Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 August 6

Pontypridd Urban District Council election, 1898 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is something of a procedural request. I closed the AfD on this article five days ago, and today an editor asked me to reopen it (see User talk:Deor#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pontypridd Urban District Council election, 1898) because a particular WikiProject had not been notified. Unsure of the best way to handle the request, I'm asking here whether the AfD should be reopened or relisted or the closure be allowed to stand. Deor (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll be the first to admit that I rely on AAlertBot but that's not grounds to throw out the result. Everyone, including the article creator, eventually favored moving the content elsewhere. Unless a relist provoked a rash of comments favoring outright deletion, the most that could happen is no consensus, and editors could still redirect the article anyway. Mackensen (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• note the following discussion which makes this trial balloon AFD a bit more important, as there are a great many articles in the same boat which I plan to nominate for deletion (and will of course notify the project in question now that I am aware it exists) Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics#Local_Election_Results_.28Particularly_in_Wales.29 Gaijin42 (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- Seems a fair reading of the AfD discussion. Overturning it because a wikiproject was not notified would not be right. It would imply that certain wikiprojects own certain articles, and that their permission is required before the rest of the community can reach consensus regarding those articles. Reyk _YO! 06:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The close was an accurate reading of the discussion. A failure in the ArticleAlert Bot is not a procedural failure in the AfD process that warrants an AfD being re-opened. But if Gaijin42's foreshadowed next lot of AfDs result in a different outcome, we should come back and re-visit this one. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist The relevant WikiProject was not notified of the AfD and knowledgeable editors did not have a chance to comment. It's not an issue of ownership (disappointing this was brought up, but sadly increasingly typical of the attitude towards people who may know what they're talking about), it's about getting informed comment in the debate. Number 57 10:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Wikiprojects don't own articles any more than individual editors do. See WP:OWN. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Starblind: Who said that WikiProjects own articles? Number 57 12:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse 1. given that their is no process requirement to explicitly notify any users of a debate, that isn't really any reason to reopen it. 2. As the merged article currently stands it doesn't look like there would be anything that could be added to the debate (as opposed to adding content) which would make the close look problematic and (3) if there is more content etc. which can be added by wikiprojects or others as some point in the future, and unmerging is always an option. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment A WikiProject member has helpfully pointed out that several AfDs have previously been held on local election articles and all resulted in the articles being kept (e.g. here, here, here, here, here, here). This perfectly illustrates my point that if someone familiar with the topic area had been able to contribute to the AfD, then the result would likely have been different due to the numerous examples of past consensus regarding local election notability. Number 57 19:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia doesn't do precedent so merely presenting those should have effectively been ignored. More so the ones you list are from 6 years or more ago (except one, about 3 years). --86.2.216.5 (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia does do precedent – it's taken into account in numerous AfDs, including several of those listed above. See WP:OUTCOMES. Number 57 19:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my impression is that WP is erratic in following precedent. A long line of consistent decisions, without any (or hardly any) contradictory ones , is in practice a guideline. A few decisions on an issue is another matter. Decisions which have been consistently followed in the past, but where the same matter is not consistent now, indicates a probably abandoned guideline. (Which of these three is relevant here will take further examination) A guideline is what we do consistently. What we label it is irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the judgement of the closing admin. Also note that there has been no deletion, and the redirect may be reversed on establishing a consensus at the target's talk page. WikiProjects should see up systems to track pages they are interested in, and there is no requirement to notify them. If no one in the WikiProject is watching the page, then either it is a dormant WikiProject, or the page is barely of interest. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SmokeyJoe: There is a system to track them - the Alerts page - but it failed to pick this AfD up (which I have been complaining about elsewhere, and also tried to get to the bottom of why). The WikiProject is not dormant. Number 57 08:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I know. Something was broken, and people who relied on it were left out. However, the onus should be on the WikiProject members to ensure that the alert system is working, not the AfD process required to ensure that the WikiProject's alert system is working. "Overturn because the auto alert system was down" is unpersuasive, in the absence of a case that the decision made was wrong. The closing admin closed it correctly. There was nothing wrong with the AfD process. There is no harm done requiring a DRV "overturn". The nominator should have taken the substance of any object to the redirect target's talk page. I agree with the closer, on his talk page, that there is not a good reason to unclose the AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @SmokeyJoe: But I'm not asking for it to be overturned ,as you can see from my comment above - I'd like it relisted so that WikiProject members have a chance to add to the debate. And I think your argument about the onus to ensure the system is working is rather unfair - it's only possible to spot when it's not working when it doesn't pick up something - it's impossible to see when something is failing to pick up nothing! Number 57 08:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you maintaining that the WikiProject members would like to revisit the discussion to argue "Delete don't redirect"? Otherwise, there is no role for DRV here. DRV is not needed to reverse a redirect decision. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • @SmokeyJoe: Where does an editor gain consensus to restore an article that was redirected as the result of an AfD? Number 57 08:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • On the talk page of the target, at Talk:Pontypridd Urban District Council. This is especially appropriate if it is true that "as the merger of significant content appears to be a fait accompli". (Deor (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)) Or am I missing something? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. No person or group has a right to be notified of a deletion discussion; if something goes technically awry that usually would send an alert, that shouldn't invalidate the discussion just because someone didn't show up. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • *sigh* No-one has said that anyone has a "right" to be notified. All I'm trying to say is that the discussion would have been better informed if knowledgeable editors were involved in the debate. I wasn't even asking for it to be overturned - just relisted so that more people could have a chance to comment. I really don't understand the aversion to this. I've given up hope now, but it's very depressing to see such a negative attitude towards having an informed debate. Number 57 12:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's there to be "better informed" about"? It's an article about a 116yr-old election, not a topic that requires a degree in nuclear physics or medicine. IMO, it is better to attract discussion from outside a topic area anyways. Fresh eyes, less biased, etc... Tarc (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Past deletion discussions on similar topics, for a start. And I agree it is good to have comment from outside the topic area as well, but there should be both. Number 57 13:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, the situation is not ideal, but I don't think that failure to notify a Wikiproject is a procedural error serious enough to warrant overturning a discussion, especially given that the discussion was open for more than the minimum amount of time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Be allowed to stand  Edit history was kept, and there is neither a deletion nor a failure to delete to review here.  Any editor making a good edit (i.e., improving the encyclopedia) can WP:BOLDly reverse the close.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist There is no absolute requirement to notify a contributor that the article is listed for deletion, but not doing so is no prejudicial to the purposes of WP, and to WP:Deletion Policy which to is retain content if at all, that I think failure to do so in the case of a good faith contributor can be a sufficient reason to relist a discussion. This is especially true of a deletion that is intended specifically to set a precedent for wider action, as is admittedly the case here. I casn think of no valid reason for not doing it, and I think an explanation is necessary. (The reasons it has never been formally approved as a requirement is first , the difficulty of sometimes identifying all sufficiently substantial contributors, and second the difficulty of defining the circumstances where it need not or should not be done). Even though this paticular decision can just be reverted as a merge, the principle of notifying is important. DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DGG What explanation do you think is necessary? Why I didn't notify that particular wikiproject? The answer is simple, I didn't even know it existed, but I did notify 3 wikiprojects Politics, England and Wales. Note that neither article discussed in the AFD had any template about the wikiproject under question on them so unless one knows every wikiproject in existence, it would be unwise to say that projects which are not even on the talk page must be notified imo. To slightly complicate the particular articles in this AFD/DRV, the creator of the articles was blocked due to prolific socking during the discussion (though their master has now been unblocked as they have provided an explanation of why they were socking, and were not aware of the socking policy) . However, as this was intended to be a test balloon, I have no objection to wider notification - but on the other hand a swarm of people from a single wikiproject also isn't super valuable in determining a real neutral consensus either... It would be helpful if this wikiproject and the wider community could propose some notability criteria for elections as the core issue here is are these particular elections notable (and by extension, are all elections notable, since these are pretty close to the end of the line of size/impact) - As we learned from the MMA fiasco though, proponents of a particular topic area are likely to say that much more is notable than what the average editor thinks.Gaijin42 (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that this type of situation is exactly the sort that make automatic notification difficult.Sometimes the only effective notification is deletion review, and that has been one of the purposes here. I too have several times used afd for establishing consensus on an issue; the way of establishing it is not a single afd, precisely because of the problem of variable attendance and notification, but consistent decisions. (Incidentally, if we do have another discussion at afd, I expect to support your proposal for merging.) DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

There are plenty of reliable sources for this article from Polish news media, German publishers of computer related topics (O'Reilly Media), America and Chinese media, as well as a Polish government-funded organisation which promotes Polish culture. The article has been rewritten and expanded at Draft:Polandball. If it helps, I release my contributions at Draft:Polandball under CC-Zero to allow for easy undeletion and addition of content. 185.49.15.25 (talk) 06:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by original AfD closer: "Polandball" is a meme used in Internet fora to disparage Poland, primarily in a context of historical and nationalist conflicts between Russians and Poles. It was deleted because of poor sourcing and because it was a hotspot of nationalist conflict on Wikipedia (see WP:EEML, WP:ARBEE).

  It appears to me that 185.49.15.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) evading their indefinite block and de facto ban from Wikipedia, or somebody editing on their behalf. Russavia is a prolific sockpuppeteer, see the list of suspected and confirmed socks. They were the original creator of the Polandball article and have edited about this topic on many other Wikipedias, see the massive list of interwikis at simple:Polandball. This "simple English" article, written by Russavia, is also cited in the edit history as the basis of the text that is now at Draft:Polandball. 185.49.15.25, who has made this request and created the draft article, is a dynamic IP whose recent contributions all relate to Polandball and indicate an excellent familiarity with Wikipedia processes.

  In its totality, this is, to me, conclusive behavioral evidence that 185.49.15.25 is a sock- or meatpuppet of Russavia. On these grounds, I am speedily deleting the draft and blocking 185.49.15.25. It seems to me that this makes this review request moot, unless this block and deletion are successfully appealed. I recommend against considering to recreate this article unless it is rewritten by an established editor without any relationship to prior Eastern Europe-related disputes.  Sandstein  12:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse I might have possibly !voted keep (although real WP:RS is admittedly weak, but DRV is not a second bite at the apple - Sandstein's analysis of the consensus that developed in the AFD is obviously correct. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist I've reviewed the original AfD, and I'll keep my comment brief. It's been two years and I believe less transient reliable sources to establish notability could be found. I have zero experience in Eastern European related articles, but intense POV pushing - to the best of my knowledge - isn't grounds for deletion of a notable topic. There are remedies for that such as different levels of protection. As for uninvolved editors, I've been on Wikipedia for seven years and have no relationship with anyone involved at that article. The IP address above contacted my on my talk page, stating they did so because they saw my comments elsewhere. Other than that, I'm 100% uninvolved in the entire subject area. If an uninvolved, uncompromised editor is required, I am willing to funnel some of my editing time from other things to a Polandball article if the community will agree to relist the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- I think consensus to delete was very clearly established at the AfD. Reyk _YO! 06:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Two caveats to my view: first, I can't see the article to assess the sources myself (I have no objection to no temporary restore here; second, if anyone can produce convincing evidence to show that the reliable sourcing situation has changed in 2 years, I might change my mind. But to the point: Sandstein's close was, save perhaps for the final sentence, simply incontrovertible based on the discussion. As an aside, I'd have absolutely no objection to the speedy closure of this debate if uninvolved editors who know the history better than me consider, as Sandstein does, that this debate has been opened by a sock of Russavia (who, for better or worse, is banned per [1]). --Mkativerata (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• (Contribution by another block-evading IP suppressed,  Sandstein  11:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)) 80.109.48.204 (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• comment The original AfD was two years ago, and the 'admissible' discussion cited in the close was mainly about notability. In the two years since the subject has not become less notable. Having seen the draft before it was deleted, I can say that the sourcing was considerably improved, however, with that draft deleted other non-admin editors are effectively prevented from assessing the evidence for notability. While edits by blocked or banned users can be deleted, doing so when the community has been asked to assess the notability of the subject for undeletion is IMO highly questionable, as it effectively hides the evidence to be assessed from the view of non-admins. Doing

I also feel obligated to point out that the initial deletion of the draft was done by user:RHaworth as a completely out-of-process G4, which does not apply to deleted content placed into draftspace for the explicit purpose of improvement. Unfortunately, there is no inline trout.

I'm making this a comment instead of a !vote, as under the current state of things, it is pointless to try to have a meaningfull discussion about the subject.

(edit conflict) While I was typing the above, the content of the draft was posted here by an IP. I've not doubt it will be deleted again, though. Revent^talk 09:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Revent: well you were right, User:Sandstein removed the content again. But not only did he remove the evidence of the subject clearly being notable, he has also salted Draft:Polandball against recreation. So now, NO-ONE can write an article in either mainspace or in draft space. Well done Sandstein, well done. :> 46.11.11.233 (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well-done to both Sandstein and RHaworth, and it was I who requested the G4 in the first place. There's no way such a contentious article will re-appear in this project via a simple Draft-space attempt, it will have to come through Deletion Review, which itself is a snowball's chance in hell. It is a very dumb, very trivial/obscure, and very racist meme floating out in the reddits and funnyjunk.com spheres. Sanity prevailed at the original AfD, and nothing has changed since, except people can't get go of the WP:ARBEE wars. Tarc (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, you support something that you asked for. Unsurprising. I'm not saying that the draft could not have been deleted as G5, but advocating that deleted articles cannot be recreated in draft or userspace when the intent is to improve them is ridiculous, as it effectively prevents any attempt to ever improve or recreate the article. This isn't just regarding Polandball... if the logic being used here is applied consistently, it would nullify the entire purpose of WP:REFUND, and be harmful to the encyclopedia. The criteria for G4 specifically prohibits it being used in this way.

You are completely correct that there are people who won't let go of the EEML wars, on both sides. As it stands now the 'winners' of that battle, in the sense of those who finally, after years of effort, succeeded in getting Russavia indefinitely blocked are now blatantly attempting to not only enforce the ban, but to even deny him the legally required copyright attribution for his contributions. (I'm not going to provide links, so as to not 'pinpoint' certain people, but this has itself been stated by a person who did so.) This is all irrelevant to the topic here, other than in the sense that people who are entering this discussion need to be aware that actions being taken here are not being taken by uninvolved or impartial parties. The evidence for the current notability of the topic needs to be discussed (there is new evidence), and the issue should be treated as a matter of what is best for the encyclopedia, not as a matter of 'winning' a battle that should have died out years ago. Revent^talk 18:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - for the reasons given above. Tarc (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• First, there was nothing wrong with the close from 2 years ago, so the extent that we are reviewing that, Endorse. Likewise, it was necessary to delete the recent draft under longstanding precedent so as to not reward block evasion or sock puppetry. That said, if an editor in good standing was so inclined, I think it may be possible to draft an article that passes the notability guidelines. This discussion should not be read as foreclosing the option for someone to try and draft a policy compliant version of the article, being careful to avoid the taint of contributions from ban evading editors. Monty₈₄₅ 17:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps I'm being overly cynical here, but it seems fairly clear at this point that anyone who did so would be opening themselves up to accusations of being a sock or meatpuppet of Russavia, as well as the same accusations of racism that were leveled at Russavia in the first place (which was in itself an extension of the EEML wars). As it stands, it is a moot point, as the topic is salted in both article space and draft space, and any recreation of it would require a discussion of notability here. It seems quite obvious to me that any attempt to recreate the article doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell for reasons having nothing to do with the notability of the topic, mainly because it seems clear that any attempt to introduce new evidence will be deleted on spurious grounds (such as G4). The recent edit wars between administrators and editors IMO make it fairly clear that there are people who are more interested in enforcing the 'win' of the anti-Russavia crowd than in improving the encyclopedia. As it currently stands, if the salt did not exist the entire text of the version rewritten by Russavia could be acceptably (by policy) posted to draftspace with attribution to Russavia by another editor... it's also obvious that any editor who did so would be risking a meatpuppet block, regardless of their reason for doing so. Revent^talk 19:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Formula One season (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed way to prematurely through speedy keep, which a non-admin is not authorized to do. Suggest relist. Tvx1 (talk) 02:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closure was perfectly acceptable, consensus was overwhelmingly in favour of keeping the article, comments made during the 2nd nomination also support the creation and retention of the article in August 2014. There's nothing here which needs review, it's not as if an administrator could actually have deleted the article given the consensus at the 3rd nomination anyway, but if you so desire, I'm happy to re-close the AfD in my capacity as an administrator. I'd also add that relisting is pointless as there's absolutely no evidence the decision would change, especially when comments in the 2nd nomination are taken into consideration. I'm not entirely happy that you even nominated it, given the comments made in the 2nd nomination that suggested the community would be happy for recreation in and around August 2014. Nick (talk) 10:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Nick's absolutely right consensus was in favour of keeping the article, Looking back at the 2015/2014/2013 Formula One season's they are all created early but what with contracts etc etc it makes sense, Anyway I personally see no problem with my closure but if Nick would rather re-close to keep the nom happy I don't mind, Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Do nothing. As I see it, the debate was closed 6 hours after it was nominated. The grounds for a speedy keep were not there. It was not (at 4-1) at the point of a snow keep. It shouldn't have been closed so early. There was no good reason to. It was a good faith, and reasonable, nomination that deserved due process and potentially a wider range of input from other editors. But I think the chances of a re-opening of the AfD leading to any other outcome are so negligible -- and even if deleted the article would surely just be back in another few months -- that I'm not suggesting the close be overturned as that would be undue process wonkery --Mkativerata (talk) 08:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

::I never said It wasn't a good faith nomination - I know for a fact the nom nominated in good faith, All editors would've put keep, Sure you might've got an odd delete but it was obvious as to where it was heading, Plus I didn't see much point leaving it open longer for the nom to get a bashing over it. –Davey2010 • (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Nothing per Mkativerata. None of the Speedy Keep so this was a close under WP:SNOW and probably should have been marked as such. As a personal guideline, I recommend that discussions not be closed under the Snowball Clause for a minimum of 24 hours to ensure that a more representative sample of users has a chance to comment, but that advice isn't codified anywhere that I can see. Nothing in the AfD or this DRV suggests that a relist would reach a different consensus or bring out points of view not fully considered, therefore I can't recommend a relist or more than a minor adjustment of closing procedure to Davey2010. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Do nothing. Lets be honest, the outcome was a foregone conclusion, and relisting would be pure process wonkery. But I can't endorse a snow close after six hours. In fact, I don't think I can endorse a snow close under anything but the most unusual of circumstances. There was no compelling reason that this should not have gone for the full length of time, and therefore insulated it against challenges like this. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse-ish. A slap on the wrist for closing after just 6 hours, but we're here to write an encyclopedia, not get off quoting rules and policies at each other. The process was flawed, but the outcome was obvious, so let's move on. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I will admit I could've and perhaps should've left this open alot longer, Lesson learnt. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]