Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 18

List of United States Representatives from Minnesota (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

• Endorse Deletion. User:Markles, who voted to keep the article, has reverted the deletion and added a sentence at the top "justifying" its existence. The admin correctly decided that the article (although less than 20% complete) duplicated information already on another article (which is 100% complete). My issue is that 100s of articles link to the article through templates that cannot really be changed. Therefore we can't link to the complete article other than through a re-direct, which was the admin's (User:Eagle 101)'s decision. I hope User:Eagle 101's decision will be enforced Appraiser 23:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Enforce redirect, and troutslap Eagle for citing the wrong AfD. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I just set the wikitable class to "sortable". I would propose to userfy so this can be completed and then replace the table that's currently in United States Congressional Delegations from Minnesota. The sortable class still has its kinks, but eventually this will be a much better format then the one that's currently used. ~ trialsanderrors 03:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn redirect. A fact that is being glossed over here is that the two articles are NOT duplicates. Saying that they both contain the same information is like saying that Minnesota should be redirected to United States because the information is duplicated (obviously an extreme example). In this case, the United States Congressional Delegations from Minnesota article is intended to show what the state's delegation to a particular congress looked like by district and the List of United States Representatives from Minnesota is intended to highlight the people who represented Minnesota in Congress — two very different concepts. I also request that people consider these changes in the wider Congressional context.--G1076 12:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn redirect. The admin incorrectly counted a 5-6 vote (counting User:Pmeleski) against deletion as a consensus for deletion. The articles are different, not the same. Their contents are different. Their layouts are different. There are 49 other sets of articles with simliar formats (United States Congressional Delegations from Foo, List of United States Representatives from Foo, and List of United States Senators from Foo. Representatives are only part of a Congressional Delegation. The "Congressional Delegations" articles are presented with both chanbers, are ordered chronologically and by class or district, and include no other information about the Members & Senators. The List articles are ordered alphabetically and include hometown and note the reasons for vacancy. These articles are not yet complete, but that's even more reason to keep them as encouragement for Wiki editors to add to them. Wikipedia is not a finished static product.—Markles 13:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn redirect and relist (and I say this as a person who voted for redirecting this). At the time I thought it was a standard case of a duplicate article and in such cases redirection solves all the problems. I was unaware that since I entered that vote, arguments with some merit were presented opposing such a measure. As such, I think that AFD might have made a poor decision in this case and it deserves another review. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse • Duplication of information that exists elsewhere in Wikipedia. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Wrong. There is information on each page which does not appear on the other page. The two lists are not the same, nor is one a sublist of the other.—Markles 19:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Close as Keep. WP:AFD decides whether a consensus exists to delete a given article. Lack of consensus means the article is kept by default. Those are the only two valid outcomes of an AfD discussion. A close as "redirect" or "merge" is equivalent to "keep". It is not an enforceable decision. It can be undone - like any other redirect or merge - at any time. It is part of the normal editing process. Hence, it is not a matter for DRV review. --JJay 19:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Um... you could interpret it that way. My interpretation, though, is that a redirect outcome is equivalent to "delete, but don't break links to the page". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, you would be wrong because the article was never deleted. Redirect does not equal delete. --JJay 00:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Why do you think that restating what I dispute is going to convince me? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's going to convince you. Had the article actually been deleted, though, we would probably not be having this conversation. Nevertheless, I would strongly encourage you to review deletion policy at wikipedia, which is quite specific:

An AFD decision is either to "keep" or "delete" the article. The AFD decision may also include a strong recommendation for an additional action such as a "merge" or "redirect"...These recommendations do represent the community consensus and also should not be overturned lightly. However, these are actions which can be taken by any editor and do not require "admin powers". Guide to deletion --JJay 01:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Despite your implication, that is not the deletion policy. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please...it's linked from the top of the policy page. If you think something contradicts that quote, please point me to the page. But so far, your belief that a redirect recommendation in an AfD close is equivalent to a delete result is completely unsupported by policy. --JJay 01:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If the consensus is to delete it, but still have a useful page at the title, then it should have a redirect in place of the article. It doesn't really matter what guidelines, policy, or whatever say a certain thing means, if that is not how it was intended. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Two points: 1) There was no consensus to delete the article in the present case. The closing admin did not close the article as delete; 2) The situation that you describe, i.e. consensus for deletion achieved during an AfD discussion, but also a desire to create a redirect for whatever reason, is generally handled differently. In that case, the article is first deleted and a redirect is then created without the page history. --JJay 02:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You're missing my point. I believe that closing as redirect is usually equivalent to "delete, but make it useful". -Amark moo! 02:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can and frequently does believe anything they want to believe. But does that make it true or supported by policy, practice and reality? You are certainly entitled to believe that a redirect is equivalent to "delete but make it useful". You might even want to make that explicit in your future AfD participation. I would find it hard to argue, though, that List of United States Representatives from Minnesota is a really valuable, crucial or even "useful" redirect for United States Congressional Delegations from Minnesota. Rather, it would seem that certain editors believed that undoing the redirect and restoring the article was even more "useful". Nothing prevents that action, and the only way of resolving the situation, in the event of conflict, would be a subsequent AfD nomination that results in a conclusive "delete" or "keep" outcome. That is the approach that should have been taken by the nom here (after talk page discusion). Barring page protection for a redirect, this can't be resolved on DRV, unless the close is overturned as delete.--JJay 03:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: All participants in this debate are invited to take the discussion of this issue and the wider context of the Project Congress list articles to the new Project Congress WikiList Workgroup. All wikipedians are invited to provide input on the best organization method and new software applications to Congress related articles.--G1076 00:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, keep the list article and close the AfD as what it clearly was: no consensus to delete. This was a gross abuse of process. older ≠ wiser 03:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• overturn and keep the article There are a number of similar articles, some just stubs. Of the ones I sampled this is the best done, and I can see no reason to delete it. (I assume it was proposed as a test case before doing the others)DGG 23:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and/or redirect, too close to an article fork. >Radiant< 11:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

MSM-07 Z'Gok (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

It's high time admins started ignoring WP:ILIKEIT votes and actually began closing debates on policy. Votes with reasons such as "Suit plays a strong role in the invasion of Jaburo from the Original Mobile Suit Gundam" should be discounted. Nor should votes that say "keep because too many similar nominations all at once" be held to contribute towards any meaningful debate. This article violated and violates WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:FICT. Many of the keep votes were gained through meatpuppetry soliciting on an external fansite: see [1]. Overturn and delete. Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and DeleteRelist. Yes, although I was the deciding admin, my personal vote would have been to delete as well. In this situation, I tried to approach each of this list of articles on the merits of its own discussion, and this one's was slightly stronger. Personally, I would rather see it deleted as WP:CRUFT as well, but I try and be extra careful to follow consensus as opposed to letting my own feeling override when making these decisions, as I feel admins need to be held to a higher standard for propriety and fairness's sake. -- Avi 22:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Was there or wasn't there a consensus to delete? You said that there was no consensus, but then you want to overturn your verdict becasue you think the article should be deleted anyways. This isn't a reargument of the AFD but whether the wrong conclusion was reached in closing. --Farix (Talk) 22:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • As strange as it sounds, I felt that were I to have voted (which admins are allowed to do, mind you), that would have made the result to delete. As I said, in general, I try not to have my vote be the deciding factor if I am the closing admin, so I bent over backwards in the interest of impartiality and even though without my vote it could have been decided as delete, I could see enough wiggle room that "no consensus" would be appropriate, and so closed as such. This one was not an unambiguous "no consensus" but a borderline "consensus to delete". You are correct, though, that I should not be placing my voting opinion here, so I have changed it to "Relist", and if it is, I will vote delete. Thank you -- Avi 14:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, most keeps are from a WP:ILIKEIT standpoint or otherwise unrelated to policy or guidelines. AFD is not a vote. --Coredesat 22:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Relist I take the closing admin as saying that he read the consensus correctly but we got the wrong answer. The link in the appeal here shows discussion both for keeping and deleting, so which way it affected the debate is unreadable. I see at least one delete opinion that most likely originated from that thread. Given this, relisting looks like the best path forward. GRBerry 22:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete: two keep comments appeared to be based on "not fair", two approximated votes, and one didn't make any sense whatsoever. I don't see how to draw a keep consensus from this AfD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete as above; two reduce to "Keep because it's good", one was roughly based on "YOU ARE ALL ACTING IN BAD FAITH", and the other two were completely irrelevant. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Odd, really, every other one of this set of fictional characters has been deleted, two of them by the same admin, and the arguments on this AfD even look a bit weaker than the generally weak arguments on the others ('WP:FICT over-rides reliable sources and verifiability'). —Centrx→talk • 01:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. A few "I Like It!" and "It's too many!" votes, and a relatively incoherent claim that fictional subjects are somehow immune to standard reliable sources/verification requirements, adds up to nothing. --Calton | Talk 02:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per Moreschi's excellent rationale. :) JuJube 06:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Relist While the policy based "votes" in the AfD don't favor retaining the article in its current form, I think that it would benefit from further discussion as to whether there is anything worth merging or not. Eluchil404 12:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The fancruft thing is an essay, and not a policy. As an admin, you should really know better. Jtrainor 15:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If you are talking to me, then I am not sure what you mean. I did not delete it due to cruft alone, that is the reason it is here on DRV, to delete. My own opinion is that I do not believe that most of these items are encyclopædic, and thus they clutter the project with this detritus. -- Avi 01:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Mami Wata Healers Society of North America Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

There was an on-going discussion of the controversial deletion of the MWHS Mami Wata Healers Society Page of which the admin has not presented convicing evidence that the article was in violation of wiki policy or in need of iimprovement. Although there was a "concensus" of having the page deleted, we believe this effort is being spearheaded by one of the admins in retaliation for us contributing heavily to an article he has written. The MWHS has presented legal and foreign documents of its legitamcy and its notability to the Diaspora communities.None of the "voters" are of the Diaspora nor of the the religions of which we pratctice. When we went to post more discussion, the arricle was removed compleltely without our being offically informed of the final discussion or outcome. We cannot notify the admin because we do not know who deleted the page. (posted by Syrthiss, as Mwhs (talk • contribs • count) had not moved the template outside the commented area) 18:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Moved from January 19th log to the January 18th log; today is the 18th. GRBerry 19:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks. I don't know why it was created there instead of here... I figured mwhs had some reason for it so aside from fixing the misplacement I just left it and figured it'd show up tonight. Syrthiss 19:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, despite multiple requests to prove notability, none were provided. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Author argues in the AFD that voters for deletion had not proven the organization to be non-notable. It doesn't work that way. Burden is on the article to prove notability, from third-party sources, and none have been provided. Fan-1967 20:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Fan-1967, the burden of evidence is the other way. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid AFD. As Fan-1967 explains, the article has to establish the notability of the subject. If it's not clear from the article why a subject is notable, the article can be deleted. Aecis^Bravado 23:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion These rules aren't here to single your church out... we apply these standards equally across all articles on wikipedia (yeah, we may miss a few, but we try hard not to). (did someone let 'em know this was going on?) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  They nominated, just accidentally put it on tomorrow's log, I linked on their talk page. GRBerry

Ragnarok Online jobs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This article was created to make the Ragnarok Online article shorter. Jobs are one of the most important and distinguishing components of gameplay according to Gravity itself and thus any deletion of said material represents an attempt to deny a quality article to be written about the game. If you have a problem with material which is accurate and in the attempt to document an important subject of the game, I would advise listing all Dungeons and Dragons or Final Fantasy articles discussing classes for deletion as well as removing all mention of characters or classes from the articles in question in question. And before someone comments, the subsection on "Bandit" was both inaccurate and vandalism. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 14:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Is what was in the article this? If so, reluctant endorse because there's generally nothing wrong with the closure or the consensus at the AfD. The important thing is that the information is preserved, which appears to be the case. If the consensus of editors at the main page still think it should be broken off, then that consensus should probably be made clear on the talk page of the other article to try and protect against a G4. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am led to believe thus by User:Prod I have not actually seen the article, and thus do not know. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 15:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes to Badlydranjeff's question, plus a largish number of fair use images, as mentioned by the AFD nominator. (There may have been a word or two changed here or there subsequently, but the same paragraphs of the same numbers of lines exist.) GRBerry 16:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Then, in this case, I utterly fail to see the problem. The information is readily available. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, this is not AFD II. The AFD proceeded, and was closed, correctly (with, IMO, the correct result, Wikipedia isn't a game guide). As an aside, the presence of other game (guide / cruft / valuable information / call it what you will) does not justify the presence of the article in question. Articles are assessed on their own merit at AFD. Proto::► 14:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This is deletion review, and according to policy is the proper forum for discussion problems with an AFD that has proceded. The presences of other "cruft" is not the justification used for the review, simply an aside to the point. The point is that the job system is one of the most fundamental and important aspects of the game according to the company and thus an attempt to remove such material represents an affront on having a quality article on the subject. Should we write an article on the United States but leave no mention of George W. Bush in it too? Kari Hazzard (T | C) 15:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deleton: article was deleted entirely within process. Could you please expand on what you mean by "bad faith implications on the part of the nom"? --Pak21 14:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

An attempt to remove material from Wikipedia which is critical to Wikipedia being accurate and complete violates WP:POINT and is therefore Bad faith. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 15:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You are actually the one assuming bad faith from the nominator here, in my opinion. This is what was on the main page before it was split: [2]. If the content of the page was that, I think I would have voted for the deletion myself. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, so the next logical question is why should Wikipedia strive to be incomplete? Why remove material which is both accurate, relevant and necessary for Wikipedia to represent the subject? Is there some policy stating that necessary information must be removed? (If there is, I'd assume it would be in humour, a la Wikipedia:Assume bad faith.) Kari Hazzard (T | C) 15:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The consensus is that the information is not necessary. The fact you disagree with this is noted, but doesn't override that consensus or mean that people who disagree with you are acting in bad faith. --Pak21 16:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Consensus was entirely unambiguous. This isn't the place to complain that you don't like the consensus. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the place to discuss incorrect deletions per WP:UNDEL. This case meets the primary criterion of that policy (i.e. "will this make Wikipedia better"). Also, please remember to be civil. I will not tolerate your harassment. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 16:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... what harrasment would you have to tolerate? And I'm fully aware that you think it will make Wikipedia better, but the AfD shows that consensus is that it does not. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. No evidence of bad faith or out-of-process conduct; the nominator cited policy and all participants in the AFD discussion made relevant arguments for deletion. --Muchness 15:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion AFD was unanimous, which makes consensus obvious. No process or policy failures. Data is now (back?) in Ragnarok Online. Whether it survives there is subject to the usual editing process there; it can't be spun back out as a stand alone article. If the article needs to be shorter, consider limiting the material to be less of a game guide and adhere more closely to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) - the individual jobs may not merit a full paragraph. GRBerry 16:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse unanimous AfD, and because Wikipedia is not Gamefaqs. Ragnarok Online is notable, but that does not make fan documentation of individual elements of the game encyclopaedic. If this were a Trek subject I'd say take it to Memory Alpha. Perhaps the Ragnarok community should set up its own Wiki. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, it has. Within the Trek subject, though, can we fairly document Star Trek without discussing Spock or Captain Kirk? Something that is integral to the accuracy and completeness of the article should not be removed so hastily. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 19:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong endorse deletion, unanimous and valid AFD. This isn't AFD II, and this may well warrant a speedy close as there is no information given in the nomination other than that "deletion denies any attempt to write a good article on this subject" and that "all articles of type X should now be deleted because article Y was deleted". --Coredesat 22:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, Just because the topic is important within the context of the game doesnt make it important outside of that context. In the end all wikipedia articles need to be written from outside the fictional universe and evaluated from that basis. Oh, we can compare it to Kirk and Spock just after "Ragnarok Online jobs" is featured in several blockbuster movies. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse valid AFD, and a unanimous valid AfD at that. No way the closer could possibly have closed it any differently. The argument "important and distinguishing components of gameplay" is quite silly, really. The little plastic dude who dives into the pan is an absolutely vital part of Mouse Trap, but that doesn't mean he gets an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; intimate gameplay details are not encyclopedic. Other sites (such as GameFAQs) can handle it much better than we can anyway. The parent article needs a single paragraph that summarizes what jobs are, what the jobs are, etc. It shouldn't necessarily be complete and it certainly shouldn't be exhaustive. --Cyde Weys 18:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)