Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 December 30

< 2019 December 29
2019 December 31 >

30 December 2019

  • Media reports of persons hospitalized involving the 2019 vaping lung illness outbreak – Overturn to No Consensus. There's pretty good agreement here that the close was in error. By nose-count, more people think this should be overturned to Keep, than to No Consensus, but the later seems to better reflect my reading of the AfD, so I'm going with that. The end effect is the same. I'm going to back out the redirect, but undoing the material merged into 2019 outbreak of lung illness linked to vaping products I'll have to leave to people who are more familiar with the topic. There were some questions raised here about the proper title, inclusion criteria, and content for this article. All of those are outside the scope of DRV; sort it out on the talk pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Media reports of persons hospitalized involving the 2019 vaping lung illness outbreak (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Most ediors preferred keeping the article rather the merge. I think the close should be reversed and the article kept in accordance with consensus. After the merge mass content was deleted. If it is too long for the main article then it can be split. QuackGuru (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to no consensus. Wouldn't mind a relist, but considering the whole AfD nomination failed WP:SKCRIT #1 because "The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance any argument for deletion or redirection, perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging"... Any merge discussion should go to Talk:Media reports of persons hospitalized involving the 2019 vaping lung illness outbreak. Reading the AfD, there doesn't seem to be a consensus what do with an article, some advocating keep, some agreeing with a merge, re-purpose mentions, even a delete on top of it. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uphold - AFD is not a ballot - David Gerard (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, good close.
Speedy close; out of scope of DRV. No deletion. The right place to continue discussion, including challenges to reverse the merge, or to consider other SPINOUT options, is Talk:2019 outbreak of lung illness linked to vaping products#Undo merge proposal not here. And Not FORUMSHOPPING. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC was de-listed and I was told to come here if I want to challenge the close. QuackGuru (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Beland (talk · contribs) in referring you here. WP:DRV is not for managing merges and contested merges. The advice of the closer, Callanecc (talk · contribs) should be sought before launching either an RfC or DRV. I note the problem on a lack of guidance on starting RfCs, and on contesting the unilateral close of a premature RfC, and that is an issue for WT:RFC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphimblade (talk · contribs) appears to have been responsible for enacting the close. He should be invited to comment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whee! -- Beland (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Purpose number one of DRV is for discussions where the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. Cases of blatant supervotes that ignore both policy and the discussion at XfD are exactly the purpose of DRV. WilyD 06:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The title phrase, "Media reports of ..." is a red flag for WP:NOR. Are there sources commenting on the "media reports of ..."? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • nope - it was just a list of individual cases that happened to have been in a paper. At least none of them were the Sun or the Daily Mail any more by the time of the AFD - David Gerard (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, AfD is not a vote, and the spinoff article was an unencyclopedic laundry list. (Also, Callanecc should have at least been spoken to prior to filing a DRV if the outcome was in dispute, if nothing else than to hear his reasoning.) I actually just put back the merge that was in dispute before the AfD took place; it was Beland who originally performed it and took it to AfD when it was disputed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's recommended that you try discussing it with the closing admin, but it's not required. In cases of such a blatant supervote, it's probably usually better to move to DRV than to have a discussion with the closer that's almost certainly going to be pointless, and will be liable to raise the overall tension level in the situation. A more public forum like this is then a better idea. A lot of deletions are speedies where the admin failed to notice something, or cases you want to re-do on new information. Those kinds of situations are usually resolvable with a short discussion with the deleting admin, which is why you're recommended to go that route. WilyD 06:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I think it's generally a good step, if for no other reason than to be able to say "The admin explained their reasoning and stood by it, and I still disagree." I know in a couple of cases with me, someone's pointed out to me something I missed, and I smacked my head and said "You're absolutely right, and I should've seen that, I'll reverse it." None of us are immune to errors. In other cases, sure, I said "I know that, but I still stand by my decision, and here's why." But at the very least, at least one should attempt discussion first. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean, I think it's generally a good step, and in fact will usually resolve situations faster and more amicably. But that's not the same as universally, and in a case like this, I don't think it's wise or kind to force an editor to confront an admin where such a process is liable to be intimidating or otherwise needlessly stressful and unproductive. WilyD 17:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not mandatory because there are really good reasons why we don't want the discussion closer to become the gatekeeper for a deletion review. DRV should be easily accessible to anyone who disagrees with a close -- the bar is set deliberately low.—S Marshall T/C 10:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Keep - policy is a clear keep, headcount is a clear keep. There's absolutely no basis for such an obvious closer supervote to impose an outcome they could never achieve by discussion. Really, absolutely zero arguments are presented for deletion or merge, other than sometimes articles with similar titles have original research problems (but not that this article did, because it seems as though it did not - so such an argument is neither here nor there). It is true that the title is a bit wonky, but I would be reluctant to impose a move to the title suggested by Blue Raspberry given that no one else commented on it, but a move to Cases in the 2019 vaping lung illness outbreak is probably in order WilyD 06:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The inclusion criteria is hospitalized cases. I would rename it to "Hospitalized cases in the 2019 vaping lung illness outbreak". QuackGuru (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • See talk page. After the merge, editors are still aggressively trying to expunge the merged content. That is against the close of the merge. We don't merge and then do a backdoor deletion. QuackGuru (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a content-based objection, not what you're depicting it as. WP:MEDRS applies - David Gerard (talk) 11:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly, we shouldn't have an article with this title, so I'd endorse the close as merge (clearly preferable to the only viable alternative which was "keep"). An encyclopaedia is a summary of what the reliable sources say. This is not a summary, it's immensely comprehensive -- inappropriately so in my view, to the point of being unencyclopaedic. I suspect the purpose of this article is to make a point.—S Marshall T/C 20:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was its creation, presumably because this content was excessive for the main article - David Gerard (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's excessive for an encyclopaedia too, and should be pruned to an appropriate size.—S Marshall T/C 22:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Keep - Consensus is clearly keep, secondly, AFD is not the place to discuss a merge, the article page would be the correct page. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 21:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. There were significant policy issues raised on each side, and the numbers were with those in favor of a Keep result. The close did not properly reflect that. After overturn, the merge should not be considered enforced by the AfC discussion, and the fate of any merge should be decided by separate merge discussions. A rename was suggested by several participants in the AfD, and might well be in order.
As to the scope issue, the AfD was explicitly started to enforce a previously contested merge, which is what the close did. Review of that close here is an eminently proper use of DRV. The idea (expressed by SmokeyJoe above) that because there was no deletion DRV is out is scope is simply incorrect. I was one of those active in the proposals that created DRV out of the previous VfU (Votes for Undeletion), and a significant part of the change was that All XfD closes, and in particular all AfD closes, are subject to review here. That is why the practice is to write "Overturn" or "Endorse" not "Keep" or "Delete" here at DRV. If an Afd is used to enforce a merge (and tjhat is valid, if not IMO best practice) then it is subject to review here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but should be renamed to something like "Notable cases of vaping lung illness". We have List of Ebola patients. We just need to make sure enough sources are present to justify each case. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe "Hospitalized cases of vaping lung illness outbreak". QuackGuru (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn to keep per Necromonger--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_December_30&oldid=1039518701"