Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 October 22

Category:Recipients of the Order of the Tower and Sword (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The discussion does not seem to show any obvious consensus to delete this (and other such categories). The Military Order of the Tower and Sword, the recipients of which were the subject of this category, was and still is the most senior award in the Portuguese honours system and the highest award conferred to by the Portuguese government, something like the Order of the Garter in the UK (although membership is extremely limited in that one), the Legion of Honour in France, or, to some extent, the Presidential Medal of Freedom in the US (which all have the appropriate categories — to wit: Category:Order of the Garter, Category:Recipients of the Legion of Honour, Category:Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients — and that no one seems to find ripe for deletion).

The closer cited WP:OCAWARD to affirm that the award was not a defining characteristic for the majority of its notable recipients; reading through the discussion, this view seems to have stemmed from most users voicing that this was an award solely exchanged among nobility, heads of state, consorts, sovereign family members, and so forth — that assumption is, as I explained above, wrong and so using that rationale does not seem to follow. RickMorais (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's awarded considerably less prolifically than the Legion d'honneur, even taking into account Portugal's lower population. To the extent that the subject discussion was about this one category, there might be scope to reopen it. Unbundle and relist this one category.—S Marshall T/C 23:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• question. We’re the categories listified before deletion. I disagree that there was a consensus to delete without listifying. “Listify and delete” appears a reasonable rough consensus, but not straight delete. Listify to a talk page can be sufficient.

I note again, that CfD closes look heavy handed, and it is that way because the practice at CfD is that “no consensus means delete”, but that is not written, so “no consensus” is routinely stretched to “delete” to achieve the same end. In this, CfD is different to all other XfD. See my post at WT:Categories for discussion/Archive 19#Consensus to create categories. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Mass AfDs often group things that shouldn't be grouped. I'll support unbundling and relisting this one. Hobit (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George L. Knox II (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This highly contentious discussion required a more thorough justification in the closure. A simple Keep without any explanation was both an incorrect result and a woefully inadequate explanation of the reasoning for closure. In contrast two other similar pages Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter I. Lawson and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie H. Fuller were each closed as No Consensus. Mztourist (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I closed the discussion as keep and it did not strike me as particularly contentious. The improvements that took place during the course of the debate led to a wave of editors favoring keep, and I took that into consideration. Mackensen (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There was no consensus that those were actually "improvements", there was substantial arguing that the problems remained, but you ignored it and counted votes instead. Avilich (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Mackensen I don't see how you can possibly form the view that the AFD was not "particularly contentious". I disagree that there were any substantive improvements to the page and agree with Avilich's comments on the low to non-existent quality of source analysis of the later Keep !votes. Mztourist (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus Giving no rationale at all for closing such a contentious discussion was completely inappropriate, what was done was essentially a head count (WP:NOTAVOTE) simply because keeps were in the majority. The discussion on the sources, which is all that matters, was one-sided: one party argued extensively that the existing sources, including those in the careless cite-bomb at the end, were inadequate, and this went mostly unrebutted. Most of the keeps were 'per above comments', 'sourcing has improved significantly' (without even looking at the actual sources and completely ignoring the arguments against that), and inherited notability. It must be also noted that many keepers in this and the other linked discussions above were canvassed at Article Rescue Squadron. Avilich (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I presume you're referring to [this] discussion and if that's the case "many keepers... were canvassed" is unlikely to be true. The only participant in that discussion who voted "keep" in the AfD was Lightburst, who started the discussion. I for one was not aware of that discussion when I voted, so I wasn't "canvassed". NemesisAT (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This and other linked discussions; your vote was inadequate for other reasons. Avilich (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Which discussions? Your claim that the keep votes were canvassed lacks evidence. NemesisAT (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 1, 2, 3... Avilich (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ARS, Users don't need to have participated in the discussion at ARS to join the Keep !vote pile-on, ARS just informs them of it. Mztourist (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That discussion was posted on 23 September, and looking through the AfD history I'm just not seeing any burst in keep votes around that date. NemesisAT (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 7%6thirteen originally put the Mac Ross AfD in the ARS presumably for canvassing keep votes, and the article was kept because of the subsequent flurry of keep votes. Once Lightburst saw that worked, he did the same thing with other articles as well (here and here) so the usual ARS inclusionists could then pound on Mztourist's other nominations, which includes this one. The one which he forgot to add, McClure, was closed as delete. Avilich (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  We're discussing this AfD here, not any others, and I stand by my comment that there is no sign of the keep votes being the result of canvassing. NemesisAT (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD is one of several affected. Many of the keep voters here are the same as in the other nominations, and they only appeared in each of these nominations, including this one, because they have a convenient canvassing hub for being notified. Avilich (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This same batch of nominations also included Walter I. Lawson and Stanley C. Norton, both of which were either kept or failed to reach consensus (in discussions nearly identical to the one for Knox), and neither of them are listed at this page you're linking. If the mere fact of articles being kept is proof of a conspiracy among "the usual ARS inclusionists", how come it happens in deletion discussions they're not talking about? jp×g 00:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment More ARS canvassing taking place. Avilich (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the only other possibility was a no-consensus which would result in a keep. Lightburst (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• A possibility you yourself admit, then. That's all that's necessary to cast doubt into the legitimacy of the close. Avilich (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Per WP:DRVPURPOSE, DRV is not for arguing technicalities. The complaint here is that the closer did not make a detailed explanation. If the OP wanted to know more, they should have queried the closer directly rather than coming here, as explained at WP:DRVPURPOSE. The closer has now explained their rationale, which seems quite reasonable and so we're done. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Andrew, the complaint was that the result was incorrect and lacked any explanation. Mztourist (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this would have benefitted from a more complete closing statement. I feel that's a few too many "delete" !votes to dismiss without comment. I'd like to see a chain of reasoning that I can follow.—S Marshall T/C 23:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, as I've said, I just didn't see it as all that contentious, assertions to the contrary. The nomination primarily raised issues with sourcing, issues that were specifically addressed during the course of the discussion, and latecomers to the discussion responded to those changes. I think it's appropriate to take that into account when a debate is open for an entire month. Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You didn't explain taking anything into account as your close lacked any explanation. Given the extensive discussion of sourcing and the additional sourcing it was clear that there was still no consensus on notability. Mztourist (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as the only reasonable outcome--there were no new delete opinions added after the relist, which specifically asked for further commentary on the improvements. The trajectory of the !votes is sufficiently clear that a closing statement, while it would have been a good idea just to keep the drama to a minimum, doesn't significantly impair the validity of the closing. Jclemens (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually there was a weak delete added after the realist; one which offered the option of merging any RS information to list of Tuskegee Airmen. Intothatdarkness 16:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  So there was; I stand corrected. That obviously weakens my trajectory argument, but I don't believe enough for me to revise it. Jclemens (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Inadequate closing statement, but not wrong. It was either “keep” or “no consensus”, definitely not “delete”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Inadequate closing statement, endorse outcome we don't need a book, but "keep per WP:HEY" or something like that would have been better. Both keep and NC were within discretion IMO. Delete was not. Hobit (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Nominator for the AFD didn't get the result they wanted. You can't just take something to deletion review and complain about the results. Accusations of canvassing is ridiculous. Most things that are listed on the ARS page do not generate many people going there to comment, sometimes none at all. Dream Focus 02:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted above, ARS is used to notify a group of Users to !vote on certain AFDs, that is canvassing because they don't bother trying to improve the page. Mztourist (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That isn't true. Anyone can look at the history of the article from the time you nominated it for deletion Lightburst and JPxG both did a lot of work on improving it. [1] This is common in most cases. Kindly stop spreading lies about the ARS. I always search for more coverage and add anything new I find into articles if I find anything worth adding. Dream Focus 08:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lightburst created the ARS entry, I don't know what led JPxG to the page/AFD and none of the other Keep !votes (including you) made any improvements to the page. I can't say for certain they joined the AFD because of the ARS entry just as you can't say they didn't. I stand by my comments about ARS. Mztourist (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not affiliated with ARS; I use my custom AfD dashboard to find open discussions. I stand by my comments about this argument being unreasonably silly and hostile. jp×g 03:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, whatever about the original intent of ARS, it is absolutely undeniable that it operates as a way of soliciting Keep !votes at AFDs but does very little if any work on the articles. I still remember the squealing when they got their privileged banner deleted (and then ignored the consensus to delete it, necessitating a second TFD). Stifle (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- "It's not canvassing if we do it" should be translated into Latin, inscribed on a bronze plaque and installed as the ARS's official motto. Reyk _YO! 11:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know, I think 2016 want's its motto back: "It's not a personal attack if it is referring to ARS" :-) But seriously, if you have a complaint, best to bring it to one of the drama boards or, given the long-standing nature of the complaint, to ARBCOM. But I seriously didn't know ARS was still an ongoing thing. Hobit (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or rather than going to the drama boards, we could bring balance by reviving the Article deletion squad?—S Marshall T/C 16:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus There was actually very little addressing of sources, and as was noted in the original discussion many of the claimed improvements were simply ref bombs that added nothing new to the article. Keep voters also tended to avoid questions of notability and other issues. For something like that, a far more detailed analysis should be required rather than what was presented by the closer. And while a no consensus close is in essence a keep, it acknowledges there were still issues with the article instead of presenting what to me is a false picture of an article that is both properly-sourced using RS and is notable. Intothatdarkness 17:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but I would have liked a more substantive closing statement. There's no requirement to do so, but its generally considered good practice to explain why you closed a discussion a particular way. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus -- by view is similar to that of Intothatdarkness. There is clearly no consensus about how to handle the articles on the individual Airmen. I don't know myself which way I would !vote--I could justify eithe keeping or deletion. Though WP does not follow precedent, it should aim at some degree of consistency. A more general discussion is needed. (I don't think it matters who voted for what--the problem before us is what to do with the article.) DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and new close. Any discussion this contentious needs a thoughtful closing statement. —valereee (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - the delete's all predate the WP:HEY, other than one weak delete, which pushed for merge. The delete arguments ignore that the article is well referenced with significant sources. Keep is quite a reasonable outcome, looking at the discussion. Perhaps a sentence saying why wouldn't have heard. No prejudice against the closer now adding a sentence or so - but really, do we need a DRV for that? This was never going to be closed as delete - so why didn't User:Mztourist simply ask the closer to explain his thinking (apologies if they did, but I couldn't find any sign of that). Nfitz (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Which planet are you on? Most of the delete arguments addressed those "improvements", and argued that they're not improvements at all. The keeps all said 'meets HEY', 'article has improved significantly', or just dropped notebombs without responding to those objections (not one keep did this). And besides, you're supposed to comment on the discussion and the close, not the article and it's sources. Avilich (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh. I'd personally have closed as no consensus, but that has the same functional effect as keep.
  I take an extremely dim view of the canvassing by ARS. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It looks to me that considerable editing took place on the article from about 23 September. The edits were by people !voting keep and delete at AFD and they were all claiming to be improving the article. After 23 September there was a single delete and a single weak delete but all the other comments were keep or were further comments from people who had already !voted (and had not changed their minds). I don't see how any rational conclusion could have been reached with such a rapidly moving target, so much so that maybe the whole discussion could merely have been closed. Before giving a bold vote here I'll wait to see if anyone faults my analysis. Thincat (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse; although I will say I was surprised to see it closed "keep" with no further commentary, since it had run for a full month (and gotten, at times, quite nasty). I don't think there is any prima facie evidence of a bad close; a bunch of people wanted to keep and a bunch of people wanted to delete. It isn't particularly scandalous, in my opinion, that the delete !voters think that the keep !voters were wrong. In what world would they not? The fact that somebody disagrees with a decision is not evidence of misfeasance. And I don't get the aspersions about ARS here: the implication that everyone who !voted to keep was "canvassed" is, to me, silly and unwarranted. I don't know about other participants, but I am certainly not a member of ARS, and I don't check their page for anything (I mainly find active deletion discussions using my own custom-built dashboard). jp×g 00:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per the AfD and this discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• (I commented above) Endorse keeping, though for a long time I thought no consensus would also have been within discretion. It has been claimed at the AFD and here that keep arguments were refuted or rebutted but that is not what I see at all. Instead, a contrary opinion (that the sources and personal importance of the subject are inadequate) was lengthily and vocally repeated, seemingly intolerant of any different opinion. The early delete opinions (some of which seem to be based on "inherent non-notability") were not treated in this manner. So, if I had closed the AFD I would have closed as ‘’keep’’ explaining I was not giving any extra weight to opinions stridently asserted to be correct. If I had !voted in the AFD I would have remarked on the subjective nature of WP:ANYBIO where it says “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability”. Thincat (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Those who invoked ANYBIO as a rationale to keep did not do so with significant coverage in mind, but instead with inherited notability based on a group award and with 'fighting for your country' or 'breaking barriers' qualifying as 'widely recognized' contributions (ANYBIO#2). Avilich (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Uninvolved unlike many of the comments I'm seeing here. At a minimum, overturn with the no consensus option, but as I read through the AfD, the deletes really do seem to carry more weight. That is muddled by the ARS canvassing and sniping that pretty clearly disrupted the process here.

I'll agree with others here that the keep votes were very weak often engaging in superficial refbombs or not truly tackling notability. The burden is on the keeps. It does come across, even after reading the closer's comments here, that the close violated WP:NOTAVOTE. Also, having a "wave" or momentum at the end of the discussion is not grounds to give that idea more weight when summarizing a discussion. Unfortunately, that line of thinking comes up occasionally in closes as fallacious reasoning. Definitely too much going on here to endorse the close at least. KoA (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]