Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 September 14

Luca Soccer Club (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This latest nomination is simply an end-run around DRV by editors who don't like the result of an AFD closed just one month ago. Besides WP:RENOM, the nominator expresses displeasure at the result, but hasn't raised that here or with the closer of the last AFD. Can someone review and close this? The nominator doesn't seem to want to address the disruptive nomination itself. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the original AFD, which should have been reviewed here if the nominator had an objection to the close. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure we're able to do anything here--except maybe show up at the currently-running (if opened more prematurely than convention should allow...) AfD and complain there, which would possibly be construed as canvassing by some folks. You think the original, closed, AfD was closed correctly. Fair enough. The second AfD hasn't been closed, and so I'm unclear that there's anything at all for us to opine upon. Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not up to me alone to determine if the original close was correct, nor anyone else. I think the second AFD should be procedurally closed, but I contributed to the first and so am WP:INVOLVED. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close. Inappropriate listing, as the AFD under appeal has not yet been closed. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AFD should never have been opened, and having been opened inappropriately, should be closed. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agrees that this should not have been opened. But I cannot agree this is inappropriate as the present one is leaning towards delete. Indianfootball98 (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Stalwart111: That's an argument to be made at the AFD. DRV does not deal with incomplete AFDs. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's imagine it was OK to take an AfD that was closed as "keep" one month ago, and relist it back at AfD. What would be the consequences of that? We need to think that through before !voting in this DRV, and I would point out that WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED is an old, and very wise, rule. We have a place where you're allowed to say the last AfD wasn't discussed correctly, and it's here. IMV that AfD needs to be procedurally closed without result.
  On reading the actual debate, head in hands, I notice that we've had one AfD that was a clear keep and now a month later we've got another AfD that's tending snow delete. AfD is becoming a random, capricious venue that makes rather inconsistent decisions.—S Marshall T/C 11:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Question for User:S Marshall - Was there a previous golden age when AFD made consistent decisions, or has it been a random and capricious venue for years? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it used to be a lot less random and capricious than this.—S Marshall T/C 08:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact is a look at the "keeps" of the first AfD suggests they are at best dubious (in essence the only convincing arguments are "meets GNG" vs "does not meet GNG" - there's no detailed analysis or anything, so the first AfD should have been relisted and not vote-counted). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  And that would be a perfectly reasonable discussion to have here at DRV. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Im the nominator. I hadnt heard about DRV until a few hours ago and apologies for the renomination. But I request the admin not to close the present discussion. I had clearly said my reason for the renomination. WP:RENOM allows you to renominate the article if any new valid arguments shows up which is the case here. Indianfootball98 (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Far from allowing this, WP:RENOM says: If the XfD discussion was closed as “keep”, generally do not renominate the page for at least six months, unless there is something new to say, and even so, usually wait a few months.—S Marshall T/C 15:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agrees this also. But as I said before, I recently came to know about DRV. Im requesting not to close the present AFD as it is going against the outcome of the previous closure. Indianfootball98 (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not knowing how something works is not a sufficient excuse for disruptive behaviour. Far from "going against the outcome of the previous closure" there are now multiple additional keep !votes that provide explanation of ways the subject meets WP:GNG, far beyond the delete !votes' "fails NFOOTY". St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think "disruptive" is a bit strong, as is bluelinking CIR. It costs us nothing to be kind to a new editor.—S Marshall T/C 14:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close. Discussions not yet closed can't be reviewed. The assertion here is that starting this AfD was procedurally unsound and disruptive. That makes it more of a conduct issue than anything. Recourse is alerting an administrator who will take appropriate administrative action. Administrator(s) can be alerted to this issue on user talk or AN/I. An administrator who would procedurally close this [the nominated deletion discussion] as a disruptive nomination would have my endorsement in doing so (not that she/he would need it...). — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To frame this as a "conduct issue" is harsh. It is in fact a matter in which an inexperienced user has made a procedure mistake. Indianfootball98 has identified a problematic AfD, and it's led to a decision that we should review; the problem is that the review is in the wrong place, at AfD rather than DRV; so let's simply move it here with the minimum of process and fuss.—S Marshall T/C 14:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm just basing my comment on what's said in the nomination. If something is framed as disruptive it's a conduct issue by definition even if there's no bad faith behind it. I wouldn't bring the past deletion discussion into question based on this nomination. I'd procedurally close this DRV [and also procedurally close the ongoing AfD, which is what I referred to by "administrative action" in previous which is probably not the best term to use here] and possibly direct Indianfootball98 to start a DRV of that AfD. I might be wrong but it doesn't seem realistic that we'll have a workable DRV of the keep AfD in this section. Edit: I'd also direct Indianfootball98 to possibly start a new AfD in cca. 5 months, as an alternative to starting a new DRV. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z number documentation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

(doc page as a stand-in for all the others). Unexplained close. When pressed for an explanation, closer openly admits that they basically just counted votes, and the reminder of their reasoning is not satisfying. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse This TfD concerns 208 numbered (identical) templates of a technical nature, made to "conveniently" compensate for something lacking in 2009, said to be redundant to a better-designed software functionality that exists in 2021. When templates are found to be redundant they are commonly deleted: this is a valid reason to delete per WP:TFD#REASONS. There isn't a much more controlling norm here, it comes down to common practices. The motive of the delete side is obviously to delete redundant templates. This doesn't make their !votes ILIKEIT like you said on the closer's talk. On the other hand, keep advocacy based on "If it ain't broken, don't fix it" does not appear to be in concord with the spirit of TfD, and I can easily see why the closer would not weigh it very favorably. There was a more substantial keep argument, in that "What links here" is a more convenient and reliable way to search... but this argument glosses over the results of the discussion (which was good and thorough), where it was shown that great many of the templates are actually unused... which is another reason to delete. It was said how the mass deletion will require hundreds of thousands of technical edits, but not much was made of this fact advocacy-wise; would that really be a reason not to delete? It does not proceed from what was said. When I read the close, and the closer's replies on his talk page, the only idea that I get about what his approach to determining consensus could have been is -- seeing typical TfD delete arguments, based on well-regarded practices, coming from the delete majority, that were unrefuted by the keep minority, in a fairly thorough discussion. So when the closer says There is no detailed explanation because there was nothing complicated by this close. I completely understand him. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  As the close, this appears to ignore the counter-argument made at the TfD (so, no, not "unrefuted") that this template was not, in fact, redundant to something better made, since Special:WhatLinksHere is just as easy or even easier to use (and allows for other functionalities too). And WP:AINTBROKE might not be policy, but it's pretty much valid advice in a lot of places, so saying that this is not in the spirit of TfD (while a delete result on a widely used tracking template actually does create just that, lots of not-broken things to be removed....) doesn't seem accurate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Kindly take a look at the upper-middle part of my comment again, where I mention this counter-argument. You didn't say anything as to how the templates are in great many cases unused. How can WhatLinksHere work if the templates aren't even used? (...which they aren't because they were filtered out as each corresponding substituted template was updated... which is indicative of WP:EDITCON). WP:AINTBROKE is in collision with TfD practices (where things that are not broken are regularly "fixed" i.e. deleted or merged). If we are to make a thought experiment to consider these conventions as competing, the more specific context of TfD would be more relevant than generic context of that essay. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not suprising that some are unused now that they're being mass removed for the last 10 days. That's not, however, an argument for deleting all of them; some are still in use; ex. Template:Z200 (and this was also reflected in keep arguments, i.e. "keep all, save for deprecated". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Many were already unused while the discussion was ongoing, there's a specific thread on that (...among other comments: "Just checked templates connected with {{Z9}} – {{Z20}} in the doc page, and the only one that still contains a Z-template is {{Help me-nq}} (Z20), and there's no point notifying its creator, because their last edit was in 2011.).

  "keep all, save for deprecated" would have actually resulted in many unused z templates being retained. Unused template with no prospects is also a reason to delete per WP:TFD#REASONS. No one said that there are prospects to restore the z templates to where they were formerly included. The idea to delete only some of the templates while essentially retaining the schema is only cosmetically different from a pure keep !vote; the specific comment you refer to was also (like yours) an argument that WhatLinksHere is more handy, but it couldn't have been more handy when many of the templates are unused. In connection to all of this, I can't see how a closer would not find significant agreement around the entire z template schema being redundant and in large segments already inoperative and unsalvageable. Since this now probably looks like relitigating (I don't think it truly is but regardless), I'll stop here. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually WP:AINTBROKE is never a valid advice. It's something that is mostly thrown around to block any change. A real argument explains why something should not be changed. Gonnym (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Whatever's decided here, can we please not have hundreds of thousands more technical edits putting them back? —Cryptic 19:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I was involved in the discussion in that TfD but didn't formally !vote, as I saw some values in also leaving them. The closer was correct in their valuation of the discussion. Gonnym (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There was a 6:3 majority in favor of deleting, and no strong basis on which to downweight that numerical consensus. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, the administrator was within discretion even if the arguments for keeping were stronger than they are. --Izno (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have very little clue as to what this is about. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Robert McClenon: Closer here. The problem addressed by the z-number templates is that usage of substituted templates (particularly user warnings) cannot be tracked through what links here due to the nature of substitution. The z-number templates are included in the target template; they add no visible text, but allow usage to be tracked of the z-number and hence indirectly usage of the template they are in. The de facto way of identifying the template a warning comes from nowadays is to include hidden text within it stating the template name. In the early days of Wikipedia, the search engine was not very sophisticated and would not be able to find this text, but can easily do so now. The argument at the TFD was between those who wanted to delete the templates as no longer necessary and those who argued they do no harm and preferred to search with what links here rather than the search engine. SpinningSpark 09:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you very much for that summary, it was very useful. Jclemens (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Clear consensus at TFD. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse While I wasn't super excited about this deletion, it is undoubtably the consensus. While consensus determination isn't just about !vote counting it is the best way to handle decisions when the arguments on both sides are of the same strength. This was the case here. It was clearly demonstrated that just using html comments was a usable solutions and some (quite weak) benefits with deletion were presented and the opposition gave some reasons why the old way was somewhat easier. --Trialpears (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse, clear consensus for deletion. Frietjes (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I didn't come across this TfD until my watchlist started blowing up with all the removals. As much as I'm not particularly pleased to see that and wish it had been given more attention in the discussion, I have to concur with those above that the reading of consensus seems to have been fine. An invite to more widely watched page might have been nice, given the scale of the nomination, but it still seems to have gotten adequate participation (and, with the caveat that I'm a semi-regular at TfD, I wouldn't say that it has major issues that would require drawing in the broader community). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]