a/ it is by now clear that we're here to discuss the closure of the AfD, the notability of the journal was discussed during that AfD and is off topic here, unless you come up with new sources directly addressing that notability, which you don't to. b/ My edit summaries at the article clearly explain what is wrong with the walls of stuff that you added. There is absolutely no reason to include two extensive sections on the publishing institutions that do not even bear on their relationship with the journal, because those institutions already have their own articles. All it does is blow sand in the eyes of a casual observer, who might think that they are looking at a well-sourced article, whereas in reality this is not the case. As for all those indexed, that issue has already been addressed ad nauseam in the AfD and above. None of the sources and none of the indexes and none of the content added to the article contribute one iota to the journal's notability. Meanwhile, the real reason for this DRV, that a unanimous consensus to merge was closed as "keep", is being snowed under your walls of text. Please stop, this is becoming disruptive. --Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:JWG says not to list board members. It does not say to avoid discussing them. The composition of the board speaks to the international scope of the journal. You cannot unilaterally decide whether these new sources and content satisfy notability. Notability is an open question for us to decide and as it is subjective I would ask you to stop assuming your interpretation of the sources and content is the correct interpretation. I am not the only one who thought Worldcat was a useful source in this case. Several mediocre sources and facts are presented, as well as some quality ones, and they sum, IMO to clear notability. You can attack each if you like (remembering Jeffrey Beall is one person with a list and opinions of his own, and the only source cited against IC), but I'd prefer if you just let others see the sum and decide for themselves. You do not have the authority to limit this discussion to the narrow yes or no question of consensus nor is it for you to decide unilaterally whether "one iota" od notability has been added. You keep denying my fair arguments and dismissing the evidence as off-topic or not up to your standard, but please let others form their own impressions on the totality of the evidence. It is not ok to cherry pick facts and sources and define our mission here into that one small question you raised at the beginning of this DRV while counseling everyone to ignore the main question that brought us to the AfD in the first place - notability. This is a suitable place for that discussion, based on the close (I am offering evidence for my Endorse !vote, which is based on established notability, which notability you dispute) and on new content raised here in this discussion. That's why I'm here, and it's perfectly in accord with WP:DRV, not off topic, no matter how many times you make that assertion. Dcs002 (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the journal gets more than a "trivial listing" in IC, and I did not show the ICV score on the page, though in the Index Copernicus article, Jeffrey Beall is the only source listed challenging its usefulness as a listing, rating, and indexing service. Further, Beall does not say IC offers fake rankings. He says it's possible for individual journals to game the system to artificially inflate their rankings. There is a lot of daylight in between. One calls the honesty of IC into question, the other calls the honesty of the journal editors into question while criticizing IC's methods. I also see that JWG is something to which you have been a major contributor since November, 2012, and it is not policy, and not intended to replace the MOS or WP:NJournals. Dcs002 (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has been revised again. Please look it over and see if you agree whether it is now suitable to keep. Thank you. Dcs002 (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I give up arguing here, as this has become just a second AfD, re-hashing old arguments. --Randykitty (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine was nominated for deletion, and a long and heated discussion was had on the subject. Spinningspark closed the discussion as "keep". His rationale is flimsy, at best. First of all, there was clearly no consensus to "keep" the article. Perhaps the result of the discussion was "no consensus", but "consensus to keep", certainly not. His analysis of the discussion totally misses the mark. He says that the "keep" side is rooted in policy, based on "sources", and that the article "covers more ground" now, but this is assuredly untrue. The question was never whether subject matter of the article in question was factual. It was whether that content should exist as a duplication of content elsewhere for the purpose of veering away from WP:NPOV. I shall write what I wrote on his talk page here, with minor editing and revision:

(Start quotation) The "keep" side had no policy-based arguments, zero. Forking content, i.e. copying existing content in WP:COATRACK fashion is not acceptable under policy. The sources cited by Sayerslle (whom you cite as heavily influencing your opinion) had nothing to do with whether content should be forked. They merely provided various facts and claims about supposed Russian interference. But these themselves do not make an article, because they refer to interference "in" a particular conflict, either 2014 Crimean crisis (the article that 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine was originally split off from), 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, or War in Donbass. That content with regard to the Donbass war was already written ages ago, and has existed at War in Donbass since that article was created. Recent minor additions to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine were made during the deletion discussion, but these only copied already-existing content from War in Donbass and its sub-articles in a way that is not at all acceptable. What little residual content that isn't duplication at the article in question could easily be merged, as many in the discussion said.

Copying content to a fork is unacceptable in every possible way. In fact, this particular article is essentially a WP:POV FORK, because, as the forking guideline says, it merely copies content from one article to another to address the matter in a less neutral way. The reason his sources were not "addressed" is because they had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at all, because no one with intelligence was contesting facts about what Russia is or isn't doing. Throughout the discussion, though, Sayerslle went on and on about how Russians were doing this, and Russians were doing that. I don't care about what Russians are doing or not, and I don't think most opinions in favour of chance at this discussion cared about that either. Sayerslle was trying to right a great wrong, to try and "make known" that Russians were doing whatever they are or are not doing.

Regardless, this is not my ultimate concern. My concern is that you (Spinningspark) have closed this debate as "consensus to keep" when there clearly was no consensus either way, and also when closure as "keep" is in contravention of policy. I will politely ask you to relist the discussion, and allow it to attempt to reach some consensus of either kind. This is an important and controversial discussion, and deserves its due time to reach a proper consensus. If, after the relisting time, there is consensus to "keep" the article, fine. But to say that this discussion at this moment reached any kind of consensus is absolutely absurd. (End quotation)

I would ask that this discussion be relisted, so that consensus of some kind can be reached. Spinningspark has denied that request. Therefore, I have presented a request for a deletion review. His assessment of consensus was heavily flawed. If relisting is not acceptable, I do request that consensus be reassessed by some other third party. RGloucester — ☎ 01:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd to have such an article standing alone. Could just as easily have one titled "2014 American Installation of an Unelected Government in Ukraine." [8] 174.89.100.51 (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please take your unhelpful comments elsewhere. This review is for discussion of the mechanics of the closure and assessment of consensus, not for rehashing debates or pushing points of view. RGloucester — ☎ 03:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think this is incorrect understanding of policies by RGloucester. (a) It is fine to have sub-articles and umbrella articles, such as this page under discussion. We have a lot of them. This does not mean content forking (b) Some degree of content overlap is fine if this improves readability. (c) "and allow it to attempt to reach some consensus of either kind" No, it's fine not to have consensus. Speaking on the subject, there is already such thing as Russian intervention on Ukraine (including military occupation of Crimea, sending weapons, mercenaries and military personnel to Ukraine and direct cross-border artillery attacks by Russian army) per huge number of sources. Therefore, such page has every right to exist. My very best wishes (talk) 04:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have sub-articles already. Tons of them. We have umbrella articles. 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine is the umbrella article for the unrest across Ukraine, and deals with both Crimea and Donbass. It has a section on Russian involvement. War in Donbass and 2014 Crimean crisis are sub-articles of 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Both deal with the Russian involvement angle. This article does not fit anywhere into the schematic of articles we have. Copying content to other articles is never acceptable, especially when it is done for the purpose of advancing a point of view. Readability is not improved. It is made worse, because there is a confusing mess of duplication across multiple articles that doesn't make any sense. We have sources, and they exist in War in Donbass, 2014 Crimean crisis, and whatever, but these sources do not establish that the article should exist independently of the conflicts themselves (in an attempt to skew NPOV), nor do they provide justification for POV forking. I agree that it is fine not to have consensus, as I said above, but that's not how the closer closed this discussion. He closed it as "consensus to keep". RGloucester — ☎ 04:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge difference by all means between any unrest in a state and foreign military intervention. That's why there are not only Libyan Civil War article, but also a separate article for 2011 military intervention in Libya. -- A man without a country (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I mean 'pro-Russian unrest' is a pov 'frame' imo , even if the info ,or some of it , is in there - rgloucester says 'I don't care about what Russians are doing or not' - but it doesn't matter what he cares about - it matters what RS are caring about, and russian intervention does concern them, and, as with the guardian ref, they don't seem obsessed with hermetically sealing what happened in crimea off from what happens elsewhere in ukraine, - on the contrary - the large convoy moving with obvious top-level coordination and accompanied by numerous vehicles with official Russian military plates brought back memories of the "little green men" involved in the annexation of Crimea back in March. Wearing green uniforms without insignia, those men claimed to be local volunteers, although they were clearly highly trained Russian special operatives. Despite denying their presence all through the annexation, Putin later admitted that Russian military units had been involved. - [9] - [10]Sayerslle (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't start this again. If you want to read about the convoy, go to War in Donbass, where it is described in detail. It has absolutely nothing to do with POV, or what RS say. What RS say is already written at War in Donbass, and has been. RGloucester — ☎ 14:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this is an article about foreign military intervention - (from twitter ) Michael Weiss @michaeldweiss 'Mount an "incursion" alongside your "aid" convoy, then watch Ukraine stop incursion. Then cry your convoy is under attack. Then take a bow.' Sayerslle (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, no one is contesting any facts about "foreign intervention", or "incursions". The problem is that these are already written about in War in Donbass, and that copying them to this new article is an example of forking. RGloucester — ☎ 16:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

so you keep agreeing yes there is plenty of material from various places and times for 'Russian intervention in Ukraine 2014', - fine, but if readers want to read about it they must go through the RGloucester gate and then they will be escorted to various articles, named the 'pro-Russian unrest', and the 'war in donbass', ' the chicanery in crimea ' or whatever, - but why must they? because you say so basically - this is only a 'problem' to those who are determined to make it one imo.Sayerslle (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, because forking content is against policy, and also because forking content with the intent to veer away from NPOV is even more against policy. RGloucester — ☎ 17:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

well i'd say leave it to develop now , - it could be a good article on Russian intervention in Ukraine - and no other title is as good as that to express a key aspect of the events there this year,and its been discussed in RS as a linked series of putinist inspired phenomena - maybe events will supersede all this somehow anyhow, - I don't like the insinuation that this is a pov motivated thing either - I admire pussy riot, whats wrong with that, didn't like to see them locked up for miming in a church, - but that doesn't give you the right to impugn - RS are the guide to all articles and you shouldn't assume you alone have the integrity to want to pursue a key ideal of this project. just because I don't want to end up like these putins idiots, doesnt mean I don't have integrity Sayerslle (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RGloucester, No, we do not have other articles or sub-articles that covers specifically Russian military intervention in Crimea and in the entire Ukraine. Yes, many aspects of Russian military intervention are mentioned in other pages, but we need whole articles specifically on this subject. This is not POV fork. My very best wishes (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I must concur that the person closing the nomination didn't seem to properly address the WP:COATRACK issue. Many of those arguing for keep provided few policy-related arguments at best, and the closing rationale was largely the closer's own personal interpretation of the situation, rather than an analysis of arguments provided by both sides. Quoting SpinningSpark, "Some argued that it is a fork of 2014 Crimean crisis. It may well have started off as a fork of this article" - this isn't the issue, they've completely missed the point. This page is a content fork of not one article, but multiple existing articles with significant overlap. All of the content within this page, one hundred percent, is already covered by topics of existing articles elsewhere, it is absolutely inappropriate to state that the reason to keep this page is because it "clearly it covers more ground" than 2014 Crimean crisis. And finally, "But again, such problems are a matter for normal editing to sort out. They do not amount to grounds for deletion" - did the closer completely ignore the calls for merger, and not deletion? --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't intending to comment here and just let the debate play out, but I can't let that pass. It is a complete misrepresentation of my close with carefully cherry-picked quotations. The close does, in fact, expend a great deal of ink addressing the multiple-article fork issue and the final quote had nothing to do with the issue of forking. It was addressing the issue of the need to attribute opinions. Spinning Spark 07:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope - you focused on a pure keep-delete binary scale, with no concern for the in-betweens. As someone who did not want the article content deleted, and instead seeked a merger, your closing statement irks me, because it seems that you're basing your judgment largely on deletion being inappropriate. In essence, no action will be taken to fix the problems not because the keep arguments were valid, but instead because you did not see deletion to be fit. I do not disagree with you when you say that deletion is not the solution for the problems raised, however this is essentially your argument for taking no action at all. Look at the way you have worded your close. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on that discussion, the only closes that would have been within Spinningspark's discretion were "keep" and "no consensus". I think that I personally would have preferred "no consensus" as a close, but "keep" was within discretion. our system will not work unless sysops can have confidence that when they put thought into making the difficult calls, DRV will back them up unless the close was mistaken or unreasonable, so I think we've got to endorse.—S Marshall T/C 08:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this rapidly-growing discussion would benefit from a couple of image files.—S Marshall T/C 15:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (images removed) No we don't, I get that you'd like to prove a point, but it's messy and silly. If you want to be silly and entertain yourself, go to WP:Reference desk and ask people there if they can disprove creationism, guaranteed lengthy replies. --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't post those pictures to be silly, Benlisquare, I posted them for the benefit of you and RGloucester. It's up to you whether you take the point, but I assure you that the closer will.—S Marshall T/C 16:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, S Marshall, and I respect your opinion. I merely want clarity. If, as said below by Thincat, this result of "keep" means that we can continue a merger discussion on the talk page, then I have no issue with it. I just do not think this was made explicit. I would like this to be made explicit, so that we can all get on with our lives. I merely respond in the manner that I have because I do not like being accused of supporting "sockpuppets", or of being rooted in "preconceived opinions". RGloucester — ☎ 16:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a fair question. The view from 30,000 feet is that Thincat is correct: a discussion about a merge can continue on the talk page per WP:CCC. If it reaches a consensus to merge then the merge can be enacted and that's that. No need for administrative tools there. But long experience with Wikipedia makes me add a hedge: the merge discussion has to be genuine, well-advertised and fully-argued by good faith editors. We don't want people using a discussion between three people that lasts a few hours to do an end run around a good faith AfD close.—S Marshall T/C 17:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, do you think that an RfC on a potential merger could be held on the talk page? RGloucester — ☎ 18:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It certainly could, but I would recommend the proposed merger process over the RfC one in this instance. You may wish to wait for the DRV to close before starting that.—S Marshall T/C 18:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - there appear to be a lot of problems with trying to us a headcount, involving sockpuppet(s), solicted votes, whatnot. Relisting would be likely to exacerbate the problem. Thus, headcount needs to be given little to no weight, as it's difficult, perhaps impossible, to discern accurately. It's perhaps troublesome that the first person (as far as I can see) to explicitly mention WP:SUMMARY is the closer, but that's pedantry. It's clear that POVFORK is wholly inapplicable, and correctly identified as such, given WP:SUMMARY. If headcounts were considered, one might lean towards no consensus (policy heavily favouring keep, headcount favouring deletion), but in a discussion where the delete camp was canvassing, recruiting sockpuppets, etc., it just feels too much like rewarding them for disruption. WilyD 09:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So, just because the nominator was a sockpuppet, does that excuse all the problems brought up? I don't agree with the rationale that taking action would be "rewarding" sockpuppets; either the article has problems, or it doesn't. Arguing that action not be taken because of sockpuppet involvement is an association fallacy. Argue the points raised, and not the people who have taken part in the discussion. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh? I was pretty explicit that policy/practice strongly favours a keep outcome. No actual problems were brought up; some were postulated/proposed, but the discussion makes it pretty clear that the stated objections are invalid. However, in discussions where participation isn't fraudulently tilted to one side or another, the headcount can carry some weight; but since the headcount was manipulated, we should more or less ignore it, and go back to policies, and the question of writing an encyclopaedia, which is a pretty clear keep. WilyD 11:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about "headcounts", as I said above. Comments about "recruiting sockpuppets" and "canvassing" are even more absurd than the original closure. We had been having that discussion on the talk page for days, and I explained my actions in the discussion. The idea that WP:SUMMARY is applicable is also absurd, but that's not the point of deletion review. Have you actually looked at our articles that cover this situation? Have you read them from start to finish? RGloucester — ☎ 14:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's necessary to note the problems of sockpuppets and canvassing to consider why headcount should be downplayed ignored. Otherwise, it would be legitimate to consider a no consensus closure, in which the overwhelming policy advantage of the keep position is mitigated by the headcount. If you don't care about headcounts, the only possible position you can come to is that the closure was correct. Trying to insinuate personal attacks to cover the absolute lack of an argument for deletion isn't helpful (or nice!) WilyD 15:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know that the sockpuppets weren't "keep" advocates with a false-flag agenda who purposely broke the rules in an attempt to sabotage any chance of the article being merged? Before this AfD, there was already pre-existing discussion on the article talk page regarding a potential merger. Then, all of a sudden out of nowhere comes someone with few other edits who starts an AfD, and a few moments later comes along another SPA who votes for deletion. Don't you find it suspicious? It feels like this was an intentional attempt to poison the discussion from the very beginning. Either that, or the sockpuppeter was really stupid in making his tomfoolery obvious as hell so that anyone could easily point it out. --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no policy reasons that justify keeping the status quo, but once again, I'm not going to get into that. Regardless, as far as the "sockpuppet" concerns, if one reads the SPI in question, one will learn that he is most probably User:L'Aquotique, someone who has targeted me intensely in the past. I do not understand why you are so full of bile. RGloucester — ☎ 15:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you can't be certain, but here it's the difference between "keep" and "weak keep/no consensus", so it's not really worth being bothered about. There's no material difference. WilyD 15:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. In these kinds of discussions it is particularly incumbent on the closing admin to look behind numbers, assertions and policy invocations to carefully consider the strength of the arguments in light of policies and guidelines. The reason is that participation in the discussion is skewed by the fact that most participants are -- largely in good faith -- coming to the discussion with preconceived opinions based on their views on the wider conflict. And genuinely uninvolved editors tend to stay away, given the contentiousness of the discussion. I thought the closing admin here performed the task very well. A large part of the concerns raised by deletion advocates -- and I thought many were justifiable concerns -- are not necessarily reasons to delete the article. Also, DRV should principally concern itself with the big picture question "should the article be deleted?". Questions of whether this AfD should be relisted (and I really don't think that would achieve much), and whether the close should have been "no consensus" rather than "keep", involve undue micromanagement. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, you're only looking at it from a keep/delete perspective. I never !voted delete, I was after a merger, as were many others. When you say that the concerns raised weren't solved through deletion, you're missing out on a very important aspect of the discussion here. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will echo Benlisquare's comments, but I will also say that I stalwartly opposed those who came to the discussion with "preconceived notions", on both sides. These include the closer's favourite barrister, Sayerslle. I have no preconceived notions. You can ask anyone that has been observing my work in this content area since the conflict began. I have been variously accused of being pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian. I don't give a damn. All I want is good content, in line with the MoS and policy. RGloucester — ☎ 14:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The close seems appropriate to me, and certainly within discretion. I welcome a detailed and considered closing rationale, as here. So long as the closer properly assesses consensus, it is perfectly reasonable to also make remarks which may help future editing of the topic. A close of keep does not preclude merge or redirect, it simply means that such actions require prior consensus at the talk page. Thincat (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What? If that's the case, there is no problem. But I don't think that is the case. If we can continue and start a merger discussion on the talk page, then I have no problem with the closure. However, I don't think that that is what the closer meant. Once again, I too was seeking a merger, not deletion, though I originally favoured deletion. In fact, most of the participants that did not vote "keep" were in favour of a merger, not deletion. This was my problem with the closure. I thought that "consensus to keep" meant "consensus to keep". If it only meant "no consensus", then there is no problem. However, I think this should be made explicit. RGloucester — ☎

• Comment – Pursuant to the comments by Thincat and S Marshall, I am content to accept the decision of the closer in the matter of the deletion, if others here agree that this closure did not preclude a merger discussion on the talk page, and only ruled out deletion. If this is the case, this deletion review was made in error, as I had assumed that "consensus to keep" meant "consensus for the status quo", not "consensus not to delete". I have always believed that there was no consensus to delete the article. RGloucester — ☎ 18:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The consensus was keep. The consensus was not merge, and I think in this case that a merge would be quite improper. Merging is not a purely editorial decision, and afd does in fact have merge as one of the options. It also has keep and merge. The closing did not consider the option of merge, and I think it should have, but it did specify, in my opinion correctly that it was a distinct topic, and that there was sufficient material--and that does implicitly mean keep, not merge. I see that most of the people at the argument thought that it was a clear keep. So do I, and I would have so closed, tho I would specifically have rejected a merge. A redirect is more similar to a delete than a keep, not only does it fail to retain the indexing status of the material,in practice it almost always leads to removal of specific content. The only actual difference from delete is that it is easily reversible. A merge can mean quite a lot of things, depending on how much material is merged. It is often a good compromise solution, but it is not keep. We have traditionally said otherwise, but what we have said about it being purely editorial simply does not correspond to reality. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I voted "keep" in the discussion, and for the time being I'm glad that the article was not deleted (it's a dynamic situation so I might change my mind in the near future). However, it's pretty clear that RGloucester is right - that was not a "keep" closure. It was probably a "no consensus" closure. I don't think that actually has any practical impact, just sayin'.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can not agree - based on the arguments. To put it simple, people argued that the entire page was a content fork, but it was not. It should exist per policy. Also keep in mind that voting "rename" means "keep" and voting "merge" does not mean "delete".My very best wishes (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know many editors like to close these things really, really quick before all responses are made. But I just found this and will not be able to read, respond, or find out what this is about until I get back from work and I ask that you please refrain from closing it until then. Thank you.Hilltrot (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

as I understand it, the normal closing time here is 7 days, unless the result becomes really obvious or a quick solution is found that satisfies everyone. I do not think either of these apply, and the full time should be allowed. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, largely per User:WilyD. The "keep" close should not preclude a merge or redirect if a consensus to do so develops on the article talk page or other appropriate venue. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• no endorsement.

Ok, sorry for the delay.

I found his rational to be well thought out. He carefully read all sides.

The last deletion for this was started by a sock puppet. Afterwards, meat puppetry was used by someone to sway the argument towards delete. If the delete argument was judged by how it was started, it would receive a rather poor score. However, that is not how everything in Wikipedia is judged. Spinningspark did not use this in his discussion of why the article was a "keep" based on how "it was started." He didn't look at the article for how it was started, he looked at the article for what it is right now. In fact, a lot of what is in the article had not even occurred when the article was started.

Their policy-based argument was that you did not have a policy-based argument. Those who wanted to keep the article simply gave evidence that it was not a POV fork or a coat rack. A person on trial for murder doesn't have to find the murderer to clear his or her name. It sure helps if the accused can, but the accused only needs to show that they are innocent. Similarly, those who wanted to keep the article only needed to argue and give evidence that the article is not a POV fork.

The evidence of a POV fork was very weak to nonexistent. This is why the POV fork argument failed and the article was kept.

It is most definitely true that the article covers more ground than it did back in early March. If you had made this argument back at the beginning of March, you would have a point. But since then, there have been over 3,000 edits. "The article covers more ground now." is assuredly true. Large parts like the Crimean oil table doesn't exist in the "Crimean Crisis" article anywhere. The "Crimean Crisis Time Table" article looks completely different from the one in this article. I could go on and on, but in your reasoning you never provided any specific evidence. I have copied 4 sequential words from over a dozen places throughout the article and couldn't find it in the articles it supposedly forked. You completely misrepresent the article as mostly a copy and paste when it isn't.

Your argument basically rests on an unsubstantiated accusation that Sayerslle is a tendentious editor. This is not appropriate. Your argument should be about the article - not a personal attack against another person.

Consensus is not voting. Six people could come out of the woodwork to vote for something in Wikipedia and if their arguments were unsound, a third-party judge should be able to take the side of the one person against who made the sound argument. There is good reason for this as it does help stop blatant meat puppetry. Stephen Colbert and Scientology have shown how bad things could get if every consensus was a simple vote count.Hilltrot (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]