Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 16

Template:Geographic reference (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I see no policy rationale that required a speedy keep for that discussion. There was a single participant which merely asked to examine the template as used. The proper remedy would have been to remove the TfD tag to the noinclude section (which I would be fine with as well), not to shut down discussion. I find the comment disingenuous at best: I am in no way, shape or form advocating the wholesale removal of tens of thousands of citation. In fact, one of the reasons I listed the template is because it has been criticized for violating WP:BURDEN in its current form. I just want to discuss this template for ten different citations. Further, the most likely argument is for splitting the template, which would have zero effect on the citation universe. This template used to just be a link to Wikipedia:Geographic references and there is no reason I should have to wait until there are 24 or more citations locked into a single template. I've started an RFC as requested nevertheless. I doubt that's the best way to conduct this. If there is a WP:SNOW consensus to keep the template, its current name and its current format in full, fine, I'll drop the issue but I highly doubt it. Ricky81682 (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I explained my rationale to the closing administrator but his views remains that he doesn't want to allow the discussion because he thinks it doesn't belong there. I'm not advocating an ounce of a policy change, I'm asking for a review of a singular template, one that ultimately boils down to being a specialized version of numerous citation formats in a singular location. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmmmmmmm. This is a high-risk template; any edit affecting the template we're considering would have an impact on a colossal number of pages. I do think the discussion should be widely-advertised to ensure it's fully thought through.

  Was Nyttend right to close the debate so early? Well, to an extent I can see his point. Our rules do allow for some pages to be fully immune from deletion. For example, editors aren't allowed to MFD established policy pages. (Amusingly, this is actually written down on WP:MFD. I can only presume some genius tried it.) And common sense says you wouldn't be allowed to AFD the main page. Do high-risk templates also enjoy this immunity from our deletion processes? If so then Nyttend is right and we should endorse, but I'd be interested to hear Nyttend's reasoning.—S Marshall T/C 20:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the concern is the risk to the template, then the better approach would be to include the notice in the noinclude section? I'd add that it's not like this is something that's been repeatedly discussed. It was up for deletion years ago and only kept in a very limited fashion after a lot of discussions. This isn't a policy though; it's a template that's used for a series of sources. I'm not disputing the sources, I'm not even questioning the actual policy, I'm questing the actual implementation of the template. If we chose to rename it (like they did from GR to Geographic reference), that would have no substantive change to the policies. Even choosing to split it would have the same effect. I mean, yes, you could compare it to trying to TfD the main citation templates but it's not like Template:infobox artist didn't at least give a chance for people to WP:SNOW it. I asked Nyttend to post the RfC notice in the various Wikiprojects, I have no clue who actually uses this and I'd be more than willing to notice all the various projects because it should be a huge discussion. I'd be willing to relist it, using noinclude so it doesn't disrupt the template's usage and if there's a snowball against me, I'll withdraw it myself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, I note that it seems to me like Nyttend misunderstood my intent with this request. I was not requesting that every single use of this template be wiped off so we have tens of thousands of unsourced material, I'm asking if, at a bare minimum, we could split the ten various sources into ten separate templates, i.e. create ten new templates and then gradually each reference over time as part of the clean up bots or whatever. I don't think that should be fully immune from discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a longish discussion on the nominator's talk page which is relevant to the DRV because it explains the closer's thought processes. I think that Ricky81682 is correct when he says that Nyttend misunderstood the intent behind the nomination. I think what we have here is a communication failure. These often lead to conflict, but in this case I'm pleased to see that both participants have handled it with class. Or at least, without descending to ad homs.

  I think that the correct outcome was a widely-advertised discussion about what to do with the template, and that's the outcome that we have. What do we want DRV to do here? Give guidance about how to handle TFDs of high-risk templates? Or is it proposed that we re-open the TFD while the RFC is still in process?—S Marshall T/C 08:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, wouldn't a communication failure be a reason to overturn the speedy keep? I think it's clear that what he's accusing me is incorrect, only he thinks this would violate WP:V and even that is based on a miscommunication so I don't get why his close should stand then. Isn't DRV saying essentially that a sole administrator can unilaterally close any discussion with no other rationale than his views on the affects on policy (and if he is right, then he should justify it, not close it and stop anyone else from telling me off if that's appropriate). He hasn't even commented at the RfC he was so demanding. The infobox artist page is on more than twice as many pages and that at least had a discussion that made a consensus. I'd rather have it at TfD because the seven day limit at least moves it somewhere; if he's right, in about a day, it'll be closed anyways. In 2008, it was fair to list it but now it's not? I'll wait out the RfC but I still haven't got a clue who else to notify. If he refuses to explain himself and refuses to define who should be involved, I'll just list it again. Consensus doesn't work as a moving target that no one can catch. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Good points well made. I'm struggling with this because procedurally, you're right, but I can see why Nyttend did it in all the circumstances. I do hope some of my DRV colleagues will chime in with some different views to consider.

  In case they don't, I should try to come up with something helpful to say to the DRV closer. I suppose I'd have to go back to WP:DRVPURPOSE and say, it's our role to make sure the procedure is correctly followed, so we'd have to relist at TfD for a 168-hour discussion. I say this with no great enthusiasm. Actually a good thing to talk about at the RFC would be to begin a community-wide discussion on how to handle high-risk templates in general... by the way, I would like to participate in the RFC but I haven't as yet because I haven't been able to decide what to say.—S Marshall T/C 08:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Bad close. Nothing at Wikipedia:Speedy keep applies. WP:Supervote applies. "Wrong forum" is a dubious assertion. The TfD tag can be put in a noinclude section to prevent technical disruption. WP:SK should be narrowly read because to allow admin closers to arbitarily SK close amounts to discussion-censorship by admins. The mere perception of this is bad for the project. Far better is to let the discussion proceed, let opinions be stated and rebutted, and to let an uninvolved closer close. With this "overturn", the nominator should be allowed to immediately renominate, but this is not at all my recommendation to him. Template_talk:Geographic_reference#RfC:_Should_Template:Geographic_reference_be_split_into_separate_templates_for_each_source.3F is a much better idea. I don't think there is any chance of this template, currently transcluded on thousands of pages, being deleted. Even if it is to be replaced by other templates, its current high use means that it should be kept as historical (deleting previously well used templates stuffs up readability of past versions of articles). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Collinson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

the AfD has only had one participant besides myself the nominator. It was relisted at 10.03, 16 June 2014 (UTC), yet 3 hours later the admin appears to apply a super vote and close the AfD as keep with no reason when there is low participation (a reason is then given when I questioned the admin). Proper process should follow and It should be allowed to run the 7 days to gain more participation. LibStar (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the closing admin's explanation for closing as keep (and not providing any reason on the actual AfD page) and not letting a RELIST run 7 days is here. User_talk:David_Gerard#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FGeoff_Collinson_.282nd_nomination.29. I would have expected an admin to give more explanation in the closing statement at the AfD so there would be no misunderstandings. LibStar (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Although "no consensus" might have been preferable, the keep seemed to me to have a better rationale than the nomination for deletion. So, the close was within discretion. Also, we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to take a pot-shot at anything that twitches. What is "notable" is what people think we should have an article about, not what meets a precise concoction of rules. The matter has been raised here before, quite recently, about closing an AFD shortly after it has been relisted (I don't have a diff), and it was thought to be OK to do this. Thincat (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from closer: I'm not worried either way, but I'm baffled as to what actual difference this is supposed to make in effects in the world. I asked Libstar three times on my talk page and got evasions. Libstar made both this deletion nomination and the previous deletion nomination, and appears unduly wedded to the notion of the death of this article. Note that the nominator needed subject-area jargon explained to them in the second time through - David Gerard (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David has refused to answer my legitimate question "So why did you not explain your keep conclusion when it appeared no clear consensus for keep especially due to lack of participants" you would think under WP:ADMINACCT I would get a reply to this... LibStar (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"keep" is not a close that needs an admin, but basically what Thincat said, and you literally not understanding subject-area jargon before nominating - David Gerard (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not wedded to deletion, I was seeking clear consensus, if it was many people with a consensus for keep I wouldn't be here , David's explanations seem very flippant and concerning for an admin, why was "you literally not understanding subject-area jargon before nominating" (maybe in a less condescending manner) not explained in the closing statement? LibStar (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - I might've closed as no consensus, but a keep isn't crazy given the appearance of meeting sub-notability guidelines, and the difference between the two is rather academic. Endlessly relisting articles where nobody's showing up isn't a particular virtue, if nobody wants a say, give 'em what they want. WilyD 15:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The debate had run for more than 168 hours and was therefore eligible to be closed. A problem that arises from our editor retention issues on Wikipedia is low participation at AfD, and increasingly, some nominations are just getting ignored. This is going to get worse as time goes on, and it's a problem that'll need wiser heads than mine to solve. But I don't really approve of the recent fashion for constantly relisting low-participation debates, because all it does is spam the AfD page with nominations nobody's interested in. I think it's better to bring debates to a timely conclusion. It could be argued that when one admin has relisted, another shouldn't close the debate without further participation, but I'm not aware of any rule or guideline that says so, so I conclude that the close was procedurally sound.

  I raised an eyebrow to see the closer say "the consensus was keep"; I certainly don't see a "keep" consensus there. But DRV won't normally overturn a "keep" to a "no consensus", so I think the right outcome for this DRV would be an endorse by default.—S Marshall T/C 16:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No consensus (or letting it run a bit longer) would have been a better reading of the discussion(s). But given that there is no good reason to bring this back to AfD anytime soon, weak endorse sounds right. Hobit (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist - I'm not sure why this was closed only a few hours after it was re-listed. Re-listing seems like the sensible option and that was implemented at 10:00am. 3 hours later it was closed as keep without further contribution. I understand that some admins will see consensus where other re-listers have not and that's fine. But I can't see how a 1:1 discussion is harmed by a little extra time on the logs. It had certainly run more than 7 days so I can't find fault with the closing admin's actions per se. I just can't see the harm in allowing the relist to do it's job. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (to "no consensus"), I suppose. There was certainly no consensus to delete. See advice at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. Please put more effort into nomination statements; the nomination in this AfD was very poor. Nominations are not for calling the attention of other editors to consider the page, but for the nominator to state a case for why the page page should be deleted. "dont think he meets WP:MUSICBIO. all i could find is 1 line mentions of him" doesn't cut it. Make up your mind whether it meets MUSICBIO or not. Tell us how hard you looked for sources, do not leave it to others to assume things about your source-searching ability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the purpose of a deletion review is not to review nomination statements but how an AfD was closed. LibStar (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proper process was followed. The discussion was not headed toward deletion. The close might better have been "no consensus". We review everything here in the deletion process. The biggest fault in this exercise of the process was the low effort that went into the nomination. Asking for the discussion to be held open for weeks, without a respectable nomination, is unreasonable, to do so is to unreasonably burden AfD. This sort of thing is a actual problem burdening AfD. I oppose a relist, if this page is sent to AfD again, it should have a better nomination statement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]