Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 May 3

Category:Establishments in New York City by year (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

CFD was closed as no consensus though it was 6 to 2 editors in favor of merging as to two opposing....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• closer comment CfD is not a vote, and so my job as closure is to assess the arguments not count noses. As I explained in the closing summary and then again on my talk page, the arguments in favour of keeping were stronger than those preferring deletion/merging (particularly the slippery slope argument was fully refuted), despite the numerical superiority of the latter. The numbers were really what made this no a no consensus rather than keep closure. Thryduulf (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm neutral on the DRV, but just want to echo what Thryduulf said in his closing statement; it really helps to be clear about your intentions, for the sake of whoever is going to do the close. Keep in mind that the closer may not be an expert in the subject or the particular discussion process. The more obvious people are, the easier it is for the closer to correctly summarize things. I saw this listed at WP:ANRFC, took a look at it, and decided I couldn't understand the discussion well enough to close it. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the closer is, as suggested, not be an expert in the subject or the particular discussion process, that makes their supervote all the more inappropriate.

The nomination was indeed malformed, and it is reprehensible that the nominator disregarded repeated requests to fix it. Unfortunately, in noting that in the close, Thryduulf makes no criticism of the nominator's dismissal of two civil requests by me to fix the problem[1][2], nor the civil request by @Marcocapelle that [3] this side discussion has taken long enough now, it is time for action. Please change the nomination from delete to merge. Instead, the closer chose to criticise my third response[4] as uncivil, without even noting that it was in response to Koavf's choice to dismiss my well-founded concerns as a character flaw in me: [5]: BHG will BHG.

I see unpleasant parallels with Thryduulf's misuse of an Arbcom case request to make unfounded allegations against me of misconduct and bad faith, the only substance of which turned out to be that I had in an RFC supported an option which he opposed (see my statement section "responses to Thryduulf unfounded criticisms"). I therefore concerned that Thryduulf's handling of this whole close may be tainted by the same counterfactual desire to smear BHG which Thryduulf repeatedly displayed at that case request. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: This has got absolutely nothing to do with portals or any other matter which we're both involved with. Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf, I would be more easily persuaded to restore my assumption of your good faith if this close wasn't so far off the mark in two of the three issues you raised, and if your responses on your talk page had shown any regard for policy ... or indeed if you had taken any one of multiple opportunities offered to you withdraw the smears you made at the arbcom case request. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I am not smearing you now and was not smearing you then, and have fully explained why this close was not a supervote. Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the first two of those assertions are as implausible as the third. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Needlessly making negative comments about the motivations or perceived personal attributes of those you disagree with is exactly what was suboptimal about your conduct in the CfD, and yet you are doing the exact same thing here and I'm getting rather sick of it and can fully understand why Koavf's responses to you were not great. If you need it spelled out again: Nothing about my comments or actions related to the CfD was influenced by any previous interactions between us. Nothing. Even if consensus says I misinterpreted the CfD (I don't claim perfection) that doesn't alter anything about my intentions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to @Thryduulf for confirming, probably unintentionally, that he is indeed motivated by personal animosity against me. That's a helpful clarification.

Thryduulf correctly noted that Koavf screwed up the nomination.

Thryduulf chose to comment on my conduct, claiming that the way I did it was almost never appropriate in a collegiate discussion.

So, look at what I did write:

1. My first comment, noting the problem[6]. That was civil and collegiate, wasn't it?
2. My second comment, replying to Koavf's dismissal of the problem: [7]. That was civil and collegiate, wasn't it?
3. Koavf's [8] response, dismissing the substantive points which Thryduulf endorsed, where Koavf wrote BHG will BHG, I guess. That was uncivil and uncollegiate, wasn't it?

So, the reality which Thryduulf inverts is that was actually the nominator's comments to me which amounted to making negative comments about the motivations or perceived personal attributes of those you disagree with. Yet Thryduulf attributed that to me, even tho the sequence of events is clearly of my civility being responded to with the sort of negative comments Thryduulf claims to deplore.

Thryduulf says that he can fully understand why Koavf's responses to you were not great. In other words, Thryduulf blames me for Koavf's choice to make a personal attack in response to my correct and civil explanation of a procedural problem.

There are two possible explanations for this. Either Thryduulf chose to ignore the sequence of comments in the discussion, in order to vent the personal animosity which led him to invert the reality ... or he simply didn't read the discussion properly before closing it ... or simply didn't check the facts before launching a personal attack. But Thryduulf insists lower down that he read the discussion carefully, so that leaves only a choice by Thryduulf to invert the reality.

This is all very similar to Thryduulf's conduct at rfar, where he accused me[9] of having declared a "war on portals". When challenged on why he applied that label to the fact that I had at the time MFDed 15 carefully-selected low-quality automated portals for deletion, Thryduulf's reply[10] was to shift the smear onto some sort of collective responsibility that he deemed me to share with the set of editors with whom I happened to agree on some points: claiming that I was a "meber" of some cabal and that his comments were directed at you specifically but the collective actions of a group of editors who share similar opinions of which you are a member ... and that I do find your actions against portals disproportionately excessive. And when challenged on what was, Thryduulf clarified that the disproportionately excessive conduct for which he close to allege misconduct was [11] that I supported a CSDoption which he opposed, demanding assessment of quality or alternatives to deletion ... and 11 days later when I did propose deletion based on an assessment of quality, Thryduulf opposed that too[12].

The only two consistent feature in all this are Thryduulf's sustained willingness to make unfounded attacks on me contrary to the evidence, and his determination to insist that I am bad and wrong. He claims to be I'm getting rather sick of it .. but the remedy is to stop doing it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately or unfortunately I don't have time to read that wall of text in detail, so I shall just ask once again that you stop with the personalisation of disagreements. If you have a problem with me take it to ANI and back up your arguments with evidence not already refuted speculation. 10:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

If you want to assure me that you will stop misrepesenting me in order to fabricate complaints about me, then I will will be happy to accept that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to stop doing something I have never done. You have my assurance that I will not intentionally misrepresent you (or anyone else) nor fabricate complaints about you (or anyone else) in the future, because it is not something I have ever done or ever intend to do. Thryduulf (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to merge. This is an exceptionally bad close, in which the closer ignored WP:NHC and cast a personal WP:SUPERVOTE contrary to policy. Both @WilliamJE and I raised it on the closer's talk page at User talk:Thryduulf#Would_you_like_to_reconsider, where Thryduulf doubled down on his policy error, even after the policy was cited to him.

The core of the close is Thryduulf's assertion[13] that There are good arguments in favour of categories for some cities with a large number of establishments each year and those arguments much stronger than the "slippery slope" arguments in opposition.

However, policy at WP:NHC is very clear that it is not the closer's role to evaluate which arguments they believe to be stronger. The closer's role is narrower than that: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue".

In discussion on his talk page, I explicitly noted to Thryduulf that their assessment raised no policy issue[14]: I note that you do not suggest or imply that the oppose votes were better founded in policy. Given that lack of a policy distinction, your discarding of a 75% majority for merge amounts to a supervote

Thryduulf's reply was[15] that it was not a vote so I have to consider the substance of the comments not just the number, and the arguments in favour of splitting in some cases were stronger than those favouring deletion for the reasons I detailed: they were principally about a slippery slope, which I found to be fully refuted.

That policy section at WP:NHC closes with the words "If the consensus of reasonable arguments is opposite to the closer's view, he or she is expected to decide according to the consensus. The closer is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument."

Thryduulf makes no claim or assertion that the arguments made for merge were unreasonable, and its very clear that "the consensus of reasonable arguments is opposite to the closer's view". Instead of respecting the actual consensus, Thryduulf made his own personal assessment(s) of which arguments he personally preferred, and made his own judgement of the issue. On that basis ignored a clear 6:2 balance of views in favour of merge. This was a blatant WP:SUPERVOTE, and it is a clear breach of long-established policy on how to close discussions. It is the worst admin close I have seen in a long time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to merge. BHG puts it much better than I could why this was a supervote, so I will leave it at that. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to merge. One of the 2 keepers (MainlyTwelve) created the categories and is hardly unbiased. The other keeper produced a 'LARGECAT' argument which appears to favour keeping any category with more than 5 articles. Oculi (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, @Oculi.
    WP:SMALLCAT sets a minimum, not a mandate or a maximum. Also note that the closer's supervote ignored my two numbered points:
    [16] 1/ the NY state categories are not big enough to need splitting. This is a solution in search of a problem
    2/ The NYC categories will have either a long thin tail or an arbitrary cutoff date.
    Not just a supervote, but a supervote based on inadequate reading of the discusion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Supervote" strongly implies that I closed this discussion to favour my point of view. I did not do that - I do not have a view about whether such categories are good or bad. I closed it based on my reading of the arguments presented in the discussion. Consensus may say that I got that wrong, but if I did was not an error from inadequate reading or a desire for one outcome over another. Thryduulf (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Thryduulf, it's a supervote because you based your close on your personal evaluation of the arguments. That is contrary to WP:NHC's requirement that the close be based on the consensus of reasonable arguments", not on whether you agreed with those reasonable arguments. This is absolutely fundamental to closing a discussion. And if your close was not based on an inadequate reading, why did you misrepresent the arguments for merge as being only than the "slippery slope" arguments, when my two numbered points above are not slippery slope?

Neither your claim to policy adherence nor you claim to read bear much scrutiny. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse As noted above, the discussion itself is hard to understand for a number of different reasons. I don't think this was a supervote based off the weighing of the arguments. I'm endorsing this since I think you can make a colourable argument for both a no consensus or a merge, especially given a very similar discussion with a slightly different result [[17]], which was unchallenged but could also have been a no consensus close. While merge may have been a stronger close, both options here are within discretion. SportingFlyer T·C 01:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to merge- That's very clearly what the consensus was. I wouldn't be as hasty as calling this a supervote, but the fact that after all the long-winded debating was done all the !votes were for merging suggests this is where the strength of argument was. Reyk _YO! 10:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I think the close was a reasonable exercise of judgement. Firstly strength of argument is relevant when closing XfDs, see WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS. Strength of argument is not the same as the personal opinion of the closer, and it's not the case that strength of argument is only determined by adherence to policy, as claimed above. Arguments which are logically fallacious or which were convincingly rebutted can be discounted or downweighted as well. Here the major argument for the merge is that if a similar categorisation system were to be adopted for other cities then that would lead to undesirable results. That argument doesn't actually mean that these categories are inappropriate in themselves, so I think it is reasonable for the closer to downweight it as a result. Finally I do have to question why two longstanding editors thought it was OK to sling personal insults at each other over what looks like a minor issue with the nomination. Hut 8.5 19:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, either to Merge or to Relist. There was a consensus that something needed to be done, either deletion or merging or something. In looking over both the discussion in the MFD and the discussion in this DRV, it does appear that this has everything to do either with portals, or with some other reason for bad blood by Thryduulf toward BrownHairedGirl. (I was about to write bad blood between them, but I see that BHG is being patient and civil with an editor who is being impatient and uncivil.) The close cannot be justified from the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse and refer to WP:RENOM. The discussion was leaning to merge, but there were counter points plus problems with the nomination clarity. This will be better solved by a renomination than by DRV. The close was close to a WP:Supervote, but there is also a good defence of the “no consensus”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse It really takes exceptional arguments to overturn a non-consensus close. The above discussion echoes the CfD--there is very obviously no consensus. When the views are closely balanced between keep and delete, the only really reasonable way to close is no consensus, because otherwise the closer will inevitably to some degree use, even if unconsciously, their own opinion . Since CfD is not a widely watched process, a renomination with perhaps wider notice may get a clearer result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 21:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Yemen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

As you can see all of examples there are not countries except Yemen. The rationale was that they all have single navbox, I was not aware of the deletion I would have improve it. The reason this should be kept is that almost all of countries have their own portal I do believe that since there are a lot of articles that are related to Yemen (religion/food/culture) that a portal is needed SharabSalam (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse XFD (by default as DRV OP has not specified any errors in the close of the XFD) however possibly overturn CSD if the latest version was not a recreation of the single navbox version (although I don't find the "is needed" argument convincing). Note: the portal has now been deleted 6 times in total - it would be better to spend editing effort on pages that people actually use (e.g. articles). DexDor ^(talk) 08:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DexDor, the re-created version was indeed a recreation of the single navbox version. See my notes below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close as nominator. The discussion was open for the full seven days, and the portal was clearly tagged, so there was no flaw in nomination. The closer weighed the discussion correctly.

The DRV complainant is wrong to say that Yemen is the only country on the list: Bardbados and Eswatini are also countries. The type of entity was not the reason for deletion, and the fact that three are countries was noted in the discussion.

The actual reason for deletion is that this type of pseudo-portal is redundant to the navbox on which it is built. As noted in the nomination, that principle that a portal based on a single navbox is a redundant fork was established by overwhelming support of the exceptionally high turnout at the two WP:CENT-advertised mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two.

The nomination explicitly proposed in bold, that that these pages (and their subpages) be deleted without prejudice to recreating a curated portal which is not a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time.

If the DRV nominator wants to create an actual portal, rather than one-click piece of driveby portalspam, then they remain free to do so, so I don't see why they have chosen to waste the community's time with this DRV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also endorse speedy deletion of the re-creation. The version re-created was another piece of automated portalspam, created using {{subst:Basic portal start page}}. Like version deleted at MFD, it drew its article list from a single navbox:

1. Code in MFD-deleted version[18]: {{Transclude list item excerpts as random slideshow | paragraphs=1-2 | files=1 | limit=20 | more= | Template:Yemen topics | }}
2. Code in speedy-deleted re-creation[19]: {{Transclude list item excerpts as random slideshow | nostubs=no | paragraphs=1-2 | files=1 | more= | Template:Yemen | }}.

The differences are that a) the version created by SharabSalam produced no article list, because Template:Yemen does not exist; b) SharabSalam chose to instruct their version to showcase stubs, which is a bizarre choice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse clear consensus for deletion in that discussion. The argument for deletion was based on the portal being a duplicate of the navbox in the main article, and therefore adding no value beyond that in the main article. This doesn't stop a portal from being written about Yemen, as long as it isn't also based on a navbox. Hut 8.5 18:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorese close consensus was accurately and fairly judged and indeed the consensus is clear. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Close - It isn't entirely clear whether the filer is (1) citing an error by the closer of the original MFD, (2) citing an error on the G4, (3) asking to re-open the deletion discussion due to new information, (4) asking to review the deletion for some other reason, or (5) asking to re-debate the deletion because they don't like it. If (1), there was no error. If (2), I didn't see the new portal but understand that it was a single-navbox portal and therefore substantially the same. If (3), there is no new information one day after the deletion. If (4), they haven't stated the other reason. If (5), that isn't what DRV is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]