DuncanHill (talk | contribs) →User talk:David Tombe: further to Brad, would you rather i went to ANI as usually happens with such deletions? |
→User talk:David Tombe: closing: Nothing for DRV to do here. We have no overview of a decision taken by the founder after consulation with the arbitration committee. |
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~ --> |
Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~ --> |
||
====[[:User talk:David Tombe]]==== |
====[[:User talk:David Tombe]] (closed)==== |
||
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
|||
|- |
|||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" | |
|||
* '''[[:User talk:David Tombe]]''' – Nothing for DRV to do here. We have no overview of a decision taken by the founder after consulation with the arbitration committee. – [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 10:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC) <!--*--> |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
|||
:{{DRV links|User talk:David Tombe|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User talk:David Tombe|article=}} |
:{{DRV links|User talk:David Tombe|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User talk:David Tombe|article=}} |
||
Speedy deletion of user tlk page contra-policy, so there was no XfD page to link to. User talk pages should be deleted ''via'' MfD. I have discussed this with the deleting admin, who indicated that he disagrees with the policy. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 23:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC) |
Speedy deletion of user tlk page contra-policy, so there was no XfD page to link to. User talk pages should be deleted ''via'' MfD. I have discussed this with the deleting admin, who indicated that he disagrees with the policy. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 23:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
Line 32: | Line 40: | ||
* As other arbs have said, this is an instance of the "right to vanish" ([[meta:RTV]]). Requiring that a bureaucrat be consulted is a good <s>policy</s> guideline; in this case, we have a few bureaucrat on ArbCom, and Jimbo did consult ArbCom about this. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 08:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC) |
* As other arbs have said, this is an instance of the "right to vanish" ([[meta:RTV]]). Requiring that a bureaucrat be consulted is a good <s>policy</s> guideline; in this case, we have a few bureaucrat on ArbCom, and Jimbo did consult ArbCom about this. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 08:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
**Are the Arbs saying that the editor was in good standing as RTV is expected to require? [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 09:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC) |
**Are the Arbs saying that the editor was in good standing as RTV is expected to require? [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 09:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' |
|||
|} |
|||
====[[:WU LYF]] (closed)==== |
====[[:WU LYF]] (closed)==== |
Revision as of 10:34, 3 May 2011
2 May 2011
User talk:David Tombe (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Speedy deletion of user tlk page contra-policy, so there was no XfD page to link to. User talk pages should be deleted via MfD. I have discussed this with the deleting admin, who indicated that he disagrees with the policy. DuncanHill (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
WU LYF (closed)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (band/musician)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
4 separate images by Edward Hopper
File:Hotel Lobby by Edward Hopper Detail 4.JPG
- File:Hotel Lobby by Edward Hopper Detail 4.JPG (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)
F7: Violates non-free use policy: article does not need five non free images
File:Hotel Lobby by Edward Hopper Detail 3.JPG
- File:Hotel Lobby by Edward Hopper Detail 3.JPG (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)
F7: Violates non-free use policy: article does not need five non free images
File:Hotel Lobby by Edward Hopper Detail 2.JPG
- File:Hotel Lobby by Edward Hopper Detail 2.JPG (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)
F7: Violates non-free use policy: article does not need five non free images
File:Hotel Lobby by Edward Hopper Detail 1.JPG
- File:Hotel Lobby by Edward Hopper Detail 1.JPG (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)
F7: Violates non-free use policy: article does not need five non free images
- wrongful speedy, DI process not followed; no notice. the images were in strict accordance with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, each illustrating a point of critical commentary for the Hotel Lobby article. if the assertion is that one and only one image is to be used, then the policy should be changed. Slowking4 (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Endorse. I don't see a case being made that the multiple images are used in a way which significantly improves the reader's understanding of the critical commentary involved. The claim that a discrete image is needed to increase the reader's understanding that one female figure is blonde jumps out at me as invalid. The proposed uses strike me as more illustrative than explanatory/amplifying; the latter functions are required for NFCC uses like these, when going beyond identification. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- The explanation "article does not need five non free images" fails in and of itself, because the absolute count is irrelevant; some articles don't even need one non free image, while others might have ten that are integral to an article and comply with NFCC. The images are also actually all part of the same work: they exist in multiple files, but each shows a higher resolution detail of the same copyrighted painting that the article is about. So the effect is just to use more of one non-free work, not more non-free works.
That said, I don't see commentary in the article that particularly justifies the use of these details. All of the figures are visible in the single low resolution image of the whole painting, and Hopper also isn't really known for having intricate detail or brushwork. The files probably shouldn't have been speedy deleted, but undeleting them would just be a pointless exercise of process. So endorse deletion'. If you want to use them in the article, then write more sourced content specifically about what those details show that might justify it. postdlf (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- <ec>Being unable to see the images, can someone explain what they were and why a free image couldn't do the same thing? Heck, what made them non-free? I very much doubt the 5 images in one article is or should be a speedy criteria as I'm sure we have 5 non-free images in other articles. But without understanding the context it's really hard to say. Hobit (talk) 02:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- They are details of a copyrighted painting, Hotel Lobby, by Edward Hopper that were used in an article about that painting. Really, that's fairly clear from the file names and the article that they were used in. postdlf (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- restore, list at FfD Not a speedy case as it doesn't clearly break our NFCC criteria. It's clear that the rational used for deletion here (too many free images) isn't one that can trivially be applied to any given article. Further, I question if blow-ups of small sections of an image already shown in the article should really count as a new free image. Maybe it should, but I'd like to hear a discussion on the topic. So basicly "per PostDlf," but I honestly think a FfD discussion would have a fair chance of resulting in a keep. Hobit (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Shinese
Both the closing admin and another editor have advised me against opening a DRV on this AfD, but I'm being "bold" because I am somewhat frustrated with the flimsy keep rationales and complete lack of response to my policy- and guideline-based concerns. I don't know where else to go to contest this, but I feel it would have benefited from more participants and would like it to be relisted.
First of all, I know this is not a place to rehash arguments, but I want to clearly explain why it is not notable since I suppose my last statement was unclear. The sources in the article are as follows; I was unable to find any others that did not have boilerplate mixed-breed text:
- Four designer dog registries or lists. Please note that two say that other crosses will be added on breeder request, and one says "All new combinations are welcome to be submitted for review to be included." None of them give any information about the Shinese whatsoever aside from it being a Shih Tzu x Pekingese cross
- Two articles that literally mention its name and nothing else
- A page on dogster, the sole content being "Shineses are hybrids of Shih Tzu and Pekingese dog breeds." along with random dogs with "Shinese" listed as breed
- Dog Breed Info page. This is not a reliable source, but even if that is ignored, the only content is their boilerplate text for mixed-breeds and some user-submitted pictures. Take a look at another, like the Afollie, for evidence
- A broken link, archived in the Wayback Machine here. Fails the policy on self-published sources http://www.mixedbreedpups.com/about/
- Finally, we have a slew of books + one website related to Shih Tzu and Pekingese individually. This is the crux of the issue -- although a significant outcross to a Pekingese within the Shih Tzu breed may have occurred, it does not mean it has any relevance whatsoever to the current designer dog known as a "Shinese". In the 1940s, a significant outcross to a Newfoundland was made within the Bernese Mountain Dog breed, and I've seen crosses of the two. Does that mean that it's notable in any way, any more than a Dalmatian-English Pointer cross is notable because of a health-related outcross? It's significant to the breed in question, undoubtedly, but that does not mean that the modern-day designer dog has anything to do with it. In fact, I have seen no evidence of a relationship whatsoever. I'd be happy to see evidence to the contrary, but nobody has given any so far nor have I been able to find any myself.
- Other generalized books relating to dogs or mixed breeds. Indeed, I have read through most of these myself in the past, and know that they do not cover the Shinese; the citations can be looked through on their own. None of these are used to support specific information about the Shinese itself, which is supposedly the article's topic. There is some information about how the two breeds (Shih Tzu and Pekingese) are similar, but this does not cover the Shinese as a (prospective breed)/cross.
Three editors participated in the AfD. One, the article creator, explained that there was evidence of a Pekingese outcross within the Shih Tzu breed, but did not explain how that was relevant to the modern-day Shinese designer dog, as opposed to the Shih Tzu breed specifically. I commented on this and got no response. The second only commented that it was "well-written" and sourced and deletion seemed "extreme", and did not reply when I asked them to look at the validity of the sources instead of the quantity alone. The third was not particularly constructive: "What's wrong with that? Keep", no further input.
None of these concerns were addressed at all despite being substantiated, so I feel relisting would be appropriate. Thanks in advance to anyone who comments. – anna 02:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Relist I think the best possible action here would have been relisting the debate for a second time rather than closing it as "keep." Anna offered arguments for deletion which seem fairly strong. A reasonable case for keeping the article was made by Theornamentalist, but Anna poked major holes in it with this comment, which drew no rebuttal. Wikipedian2 then commented that the article should be kept because it is well-written and sourced; his failure to address the notability question makes his a flimsy argument. At this point, there was clearly no consensus either way; the AfD was relisted. One more participant showed up; he simply wrote, "What's wrong with that? Keep." That vote, obviously, is not at all grounded in policy and should be discarded by any closing admin. Therefore, nothing really changed between the relist and the closure of the AfD; I think it's evident that this should have been relisted a second time in hopes of eliciting a consensus (or at least a more substantive debate) on the notability question. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- I guess you were advised that DRV won't carry on the debate but look at the deletion and see if the process was OK. What I can see in the debate is that you challenged the article on the basis that the sources were weak/not reliable etc. Of the keep responses one acknowledges that some sources are weak, but claims there are other sources which are substantial and provides a gbooks search. (This is far from ideal in my mind, pointing people and saying it's over there often isn't helpful, pointing out specific examples is far better, but I digress), your follow up on this weren't addressed. The next argument is merely an assertion that it's sourced and cited, without addressing any of your points about the quality of sourcing, this should have been given little weight. The final keep after a relist is "What's wrong with that?" which is a complete non-argument and should be disgarded. I'd agree with User:A Stop at Willoughby, a further Relist would have seen the best course of action, at worst a "No Consensus" result rather than "Keep" (Technically there is no difference between the two the article stays, however "No Consensus" tends to imply that a further relisting in the no too distant future will be ok to try and gain a consensus one way or other.) --82.7.44.178 (talk) 08:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the comments so far. It may be worth noting that the Google Books link used the search term Elfreda Evans, who is related to the old Shih Tzu-Peke outcrosses; her association with the Shinese designer cross hasn't been established. I did look through the results and couldn't find a connection. – anna 08:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Endorse outcome, don't relist at this time. While the argument made by ASaW is valid, I don't see any reason to expect that further relisting would result in a "delete" outcome; at best (from the nom's perspective), this might shift to "no consensus." Theornamentalist's point in support is well taken; there does seem to be enough coverage of the general subject to merit retaining the content, with the more valid question being whether to keep the article under the current title, or convert "Shinese" to a redirect to a more generic title like "Pekingese - Shit Tsu crossbreeding." There's no suitable single merge target; neither parent breed is preferable to the other. In cases like there, where we're not dealing with BLP content or any other sensitive subject; where we're not dealing with a policy transgression, and where the underlying deletion rationale is essentially "not notable enough," the case for expressed disregarding community sentiment is the weakest.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Relist Having read the AfD, I concur with anna that the deletion arguments were more solid than the keep arguments. At the same time, the problem was that only the nominator supported the deletion, which made it impossible for the closing administrator to close the debate with a deletion result. Even a no consensus might have not applied since a majority of editors supported keeping the article. It is an inherent weakness of the deletion process. It can't be helped that, sometimes, even the best arguments will be overruled by a majority of opinions when no other editor expresses support for the nomination arguments. In this case, I think that a relist is the most reasonable option at this point. Jfgslo (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Endorse There was no consensus to delete and so the close was quite correct. There is no issue here which requires any further procedural pot-boiling. Please see WP:HORSEMEAT. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but I'm not sure how I'm beating a dead horse when there was no real debate to begin with; however, I will, as that page says, back away from the carcass if the close is endorsed. – anna 17:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Relist though this debate couldn't have been closed as delete keep wasn't appropriate either as the keep opinions didn't address the concerns of the nominator. "It cites sources" is a weak argument for countering notability concerns because notability requires more than the mere existence of sources. If the debate had to be closed at that point it would have to be as no consensus, but as participation was limited further discussion has a good chance of producing a result one way or the other and relisting is therefore appropriate. Hut 8.5 17:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - wow, as the primary author, I apologize for this! When I started writing it, it felt unfinished and I was hoping to find more sources but as usual I got sidetracked; in fact, not even at en.wp; I've nested into wikisource for the last half year. I am going to try and head to look for more sources this week. - Theornamentalist (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - it's possible the closing admin was also taking into account the result of the previous AfD which closed with 2 keep votes. Robman94 (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Relist- I agree with Hut 8.5. There is no way that a one nomination statement and two keep votes that latch onto entirely different issues can be considered to have reached a consensus. Reyk YO! 21:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- As the closing admin, I didn't relist the discussion because it had already been relisted once and the chance of another relist attracting enough "delete" opinions to obtain a "delete" consensus appeared slim. If people here think otherwise, feel free to relist it. Sandstein 21:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm not quite sure why we are at DRV. The obvious thing was for the nominator to relist (with you indicating no objection).--Scott Mac 21:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Er, I don't think that the nominator can or should relist the discussion, as such, that's an admin decision. But they could have started a new AfD and argued that it was justified because of the poor arguments made in the previous one. Sandstein 21:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think we're agreeing on all but semantics. The nominator can relist the article on afd. Relist tends to mean start a new debate (as opposed to "reoppening", which is to reverse the close.) But as I say, this is semantics.--Scott Mac 22:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Er, I don't think that the nominator can or should relist the discussion, as such, that's an admin decision. But they could have started a new AfD and argued that it was justified because of the poor arguments made in the previous one. Sandstein 21:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm not quite sure why we are at DRV. The obvious thing was for the nominator to relist (with you indicating no objection).--Scott Mac 21:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- We can stand on process here. However, the nominator has made a very solid policy-based argument for deletion which has not been properly examined. If there are no proper sources (as opposed to their being multiple improper ones) then policy mandates deletion. Nothing should stand in the way of relisting this, and continuing to relist it, until either the article is deleted or until the deletion argument is properly examined and rejected.--Scott Mac 21:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- This article ought to be a disambiguation page. Someone typing "Shinese" into the search box has probably made a typo for "Chinese" or "Shinies" or something, but it's plausible that they might want the dog crossbreed, in which case the disam should point them to the List of dog hybrids. This could be done without an AfD, so I don't see why relisting is a good idea.—S Marshall T/C 00:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus or relist. The keeps were weak and rebutted. As one of the users who advised against listing here, I am pleasantly surprised by the responses. I expected a WP:SNOW of responses like "Since no one agreed with the nominator, this is a no consensus at worst, and no consensus is the same as keep (the delete button isn't pushed), so endorse." Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)