-
Cheshire Cat in popular culture (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) (
restore|
cache|
AfD,
2)
Black Kite closed
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheshire Cat in popular culture (2nd nomination) as a "delete"; however, regardless of whether any of us believe
the article in question should or should not have been kept, the discussion itself did not have a clear consensus. Those arguing to keep and those arguing to delete went back and forth without convincing each other one way or the other. TEN editors in good standing argued to keep in this second AfD for an article that when previously AfDed closed as "no consensus". Three others argued to merge. As the discussion progressed editors actively worked to improve the article in question and thus some of those who initially argued to delete did not state whether or not the improvements were enough to change their stances. While AfDs may not be votes, such support for a keep or merge suggests insufficient reason or consensus for deleting. Moreover, given the back and forth nature of the discussion itself, I simply cannot see any other read of the discussion than "no consensus". I would certainly not say it resulted in "keep," even though I argued to "keep," but neither did it decisively result in an uncontroversial "delete". Please note as well that I am NOT the only one to have contested this AfD. Please see
User_talk:Black_Kite/Archive16. Two editors asked the deleting admin about the close and yet neither one of us received a response. Please note that I waited three days for a response before starting the discussion and because a second editor had also questioned the close, I am taking that as justification for initiating this thread. You will notice that the close occurred alongside a close for another article that was contested and undone. As a side question of etiquette, the deleting admin has since deleted his userpage and regular talk page and so I am not sure if I should still put a DRV notice or if I should respect that the talk page was deleted? In any event, whether or not anyone us want the article kept or deleted, we should be able to acknowledge that the discussion itself did not result in either side convincing the other and had strong arguments and determined proponents on both sides so that the discussion did not decisively result in a clear consensus one way or the other. I am not sure that relisting would necessarily change that and therefore respectfully request that the close be overturned and instead closed as "no consensus." Sincerely,
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Tally-ho! 01:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Restore as no consensus--which probably represents the state of things for the view on Wikipedia for most articles of this sort. When I applied for adminship, I was asked whether I would close afds according to my own view of the issue. I replied that of course I would not--that if I had a position on the matter I would argue, not close, and close only things where I was personally indifferent except where there was a really obvious consensus one way or another. and that's what I've done. i was confirmed almost without opposition, and if I had said otherwise, i would not have deserved to be confirmed at all. I recommend this attitude to other admins--in fact, I think it's the attitude required for all admins., The closer has made it abundantly clear at various discussions that he does not approve of IPC and fiction articles unless they meet very high requirements. A perfect defensible view, though I do not agree with it--but in that case it should have been argued, and someone else left to close. What would people have thought of me if I had closed this afd the way I wanted it to come out?
DGG (
talk) 02:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- If we count numbers, 9 supported keeping the article, and 18 (15 supporting deletion, 3 supporting merging) supported removal of the content as its own article (one supported keeping or merging). Removal of the content has the majority support here. If we then look at the number of people who, after LGRDSC's continued debate and arguments, remained in support of removal of the content, we see that the majority of people do not agree in this instance with LGRDC and others' interpretation of relevant policies and guidelines. Policies/Guidelines regarding fiction are much debated (as everyone in this conversation as of now knows very well); therefore, we cannot appeal to the "backed by policy" aspect of our purported
consensus policy. Numbers will play a larger factor. When I consider that the majority (numbers) of the participants in this discussion clearly evaluated their interpretations of the P&Gs (by the never-ending discussions with LGRDC about them) as well as the interpretations of those who disagree, and maintained (policy) their support for deletion, I believe that this discussion has a consensus for deletion. As for the closer, (who has left the project for a while, and so will probably not be commenting here), his has merely made his opinions on articles such as these more public than some. Perhaps he should not have closed a debate about an article type of which he has made his opinion public. But administrators are selected because the community deems them able to use the tools in a judicious and neutral manner. If there are concerns that Black Kite does not use his position judiciously and neutrally, as the community has deemed him able to do, then they need to be addressed discussing his ability to be an administrator at all, not used as a tool to discredit a particular AfD closure. And, for the record, I have no such concerns.
seresin (
¡? ) 05:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Three supporting merging is still supporting some part of the content somewhere, and thus does not support outright deletion, which precludes merger under the GFDL. Even so, a
supermajority is still not
consensus, and ignoring arguments simply because they are in a minority, especially when that minority is made up of a significant number of established Wikipedians making reasoned arguments based on policy, is not a proper way to close an AfD. Finally, one cannot normally show that an administrator is acting improperly without showing a pattern of individual instances, and each of these instances need to first be judged in the normal way (i.e. AfDs judged through DRV). And since the administrator has already had himself desysopped, that point is moot anyway.
DHowell (
talk) 05:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- You are correct in stating that a supermajority is not consensus. This is because our consensus policy stipulates that comments must also be taken with respect to policy. Policy is not clear on this issue – else we would not be having this discussion. Numbers do play a significant role in consensus, especially when there is no clear-cut policy. I am not suggesting we "ignore" the arguments of a significant minority; however, there can still be a significant amount of dissension and have consensus (for instance, in RfAs with <75% support). If policy and guidelines are either not clear, or have differing interpretations (for which
WP:N is notorious) numbers play a role.
seresin (
¡? ) 06:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I don't think an RfA is really analogus to an AfD. One (RfA) is for promoting someone; the other (AfD) is for a last resort. Something as decisive as an AfD when at worst a legitimate redirect location (
Cheshire Cat) exists and when a good deal of editors had worked on the article and when admins and established editors argue to keep should not end as anything but "no consensus." Deletion is saying that there is absolutely no reasonable chance the article in question can or will be improved. The article was not a copy vio, was not completely unreferenced, was not libelous, etc. and thus there was no pressing immediate concern to delete the article altogether righ then and there. Best, --
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Tally-ho! 06:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- If we go by numbers in support of the article, then we need to include not just those who argued to delete in the AfD, but also the
more numerous number of editors who created and worked on the article in question in good faith for over a year as also obviously believing the article sufficiently met our disputed policies and guidelines to be kept. Plus, it does not help when some of those who posted multiple times to delete in the discussion have stated that it is their
mission to delete and that they will
would not argue to keep in any AFDs and so if such accounts keep arguing to delete after improvements we cannot really take that as meaning the improvements were somehow insufficient. Thus, there was/is no reasonable way to see a consensus for deletion in that discussion. Sincerely, --
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Tally-ho! 05:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and restore as no consensus. The closer's stated rationale merely echoed the nominator's assertions, and seemed to reflect personal opinion, rather than showing any evidence that the decision was based on the rather lengthy discussion and policy. Merely stating something is "blatant original research" does not make it so, especially against clear and reasoned arguments to the contrary. The improvements made to the article and many reliable sources were simply ignored, rather than addressed in the closing. Ongoing arguments by established editors based on policy were being made on both sides, clearly showing no consensus. At the time of closing, the closer's own userpage also expressed concerns about Wikipedia becoming "a compendium of every piece of trivia ever written", which seems to reflect a personal view favoring one side of the debate. As DGG says, administrators should not close AfDs according to their own views, but should base closings on the actual discussion. And even the closer admitted there was some (even if "(very) little") encyclopedic content in this article, which should have at least resulted in a merge and redirect rather than deletion.
DHowell (
talk) 05:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and restore, there was no consensus here.
Everyking (
talk) 05:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse DRV is not AFD2 and there is no substantial policy based reason why this deletion should not stand.
Spartaz
Humbug! 07:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- No one is approaching this discussion as "AfD2", but because the close did not follow deletion policy, i.e. the discussion totally lacked consensus and thus per deletion instructions it should have been closed as "no consensus". The additional concern here is that two editors (not just myself) requested clarification from the deleting admin who did not respond to either after a few days, who had improperly closed a different AfD at practically the same time that was also challenged, and who has since resigned his adminship. Plus, the close itself even says "information that could possibly be encyclopedic can be included in the main article," which is really a call for a
merge and redirect without deletion as such material cannot be added as he suggests if the article is deleted and if it is added as the close suggests then per the GFDL, we need to keep the contribution history public. Sincerely, --
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Tally-ho! 07:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
While I disagree with the existence of any "in popular culture" articles and, with no ill-will or disrespect intended, LGRdC seems to be showing up very regularly here at DRV, I will have to say overturn and restore, no consensus was the correct result.
Stifle (
talk) 10:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I agree that it's been awhile since we've had such a passionate inclusionist emerge, but I personally welcome it. There are far too many deletionists not to have someone of LGRdC's nature around. --
Dragon695 (
talk) 19:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I've changed my mind. Endorse deletion but permit access to the content (restoring as a redirect as necessary) so that it can be merged to
Cheshire cat.
Stifle (
talk) 09:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse DRV is not AFD2 and deletion was based upon clear failings of the article to meet core content policies. --
Allen3
talk 12:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- No one is approaching this discussion as "AfD2", but because the close did not follow deletion policy, i.e. the discussion totally lacked consensus and thus per deletion instructions it should have been closed as "no consensus". The additional concern here is that two editors (not just myself) requested clarification from the deleting admin who did not respond to either after a few days, who had improperly closed a different AfD at practically the same time that was also challenged, and who has since resigned his adminship. Plus, the close itself even says "information that could possibly be encyclopedic can be included in the main article," which is really a call for a
merge and redirect without deletion as such material cannot be added as he suggests if the article is deleted and if it is added as the close suggests then per the GFDL, we need to keep the contribution history public. Sincerely, --
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Tally-ho! 16:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- LGrdC - copy-and-pasting yourself from just a couple of comments up is unnecessary. Other editors have asked you to hold back on responding to every comment on XfDs, and I'm adding my voice to them. The admin(s) reviewing this will see your first comment, and they and the other folks participating here are probably smart enough to realize that a response to one !vote can apply just as well to others. I can't speak for Allen3, but even a "please see my response above" would to me be preferable than cloning your material. --
EEMIV (
talk) 05:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I suppose the "please see my response above" is a reasonable suggestion. I suppose it is just frustrating/confusing when I see comments made that seem to ignore a comment made earlier in a discussion. Best, --
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Tally-ho! 05:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Comment:This discussion may have been influenced by
WP:CANVASing. Requester has notified a WikiProject which aims to preserve "In popular culture" and "Trivia"-type information
[15] and a user which has previously expressed an opinion on this article supportive of the requestor's.
[16] Corresponding notification effortss to the admin which closed the AfD, users which have expressed views differing from the requester's, or other locations such as
Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup appear to not yet have occurred. --
Allen3
talk 16:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- We typically notify relevant wikiprojects of deletion related discussions and notifying another editor who also asked the deleting admin about the discussion is also acceptable. I did not notify the deleting admin as he had deleted his talk page and if you read my nomination above you would have seen that I asked if in such a case we just respect that or if we post a message that is not likely to be responded to. Sincerely, --
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Tally-ho! 18:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse. Closure was a reasonable reading of consensus and not a breach of deletion policy.
Deor (
talk) 13:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
Overturn Consensus wasn't there in this AFD, and unlike so many IPC AFDs, there was an attempt to demonstrate sources actually on the topic of "X in popular culture" - these are the relevant sources, so there is no reason for deletion from overriding policy. (The ability to engage in original research and cite "X appeared in media Z" is irrelvant.) However, my opinion is only a weak overturn because the article was not written from those sources and was not on its topic, it was merely yet another laundry list of "X appeared in media Z" claims. The only part of this article that a good article on the topic would have retained is the lead; the entire rest of the article was material for the cutting room floor, and its continued inclusion is going to lead to AFD#3 eventually.
GRBerry 14:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC) See below for new preference.
GRBerry 17:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
reply- Endorse - it's always a difficult task, closing these sorts of discussions and invariably someone is going to be upset and contest it in one way or another. It might have been nice to see a little more clarification in the closure, particularly when dealing with such contentious topics and debates, but ultimately I do not see where the closure was in error or a misreading of consensus.
Sher
eth 17:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The close was in error, because the close rationale states that "information that could possibly be encyclopedic can be included in the main article." In order to merge such information, the article needs to be restored and redirected without deletion. Plus, the incredible difference in arguments on both sides of the discussion reveal a clear lack of consensus one way or the other. Deletion is a last resort and something that we do not do when there is significant opposition and when as in this case editors are actively working to improve the article in question. Sincerely, --
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Tally-ho! 17:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Userfy in preparation for merge. It's pretty obvious that the merge = keep argument is only being pushed as it results in a keep, and is a gaming of the Afd process. As can be seen by the changes in the article between Afd 1 and 2, no one is activeley working on it to improve it without the impetus of a deletion threat, so to make sure it is trimmed down properly in preparation for the clear consensus for keeping as a start point for mergeing, it should be userfied. I sincerely doubt, given the principled nature of the debate here, that anyone is actually willing to volunteer to do this though, so if not, endorse. WP:NOTFINISHED cannot be gamed as a way to permanently keep what has been assessed as a poor quality list of trivia, with the same people turning up time and again on principle that wikipedia is a specialist trivia server, and then disappearing again until the next Afd.
MickMacNee (
talk) 17:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- if you want to argue that we should as a general matter of policy consider a merge decision as equivalent to a delete, I just might agree with you once we have a chance to explore all the ramifications. But as regards this particular situation, wikipedia is a server of a great many things in a comprehensive way, and that will necessarily include a good deal that any one person here will consider unjustifiable trivia.
128.112.203.68 (
talk) 20:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- 'Trivial relationship' is realy not a hard concept to define for a large number of rational and objective people. We are talking about an article linking a Japanese cartoon bus and a word uttered by a Prison Break character here. Anybody on the 'wikipedia can store anything' listification crusade surely has more important articles to make a fuss about than this.
MickMacNee (
talk) 20:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and restore No consensus to delete. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk) 17:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and restore This was an obvious failure to appropriately judge consensus. --
Dragon695 (
talk) 19:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and restore No consensus to delete. Cheers,
Casliber (
talk ·
contribs) 21:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and restore Did not seem to be closed in accordance with
WP:DGFA#Deciding whether to delete, especially points 2 and 4.
Colonel Warden (
talk) 21:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Regarding point two, whose feelings do you believe the closing admin did not take into account? The "losing" side of an AFD is probably always going to feel some level of upset with the decision; that does not demonstrate in the slightest that the closing admin ignored their feelings or concerns. As for point four "when in doubt, don't delete," unless you have the heretofore unrevealed ability to read minds, you have no standing for saying that the closing admin had any doubt in the closure.
Otto4711 (
talk) 22:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The protracted discussion merited a reasonably judicious summing up but the closer gave no sign that he had even read the discussion and he did not address any of the points made. Instead, he just seemed to state his own opinion. Such a close is unsatisfactory since the losing side will feel that their statements have not been considered. This is the point of item 2 - that justice must only be done, it must be seen to be done. Regarding point 4, reasonable doubt clearly existed even if one only considers the closer's statement, which as noted above, stated that the article had some encyclopedic content.
Colonel Warden (
talk) 22:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- You are making assumptions about the closer's actions and intentions with no factual basis. You are also misrepresenting the closing statement. Black Kite did not say that the article had encyclopedic content. He said that some of the content "could possibly be" encyclopedic and that the amount of such information was "(very) small." Since that content was split from the main article, it can be restored from the main article's history.
Otto4711 (
talk) 23:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Or he could be referring to the new material added during the AfD that was not split off from the main article and that in order to merge, we would need to restore the article to retrieve it. Sincerely, --
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Tally-ho! 23:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Nonsense. Just add the material from the same sources again. The content doesn't have to be lifted word for word from the deleted article.
Otto4711 (
talk) 23:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- It's much easier and more considerate to other users to restore the article and redirect rather than forcing editors to relook for the material they had already worked on. Sincerely, --
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Tally-ho! 23:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse - Yes it was a very long and complex discussion, but the closing admin's conclusion seems to be as substantially correct as the topic allows. Procedure was followed properly and there is no valid reason to overturn.
Doc
Tropics 22:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The conclusion is that some of it could be merged, which can't be done if the article is deleted. Thus, there is no valid reason not to overturn. Sincerely, --
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Tally-ho! 23:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and restore - no consensus is the proper answer. --
Rocksanddirt (
talk) 22:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse closure - as Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles really ought to know by now, AFD is not a vote, so his arguments based on the number of editors who argued in favor of any particular action is irrelevant, as is the
effort put into the article either before or during the AFD. A thousand editors can edit an article and a thousand more can argue in its favor at AFD, but it the strength of the arguments that counts. The fact that no one arguing for deletion voiced an opinion on whether the supposed improvements to the article were sufficient to change their minds is also irrelevant. Editors are not required to monitor the article for changes during the AFD and voice further opinion on them. And despite the effort put in during the AFD, the simple fact remains that not a single source was offered during its course that was substantively about the topic of the article, which was "Cheshire Cat in popular culture." Sourcing individual mentions of the Cheshire Cat in popular culture, or possible mentions of the Cheshire Cat, or uses of phrases like "Cheshire smile" or "chessy smile," does not demonstrate that the overall topic of the article, "Cheshire Cat in popular culture," is notable. The list of sightings is compiled and the sightings are used as the basis of the argument that "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" is a legitimate topic for Wikipedia because of all of the mentions or sort of mentions or possible mentions that might not be. This is
original research by synthesis. The closing admin correctly deleted the article in the absence of any substantive response to the blatant policy violations set forth in the nomination. DRV, which Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles also ought to know by now, is not AFD round two. The article does not need to be restored for merger because the content was split from the main article in the first place, so it's already in the history.
Otto4711 (
talk) 22:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- If you believe that the strongest argument should prevail, regardless of how much or how little support it has, then you don't believe in consensus.
Everyking (
talk) 22:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
- So you'd suggest that an article that violates Wikipedia policy should be kept if enough people say it should be?
Otto4711 (
talk) 23:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
-
- It is consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on popular culture (thus our First pillar) and was not original research as it contained references and did not advance a thesis. Sincerely, --
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Tally-ho! 00:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, yes, you made this claim repeatedly in the AFD and now that it has been rejected there you're trying to fly it here. AFD round two. And has been pointed out to you so many times that it's pathetic that you still try to argue it, the Pillars are not policy. Let me repeat that one more time: The Pillars are not policy.
Otto4711 (
talk) 10:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
- Clearly, a number of editors and the closind admin disagreed.
Otto4711 (
talk) 19:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
- What we clearly had was a failure of those wanting the article kept both to overcome the arguments in favor of deletion and in finding reliable sources substantively about the topic "Cheshire Cat in popular culture." o here we are again, watching you try for another bite at the apple.
Otto4711 (
talk) 20:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
- Just because a particular books contains all four of the words "Cheshire," "Cat," "popular" and "culture" does not mean that the book is a reliable source that established the notability of the concept "Cheshire Cat in popular culture. You can find a source that includes pretty much any combination of words. Look here's
299 sources that are about Hitler and his love of crochet. Oh wait, they aren't about that at all, they merely use the words "Hitler" and "crochet" at some point between their covers. There is a reason why the
Google test is an unpersuasive argument and you've amply demonstrated that reason time and again.
Otto4711 (
talk) 23:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The particular books concerning the Cheshire cat and popular culture do not merely contain all four words but places them together in the context presented in the article in question, which is why your argument is unpersuasive. Sincerely, --
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Tally-ho! 23:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Simply reading even the snippets from the books demonstrate that they are not substantively about the topic "Cheshire Cat in popular culture." They are the same old collection of single-sentence mentions in passing of the cat or comparing someone's smile to the cat's and the like. Still not one source that demonstrates the notability of "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" as a concept.
Otto4711 (
talk) 03:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Restore, no consensus to delete.
Naerii 22:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse closure (keep deleted). While this was clearly a contentious discussion, the job of a closer is more than merely to count noses. Closers are expected to weight the expressed opinions based on a number of factors including the relevant policy(ies) and precedent. Even then, it can be a difficult call. This closure was just within the acceptable range of administrator discretion. I would, however, encourage the closer to explain his/her reasoning in greater detail when the case is this close.
Rossami
(talk) 23:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- He has retired.
MickMacNee (
talk) 23:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Closers should not calculate a weighted vote either. What they are to look for is consensus. Where opinion is deeply divided with many editors in both camps then we obviously do not have consensus. The closer does not get a casting vote or the unilateral right to impose his own interpretation of policy. Note also that we seem unlikely to get any kind of explanation since the closer seems disaffected and has started folding his tent. My impression is that his close was a Parthian shot, made in a
pointy way - another reason to consider it defective.
Colonel Warden (
talk) 23:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I disagree rather strongly about "consensus". It doesn't matter how many people agree about something in an AfD if it contradicts policy. If 100 editors claim an article should be kept because "we keep worse articles than this", and 3 editors make valid arguments based in relevant policy, guess who wins? Not consensus....
Doc
Tropics 23:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Sure, but in this case the article satisfied policies and even the closer said some of it was encyclopedic (which is part of the issue here, the close rationale had elements of merge in it and was not an unambiguous delete). Sincerely, --
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Tally-ho! 23:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The closer said that a "(very) small amount of information...could possibly be encyclopedic." And that very small amount of content can be restored from the history of the main article.
Otto4711 (
talk) 23:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- No it cannot, because that material was added to the article in question during the AfD and not split off from the main article. Sincerely, --
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Tally-ho! 23:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Since the closing admin did not specify what content he meant, you can't say with any degree of certainty that it was material added during AFD that was being referenced.
Otto4711 (
talk) 07:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Some additional thoughts. 1) The closer's retirement is irrelevant. (My comment about explaining the closure rationale in greater detail was intended as a general comment, not a specific admonition.) 2) Closers are required by policy and precedent to weight the opinions expressed. Opinions which are consistent with policy or demonstrated facts get greater weight than opinions which are not. 3) The question of whether the material which was added during the AFD discussion is encyclopedic deserves consideration. LGRdC believe that it is encyclopedic. Otto4711 disagrees. My interpretation of the closer's comments leads me to believe that he/she disagreed too and that the potentially encyclopedic content was to be found in other content. Having reviewed the deleted versions immediately before the addition of the AFD tag and immediately before deletion, I personally do not see any added content that I would consider encyclopedic or appropriate to merge to another article. 4) While merge and redirect is far and away the most common way to satisfy GFDL when content is moved, it is not the only option available to us. When only very small content is being moved, it is occasionally easier to satisfy GFDL by attributing the content either in the edit summary or via the destination article's Talk page. I am not sure whether that scenario applies here but it is a legal option to the project.
Rossami
(talk) 04:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Just as a note, more than just Otto4711 and I disagree about the encyclopedic content. As the
edit history shows, in addition to me, Colonel Warden, John Z, and DHowell were also in the process of improving the article in question prior to deletion and I believe they like me would still continue to improve of the relevant content. As you can see
here, whether userfied or not, I still work on articles that I believe in after the deletion discussion ends and fortunately sometimes others help as well. Also, part of my concern with this close is that it occurred alongside another questionable close (closed an AfD as delete after two days when editors had argued to keep); that one was already successfully undone. Then when two users asked the deleting admin about the close, which could have prevented the deletion review discussion, neither received a response and shortly after the admin
left, resigned the tools, and deleted userpage and talk page. I don't see any harm in say restoring and redirecting so that if those working on it do have additional sources then they can add them or if some content can be added then it will be. If we do that, then I see the potential to improve our coverage, whereas if we don't, I see no gain or benefit, but rather a lost opportunity. Best, --
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Tally-ho! 04:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse I was one of the perpetrators of heated argument in that AfD. We can see that a count was made in the AfD as well as here, leaving us with 9 deletes and 15 deletes. We can add the "merge" votes in either column. I feel the editors voting "merge" did so in good faith, as did the editors exhorting people to merge. However, we cannot declare that this had no basis in policy nor no (rough) consensus. First, consensus. Consensus isn't unanimity. A simple majorty isn't consensus (neither is a supermajority). But somewhere along the continuum from majority to unanimity lies the judgment call for consensus. There were a range of opinions expressed in the AfD, some of whom commented and left. Some of whom continued the discussion until the end. Some of us might have been persuaded only by overwhelming evidence one way or the other. Some of us might have been on the edge. We can't know who was where without peering into their hearts. I cannot promise you with any more force that one editor would forever vote to delete than another editor could promise you that I would vote forever to keep. Despite this limitation, we cannot allow holdout votes to drive the debate. I would suspect that the best way to look at this would be to see which positions were independent, grounded in some appeal to policy (or some strong appeal to reason), and not perfunctory. Tally those up and see where you are. Second, policy. I stand by my policy arguments made in the afd and even though this isn't AfD2, I think they are valid here. The mentions of the article subject in reliable sources were thin at best and likely trivial. A number of the secondary sources cited and available to me through a university library service (I can't personally speak to the "Lewis Carroll in pop culture" volume, but other editors noted its tenuous connection to the article premise) either did not mention the subject at all (Cheshire Cat in popular culture) or mentioned it trivially in connection to another subject. as for the wording of the deletion rationale, that is an issue to take up with the admin, should he/she return. Mentioning that some of the less trivial information could make its way into the main article is not cause enough to overturn the deletion debate and bring about a similar kerfuffle about merging the few lines of content that might have some merit. Also, just because the closer didn't mention policy doesn't mean that the article met WP:NOT, WP:OR, or WP:N. The judgment on that one will have to be made by individuals with access to the page itself in the form in which it was deleted.
Protonk (
talk) 00:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- This DRV is not AfD round two, as
someone else (notice the edit summary) had already started that discussion several days ago... Wikipedia is foremost an encyclopedia and as such a compendium of encyclopedic knowledge. If editors believe in good faith that material can be merged as suggested even by the closing admin then we merge and redirect. Deletion is an extreme last resort and there is no urgent last resort need to delete in this case. The article met what Wikipedia is, was unoriginal research, and was a notable topic. Sincerely, --
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Tally-ho! 00:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- There really is no need to respond to every single thing that every single person says, especially if all you're going to do is regurgitate the same "this is what Wikipedia is" stuff over and over again. It has been explained to you repeatedly that your collection of essays on "what Wikipedia is" has no force of policy or guideline but merely represent the opinions of the people who wrote them. I could write an essay that says Wikipedia is a balloon bouquet and it doesn't mean anyone has to pay any attention to it.
Otto4711 (
talk) 10:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Over turn and merge to one of the suggested merge targets. The article doesn't meet notability guidelines, but some of this would be high quality content in if located in
Works influenced by Alice in Wonderland. --
Nick
Penguin(
contribs) 00:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- IIRC, none of it was with the possible exception of American McGee's alice, the entry for which contained little more than a mention that the Cheshire cat was gaunt and emaciated.
Protonk (
talk) 02:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and restore Clearly there was no consensus. The discussion was active when it was aborted with arguments unresolved, and there were some possible avenues open to improve the article.
John Z (
talk) 05:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The discussion was open for five days, which is how long AFD discussions run. That you feel the discussion was "aborted" by the expiration of the standard AFD timeframe is not relevant to the DRV. If you disagree with the five day timeframe, take it up at
Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion.
Otto4711 (
talk) 10:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- This is also the problem. The advocates of these trivial lists as part of wikipedia's mission as a specialist encyclopoedia only turn up to develop them when they are up for deletion, as explained in the nomination. Not that this topic is save-able as an article, but that's beside the point. This is wholly gaming the principle of WP:NOTFINISHED to extend the life of inherently unworthy topics.
MickMacNee (
talk) 10:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Lets not spread misinformation about people interested in Popular culture content. Interested Wikipedians do more than just "turn up [...] when they are up for deletion". --
Nick
Penguin(
contribs) 13:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Interesting that you should post that project. Looking at the member list, a lot of Afd comments and voting patterns now make even more sense. As for the not just turning up at Afd comment, I looked at the last two pages of the edit history of the project front page (back to 10 April), the overwhelming majority of edits involve updating the articles facing deletion/deletion review section, with a smattering of 'why we are here' type edits. The actual amount of activity in the article improvement section pales by comparison.
- On a brief sample, I could not see a listing for this specific article anywhere in the front page history, other than regarding its imminent deletion. Granted the project wasn't even in existence after its first Afd, where assertions were made that it could and would be improved, but it was setup up just two months later. Surely someone should have listed it for improvement? Perhaps there was a project talk page discussion about how to improve it? I could not find it in the talk page or the archive (again, I did find a deletion alert about it though). I don't have any objection to well written articles, or improving articles with merit. I've even without knowing it edited a few of the project's articles.
- So if you're going to simply use the existence of this project as a rebuttal to my analysis of what's going down here, I'm afraid I will have to reserve the right to spread my "misinformation" about the evident practice of the defence of specialist trivia list hosting on principle alone, in conjunction with gaming WP:NOTFINISHED/merge=keep at Afd, and how this practice compares to the treatment of content at Afd from the rest of the wiki. Maybe with more time in the improvement section on articles with merit, and less time at Afd for any arbitrary topic with the trigger phrase in the title, then the project might manage more than 2 GAs. 14:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
MickMacNee (
talk) 14:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- If I'm not mistaken, this article hadn't even been tagged by the WikiProject or given an assessment when it was nominated for deletion, so it's no surprise to me that it didn't make the main project page. I don't want to deny your analysis, you make some good points, but you are not presenting an accurate reflection of everything the group does, only what you experience most often at AfD (did you go through the page histories of all the articles under the scope, maybe you'd see more work being done). EDIT And if editors are making arguments from "principle alone", then this is a practice that should stop. Having principles to guide your actions are good, but having nothing more substantial with which to follow is bad. --
Nick
Penguin(
contribs) 20:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Everyone is welcome to see that list--I watchlist some pages of workgroups whose principles I do not altogether agree with in order to contribute my own views. All that's necessary to join a group is to not deliberately interfere, just as everywhere else at Wikipedia. A project devoted to improving articles facing deletion is a very good thing, whether or not I particularly like the sort of articles involved. I remind Mike once again of WP:Deletion policy-- deletion is the last resort. Everyone should want to improve articles if they are improvable. How can anyone oppose doing that?
DGG (
talk) 16:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and restore - No clear consensus. Besides, it appears to have just been a spin-off of the parent article, which would warrant a redirect/merge. --
Explodicle (
T/
C) 16:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and restore - No clear consensus. -
Peregrine Fisher (
talk) (
contribs) 18:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and restore. I'm going to be blunt about it: Black Kite's closure comes across every bit like a pronouncement -- a personal assessment of the article and not an assessment of consensus. At the time of the AfD, he was in the midst of on-again-off-again wikiretirement over frustration with other users over issues I believe were related those that were at stake in the AfD. (Evidence of this could be found in the recent history of
User talk:Black Kite, except that he deleted that page on his way out. That deletion was also improper, as his talk page was not "the work of one author".)--
Father Goose (
talk) 01:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I can't help but speculate that it might have been this type of action that drove him into retirement (I'm not smearing you or the nomination itself, rather he seemed put out by wikilawyering in general--being put out by wikilawyering is his problem not anyone else's).
Protonk (
talk) 02:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- What are you suggesting is wikilawering in this case? This DRV? It certainly isn't on my part. The principle here is that if Black Kite closed the AfD according to his views instead of evaluating the discussion, it makes a mockery of the AfD discussion process itself. Given the language he used in his closure and the kinds of frustrations he was venting in concert with his departure, he was not the right admin to close the AfD. I'd accept a re-evaluation (and re-closure) by any admin capable of acting objectively; Black Kite, at the time of the closure, was not that admin. Frustration is endemic to Wikipedia editing, and I on that level I sympathize, but it's not an excuse for misuse of admin rights.--
Father Goose (
talk) 19:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. The statement(s) in question on Black Kite's talk page were, "This was supposed to be a Free Encyclopedia - but is rapidly turning it into a compendium of every piece of trivia ever written, complemented with lashings of copyright abuse. Administering this isn't enjoyable at the moment, so I'm having a break from it.Black Kite 20:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)" (I was able to retrieve this via Google's cache, but it would be better if
User talk:Black Kite were temporarily restored for the purpose of this DRV.) That statement, and very similar language in his closure, very strongly suggest to me that Black Kite did not heed the debate but just closed the AfD according to his tastes, retiring from Wikipedia shortly after, at which time he deleted his talk page which contained the above comment. Black Kite was not neutral on this issue and he should not have been the one to close this AfD.--
Father Goose (
talk) 04:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Follow-up. Finally found the comments in question, and when Black Kite deleted them:
[17]. Black Kite deleted them a day after closing the AfD, shortly after users raised objections to his closure on his talk page. The comments were part of a transcluded header that appeared on his talk page.--
Father Goose (
talk) 08:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- To ask a meta question, what happens if the DRV fails to reach a consensus? :P
Protonk (
talk) 02:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
- Really? A no consensus DRV results in the reversal of the original decision? I'm not being confrontational here, I really don't know (DRV is kind of a new thing for me, so many layers!).
Protonk (
talk) 03:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
- That is incorrect. According to the rules established with Deletion Review was founded, an inability to establish consensus here defaults to the status quo. It almost never happens though, and is unlikely to happen in this case.
Rossami
(talk) 20:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
- There is insufficient consensus for the course of action you suggest.
Otto4711 (
talk) 13:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- There is overwhelming consensus in this case to overturn the close as either merge and redirect and no consensus. --Happy editing! Sincerely,
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Tally-ho! 13:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I count 15 in favor of overturning and 11 in favor of keeping deleted. Hardly "overwhelming consensus." And of course a number of those in favor of overturning are
WP:PERNOM, which are hardly persuasive either in terms of numbers or consensus-building.
Otto4711 (
talk) 13:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The numbers show that the majority of the community does not want this article deleted and believe the closure was incorrect. The consensus based argument show also favor either restoring as no consensus or merge and redirect. --Happy editing! Sincerely,
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Tally-ho! 13:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
- I agree, which is why I am pleased that the arguments in favoring of closing as no consensus or merge and redirect are strongest in addition to being the majority opinion. --Happy editing! Sincerely,
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Tally-ho! 14:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- No, sorry, failing to overcome the objections at the original AFD by failing to find reliable sources that are substantively about "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" coupled with a series of unsubstantiated "me too" !votes in this second attempt to bite the apple because you don't like the outcome of the close does not constitute strength of argument. Neither you nor any of the article's supporters have found any procedural error in the close and you're hanging your entire case on the inclusion of about three words in the closing admin's statement.
Otto4711 (
talk) 14:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I appreciate the apology, but the objections at the original AfD were addressed by any reasonable standard. It's not about not liking the incorrect closure, it's about it being an incorrect closure. The procedural error as already pointed out is that it 1) occurred by someone who had just made another successfully contested closure and then resigned the admin tools; 2) had calls for merging in it, which would mean the article would be restored for that to occur; and 3) there's just no reasonable read of that discussion that would lead anyone to say the community felt a compelling need to delete the article in question. --Happy editing! Sincerely,
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Tally-ho! 14:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- (reset indent) To address your points in turn: I did not apologize to you, I expressed my sorrow at your apparent inability to comprehend how AFD or DRV work despite having inhabited them for well over a year. The reasonable way to address the objections in the AFD would have been to refute the bedrock policy objections raised in it by finding even a single reliable source that was substantively about the subject of the article, which once again was "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" and not "List of times someone said Cheshire Cat, chessy cat, Cheshire smile or chessy smile in a book, movie or TV show, or when something that in the opinion of an editor resembles the Cheshire Cat in some fashion." As has been amply demonstrated, the inclusion of the four words "Cheshire," "Cat," "popular" and "culture" within the covers of the same book do not constitute a relaible source for the topic "Cheshire Cat in popular culture." As has been amply demonstrated, a one-sentence mention of the cat in a multi-hundred page book does not constitute anything other than a trivial reference. 1) The fact that some other administrative action taken by the closer was overturned is irrelevant to this discussion. The fact that the closing admin has since resigned is also irrelevant. 2) The mere fact that some people wanted to merge the article is irrelevant. 3) You are here calling everyone who disagrees with you unreasonable, which again skirts the borders of
incivility and a failure to
assume good faith. Clearly, there is a reasonable read of the discussion for a result of delete because there are reasonable people here arguing it.
Otto4711 (
talk) 15:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- It is unfortunate if you do not comprehend how AfDs and DRvs work after all this time. The objections raised in the discussion were addressed by finding reliable sources about the subject of the article. The references found were and are substantial enough to sustain an encyclopedic article. 1) The fact that some other administrative action taken by the closer and his resignation is relevant to this discussion as it demonstrates a frame of mind and pattern of behavior when making the decision to close this AfD. 2) The fact that good faith editors want this article merged and a minority of editors who simply do not like it is totally relevant. 3) I think some who disagree with me are reasonable, but you seem to think that the more numerous number of editors arguing here that the closure was wrong are unreasonable, which does seem to be a bit close to
incivility and a failure to
assume good faith. Clearly, there is no reasonable read of the discussion for a result of delete, not whether or not you want the article deleted or said in that discussion you want it deleted but how the discussion ended, which is why it should be closed as no consensus or merge and redirect without deletion. After all, I argued to keep, but I am not saying that the close I wanted is the consensus not reached in that discussion as there was no actual consensus in that discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely,
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Tally-ho! 16:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Haven't you been warned more than once about simply parroting back what others post? Like, including in the AFD under discussion? Since the bulk of your post is nothing more than this mindless parroting, I'll ignore it in favor of the new material.
- The notion that two incidents demonstrate a "frame of mind" or a "pattern of behavior" is ludicrous in the extreme. The notion that his resignation is relevant to this discussion is foolish. Your dismissal of the policy and guideline-based objections to this article as "I don't like it" is disrespectful to your fellow editors. And I don't care how many times you say it, it is not suddenly going to become true that there were reliable sources that were substantively about the topic Cheshire Cat in popular culture presented in the AFD. Passing references are not substantive coverage. Single-sentence mentions are not substantive coverage. A source noting the existence of an appearance by the cat is not substantive coverage of the topic "Cheshire Cat in popular culture." It really is not that complex, especially for someone who claims to be a teacher.
WP:N lays out what makes a topic notable and not one thing that's been presented in all of this noise has demonstrated that the article passes notability guidelines. Not one thing has been presented that refutes the article's failure of multiple aspects of bedrock Wikipedia policy. Your obsession with the minutae of popular culture notwithstanding, the discussion was correctly deleted because those wanting it kept failed to substantively address the nomination. "Look, I found a book that has the words Cheshire Cat popular culture in it!" does not address the nomination. "Look, I proved that this trivial mention of the cat actually happened" does not address the nomination. "This is what Wikipedia is" does not address the nomination.
Otto4711 (
talk) 17:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Addressing and responding to someone's comments is hardly parroting back. The bulk of your posts are just repetition of what I and others have already addressed anyway. Incidents of bad judgment that preceded a decisive action like resigning as an admin, deleting userspace, and in effect leaving the project is extremely on topic and dismissing it is foolhardy. You should not dismiss the many policy and guideline based rationales for keeping that your colleagues have argued as it needlessly disrespects them. Saying it fails these policies over and over does not mean it actually does when it doesn't. Multiple references are enough coverage for our purposes or at least for a merge and redirect without deletion. The notability guideline is heavily disputed and we can Ignore All Rules in such instances as this when deleting the article outright would be detrimental to our project. Your obsession with deleting popular culture articles notwithstanding, the discussion was incorrectly closed for the numerous reasons outlined above as those wanting to delete did not successfully present a compellingly urgent reason to do so. Dismissing references that a significant number of your colleagues believes are sufficient is not a solid reason for deletion. An opinionated claim that it isn't what your vision of Wikipedia is is also not a compelling reason for deletion. The article passes enough of bedrock Wikipedia policies to justify either its inclusion or a merge and redirect without deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely,
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Tally-ho! 18:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- It most certainly is mindless parroting to respond to my comment I expressed my sorrow at your apparent inability to comprehend how AFD or DRV work despite having inhabited them for well over a year. by saying It is unfortunate if you do not comprehend how AfDs and DRvs work after all this time. as is your repetition of such phrases as "your obsession with...notwithstanding." There have been no policy or guideline based rationales offered by those in favor of keeping this article. Certainly you haven't offered up any such, nor have you refuted those offered in favor of deletion. Still waiting for even one source that is substantively about the specific topic "Cheshire Cat in popular culture." Just one. A single source that is about that topic. The idea that an administrator can't be trusted because he took an action you don't like and then quit soon after is, I'm afraid, meaningless to this discussion. You have no policy support, no guideline support, no reliable sources, nothing at all to keep the article so you hang your entire case on about three words from the closing admin and his resignation.
Otto4711 (
talk) 18:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- If you do not want to read such comments, then you should not make unconstructive borderline incivil comments in the first place. Polite comments receive politer replies. Policy based rationales offered for keeping: Notable, Verifiable, Unoriginal research, etc., as I and several others have used to refute the weak arguments for deletion. That does not mean everyone who argued to delete did so in bad faith (although at least one account in the discussion has in fact said it's his "mission" to delete articles and that he would "never argue to keep"), it just means that they did not present so strong of a basis for deletion that it trumps the active efforts to improve or merge the material in question that if allowed to continue would likely result in better coverage of a notable topic. And even one of those saying endorse in this discussion saw fit to make at least redirect anyway. Sources have been presented, and you don't want me to be repetitious so I am not going to relist them, which is not really the purpose of the DRV. Deletion review is not about whether you or I want or do not want the article kept or deleted; we already had that discussion and failed to reach a consensus; it's about how the discussion was closed. Thus, the admin's actions and attitude at the time are what we are discussing here; how and why he read things, not a rehashing of our mutual failure to come to a consensus in the AfD. You have no policy or guideline reasons that are so compelling as to suggest that an article for which a whole wikiproject of editors who are willing and will work on the article when kept or merged must be decisively deleted right now. We have something to gain by continuing to improve this content; we do not have anything to gain by just getting rid of it altogether. Please respect your fellow editors who are willing to do what they can to improve it, just as while a number of articles you work on are quite trivial to me, I would nevertheless not go about determined to delete them just because I don't want to work on them or see any value in them. --Happy editing! Sincerely,
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Tally-ho! 18:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I'm not responsible for your decision to respond through parroting, so don't blame me for your choices. It is quite easy to say "keep - notable" but it is another matter entirely to provide sources that are substantively about the topic. The topic of this article was "Cheshire Cat in popular culture." What you can't seem to grasp is that there need to be sources that are substantively about "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" and despite your protestations, these were not presented. The admin did not act outside of deletion policy and there is nothing in DRV policy that allows for overturning because you don't agree with the outcome. Failure to meet Wikipedia policies is indeed a compelling reason to delete, and "there are people who are willing to work on it" is not at all a compelling reason for keeping. The article sat ignored for ten months following the first AFD, which rather puts the lie to your claim that there's some platoon of editors standing by, if only this article that has no reliable sources about its topic were allowed to exist. Whether you see the articles on which I work to be trivial is irrelevant, because the articles on which I work have multiple reliable sources that offer substantive coverage of the topic of the article, as opposed to the dearth of such sources about "Cheshire Cat in popular culture."
Otto4711 (
talk) 16:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I respond by engaging other editors, while you are certainly being repetitious no one is parroting or doing any other bird related activity. It's actually far easier to say "delete-non-notable" and make no effort to improve the article as well. It is far more difficult to argue to keep, produce sources, work on the article and then have to go back and forth with others who are unwilling to do so in the discussion. Sources were presented whether you want to acknowledge them or not. The article successfully met Wikipedia policies, which is why there is no compelling urgent reason to delete. Editors would actually be able to accomplish more working on these articles if they didn't keep having to defend them in AfDs. This article also has multiple reliable sources on the topic at hand, which is why it will be kept or merged and redirected. The thing is that the claim that the article is orginal research, i.e. as Wikipedia is the one making the leap that the Cheshire cat is significant to popular culture and that no reliable secondary source says so is not accurate. Please look at
this example, where the author writes that the Cheshire cat and other characters "have become inextricable parts of our popular culture." --Happy editing! Sincerely,
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Tally-ho! 18:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse - just beacuase the disscusion was long is not a reason to overturn (note: I origionally voted to delete) --
T-
rex 04:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- And no one is saying that is why it should be overturned. It should be overturned, because there was no consensus and the close rationale suggested merging some of the content for which the article would need to be restored. Sincerely, --
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Tally-ho! 04:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse - While several individual allusions to the Cat were cited, the article lacked substantiation for the claim that the overall mass of pop. culture allusions to the Cheshire Cat are together the topic of multiple, reliable, third-party sources. As such, ad admin.'s closing/deletion rationale of
original research was correct. --
EEMIV (
talk) 04:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- It was not original research as it contained references and did not advance a thesis. (Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, just erase this text and my signature and pop in your four tildes.) --
EEMIV (
talk) 04:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The article contained substantiation for the claim that the overall mass of popular culture allusions to the Cheshire Cat are indeed together the topic of multiple, reliable, third party sources, which is why the admin's rationale of deletion was incorrect, but the other aspect of his rationale to merge was indeed correct. There's more to Wikipedia than just trying to
delete as much of it as possible. Sincerely, --
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Tally-ho! 04:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
No shit. Why don't you write an essay about it and cite it 18 times per AfD? --
EEMIV (
talk) 04:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Because I am far more interested in devoting my time to improving content, rescuing articles that should not be deleted because a few don't like them, and welcoming new users. There are of course
unverifiable,
pedophilic,
unfixable,
nonsense,
disturbing,
original research,
hoaxes,
how tos,
unconstructive, and
disruptive and pointed articles that I agree should be deleted. This article, however, should not have been and the discussion in the AfD lacked the consensus to justify deleting it. Sincerely, --
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Tally-ho! 05:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I find it amusing that you point toward your willingness to !vote to delete articles on such things as hoaxes and how-tos, which would be deleted regardless of your participation, as some sign of your growth as an editor and AFD participant. I find it much less amusing that you think !voting to delete articles on the basis of their being "disturbing" or "pedophilic," neither of which are legitimate bases for deleting material, are things to point to with pride.
Otto4711 (
talk) 13:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Restore history to the existing redirect. I think merge and redirect is a better a better reading of AfD2. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 10:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Update: Another user has started writing a new version of this article at
User:Protonk/Cheshire cat in popular culture. Thus, I suggest if the AfD closure is overturned, we consider merging the two articles or at least merging the edit histories. --Happy editing! Sincerely,
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Tally-ho! 01:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn - restore as no consensus. Regardless of personal feelings ( I dislike this type of article) the discussion had no clear consensus at all to either delete or keep so we default to the status quo. As a side note: the repeated and intense badgering of those seeking to have the article deleted made the discussion absolutely terrible to read -
Peripitus
(Talk) 12:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I wrote the 'new' article LeGrand is referring to (to which LeGrand is referring? Bah). In my opinion (
IANAL), the new article doesn't owe a debt of attribution to previous versions. Sources are shared and wording is derived from sources but there are no fundamental similarities aside from the reporting of fact. As I
noted on my talk page, my creation of this article doesn't change my mind about the decision made by the closing admin. It also (because I don't feel the GFDL requires the retention of history for this instance) doesn't change my stance about the disposition of the article in question. If the DRV is endorsed, I will recreate the article (under the same title) with my version (and no history). If it is overturned, I will merge my article with the retained article. I will not, however, do this until the DRV is closed either way. Let me repeat: I don't feel that my creation of a new article compliant with policies and guidelines should influence a review of the decision regarding the old article. Either way, it has been 7 days and this issue could do with some resolution. Thanks.
Protonk (
talk) 16:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Use Protonk's copy with history merge Protonk's article is a lot better than the former article, and would have no trouble surviving a new AFD - provided that the trivia lists don't get added to it again. It actually is an encyclopedia article. Reviewing the history of the userspace copy, you started from a copy of the prior article, then cut the garbage, then rewrote. I'd feel a lot better if the prior history is kept with it in these circumstances. With that article available to use, there is no point in overturning or in endorsing the AFD decision of the old article version, the new one is far far superior to it, would escape G4 deletion as substantially addressing the reasons for deletion, yet needs the prior history for GFDL reasons.
GRBerry 17:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I will, of course, defer to more knowledgable opinion on the subject. :) Also, the more conservative method (attribution where there may be some question) is usually better. If you feel that maintaining the GFDL history in this article is proper and necessary, I'll be the last person to disagree with you.
Protonk (
talk) 18:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- As the initiator of this thread, I am in agreement with merging the edit history of the deleted version with Protonk's version and moving this merged version into mainspace as a fair and reasonable compromise. --Happy editing! Sincerely,
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Tally-ho! 19:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and restore No clear consensus, and keep arguments seem stronger to me.
Hobit (
talk) 20:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and restore No consensus to delete.
Glass
Cobra 22:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Use Protonk's copy as a section of
Cheshire Cat. I've been dithering over this one for a week since there is such strong support for the article to be merged; yet the content which was deleted was complete and utter garbage. I read it again and again looking for content which was worth salvaging, and there was simply none, just a few potentially useful reference links (added more to score points at AfD than to make a genuine contribution to the article, in my opinion). But Protonk's
User:Protonk/Cheshire Cat in popular culture is a fine couple of paragraphs on the subject which should definitely be used, and I don't think the
Cheshire Cat article is anywhere near so long that we need to inconvenience readers by splitting this off onto a separate page. I can't actually see anything in Protonk's work that is derived from the deleted article, but if it was, then sure, restore the history and redirect it to
Cheshire Cat. --
Stormie (
talk) 23:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
|
