- List of Redwall characters (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Closer did not assess the consensus, used their own reasoning to decide the outcome (no-one had raised WP:V), incorrectly applied the rules (ignoring WP:NEXIST, decided to delete based on there only being one source in the article when other sources were discussed at the AFD), and decided to delete against the reasoned consensus to keep that existed on the AFD page at the point they deleted (7 keep !votes, 2 delete !votes). FOARP (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we get a temp undelete please? Deletion was based on current status (something I'm always leery of), so we need to be able to see what it looked like right before it was deleted. Hobit (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Closer's comment: This request should be dismissed because I was not previously contacted about these concerns, contrary to the instructions above. Sandstein 17:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The instructions say "Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer" - it's not mandatory and should not result in a direct close. FOARP (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- no sources = no article. I remember seeing this one while it was up and it was heinous, though I can't remember now why I didn't !vote on the AfD. Maybe to avoid the badgering. Anyway, if a properly sourced and non crufty version can be written I'd have no objection to a re-creation, but per WP:TNT the old version shouldn't come back. Reyk YO! 20:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yeah, this definitely should have been raised with Sandstein before bringing it here. Reyk YO! 20:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Close (or dismiss if you prefer). Please discuss this with Sandstein and accept what I take it is the offer to restore to draft in some form or other. I found the Google archive here. Thincat (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It appears that the appellant is saying that the closer forgot to count the votes, and instead decided to apply Wikipedia policy. Is that the issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm saying the closer should assess the consensus as to the outcome, not decide by themselves what the outcome should be independently of that consensus. Policy reasons had been raised to keep (particularly WP:LISTN based on new sources) and the policy reasons the closer used in their close weren't even raised in the AFD. FOARP (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true, both Fifthave and Barkeep49 pointed out that the article contained no sources. Reyk YO! 08:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Barkeep49 did not cast a !vote one way or another, and WP:NEXIST is very clear that the present state of referencing in the article is not the decider if other references could be found (and they were). The closer stated that "the "keep" arguments... do not address verifiability", but how was verifiability to be addressed if it was never raised by the nom or the delete votes? FOARP (talk) 08:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Whatever happens with the discussion with Sandstein, the close seems to have properly applied policy. SportingFlyer T·C 01:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the comments below and above, I didn't think the closer mentioned WP:V because they were picking the side which discussed WP:V - but rather used WP:V to explain their deletion decision as to why the sourcing in the article and the sources presented were deficient. The sources presented were challenged, and much of the discussion didn't revolve around the sources, but the discussion that did revolve around source analysis were not favourable to keeping the article. Finally, while the final comment was not a clear !vote, I do not know how you can ignore that comment in the broader sense of the notability discussion on "but there wasn't a vote attached to it!" grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 12:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know that it matters one way or the other, but I don't read that last !vote as an argument for deletion. You could ask the editor I suppose. But given they had a bolded word there and it wasn't "delete", I don't think their intent was to cast a !vote for deletion. I could easily be wrong. Hobit (talk) 12:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I read it as that coming from an administrator, they were not necessarily casting an opinion on whether the article should be kept or deleted, but was rather commenting that they had tried to improve the article and could only find one RS. I don't think that's something that can be ignored because a vote wasn't technically cast given the nature of the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 13:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse-ish - there's no real discussion of the sources presented by FOARP, which leaves the discussion kinda empty. I wouldn't have been opposed to a relist for more discussion of them/time to add them. The argument that a large page can often be spun into sub-pages that semi-inherit the notability is correct, because people do try to read Wikipedia on their phones, it's easier for content, etc. But those pages still need to be backed up by sufficient sources to be verifiable. Looking at the sources, there is at least some material in them on the characters, and a new page, based on secondary sources, wouldn't be G4-able, so if one wants to undertake the task, ask for the history and do the work. An overturn to relist would accomplish the same outcome, so the former offer is probably better/easier. WilyD 06:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn The close did not reflect the AfD. Also, following their comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Races and creatures in His Dark Materials, I think the closer's judgment is too confused re our basic policies that they should be closing anything like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist. Wheeling out WP:V in the close when it hasn't previously been mentioned in a reasonably sizeable discussion just feels to me like an "admin supervote". While I don't think Sandstein's point is entirely incorrect given the state of the sourcing in the article, a theoretical well-done version of this article is clearly at least verifiable to the books themselves, which has not previously been a particularly contentious point at least for bare plot summaries in article about fiction. Clearly there are notability issues and a comedic amount of cruft in this article, but I am definitely not comfortable with the close given how arguable that strict an application of WP:V to this kind of article is. Given it involved also deleting 60+ redirects to it from previous unnecessary character articles that have been merged, Sandstein's rationale to me seems better suited to a contribution to the discussion rather than a close, despite the way it was phrased. ~ mazca talk 11:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn <ec> the question for AfD is if the sources exist, not if they are in the article. A) The fact that the list is done on a by-book basis means that in fact the sources are given in the article (the books), just not in an ideal form (as formal references) and B) the sources given in the AfD aren't really contested (and some are quite good). Now if there was consensus that LISTN wasn't met, fine. And there was something approaching consensus that the article was in bad shape. But none of that justifies deletion. The WP:V argument just doesn't hold water when the sources are literally listed in each section of the article. Hobit (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Moreso, the WP:V argument was not made in the discussion and as such couldn't be discussed. This closure is litterally based on one person (the closer's) thoughts on the matter with no opportunity (until now) for anyone to dispute the (mistaken IMO) point. That would have been a fine (if easily disproved) argument in the discussion. It's a horrible basis for a close of that discussion. Hobit (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Wikipedia:Verifiability is not in question here since the source material is obviously where the character list comes from, you could look at the credits of the animated TV series, or in the books themselves. Most notable fictional works have their character lists spun off from their main article if they get too long. This was a supervote obviously. Dream Focus 12:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems my contribution to this discussion has received a lot of attention - I'm sorry I decided I was too exhausted after closing a DRV below to finish reading this page last night. First let me be clear that when it comes to children's literature I am always acting in my capacity as an editor and have not and will not take administrative action in that subject area. So my participation in this discussion was that of an editor and not in anyway as a sysop. I came to this discussion after having spent some time at the Dark Materials AfD doing research. First I had hoped, given the concerns raised I could just SOFIXIT. While I could lop a quarter of the page away with ease the amount of time to actually fix it was far greater than what I was willing to do. I then wondered I could find enough sources to mount a strong affirmative defense of this article and only found 1 such source (some of FOARP's sources are great but not really GNG qualifiers for me). I left a comment because I wanted to share that source - perhaps someone else was going to be able to find other sources - but intentionally did abstained from !voting. I think the topic of Redwall Characters qualifies for notability as a list under WP:LISTN but I was unwilling to defend that incarnation of the topic from deletion. FWIW I was surprised by the WP:V close explanation since, as others have pointed out, the list was organized by book so a primary source was there to verify material. However, I didn't think he read the consensus wrong. In re-reading the discussion now it does strike me as closer to a super vote that should be overturned, but feel involved enough that I'm not going to formally bold that (especially because sometimes TNT is the best way to produce an encyclopedic treatment of a topic). I do wonder if this could have been worked out thoughtfully with Sandstein directly rather than having this contentious DRV. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral as to whether to Overturn and either Relist or go to No Consensus. The appellant has raised the issue that the closer forgot to count the !votes and instead applied a policy, based on arguments contained in the Delete !votes. Sometimes the closer doesn't forget to count the !votes but gets the weird idea that this is not a vote. The appellant may also be trying to raise an argument that the closer is not neutral, and should have !voted to Delete rather than closing. Sometimes that is a valid appeal. They haven't made that argument, at least not at this time. The appellant may also be saying that the closer supervoted. A supervote is a close in which the closer goes against the count of !votes with which another editor disagrees. Yes, of course they disagree. It looks as if the closer has presented a valid policy-based argument for their close. The appellant may have a valid policy-based appeal; they haven't formulated it well enough to persuade. Maybe they will; maybe they won't. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn verifiability is a policy which the closer can reasonably bring up if it hasn't been mentioned in the discussion, as it's a core content policy. However even if we discount the books themselves as sources (on the grounds that they aren't independent) then FOARP did point to some which could be used to verify some of the article's contents, so I don't think it's reasonable for the closer to delete the article on verifiability grounds. I suggest we move it to draft space for improvement, since lacking any citations to reliable sources is a serious problem, most keep !voters thought the list needed major surgery and at 200 KB it's clearly far too big. Hut 8.5 20:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the perfectly valid call of a Rough Consensus to delete. Failed WP:V, and surely WP:LISTN, with many counter-claiming without evidence to contradict the “delete” !voters. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- How are the books not sources for the characters in them? It's primary sourcing, doesn't use a real referencing format, and doesn't begin to address notability but it genuinely confuses me on how we can say that it lacks verifiablity. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources for the characters, or sources for the character lists? LISTN is about the list, but much more forceful is WP:NOTPLOT, which says the sources must be independent, which means the works of fiction themselves can’t be used. That’s a can’t with a capital C, not as evidence of notability, not as justification for inclusion of the data. For more on use of the work of fiction itself and then use for plot there are is a lot to read in the archives of WT:NOT. The AfD discussion included plenty of source criticism, and plenty of blithe responses.
How are the books not sources for the characters in them? suggests an unawareness of WP:NOTPLOT. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think your use of NOTPLOT is correct, and if it is we have a good many featured articles in need of change (e.g. book film which use the source material as reference for plot) but I do appreciate the response. As I indicated above I have no great truck for this particular piece of content and will weep no tears if it is once again deleted. I just don't think there's a WP:V argument to be made to do it- but do appreciate the perspective of one, like you, who does. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- SmokeyJoe, Could you distinguish WP:V from WP:N? As I've always understood it, something that can be verified from the sources is, well, verifiable. That's not enough to meet our inclusion guidelines of course. But that's WP:N's role. I don't think there is any doubt that the article's contents can be verified by using the sources in the article. Hobit (talk) 05:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, as I recall just off the top of my head, NOTPLOT is about the ratio, 10-20% of an article being plot based on the work itself is ok to most, but more than that, no. 100%, absolutely not, and indeed, anything composed 100% of material from the work of fiction is immediately a derivative work and thus a copyright infringement. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I fully get the NOTPLOT argument, but that wasn't what the close was based on. Are you endorsing the result but not the argument made for that close? Something else? Sorry if it's obvious, I may just be too tired. Hobit (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess that is why the communication failure. Some consider the works of fiction themselves to satisfy WP:V. However, others without explicitly saying so ignored them as failing WP:NOR and WP:NOTPLOT. People often go vague on these things when the real reason is notability. The list is not a notable list, and the works of fiction fail the GNG due to not being independent, at least; and the list fails as a navigational assist, WP:CLN, as it was not a list of bluelinks. I believe the closer read through the confused verbiage, and was it admin discretion to call the rough consensus (where the consensus would be if the discussion were allowed to continue lengthily), or was is a Supervote? I think it was not a supervote, but I think the the works of fiction themselves are always automatically excluded as sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a part of NOTPLOT or something else that says that works of fiction themselves are always automatically excluded as sources? I know we use things like that as sources regularly, I'm wondering if that's officially a no no. Hobit (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that’s not true. It’s about balance. WP:PSTS says that you can’t use all primary sources. WP:PLOT, in “put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources” is saying that an article can’t be simply all plot. It’s not really about WP:V, but it would be much easier if we used WP:A. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking the time to answer all that. I don't think I agree with you here, but I do get where you are coming from now. 23:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- Relist. Closer was wrong to cite WP:V. I agree it should be deleted, failing LISTN. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Doug but I'm confused by your comment. You're saying that consensus was to keep, based on valid policy, but that it changed? But the last vote was a keep vote - so where did the consensus change? Or are you saying that the closer changed the consensus? If so that's not the closer's role. Again my apologies if I'm being bone-headed here. FOARP (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- FOARP, no need to apologize. I can see where my comment was confusing. What I meant was, I think it was a valid close because there were valid arguments—whether on policy, evidence, precedent, or common sense, or some combination thereof—and from my reading, it seemed like the "keep" camp had the stronger case. What I meant about WP:CCC was that this is just a point in time consensus, so you or anyone is welcome to undelete the page, draftify it, move it to userspace, or what have you, and re-move it to the article space. Deletions should not be prejudicial to re-creation, and I feel that often times they are. Granted, sometimes with obvious non-notable company spam, it's necessary to shake a blunt instrument at them the second time. Hope that clarifies. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse and draftify for anyone who has easy access to the Redwall books. ミラP 02:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per WilyD's reasoning. Sourcing for the entire list as a group was marginal at best; the close was NOTAVOTE in action. – Levivich 07:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. I understand the reasoning being the closer's argument: it spins on the "challenged" part of WP:V, which allows that once challenged, if not appropriately sourced, material can be removed, and so, by the closer's rationale, the whole list article can be deleted if there is no appropriate inline souring. Though the list is verifiable, and sources were provided in the discussion to prove such verifiability, the list in itself can be removed because it was challenged and the sources were not appropriately placed in the list article. However, here we are not talking about removing material from an article or list article, but about deleting the entire article. Deletion of an entire article is more than removal of material from an article, and the Wikipedia:Deletion policy applies. I'm not seeing the closer's rationale as one of the reasons in WP:DEL-REASON. The closest is 7: "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed", though that doesn't apply as the attempts did not fail. Reliable sources were found and listed in the AfD. We also have, WP:ATD which says "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." It is accepted that if it can be demonstrated that an article can be improved, we do not delete it. The weakness in this list article was the lack of inline cites to reliable sources. As it was demonstrated in the AfD that such sources exist, and so the list article could be improved, then deletion was not appropriate. In order for the closer to rely on WP:V to delete the list article, then there needs to be wording in WP:V which allows such deletion. There is not. The wording is "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." At its most extreme that would mean removing all the material, but leaving the article in place so it can continue to be edited. SilkTork (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
|