Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 December 5

Journal of Global Information Management (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was closed as no consensus, but I believe most of the Keep !votes should have been disregarded. Specifically, it was asserted that meeting a criterion in WP:NJOURNALS conferred notability even in the absence of any reliable independent sources. The journal is indexed and has an impact factor (0.3, which means that the vast majority of papers are never referenced - it would be rejected as a source for most claims on Wikipedia), but the fact of being indexed is sourced directly to the index, in the form "foo is in bar index, source, foo entry in bar"; and the journal descriptors in these indexes are all supplied by the publisher, who also, naturally, applies for them to be indexed. So we have no reliable independent sources that allow us to validate that the article is neutral. Is it a good journal or does it publish firnge rubbish? We don't know. Well, we know it's not good with that impact factor, but the point is we cannot verify that the self-description supplied to the likes of SCOPUS by the publisher, is neutral. The major problem here is that editors who are fans of journals, are using inclusion in an index as a sufficient condition for notability rather than a necessary but insufficient criterion, which is how subject notability guides should be interpreted. That's fine if you want to compile a directory of journals, but WP:NOTDIR, and we must be able to WP:V the WP:NPOV of an article from reliable independent sources. Here, there is no independence. The delete !votes correctly referenced independence, whereas the keeps went with "it ticks box X so it is notable regardless of the absence of independent sources. Guy (Help!) 00:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, although in well-contested cases such as these I wish the closers were required to to include some explanation. To my reading, the vanity press allegation was well rebuffed. The lack of "reliable independent secondary sources" was not. The essay Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion applies.
  The failure of "no reliable independent secondary sources" to persuade the participants to agree to deletion is no surprise to me, fitting my long standing observation that WP:Notability (the source of the reliable independent secondary sources language) applies different thresholds for different fields. The natural world, non-fringe science, and distant history get an easy run. Profit-making and advocating organisations, and recent events in the popular media are tested more critically. Is this page of scholarly value to the project, or is it surreptitious promotion. I think participants recognised that the 23 year old scholarly journal is not here as surreptitious promotion. And this is why WP:N is only an essay guideline.
  I also think that User:KGirlTrucker81's !vote to merge to a list of journals (my reading) is underappreciated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:N documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. (It is however true that it is not applied as strictly in some domains as in others.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Endorse as "no consensus" is easy. Agree that another admin might reasonably have closed as "keep", but as the question remained divisive, I think "no consensus" was the better result. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn this AfD basically comes down to "Delete, fails WP:GNG" versus "Keep, passes WP:NJOURNALS". Since the former is a widely accepted guideline and the latter an essay with no particular official status I don't see how we can treat these equally. There was very little attempt to argue that the subject passes the GNG - the only person who did was Kingoflettuce. Even if the one source s/he provided is independent of the subject (JzG argued that it wasn't) it's clear that the only "coverage" in it is a few citations to articles published in the journal, which hardly qualifies. Hut 8.5 19:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I set out detailed thoughts on this subject several years ago in WP:SJ.—S Marshall T/C 20:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse It's reasonable to expect (or even require) people to pay attention to our notability guidelines but after that they should be permitted to form a view as to whether a topic has appropriate notability for an article. We have different considerations for different aspects of knowledge and S.Marshall's essay is apposite. WP:V and WP:NPOV are different matters and we should not decide to abandon these policies for particular articles. This article makes few claims, none seem to express a point of view that might require to be "balanced". The claims seem to be referenced reliably but if there are other sources giving conflicting information the matter should be reconsidered. I don't see this article as making WP into a directory and it is reasonable to regard the article within itself as not infringing WP:NOTDIR #4 or #5. In short, I wouldn't seek to exclude any of the opinions at AFD. Perhaps after further consideration the nominator could launch a new AFD with a careful rationale (such as presented to this DRV) in place of the earlier rather inappropriate AFD nomination. Thincat (talk) 09:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The consensus was to keep, based on the standard interpretation of notability criteria in this field. Certainly if people think a separate article is not warranted for a notable subject they have the right to say that, & if that is the consensus in a given case it's still the consensus--the notability guidelines are guidelines and we can make whatever exceptions to them we please, and WP:N says so right at the top, that they do not always apply--and that can be in either direction. But the consensus in this discussion was to use the regular standard, and the view not to was idiosyncratic, DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It took me quite a bit of clicking to work out that your "overturn" and my "endorse" are pretty much on the same side of the fence. I think a close of "keep" would also have been within discretion. Thincat (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to keep. I wonder if the closer (User:Northamerica1000) was ever contacted to explain/expand on the closing comments. In any case, there seems to be a misunderstanding of WP:GNG here - it merely provides a path to notability - it doesn't say when something isn't notable. So if a journal fails WP:GNG but passes WP:NJOURNALS I think it should be kept. That, moreover, has been the position of the community in recent years. To the extent they were played off against each other in this discussion indicates that there was certainly no consensus to delete. StAnselm (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep, per DGG and StAnselm. I have just tagged the article to notify editors that it is at DRV and also notified the closer, Northamerica1000, that this discussion of their close is taking place. --Randykitty (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from AfD closer – I'm a bit surprised at how contentious of an area academic journal articles are at this time, as evidenced in this DRV discussion and at the present deletion discussion for Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) (WP:NJOURNALS). My basis for the no consensus close was based upon several variables. WP:NJOURNALS is an opinion essay, rather than a guideline, and as such should be considered as it states atop the page:

This essay contains comments and advice of one or more Wikipedia contributors on the topic of notability. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines.

Some users at the AfD discussion stated that the topic passes notability guidelines, but provided no sources providing significant coverage in the discussion to back up the claims, others did not address the presence of lack thereof of secondary sources at all, and others stated that secondary coverage to meet WP:GNG is not available. Several users stated that the topic passes WP:NJOURNALS, but provided no rationale as to whether or not the topic meets notability guidelines, which was part of the rationale for deletion in the nomination. Overall, the presence or lack thereof of independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage was only partially addressed in the discussion, with a user who stated in part that the topic "...passes WP:GNG..." and another that stated "Notability is not that bad...". Two other users for deletion stated that significant secondary coverage to meet WP:GNG is not available.

Of note is that sources in the article itself do not provide any significant coverage. In cases such as this, it would be nice if users who claim that WP:GNG is met would provide sufficient evidence to qualify this notion by providing sources in the discussion itself. Only one source was actually provided in the discussion ([1]), which only provides a passing mention. Of course, on Wikipedia it's important to assume good faith in such matters. Users sometimes find sources that others are unable to locate, and users sometimes don't post sources within AfD discussions.

While WP:NJOURNALS is an essay, its points are often referenced in AfD discussions. Journal of Global Information Management being indexed by selective citation indexes, such as Scopus, and other reputable citation indexes, and having an impact factor assigned by Journal Citation Reports comes across as carrying some weight relative to the frequency in which the WP:NJOURNALS essay is cited and considered in AfD discussions (see the following custom searches for AfD examples demonstrating this frequency: [Custom search 1], [Custom search 2]). In my opinion, the essay has some merit, but at the end of the day, it remains an opinion essay. However, and conversely, it does state atop WP:N that "occasional exceptions may apply". Overall, I feel that the no consensus closure is the most accurate relative to the overall arguments presented and input received at the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the no-consensus close. WP:NJOURNALS may be an essay, but I think in this case its usage here (especially in view of the parts of NJOURNALS that were cited) is easily readable as a shorthand for "I think that inclusion of this journal in these selective indices meets the requirement of WP:GNG for multiple independent reliable sources about the subject." Such shorthands are exactly what essays are for, and should not be discounted for the fact that their reliance on guidelines is indirect rather than direct. On the other hand, although it would have been within the closer's remit to call this a keep, I don't think the keep opinions had such a high preponderance to justify the suggestions above to overturn to keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Novelists from Shanghai (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The category was deleted eight months ago (along with other "Novelists from..." categories based on first-order divisions of China). However, I would like to request that the matter be reopened. Category:Writers from Shanghai is a sufficiently large category that it really should be diffused by genre, I think, and many other Chinese provinces/special municipalities will also face that situation eventually. I think novelists are a sufficiently distinctive category that it would be a good way to diffuse to start with. (Further geographical diffusions are going to be difficult and not particularly useful, so I think genre diffusion has to be the way to go, unless we want to go for era diffusions, which I also think will be unhelpful given that Shanghai is a modern city and therefore the vast majority of writers from Shanghai will be of PRC origin.) I also think that analogous categories for other first-order divisions (provinces and special municipalities) should be restored, but let's start with discussing about Shanghai, as that category is, as I just mentioned, large and cannot be diffused by geography. Nlu (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion. Categorise them separately under Category:Novelists (subcategorising as required). See Wikipedia:Category intersection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Beware overcategorization. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Overturn Until we have a easy to use and easy to find generally available category intersection system ,we should have whatever prebuilt ones are useful. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (CFD closer). I closed the discussion, and I don't have an opinion really on what the best way to structure this category tree is, though I can understand the nominator's concerns here (as well as the concerns of those who nominated the category for merging in the first place). However, I'd just make a couple of points: (1) The category, as it stands now at least, is not that big. Right now it contains 119 articles, which is what I would regard to be of middling size. It's definitely not too unmanageable: you can still see all of the articles on one categorization page, so it's quite convenient in that respect. However, I recognize that it could potentially grow larger, so this is by no means as large as it's going to get. It's more like as small as it ever will be. (2) User:DGG's opinion that the discussion should be "overturned" pending an easy-to-access category intersection tool makes no sense to me in terms of what happens every single day at CFD, sometimes dozens of times per day. We are not delaying the implementation the consensus-driven results of CFDs until we get a category intersection tool that everyone knows how to use. It's not a result that's even close to being on the table. I'm all for promoting and speaking in favour of dream outcomes, but I think actual outcomes might need to be a bit more pragmatic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 14:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I cam to WP I expected to work with categories which are similar to carious library-related devices, but I quickly stopped, because I disagree with the principles used. I see no real prospect of changing them, but when a question comes within my usual work, I give my opinion. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Riley (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I am not sure where to go but this seems as good a place as any. Please direct me to the appropriate forum if I am incorrect. I am here because I keep being told (see below) that this page has a consensus to redirect yet I cannot locate any discussion which from what I read, would have been part of a deletion discussion.

• On October 6, 2016 I removed a redirect for a page and created content instead [2]. In less than 2 hours, an editor named Rayman60 removed my edits and redirected the page to Shazam (service). [3] No rationale was given for reverting my edits; however, the editor left a warning on my talk page stating “Please do not attempt to create the article for Rich Riley as it has been recently decided by consensus that he is not notable enough to warrant an article.”

• Fair enough. I looked at the talk page of the article to find such an agreement amongst editors and saw none. I did further searching and believe – correct me if I am wrong – that a consensus to redirect a page would come from a discussion on deletion. I was unable to find any deletion discussion and nothing on the talk page that would lead me to believe there was one.

• On October 11, 2016, I again added the content to the page [4], leaving an edit comment of “I can't find the consensus you reference on my talk page. Please refer to the talk page here as I'm not sure it should be deleted without such consensus.”

• TWO MINUTES LATER, an editor named Lemongirl942 reverted the edits [5] with an edit comment of “consensus is to redirect this page.”

• Again, I had already asked to see the discussion, but none was provided. Only reverting of my content and then leaving warnings on my talk page [6]. One warning says “You made a bold edit, it was reverted by Rayman60. Now you need to discuss.”

• Lemongirl942 then left a note on the article talk page threatening to block me – “Multiple editors have agreed to redirect here. That is consensus. Now please refrain and stop POV pushing, otherwise you will be blocked.” [7]. The problem? I did discuss it on the talk page. Twice. [8] & [9]. The only discussion came after Lemon girl redirected the page and threatened to block me for what I believe is simply disagreeing with her. [10]

• At this point, I am confused as to how an editor can revert content based on statements they cannot show me (despite asking multiple times), then threaten to block me for not discussing the edits (which I have tried by others have refused to take part in). How do I add content back without the threat of being blocked? Is this considered a deleted page? Has this gone through a deletion discussion where the consensus was to redirect? I would appreciate any answers I can get, hopefully without getting blocked by Lemongirl942 for disagreeing with her. --CraigOv (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You appear to be a recent registrant and a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. You are therefore suspected of having a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Please declare any conflicts of interests, such as association with Rich Riley or Shazam, on your userpage, at User:CraigOv. Even if no conflicts of interest, it would be nice if you told us something about yourself. You will then be taken more seriously. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rich_Riley&type=revision&diff=733358260&oldid=733358025 07:39, 7 August 2016 User:Lemongirl942 BOLDly "Redirecting to Shazam (service). BLP1E and subject is best known for Shazam". I think that was a good edit by Lemongirl. It was not a pseudodeletion as the material all has a place at the target, Shazam (service). I recommend denying this DRV request, and instead recommending using Talk:Shazam (service) to seek consensus for a spinout article. An important reason for doing this is to avoid content forking. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close. This discussion is not about a deletion and the appropriate forum for a discussion is the talk page, as SmokeyJoe suggests. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]