|
List of notable people who wore the bowler hat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))
The list has encyclopedic value, because it supports the article bowler hat by showing this piece of headwear in its social or artistic context in images on (many of) the articles listed. I've reverted bowler hat back to before the split-off so people participating here can see the list for themselves until this discussion is resolved. The AfD was an obvious miscall. It is clearly "no consensus" because the support on both sides (delete vs keep/merge) was almost equal. Also, work was being done to the article, with editors committed to further improving it and it could be revived on that basis alone. Benjiboi captured the essence of the situation. But the closing admin appears to have merely counted the votes without bothering to read or weigh the arguments: because he didn't explain his reasoning. Please take a look. And if need be, I'll chip in to help clean up the list. Please undelete it. Thank you. The Transhumanist 21:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of reverting bowler hat, it may be better for this discussion to use {{TempUndelete}} on List of notable people who wore the bowler hat. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 00:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn as no consensus- In looking through the AFD, I don't see a clear consensus to delete. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Undeleting this would be pointless. The content still exists in the article that it came from, and where it was being challenged on the grounds of verifiability. The fact that you yourself were able to restore that content in that article is evidence of that. Having a non-GFDL-compliant copy in another article is pointless, and restoring it achieves nothing useful. Stop concentrating upon processes and start concentrating upon content. It's saddening to see that none of the people who want this content are actually willing to sit down and work on making the list verifiable in the article where it actually was at the start. This is not editors working on making an encyclopaedia verifiable. Nor are either of the actions taken, both in splitting the content off into a separate article and then bringing that separate article to Deletion Review, the proper ways to respond when verifiability is challenged. Both actions are just wasting time that would be better spent working productively on the original article. The proper way to respond is to cite sources from which the content can be verified, and restore it, discussing on Talk:bowler hat as necessary. Continually side-stepping this discussion, both with article forks and Deletion Reviews, will not help improve the encyclopaedia. Even restoring the content "so that people can see the list" is not actually aimed at improving the encyclopaedia. One can just as easily give a permalink to an older version of the article, without editing the article for purposes of debate, rather than actual improvement. Please focus on actually rising to the challenge of verifiability, and on improving the article that started this so that it is clearly verifiable, rather than wasting so much time with deletion processes. Uncle G (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do my best to improve this encyclopedia. Whether the list is officially restored as a separate page or in the article it was split-off from makes no difference to me. As long as it can't be summarily redeleted as already having been AfD'd, I'm happy. But since it has been AfD'd, that needs to be overturned for it to remain in article space, and so I'm here asking that the deletion be overturned, because clear consensus to delete was not reached in the deletion discussion, and reviewing such discussions is the purpose of this department. The Transhumanist 00:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You still aren't getting it. It was already in article space, in bowler hat, and the deletion or otherwise of this article does not affect that. This article was just a non-GFDL-compliant copy of part of an existing article, created as an article fork in a misguided attempt to side-step a content dispute over verifiability, when the correct response was to have simply cited sources in the original article where the dispute was. Uncle G (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the permalink you wanted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bowler_hat&oldid=253853409 - though it's not as developed as the AfD'd page. I've reverted my restoration of the content, as it was an outdated version of the list anyways. The Transhumanist 02:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn as no consensus Correct me if wrong, but the list does NOT exist now in the original article. It was deleted. An inferior version exists in older versions of the article, but the sorting of the list I did into categories, and the refs added by Benjiboi are gone. If you know how to restore them, and would do so, please do. I don't mind them in the original article. But I think you're wrong. They aren't there.
And yes, the list was challenged as to verifiability. And it was pointed out that most of the items were verfied in the Wikis they referenced, often with drawing or photo. A list can be have a significant fraction of WP:redlinks in any case-- there's no worse reference than that! See List of ships for an example. I also gave many others. And by the way, using the {{TempUndelete}} does absolutely no good if somebody has already deleted the article. I think the damage has been permanently done. Thanks a lot for wasting my work, guys. I'd have kept a spare copy, but it never occurred to me that in a place as full of junk as wikipedia, people would be so hot to remove beyond recovery, and against policy, a several-page article. Sheesh. SBHarris 01:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pages don't get deleted, actually. They're still in the database with a deletion tag so that they don't show up in Wikipedia proper. It's an easy matter for an admin to restore the page. The Transhumanist 01:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're wrong, so here's the correction: The list is in the original article's edit history, and was edited out (not deleted) by editors who asserted that it was not verifiable from reliable sources. Instead of rising to that challenge and citing sources you have (a) edit warred, (b) forked the article to put your preferred content elsewhere, (c) not complied with the requirements of the GFDL when creating that fork, (d) made massive assumptions of bad faith about the other editors that were challenging the content, (e) misportrayed an ordinary verifiability dispute as a size issue, (f) misportrayed the deletion of this list article as somehow being a consensus to exclude the building of a verifiable list in bowler hat, and (g) failed to learn from all this, despite my encouragement to learn that forking is not the way to respond to a verifiability challenge.
You're also wrong about what constitutes good sourcing in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a source for itself. The edit summary in the very first verifiability challenge linked to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Please read it. As for wasting your work: You did that yourself. You don't get to blame anyone else but yourself for this. You have brought this entire episode down on yourself. I told you at the start what would happen, because it's what does happen, and what has happened time after time in the years that I've been here. You forked an article out of a content dispute, and your fork got deleted. The correct response to a verifiability challenge is to cite sources to show that the content is verifiable. This would have involved editing the original article (without simply revert-warring) to re-grow the list, picking the content out of the edit history as sources were found, citing sources along the way to show that each entry on the list belonged on the list. (I observe from this diff, that you didn't even show that individual entries were verifiable in your fork.) If you had done that, your work would not have been wasted, and neither AFD nor Deletion Review would ever have been involved. By doing what you did, you caused all of this, wasted the time of both yourself and a lot of other editors, both in deletion and in checkuser/blocking/unblocking, and ended up without the article improvements to bowler hat that you could have done quite a lot of by now. As I have said several times, now: Please learn from this experience. Uncle G (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Learn what, Uncle G? You've quoted no good policy; only your own preferences. In WP:LISTS nowhere is it required that individual members of a list in a list-article have their own references inside the article, or that some reference is even supplied to verify the list itself. Indeed, because of the essential categorization and summary nature of lists, to require individual unit verification would be to require that subarticles on Wikipedia retain all their internal references in the main article, when spun off and summarized. That way lies disaster, and fortunately, as per WP:SS, it’s not policy. Again, there is no requirement that each and every member of a list (or even ANY member of a list) be cited and verified within a list article, or else the whole list must be deleted.
Thus, the idea that deleted work on an article I did, was my own fault for not recognizing a policy which you seem to have just made up on the spot, is outrageous. Subarticle creation may sometimes not be the way to respond to verifiability challenges in general, but it’s certainly a handy way to respond to somebody who has a esthetic problem with a large embedded list (see WP:EMBED) section that he thinks (erroneously) requires a reliable source for it to exist AS A SECTION. This, since list articles even more clearly require no such thing (all they need is a LEAD—there is no policy as to what fraction of their contents require references). And creating a list as a subarticle and stand-alone list article, also solves the space problem, in which an embedded list is taking over a main article (this happens routinely; I can give examples and have). The original complaint in Bowler was (per edit summary from JBsupreme): “removing section which is not specifically attributed to a reliable third party source WP:RS).” But that reasoning contains a premise which is simply false: A section does NOT need to be attributed to a reliable third party source: only the elements of it do, and those must fall or stand individually, not by removing the entire section. That is particularly true of stand-alone LIST-articles, as I have made clear: only their elements need to be sourced, and that can be done by mere in-wiki link, if the link itself gives the source. For examples, see: List of trees List of birds List of placental mammals Now, I haven’t gone over every element in those lists to see if each and every link reliably sources them, but because I haven’t, that doesn’t give me license to tag the entire list-article for deletion. Nor does the fact that these lists contain no source which will source the items in them, means that the authors are attempting to make “WP a source for itself.” If you tag these lists for deletion yourself on that basis, you will get the rapid “learning experience” which you ask of me. (Other editors will provide you with it, I’m certain). In point of fact, the list of bowtie wearers to which my attention has been recently drawn, is very much an anomaly on Wikipedia, on which there are thousands of lists which don’t resemble it in the slightest. List articles, per se, don’t REQUIRE this sort of thing. If there are specific items on a list you’d like to challenge, the proper way to do it, is with a {fact} tag. If you really want to get rid of an entire ratty or moth-eaten list, as in List of ships you can afford to wait a few months to see if it’s cleaned up; there is no point in trying to speedy-delete it. As was done to this list. The demand that we speedy-delete lists you don’t like and can’t immediately see the citations for, in the list, amounts to arguing WP:LISTCRUFT. But that’s not WP policy, and is specifically repudiated in WP:SPEEDY as a source of policy on article deletion. I think that about covers it, except for you suggestion that I “edit warred” because I had a disagreement with two editors (both of whom turned out to be running socks, and one of whom is now indef blocked for it, as a newbie gaming the system). “Edit war” is just a derisive term for an edit disagreement you don’t agree with. In this case, I disagreed with, and reverted two people, one of whom looks very bad right now. As for the term “content fork.” I take it that this too is just another term sometimes applied indiscriminately and derogatively to a new article spin-off which somebody doesn’t agree with (in this case, you). But the fact of disagreement by editors on a split is not enough to define a bad kind of content fork: see WP:CFORK where this is clearly spelled out: Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others. That didn’t apply here, and I’ll thank you not to suggest that it did. As for your years of experience, you’ve been here about 5 months longer than I have. I’m always glad to benefit from something I haven’t seen, though: tell me, what is this about “GFDL” that applies to sub-article spin-offs per WP:SS? SBHarris 23:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explasin why you haven't followed the instructions above to first discuss the deletion with the deleting admin before raising a DRV? Spartaz Humbug! 22:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I skipped right to the section entitled "Instructions", and that essential step wasn't included there. Thank you for bringing this problem to my attention - I've fixed it.
 Done And since we're already in the midst of the review, we might as well continue... The Transhumanist 01:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion If the nominator can't read the instructions properly themselves they have no business complaining if they think the closing admin didn't read the outcome of the discussion correctly. Anywaym Ttranshumanist has been around long enough to know that were are supposed to discuss stuff. Spartaz Humbug! 06:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as no consensus - per my review request above. The Transhumanist 01:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As the nominator you are assumed to be in favor of the requested result and should not !vote again. Otto4711 (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - I see no indication here that the closing admin misread the AFD. I have to wonder whether those in favor of overturning to "no consensus" are acting in 100% good faith or whether there's some WP:ILIKEIT creeping in. Otto4711 (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - once you remove the favorable and unfavorable comparisons to other lists, the comments by editors that hate lists on principle, and the discussion by those that claim it's "unencyclopedic" or "indiscriminate" without any evidence to support same, the debate boils down to the question of whether or not notability for the topic was established. Some editors felt that simply wikilinking other articles was sufficient, but others maintained that references directly in the article itself that demonstrated the notability of the topic itself, rather than the fact that some notable people wear bowler hats, was sufficient. The closing admin used the judgment expected of administrators to make a determination; in this case the determination was that notability was not established. Perhaps had there been more convincing arguments about the potential of the list to demonstrate notability in the future, I would feel differently about this AfD being closed as "delete," but it appears that the administrator did a reasonable job of judging consensus in this case.--otherlleftNo, really, other way . . . 05:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion the information is trivial and non-encyclopedic. The material which was deleted is a mockery of what Wikipedia strives to be. JBsupreme (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is your personal opinion and totally irrelevant to DRV. Here we discuss if the discussion was closed properly or if the closer or commenters overlooked crucial information. - Mgm|(talk) 20:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Close as non-consensus and have another afd in a month or so after people have thought some more. There is simply no agreement over whether this is relevant content for WP, and the closing admin should have recognized as much. As he gave no explanation at all, it wasn't unreasonable to come here. Anyway, as we always try to rescue articles and WP is not a Bureaucracy, we shouldnt let procedural problems interfee with review--if Spartaz wants to make this an absolute requirement, he should try to get the policy he wants, but I think there would be agreement that multiple reasonable routes of questioning admin actions is a good thing. For a matter involving the issues here, it would really have helped to give a reason initially. DGG (talk) 06:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In fairness, if the nominator doesn't try and discuss the reasons for the close with the deleting admin they have no hope of understanding their reasoning. Raising a DRV right off is akin to saying that they have a completely closed mind on the matter and that's just wasting our time because the nominator can't be bothered to try and sort it out themselves. Spartaz Humbug! 06:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The close was well within admin discretion. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - I would have made the same call as the closing admin. The discussion was leaning towards delete by a significant margin before User:Sbharris did some work on the article. The fact that an even clearer majority of the votes following those improvements were also for deletion means that this was definitely closed properly.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have undeleted all 23 revisions of the article that were still deleted, per Sbharris' request on my talk page.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted, valid closure and correct result. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, but open to bringing back a list of names on the main Bowler hat article. In this case, restoring a list at the main hat article will probably not require keeping this list's history per GFDL, since the list is a split-out from the original article, with no novel writing. (Reverting to an old version does not require GFDL attributions, even if there were a brief split-out at some point.) Consensus was clear enough that the list should not have a separate article. The number of people arguing merge or delete far outnumbered those requesting the article kept outright, and they made reasoned arguments. The arguments for keeping were not entirely unreasonable, but they were somewhat general, and not tied so well to this specific list. Unlike the bow tie case (which I intended to vote delete after seeing the title, then changed my mind to "keep" when reading the article), this list does not contain a justification as to why the presence of a bowler matters, i.e. a reason for why this list is not simply indiscriminate. In conclusion, the consensus for deletion is present for the bowler hat case, it was not present in the bow tie case. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - competently closed. PhilKnight (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant endorse closure I'd likely have !voted "keep" here, but I cannot imagine that this should have been closed as "no consensus", consistent, in large part, with the analysis of Sjakkalle. I am, though, with DGG on the procedural issue; I have suggested from time to time that we rid ourselves of the "courteously invite the admin to take a second look" instruction, for various reasons that I should sometime set out briefly, and I would suggest that at the very least we not permit the lister's failure to comply divert us from an inquiry that is now, rightly or wrongly, well and broadly before us (and that's from a PIIer). Joe 19:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- actually, I dont don't think we should get rid of it as advice, just as requirement . It's good advice, when people do ask, very often the admins do explain things satisfactorily and the person who asks gets a better understanding of what's wanted or at least realised the uselessness of proceeding further; sometimes the admins do in fact revert the closure; and sometimes if they do not they at least help the person make a better appeal. It's good advice--I agree with Spartaz there. But we makes all sorts of allowances for people making procedural mistakes--for the most complicated, we have a whole class of people clerking at arb com. Incomplete nominations at AfD are fixed, not rejected. If some one speedies or prods for an incorrect reason & there's a good reason, I and most reviewers simply change the reason. We don't want unnecessary barriers to deleting the junk, or to possibly keeping the good stuff either. DGG (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. I have read the AfD, while still in progress, since I was thinking to close it myself but I thought it was difficult to take a decision. Rechecking now I think the decision is correct. If we can do something is to add some people in the Bowler hat article. The fiction part is not worthy at all. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. While both sides employed arguments defensible under policy, there was an adequate supermajority of contributors supporting deletion. Sandstein 18:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly not all of the contributors have benefitted by reading the relevant policy about stand-alone lists? It is at WP:STAND. Particularly the idea that fictional parts aren't notable, in an encyclopedia which does a particularly careful job of documenting fictional universes, is very odd. The List of minor characters in Dilbert is given as an example, in the policy Wiki itself. If you don't agree with this WP policy, go and change it! Don't just decide to ignore it here, because you want to. SBHarris 21:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. Decision to close the AfD as "delete" was a reasonable one. As for the list article itself, I believe that the list content could have been (and still could be) rescued, but in spite of improvements made the list is still an unsourced and unorganized jumble, and I have not seen evidence that there was a sound reason for splitting it off from bowler hat. --Orlady (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why did no one bother to merge back the original content to the article it was taken from? Discussion always seem to be black or white (delete or keep) with no one discussing alternative options. - Mgm|(talk) 21:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see discussion of alternative options in that AfD. I see approximately 8 comments in the AfD, including one by you and two by me, that identified needed improvements and/or called for merging the rescueable content back into the main article. Far be it from me to say why the article proponents didn't accept the advice. However, since most of the content is still in the history of the main article, it would not be particularly difficult to restore it there. Furthermore, there is nothing preventing the creator of this article from acquiring a copy of it now. --Orlady (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, and I did so, as soon as it was undeleted (it's in a /page of my TALK space, for example). I have no objection to re-adding it as an embedded list (WP:EMBED), but didn't want to act precipitously while this debate was still going on. I don't care where the information is, so long as it doesn't disappear. People can challenge individual entries in it, as they like (eg, nobody objects to Laurel and Hardy, Oddjob, and Magritte's paintings, do they?). As soon as it goes back in, though, it will more than double the size of the article, and somebody will want it spun off, as in WP:SS, List of people who have been beheaded, and so on. SBHarris 23:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As it happens, Wikipedia policy says I have to question every entry on the list due to the lack of sourcing.
For future reference, next time an article of yours is at AfD, I suggest that you do whatever is necessary to rescue the article. Consider an AfD nomination to be a signal that something needs to be fixed, and fixed quickly. Don't think of AfD as a judicial proceeding; think of it as a problem-solving discussion. If you can modify the article in way that makes it unnecessary to continue the discussion, you are likely to be thanked, not criticized. --Orlady (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing in policy requires you to question everything that doesn't have a source. "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged" means that unsourced material can be challenged, not that it must be. Challenging material that you have no valid reason to dispute (other than simply a lack of source) is a waste of everyone's time, and leads to articles where every sentence has a footnote or a "citation needed" template; this is completely unnecessary. Also, the entries on this list link to articles, and those articles may contain sources which say whether the subject was notable for wearing a bowler hat; it is unnecessary for these citations to be both in the article and the list, as the items would be verifiable either way. DHowell (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and close as no consensus (with no prejudice for a shortened verifiable list at the main article). Keep voters had a solid reasoning in the idea that it is valid to make a spinoff article when a section takes up too much space. Delete voters had a good point in saying it was an unsourced mess at the time, however that is something that can be solved by editing rather than deletion which is the first thing described on several deletion pages -- don't delete something that can be improved. Once bad reasoning is filtered out on both sides, there's no clear majority. I would recommend closing admin who did this AFD to be very explicit about their reasoning in closing obviously contentious debates. That way there's no possible misunderstanding about your reasoning or intentions. - Mgm|(talk) 21:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Now, everyone, on to killing the infamous List of Chinese people! SBHarris 23:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and close as no consensus I see plenty of reasons to clean up which is not a good reason to delete or even to take to AfD. The AfD didn't sway me as an obvious keep or delete so it would seem no consensus defaulting to keep would be most accurate. -- Banjeboi 04:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion- if AfD were just a vote, it would have to be closed as a no consensus. But it is not just a count of heads and the arguments for deletion were, in my opinion, stronger than those to keep. Reyk YO! 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn deletion to no consensus but redirect to Bowler hat and merge content back into that article. While this article may have been originally created as a spin-out from Bowler hat, it was edited significantly during the course of the AfD, and I see no consensus that the list doesn't belong in some form or another in Bowler hat. Let the content be merged back and let the edits to that content, while it was separate, remain. For GFDL compliance, the edit which merges the list back should link back to the edit history of the separate list article. DHowell (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
