Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 12
HHO gas (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The AfD mentioned above has now run its course. It was closed as "delete", and I fail to see how this can possibly reflect community consensus. Related discussion: If I counted correctly, 13-15 people in the AfD recommended to delete, 18-20 to keep (plus minus a few leaning/conditional/merge on each side). Yes, as Kurykh contends, AfD is not a vote. But even considering the rough history of these articles, and allowing for individual judgement of the arguments about the reliability of the sources — this AfD does not reflect a consensus for deletion, not even a rough one, and the policy is clear enough that this defaults to a "keep". WP:AN: Kurykh's rationale for deletion and for disregarding opinions at the AfD—many of which explicitly state that the articles do not violate WP:RS—is that the articles violate WP:RS. I find this unilateral decision not acceptable and in violation of proper deletion procedure. Femto 11:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
- Brian_Crecente (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
No clear consensus and questionable nomination for AfD.
The article on "Brian Crecente" was deleted without clear consensus. Additionally the nominator of the AfD isn't a user. How was an AfD created without having to be a user? Per Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion:
"Note that if you are editing under an IP address because you have not yet created a user account, you will not be able to complete the AfD process (emphasis added), as anonymous contributors are currently unable to create new pages (as required by step 2 of "How to list pages for deletion," below). If this is the case, consider creating a user account before listing an article on AfD."
I feel that the decision should instead be "no consensus" on this article. Outside of the "voting" itself there are questionable motives behind the AfD.
Since the "delete" decision the AfD nominator has stated "I am the nominator and I too was a bit surprised on its speedy deletion. I was expecting more of a debate/consensus to keep it. Although I did nominate it, I would have thought we could have done a major revision or atleast try to make it notable in the first place, as by make, I mean finding real information on the man. If anything I would like it to be fair than biased, so lets see if we can get that debate back up then?"
The AfD discussion shows (4) Delete, (2) Keep & (1) Weak Keep. This includes the non-user that nominated the AfD.
Drew30319 16:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Second nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Crecente (2nd nomination). Neither AfD was a "speedy", but ran longer than the required five days. Endorse redirection, no new arguments other than that the original nominator was an IP address, but that doesn't address the merits of the subject matter. Corvus cornix
- The deletion review page states: "This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content." My issue is about the decision to delete while it appeared that there was no consensus. This is the first time I've done a deletion review so I don't claim to know what I'm doing, but that's my understanding based on what I've read. Feel free to give me some guidance. Drew30319 01:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn and relist - discussion was heading towards changing people's minds. While it's not a vote - unfortunately, the closing nominator gave no reason to explain why he chose to delete instead of keep, especially in light of the fact that the keep proponents gave good arguments, while none of the deletion arguments provided much basis for deleting:
- Resume-esque 69.158.170.135
- Argument fails to account for notability. If it's resume-esque, it should be fixed, not deleted so as to never exist again.
- Delete, maybe speedy G4. I'm suspicious because an anon IP had posted the AfD, but the article doesn't show much notability here. G4 because of the first nomination - though it's probably a bit far out for that kind of a speedy. --Dennis The Tiger
- No specific reason stated, except G4 - yet it wasn't speedy material. WP:JNN - just not notable.
- Delete: Non-notable person. PRs and some articles do not assert notability Seicer
- WP:JNN - same problem.
- Delete per Tony and hmwith
- WP:PERNOMINATOR - nothing added.
- In all, the keep arguments were stronger than the deletion arguments, unquestionably. The Evil Spartan 18:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn and relist. Closer was not out of line with the close but it may be more helpful to look for more consensus on these types of nominations. Attempts by the DRV nom to dismiss the AfD on procedural grounds because of "non-editors" is a little distasteful, though. IP editors are every bit as useful to the project as anyone else, and these kinds of arguments are a little bite-y. Arkyan • (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm willing to assume good faith in editor's part. He has relatively few edits, and I think what he means is anonymous editors - he just didn't know the right word. The Evil Spartan 00:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- If I'm the "editor" being referred to (I guess that "DRV nom" means the person that entered this for deletion review, right?) then yes, I absolutely mean anonymous editors. The issue (to me) is that it appears that one person using a handful of IP addresses was making changes to the article in question and then proposed the AfD. I still don't understand how a non-user could propose an AfD because according to WP:AfD that isn't possible. I believe that the anonymous editor is probably better versed in all things Wiki than I am (at least to pull of the AfD without registering!). However, that to me is a side-issue. The real issue that I have is that there did not appear to be consensus to delete. Drew30319 01:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment as closer (note, I've fixed the AFD link at the top of this review). I thought it was close but given the presence of only one reliable source, with contributors unable to provide a second, it was on the whole a delete. Neil ╦ 13:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If the issue is that there is "only one reliable source" then here are a few:
- (note: Google is insufficient for many of the major media sites and require searching within the website itself.) Drew30319 14:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Srikeit 01:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~
- Comment. The fact that the AfD process was started by an anonymous IP address should not be relevant in this case. IP address accounts do not have the ability to create the AfD page such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian_Crecente (2nd nomination). However, User:Uncle G apparently saw that the IP user had attempted to start the deletion process and chose to complete the process by creating the AfD page with the IP user's comments as the first deletion reason. This can be seen in the AfD page's history. --Metropolitan90 06:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Two delete AfDs and currently a redirect to an appropriate article. I endorse that. Guy (Help!) 06:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse, wild allegations of wrongful process are not grounds for overturning anything. >Radiant< 10:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)