BrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs) →Works by Richard Wagner: I wondered how long it would take for Kleinzach to appear here and make a complaint along these lines |
→Works by Richard Wagner: question for Good Olfactory |
||
Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
::This is essentially a "two wrongs make a right" argument. The fact that a different category was created mid-CFD does not justify the creation of the other two categories. The real difference between the categories is that the "Works by ..." category was identically worded to hundreds of other categories for individuals. The others ("prose works by..." and "autobiographical works by...") were unique and there was a developing consensus in the very discussion ''against'' creating such categories. To argue we now need to go back and have a separate discussion for the other two is wikilawyering, especially because it would be highly likely to result in exactly the same situation as presently exists. I would add that {{cat|Works by Richard Wagner}} can be nominated at any time for renaming—why is this obvious route being ignored? For the simple reason that there would be no consensus at CFD to rename it to a non-standard form category name. [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] <sup>[[User talk:Good Olfactory|(talk)]]</sup> 01:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC) |
::This is essentially a "two wrongs make a right" argument. The fact that a different category was created mid-CFD does not justify the creation of the other two categories. The real difference between the categories is that the "Works by ..." category was identically worded to hundreds of other categories for individuals. The others ("prose works by..." and "autobiographical works by...") were unique and there was a developing consensus in the very discussion ''against'' creating such categories. To argue we now need to go back and have a separate discussion for the other two is wikilawyering, especially because it would be highly likely to result in exactly the same situation as presently exists. I would add that {{cat|Works by Richard Wagner}} can be nominated at any time for renaming—why is this obvious route being ignored? For the simple reason that there would be no consensus at CFD to rename it to a non-standard form category name. [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] <sup>[[User talk:Good Olfactory|(talk)]]</sup> 01:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::[[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]]: You closed ''eight'' of the Cfds of 24 December, see '''[[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 24|here]]'''. ([[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] closed four.) Do you also want to control this one? --''[[User:Kleinzach|<span style="color:#FF4500;letter-spacing:2px;">Klein</span>]][[User talk:Kleinzach|<span style="padding:0px 0px 1px 2px;color:white; background-color:#ACE1AF;letter-spacing:2px;">zach</span>]]'' 01:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
====[[:Game Show Congress]]==== |
====[[:Game Show Congress]]==== |
Revision as of 01:33, 13 January 2010
12 January 2010
Pamela Taylor
- Pamela Taylor (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Major party candidate in a current Canadian by-election. Came second when she ran in the same riding in the 2007 provincial election. At the very least the article should have been merged with Progressive Conservative Party candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election Fred the happy man (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have just made a request to the deleting editor. However, this is relatively urgent since the by-election campaign has begun with the vote occurring on February 4, 2009 and having a major candidate's bio deleted when the other major candidates have bios up may make Wikipedia appear unfair. Fred the happy man (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse. Perhaps a bold call by the closing admin; but in my view, the right call: the outcome reflected a proper reading of the deletion discussion. There were 4 delete votes (counting the nom), 3 of which contained reasoning. Each of those 3 delete votes were well-reasoned and based on a correct reading of guidelines. Critically, none of the 3 delete votes were refuted. On the keep side, all the arguments were refuted, in my view convincingly, by other editors on the grounds of misreading or misapplying guidelines. Therefore, none of the 4 keep votes stood at the end of the day. Reading a consensus to delete was therefore the appropriate outcome. The overall discussion was detailed, so I don't think a 3rd re-listing was necessary or appropriate.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse closure The head-count may have been split down the middle, but those supporting deletion seem to have won the debate. The "keep" votes made some reasonable arguments, but these were all refuted by the "delete" voters. The "delete" voters also showed that the subject of the article failed WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN and were not refuted in this respect. The closing admin made the correct decision, in my opinion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse closure. As was noted more than once in the discussion, WP:POLITICIAN clearly points out that an unelected political candidate is not entitled to an article just for being a candidate — and nobody has demonstrated that she's notable for other things. Wikipedia is not, and never has been, bound by any sort of requirement to give "equal time" to all candidates in every election contest; we're an encyclopedia, not the media or a free webhosting provider for political campaigns. What we are required to do is to demonstrate the notability of article subjects through the use of reliable sources — and like it or not, that usually means that the only people in an election campaign who get to have independent articles are the incumbent, the winner, or people who were already notable enough that they'd qualify for a keepable article even if they hadn't run in the election. Bearcat (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse per WP:POLITICIAN and by the fact that none of the references brought up were enough to establish notability. J04n(talk page) 01:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
RBF Morph
The article has been deleted during holidays... There are users of the software available to improve it. MEB71 (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse, no legitimate reason for challenging the close having been provided. The close seems to be an accurate assessment of the comments in the discussion. Timotheus Canens (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse, no evidence was presented during the AfD or in this DRV that demonstrates this topic meets the notability standards. No prejudice against a new, sourced article that does meet the WP:GNG criteria, but I'd advise creating it as a userspace draft or in the Wikipedia:Article Incubator first though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse, closure respected consensus and policy. Stifle (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Relist, I am very sorry about the RBF Morph page deletion. I am using the technology since 2 years ago and I'm still astonished by the results that can be obtained out of it. I strongly believe that this is one of most important technology innovation done in the CSE in the last years and I have very good credentials to say this. Moreover this is one of the most effective example of technology transfer from academia to industry and should be actually indicated as "a model to be followed". I strongly hope the page can be re-considered for publication. Frasiers (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- What is required is not testimony from people who have "very good credentials" for saying something is good or useful, as it doesn't matter whether the subject is good, bad or indifferent, useful or useless. What is required is reliable sources to show that the subject of the article is notable and that all the information in the article can be verified. If you read the general notability guide it should help you get a better understanding of what is required (and if it doesn't, then please comment on the talk page so that it can be improved). Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse closure A good call by the closing administrator. Although only the nominator and one other voter explicitly supported deletion, a commenter noted that he was leaning towards voting to delete based on a lack of independent sources to establish notability. The "keep" voters failed to refute these arguments that the article did not pass our notability guidelines. The first "keep" vote was based on WP:IKNOWIT, WP:USEFUL, and WP:VALINFO, all arguments to avoid. The second "keep" voter did not really talk about this subject's notability, instead pointing out that the article had the potential for future cleanup. As such, the closing admin correctly found that the "keep" votes were not rooted in policy and that the "delete" votes were. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Works by Richard Wagner
- Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
- Category:Prose works by Richard Wagner (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
These two categories are presented together because of the unusual circumstances involved. A discussion on renaming Category:Essays by Richard Wagner took place (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_24#Category:Essays_by_Richard_Wagner).
The proposal was to change the category to Category:Prose works by Richard Wagner. The rationale, which was presented only in brief in the original, as I did not anticipate that it would be controversial, was that Wagner wrote a great deal of prose apart from his essays - including journalism, autobiographical works, etc. etc., which do not come into the category of essays, and on many of which I intend to write WP articles (and for all I know others may wish to do so as well). These writings have a significance, not only for Wagner’s music, but also for theatre practice, theory of drama, politics, German nationalism and many other topics. Wagner’s status is therefore unusual, in that he is the only composer whose writings extend significantly beyond the sphere of his own music, or indeed beyond the topic of music itself.
In the course of the discussion of this renaming, one editor created a category Category:Books by Richard Wagner. This was in fact inappropriate, as Wagner’s prose writings were generally much shorter than a book. In fact the only two of his writings which might qualify as books are his autobiographical Mein Leben and his extended essay , Oper und Drama. In response to this (and whilst the discussion was continuing) I created the categories Category:Prose works by Richard Wagner and Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner, so that Wagner’s writings could be categorized appropriately. Some comments in the following discussion were perhaps notable for their facetiousness and their absence of research. I instance for example - ‘Upmerge Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner to Category:Works by Richard Wagner and Category:Autobiographies. I dunno whether Wagner is planning to write any more autobiographical material, but since he has long since departed this life, we mortals are unlikely to hear about anything he does write.’ In fact Wagner wrote numerous other autobiographical pieces, each of which reflects substantially different aspects of his beliefs and character. On two substantial examples of these (A Communication to My Friends and An Autobiographical Sketch) I intend to write WP articles.
Much to my surprise, although the discussion was supposed to be about Category:Essays by Richard Wagner, User:Jafeluv, on closing the discussion, took the opportunity to delete Category:Prose works by Richard Wagner and Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner.
When I raised this with User:Jafeluv he kindly and promptly provided the following response:
Hi Smerus, I understand that you weren't expecting that other categories than the one nominated could be deleted based on the discussion. Below is my reasoning for the close, and what to do if you disagree with it.
According to our deletion policy, pages can be deleted after a deletion discussion if a consensus for deletion exists in the discussion. After reading the discussion, I came to the conclusion that there was a consensus that Category:Prose works of Richard Wagner] and Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner] should not exist (by contrast, nobody seemed to object the creation of Category:Books by Richard Wagner]). The rationale was that prose works are not categorized in "Prose works by X" categories, even for people who are notable for their prose work. The same thing applies to "Autobiographical works by X", which was also described as "Overcategorization#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth small and unlikely to expand". While precedent is not binding, it's generally a good idea to follow existing structures when creating new categories. The categories were not tagged for deletion and therefore not part of the nomination; however, I felt that since they were created after the start of the discussion (and in part as a response to it), and since part of the discussion was on whether the newly created categories were appropriate, I felt that it would be better to add them to the closure rather than renominate those in a separate discussion.
I hope that helps explain my reasoning when closing the debate. If you still feel that the categories were improperly deleted, you can list them at Wikipedia:Deletion review, where it can be discussed whether the categories should be undeleted or relisted for proper discussion at CfD. Regards, [http:/wiki/User:Jafeluv Jafeluv] ([http:/wiki/User_talk:Jafeluv#top talk]) 22:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I bring to readers’ attention the following issues:
1) The deletions of Category:Prose works of Richard Wagner and Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner were not under formal discussion and that they should not have been deleted without formal nomination and discussion.
2) The comment by User:Jafeluv that ‘ "Autobiographical works by X", which was […] described as "small and unlikely to expand" ‘ was in fact inappropriate in this case and should have been at least opened for discussion
3) It was inappropriate in the circumstances to conclude that ‘there was a consensus that Category:Prose works of Richard Wagner and Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner should not exist’
4) Noone objected to Category:Books by Richard Wagner because that category was not under discussion. However, I for one would certainly have objected to it had there been a discussion of it.
5) User:Jafeluv has correctly commented ‘While precedent is not binding, it's generally a good idea to follow existing structures when creating new categories.’ Wagner made a career of breaking the rules and as a consequence he perhaps does not fit easily into WP’s category system. My case would be, if it were allowed for discussion, that precedents are not binding in this case.
I therefore request that the deleted categories Category:Prose works of Richard Wagner and Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner be restored and/or reopened for discussion, together with a CfD discussion for Category:Books by Richard Wagner Smerus (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Overturn decision with regard to the above two categories but endorse' decision with regards to the essays category. I have no issue with the decision with regards to the actual suject of the original CfD. I was neutral on that subject and did not comment even though I was aware of the discusion. If I had been aware that the other items may ahve been deleted, I would have wanted the opporunity to express my views. They were deleted without being obviously up for debate and should be properly listed if they are under threat. SO this is a list rather than a relist recommendation.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse closure. This is blatant wikilawyering. There was a clear consensus in the discussion that creating a Category:Prose works of Richard Wagner was inappropriate, but Smerus nonetheless chose to create the category in the course of the discussion contrary to the consensus, and is now complaining that his attempt to subvert consensus was reverted. The closing admin acted quite properly to implement the consensus of the discussion, and Smerus's argument is basically that his newly-created category should not have been deleted because there wasn't a formal proposal to delete it; however there was a formal proposal to create it, which failed.
On the substance of the issue, Smerus believes that Wagner's works require non-standard categories, and argued that case. The consensus of the discussion clearly rejected that view, and upheld the principle of consistency in category structures to fcailitate navigation between categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)- Not for the first time, I modestly request, (but not with much optimism), this editor not to assume bad faith. I realise that those that disagree with User:BrownHairedGirl leave themselves vulnerable to bad-mouthing, but if her arguments cannot be made except on an ad hominem basis, that might in itself give some clue to their weakness. Calling someone a lawyer, of any type, is pretty low.
- If anyone looks at the original discussion they will see that I at no point argued the case that Wagner's works required non-standard categories - although I might have done had the issue been raised. Moreover it is not a Wikicrime as far as I know to introduce a non-standard category -if that were the case a goodly proportion of existing categories would be doomed for instant destruction. Precedent, as User:Jafluv has pinted out, is not binding.
- But if we are these days to judge by what editors have not said, can I asssume from the above that User:BrownHairedGirl no longer has any objection to Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner, which she previously disparaged without doing her research? That might almost be one up to me.....--Smerus (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Smerus, I am not required to AGF in the face of evidence to the contrary. The circumstances here are simple: you proposed renaming Category-A to Category-B, did not get consensus for that, and then pre-empted the discussion by creating Category-B anyway ... and now you argue that due process was breached by deleting your out-of-process creation. That's straightforward wikilawyering.
And no, you did not specifically "argue the case that Wagner's works required non-standard categories" -- you argued for the creation of a category which, by consenus of others at CFD, was found to be non-standard and there was a consenus that it should not be created. What do you hope to achieve by these misleading wordplays? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
- Smerus, I am not required to AGF in the face of evidence to the contrary. The circumstances here are simple: you proposed renaming Category-A to Category-B, did not get consensus for that, and then pre-empted the discussion by creating Category-B anyway ... and now you argue that due process was breached by deleting your out-of-process creation. That's straightforward wikilawyering.
- Endorse. Under the particular circumstances here, and in light of the clear consensus in the discussion, I think the closer appropriately implemented that consensus. We are not a bureaucracy, and it is totally pointless to engage in further process wonkery. Timotheus Canens (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- As to nom's other points, this is not CfD round two. Timotheus Canens (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Question is it possible to get a two to three line summary of what the issue is? Spartaz Humbug! 16:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'll try since I've nothing better to do: nom wants to rename Category:Essays by Richard Wagner to Category:Prose works by Richard Wagner (or something similar). Filed a CfD, and while the CfD is ongoing, created the latter category as well as Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner. Jafeluv, the closer, found no consensus to rename, and deleted nom's two categories created mid-CfD, even though they were not nominated in the CfD or elsewhere. Nom then filed this DRV. Timotheus Canens (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- I endorse this as a good summary of what happened (and I do so because I have even less better things to do). Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- This summary omits the creation of Category:Works by Richard Wagner by BrownHairedGirl on 1 January in the middle of the Cfd. --Kleinzach 00:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- I endorse this as a good summary of what happened (and I do so because I have even less better things to do). Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'll try since I've nothing better to do: nom wants to rename Category:Essays by Richard Wagner to Category:Prose works by Richard Wagner (or something similar). Filed a CfD, and while the CfD is ongoing, created the latter category as well as Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner. Jafeluv, the closer, found no consensus to rename, and deleted nom's two categories created mid-CfD, even though they were not nominated in the CfD or elsewhere. Nom then filed this DRV. Timotheus Canens (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Relist for further discussion. Consensus wasn't clear enough. The close looks too creative, and is not a result discussed by many participants. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse. To do otherwise would be to inappropriately impose bureaucracy where none is needed. A user presumably saw that no consensus was developing for their preferred rename yet went ahead and created the category anyway in the middle of the CFD. It was appropriately deleted. Both categories were not standardly-named categories within the established schemes and were appropriately deleted, with Category:Works by Richard Wagner serving as the appropriate category within the scheme. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Overturn in part, specifically the decision to delete the two categories nominated here. I don't think there was sufficient discussion in the CfD to conclude that consensus was against their existence, particularly because they were never formally nominated. As such, I recommend restoring them and immediately listing them at CfD, with the possibility of closing early if a consensus for deletion develops quickly. However, I also endorse in part, as the closing admin correctly read the consensus in the discussion to keep (and not rename) the essays category. No action should be taken on the books category, at least not as a consequence of this DRV. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Overturn per Smerus. On 24 December, I read the new article on Mein Leben and wrote " . . . I wonder if it should go in Category:Essays by Richard Wagner, perhaps renamed as 'Books and essays by . . .' or Writings by . . ' or whatever." (see Wagner Project here). This occasioned the Cfd which at the time seemed minor and uncontroversial.
- Unfortunately BrownHairedGirl (who has a considerable history of conflict with opera editors, see Opera Archives 19 to 26) created Category:Works by Richard Wagner in the middle of the Cfd (1 January). I objected (and another user expressed reservations) to putting a composer into a literary category under Category:Works by author ("for all types of written works, sorted by author and genre" per the category page).
- When Jafeluv closed the Cfd he wrote "The creation of Category:Works by Richard Wagner was justified as part of an established categorization scheme under Category:Works by artist." There was no consensus for this and obviously it went beyond the terms of the Cfd itself. Moreover Jafeluv was mistaken, because Wagner had not been put in the mainly visual artists Category:Works by artist, but in the literary one. It's clear to me that Jafeluv didn't understand these categories (or indeed the larger problems that exist with them). --Kleinzach 00:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- I wondered how long it would take for Kleinzach to appear here and make a complaint along these lines.
- When I created the category, Kleinzach complained about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Richard_Wagner, on the grounds that I should have asked the project first. I asked Kleinzach three times (1, 2, 3) whether he had a substantive objection to the category, and although Kleinzach responded to several posts in that thread during that period, I got no answer .... though I did get doses of personal abuse from him and Smerus.
- So, having refused repeated requests to clarify at the time whether he had any any substantive objection to the category, Kleinzach has waited until DRV to state a substantive objection ... and for good measure has added a further dose of complaint about a previous unpleasant encounter with him a few years ago.
- I don't know why Kleinzach behaves like this, but when someone repeatedly ignores requests to clarify your concerns, it is bizarrely dysfunctional behaviour to then lodge a complaint about the person who has repeatedly tried to engage him dialogue, and to cite that as grounds for overturning a decision. If you refuse to discuss your concerns, don't be surprised if they are not resolved the way you would like. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- This is essentially a "two wrongs make a right" argument. The fact that a different category was created mid-CFD does not justify the creation of the other two categories. The real difference between the categories is that the "Works by ..." category was identically worded to hundreds of other categories for individuals. The others ("prose works by..." and "autobiographical works by...") were unique and there was a developing consensus in the very discussion against creating such categories. To argue we now need to go back and have a separate discussion for the other two is wikilawyering, especially because it would be highly likely to result in exactly the same situation as presently exists. I would add that Category:Works by Richard Wagner can be nominated at any time for renaming—why is this obvious route being ignored? For the simple reason that there would be no consensus at CFD to rename it to a non-standard form category name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Good Ol’factory: You closed eight of the Cfds of 24 December, see here. (BrownHairedGirl closed four.) Do you also want to control this one? --Kleinzach 01:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Game Show Congress
- Game Show Congress (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Okay, this deletion did not go over well in two different game show forums. See here and here as but two examples. Both of these forums mostly comprise people unfamiliar with Wikipedia, and therefore unfamiliar with the notability guidelines. Juliancolton's close, with "more-or-less discount posts from new users" in it, seemed to rub these users the wrong way in particular. I think he could've phrased it a little more tactfully, but oh well.
A user from the ipbhost forum even suggested this link, which like many other mentions of Game Show Congress online, only says that a certain host was there and precious little else. There does seem to be a significant mention in Bob Harris' Prisoner of Trebekistan book, and then there's this source which may be useful. I had a very hard time finding anything else that a.) was not a press release, and b.) gave more information than just "Personality x (or show x) won the y award at this year's Game Show Congress."
Almost everyone on these forums is practically coming towards me with pitchforks and torches about this being deleted. The fact that I asked a friend to A7 it the first time around, and that said A7 was later overturned right here, didn't help. But are those sources and Harris' book enough? Is there anything else out there that I've overlooked? Does this warrant an article after all? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I would just like to take this opportunity to state that it was largely due to the conduct of TenPoundHammer and Juliancolton that resulted in this article being deleted in the first place. TenPoundHammer put the AFD up because of perceptions of his being mistreated by members of said forums that he cited (WP:DICK). Juliancolton's decision was based on nothing more than his disregard for all of the valid points in the discussion, which created a false consensus (none had been reached prior to his decision). I support the restoration of the page and would suggest that both users' admin privileges be reviewed (as, at least in TenPoundHammer's case, there have been several incidents from before). I would also like to remind everyone that most non-admins would've been chastised for the egregious disregard for good faith that both admins have exhibited here. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- TenPoundHammer did not, and still does not, have administrative powers. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 09:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- endorse, admin was entitled to disregard votes that resulted from canvassing. I would only recommend that Julian offer a link that substantiates that canvassing took place (not that I doubt it). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment:Nomo, the relevant link (that spurred Julian's close) is thus, and the AfD that showed up in was one running concurrent to Game Show Congress's. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 09:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral as the administrator who CSD'd Game Show Congress originally. I'd sooner not poke the bear any more as far as this is concerned, since (α) I don't work in TV articles much - my areas are primarily video game- and RPG-related, and (β) I've seen some of the discussions the forumites have had with TenPoundHammer, and to be frank most of the guys there either don't know how some of the more important parts of WP function or seem to be too busy building Millwall bricks to use against him. Robert K S is about the only one I know who's tried to be any degree of reasonable with regards to this, and for that I both commend him and apologize to him for prior instances. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 09:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse JC's close. Fairly straightforward and well within the closer's discretion. You just can't get undeletion by personal attacks and canvassing. I have no opinion yet on TPH's sources, not having studied them, and I'll return to the question of recreation later. Timotheus Canens (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- My concern isn't so much the attacks but rather the fact that they may be onto something with the sources. They seem to have this false impression that I got a couple buddies together and said, "hey, let's delete this article" and no matter what I say they just don't believe that I wasn't gaming the AFD -- they seem to look at me as some sort of power hungry deletionist, and my past trolling in game show communities certainly hasn't helped my reputation any. Those sources may be useful, though. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- One more good source to check out. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- The sources look good. Permit recreation, then. Timotheus Canens (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- You guys keep saying it was canvassing? That's just an excuse for irresponsible conduct by an admin. I'm sorry. You have absolutely no proof that the voters who voted did so by being persuaded to. At all. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Given the evidence's totality, it is reasonable to assume that GSC's AfD was getting some of the !votes canvassed (whether wittingly or not) for TRASH. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 20:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- If there is a influx of SPAs, it is reasonable to assume canvassing. This is not a court. And I'd go as far as saying that that AfD could not have been closed any other way. Timotheus Canens (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- ...except closure for failure to find consensus, which is EXACTLY what should've happened here. The votes were 4 in favor of and 4 against deletion. And I find that statement "this is not a court" to be just a little misguided here, considering how much effort that is put in here to find proof of things. The fact is that Juliancolton had absolutely no reason to declare consensus as he did, and he did not use good judgment in calling for the deletion of the page. I believe he let his biases be his guide and that, therefore, constituted irresponsible judgment on his behalf and should be the reason why the deletion was unnecessary. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Consensus, not votes. It doesn't matter how many votes side A or side B has had; it's the compellingness of their arguments that matter. And most AfD closers will disregard the opinions from newer accounts, especially if they appear to have been canvassed. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 23:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'd also like to propose that this decision has cost the Wiki quite a bit of money in donations, as the actions of Juliancolton were not in the best interests of the Wiki (especially considering that other pages exist on flimsier logic). --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- ...except closure for failure to find consensus, which is EXACTLY what should've happened here. The votes were 4 in favor of and 4 against deletion. And I find that statement "this is not a court" to be just a little misguided here, considering how much effort that is put in here to find proof of things. The fact is that Juliancolton had absolutely no reason to declare consensus as he did, and he did not use good judgment in calling for the deletion of the page. I believe he let his biases be his guide and that, therefore, constituted irresponsible judgment on his behalf and should be the reason why the deletion was unnecessary. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've worked on a draft here. I think this looks much better. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- My issue has always been that I personally know how important and relevant the GSC is to the industry, but the old article was deleted by people who didn't have that knowledge, apparently because the old article didn't cite enough relevant sources. Now that a better-sourced article has been offered by the individual who suggested deletion in the first place, recreation seems a natural choice. --Matt Ottinger —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattOttinger (talk • contribs) 21:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Endorse closure This AfD was within the closing administrator's discretion, as Tim noted above, and the arguments for deletion were stronger. It was also reasonable for the closing admin to disregard votes that appeared to be the result of off-wiki canvassing. That said, by all means move TenPoundHammer's draft to the mainspace. It's a very good start to a new article on the subject. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)