Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 14

Administrator abuse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

It's a notable subject and, as such, it should have an article here. It is not an attack page at all! A.Z. 18:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted If it's a notable subject, cite some sources... independent articles written about this topic. Otherwise it's just a self reference, if not an attack page. --W.marsh 18:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Might have better been deleted under WP:CSD#A7 rationale (I don't see any claim of notability for Wikipedia online administrators and thus their alleged abuse). If there is reliable, independent sources discussing admin abuse then it can be recreated (and would run the AfD gauntlet, I suspect) but the speedy was a good call in its current form, so no reason for an undelete. Rockpocket 19:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• This is not about Wikipedia, though. There is some administrator abuse and some abusive administrators anywhere where there are administrators, just as there is abuse of authority everywhere where there is authority... A.Z. 19:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Fair point, amended. Still the point holds, it doesn't tell us why online admin abuse is notable subject (and WP was the single example offered). Rockpocket 20:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• When I deleted it, I had to work real hard and keep my tongue out of my cheek, as I was tempted to delete for "A7 - non-notable group" or "non-notable web content"...after all, mop-wielders just aren't that notable! Seriously, though, A.Z. isn't being completely honest, as the only example he used in the article was Wikipedia admins. He's previously been blocked for abusing an admin with uncivil speech, so this really strikes me as him trying to make a point, and strikes me as the pot calling the kettle "black". I stand by my decision and suggest keep deleted. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• The article as it stands is nothing more than a WP:DICTDEF. It had no sources at all, and seemed like it was being set up for later use in some campaign or another. If this is a real phenomena that has literature, it could be an article. Write one in your userspace, making sure to hew to neutral point of view and citing your sources, and contact the original deleting admin who is a very reasonable sort, and he will no doubt move it over the deleted article for you... for now Keep Deleted, as the deletion was valid. ++Lar: t/c 19:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Do you think it would be a good article for Wiktionary? A.Z. 19:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Probably not. There's nothing there to work with. Better to try again... start by finding sources that are not self referential. That is not going to be easy I don't think, because just googling for "Administrator Abuse" mostly turns up text on various wikis. I think the suggestion to add germane material to Power (sociology) is a better one. But again, make sure it's scrupulously sourced, and leave your POV behind. (I got curious and started looking at your contribs... this seems to be an area where you have some interest, and some notions that don't necessarily square with generally accepted thinking). ++Lar: t/c 00:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. If it is wikipedia (or even web) specific it is A7 and/or WP:ASR. If it general in scope then anything sourced should simply be added to Power (sociology) or a similar article. Eluchil404 19:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Can you all at least state that it was not an attack page? A.Z. 19:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• It was not an attack page, but it wasn't an encyclopedia article either. No reason for a deletion review- there was no real content to speak of. Friday (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion not an attack page, but without sources you really can't have an article on a subject like this. If we overturn we'll just go delete it at AFD.--Chaser - T 20:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• endorse deletion with no prejudice against recreation if sources can be provided. I agree with Chaser that as written it does not appear to have been an attack page. JoshuaZ 20:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn No administrator can be considered impartial in this matter, so it is not suitable for speedy closure. Nathanian 23:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• I personally don't think it matters so much whether an administrator can be impartial, since it is always bad for the community and for Wikipedia when a selected group of people (be them impartial or not, intelligent or not, trusted or not) have the right to make decisions alone, without the participation of whoever wants to participate. The Articles for Deletion are not there just because they're efficent, and therefore should not be dismissed just because the result would clearly be the same: the fact is that there is a side effect to each unilateral action: authority increases and repulse for the project increases, along with the feeling of non-administrators of being worth less than them, of not being able to contribute to Wikipedia as much as them. Administrators do not have the right to make any unilateral decisions. The community makes decisions, and administrators just apply them. Whenever there's one good faith user that thinks an article should not be deleted, then the administrators should not delete it unilaterally, even if the result will obviously be that the article will be deleted. Or else they'll have an authority that is not theirs: that small group will be stealing the authority of the community of users. A.Z. 23:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• I am not sure I agree, but this is not the place to make that case. In fact, making that case detracts from your argument that there is no POV to the page and that it's not an attack page. ++Lar: t/c 00:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see why this is not the place to make the case, nor do I see how making that case detracts in any way from my argument that it is not an attack page. A.Z. 00:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• This is a deletion review discussion. You are raising matters of policy, and administrative philosophy. Those belong elsewhere. You clearly have a point of view about adminship, and in my view "that small group will be stealing the authority of the community of users" and other phrasings suggest that it's a negative one. Your repeating assertions about administative actions and whether they are morally proper or not detracts from the discussion of whether to keep this article deleted. The only matters to discuss here are, was this a proper deletion, why or why not, and should it be overturned, yes or no. In my view this was an extremely proper deletion, if it was about any other subject at all it would not be controversial in the slightest (Dictdef, devoid of content, no sources, not verifiable, and no notability established)... you are trying to make something out of nothing. If I were less assumptive of good faith, looking at your contribution history lately, I'd suggest you are trolling. As it is I do tend to think that the creation of this article was to make a point that you have not been able to make in other ways. Make that point elsewhere, is my suggestion. ++Lar: t/c 13:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, neither "Dictdef", nor "no sources", nor "not verifiable", nor "no notability established" is grounds for speedy deletion, and i would challange the speedy deltion of an article deleted on any or all of these grounds, regardless of the subject. I have seeen a fair number of aarticels that initally met or appeared to met all of these turned into perfectly valid articles. "devoid of content" is a speedy reason, but the article, while short, was NOT empty in the sense of WP:CSD#A1. In short the deletetion was quite improper (although i'm sure it was done in good faith), as an attempt to anicipate the decision of an AfD, which is not what speedy is for. DES ^(talk) 19:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Would it suit you if the article were undeleted, tagged with A7 (which it qualifies for handily) and then redeleted? We can do that if we must but I think G10 is just fine. ... There is no way this article will survive AfD and we both know it, so to insist that the deletion was improper is just wasting everyone's time. But you're addressing a tangential point of my reply, not the main point, which is that I doubt the benign intentions of this creation, and instead, suspect it of being a way to make a point. See also Jreferee's comment, below, which is spot on. ++Lar: t/c 21:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn This was in no sense an attack article. A7 doesn't apply to articels about concepts. This would need sources to survive an AfD, but they might be added during or before an AfD. In any case, lack of sources is not a speedy delete reason. I don't compltely agree with A.Z., a good faith user who wants an article retained in clear violation of a CSD, such as a copyvio or a blatent ad, should not and will not prevail. But in more doubtful cases significant good faith oppsoition does tend to suggest that a speedy is in approprite, and many of A.Z.'s argumetns echo Process is important which i support. DES ^(talk) 23:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Unsourceable nonsense. Wickethewok 04:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, probably not an attack page, but given that the subject is more than likely unsourceable and unverifiable, there's hardly any point in process for the sake of process here. This article would most definitely not survive an AFD (unless the article creator can prove that the subject is indeed notable/verifiable/sourceable). --Coredesat 05:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• List on AFD. The article does not satisfy A7 or G10. A7 says: "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If controversial, or if there has been a previous deletion discussion that resulted in the article being kept, the article should be listed at Articles for deletion instead." I think it's reasonable to say that administrators deleting a page about administrator abuse could cause controversy. G10 says: "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile")." That was the reason given by the deleting admin, but it's obviously not satisfied here. There is actual information in the article (i.e. it does not consist of 100%, or even 50% attack). ugen64 16:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Let me address the comments brought up here and my thought process in evaluating the article for deletion. It had been nominated under G10, and it seemed clear to me that the intent was to disparage a group of people, administrators. Yes, as I've commented earlier, I also considered listing A7 as a reason, because I truly believe that it was about a group of people, administrators, and that they (as a group) simply aren't notable as a group, and no notability was asserted. I personally try to assume good faith unless bad faith is clearly demonstrated. If the article had covered some outside article or media coverage of problems within the Wikipedia system of controversies about admins and their powers, if it had been a genuine effort by a neutral party to examine issues about how folks in authority deal with the stresses of competing issues, then I would have clearly seen that attempt as good faith. But in this case I saw someone who'd been blocked for abusing an administor (the irony of the double meaning of "administor abuse" was not lost on me!), who's been putting forth multiple proposals for changing the system, someone who's clearly demonstrated a bias against the system, and who created an "article" to make a point, in short, to disparage the subject of the article. In that context, G10 made a lot of sense to me at the time, and I still believe that it was appropriate. I have no problem with the presence on Wikipedia of discussions about genuine admin abuse, but there are proper forums for that. Thinly disguised unsourced pieces in the main space simply are not the correct forum. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - In dealing with suspected disruptive editors, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing advises to assume good faith but remove uncited or unencyclopedic material. As Akradecki points out above, A.Z. previously was blocked for abusing an admin with uncivil speech, A.Z. was the only one to edit the article, and the only example A.Z. used in the article of administrator abuse was Wikipedia admins. A.Z. also failed to cite any sources in that article and manufactured original research for that article. WP:Point states that gaming the system is the use of Wikipedia rules to thwart Wikipedia policy and this can be a form of disruption. Whether A.Z. realized it or not, A.Z. created an article on administrator abuse that was substantially certain to get it listed and discussed for five days at AfD. Because of how A.Z. chose to present the content in Administrator abuse, Wikipedia administrator abuse would be the likely topic of that five day AfD discussion. The article had one post and there was no eariler post to which Akradecki could rollback. Instead of letting this matter grow into a disruption of AfD, Akradecki correctly remove the uncited or unencyclopedic material by speedy deleting the article as permitted by step 1 of dealing with disruptive editors. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • So you came up with an entirely new reason for deleting the article. A reason that doesn't concern the article anymore, but concerns only the author. A reason that somehow has to do with my previous block for being uncivil, as if getting blocked was such a big deal. Yes, I did realize that the article on administrator abuse was going (though it actually wasn't) to get listed at AfD, and there's no problem with creating an article that you know will get listed at AfD. I thought someone would immediately list it. Had I known that an administrator would find a way to speedy delete it, I would have listed it myself. I thought some editors would vote for it to be deleted, and some editors would vote for it to be kept. In the process, as it often happens with articles nominated for deletion, editors would find sources and references, making the article verifiable. As I already said, there is nothing wrong with that. What would be wrong is if I had created the article just to discuss a bit and complain about administrator abuse (is that really your theory?), which was not ever my intention: my intention was to start an useful article, just as useful as the other articles, where there would be information about a topic that happens to be of my interest. A.Z. 20:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Disruption is not an entirely new reason from attack. An attack page can be a form of disruption and Akradecki has explained in detail why he speedy deleted the article. The G10 reason for the speedy deletion is fine. Also, there are multiple reasons for speedy deleting this article. To the extent my reasons support the speedy deletion, they are in addition to Akradecki reasoning, not different from Akradecki's reasons. As for more reasons to support the deletion, you might want to consider that you had a conflict of interest with this very issue and yet created an article about this issue in a way that you knew would push this issue into the AfD process. And just because your intentions were good does not mean that the speedy deletion was wrong. WP:CSD#A7 also applies. The importance or significance of the article's subject was not asserted and there is no controversy about whether the article asserted the importance or significance of the article's subject. As noted above, thinly disguised unsourced pieces in the main space simply are not the correct forum to discuss administrator abuse. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• overturn I do not see how G10 applies. . Administrators are a very loosely defined group, and as in any other group, a few admins presumably have abused their position. Some at WP have even be de-mopped for it, so it's not merely an expression of opinion. I'm a member of the group referred to, at WP and elsewhere, and I don't think it abusive. Is someone prepared to say s/he feels personally aggrieved? Tentatively, I am not sure it belongs in article space in its present form, but should either be expanded more fully and generally, or developed into an essay in WP space. But that's my immediate personal opinion only, and it seems obvious that it is not universally shared. I'd like to see the matter discussed, and AfD is the place. DGG (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, most voters don't think it is an attack page. A.Z. 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's not a vote, it's a debate. Numbers don't matter. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 06:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Then maybe you could respond to the question I asked on your talk page? ugen64 15:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Numbers may not matter, but arguments do. several respected editors gave reasons why they don't thiunk this was proerply speedy deleted. Given that, this does not seem to be a WP:SNOW situation, and this discussion should not be closed early. DES ^(talk) 18:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I believe there's general agreement that it was not an attack page. However, as there was no useful content either... Friday (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I believe it doesn't matter whether the editors are respected or not. What really matters is that their argument was way better. There was no reason for speedy deletion because it is not an attack page, nor is it a page about any group of people. A.Z. 20:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I believe this is not the proper place to debate whether the close of the DRV was proper or not. ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Then what is the proper place. If I hadn't already commetned in the discussion i would simply revert the close. The editor who did the close has rejected further discussion on his talk page. And i don't think one close is enough for a user conduct RFC. DES ^(talk) 02:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Good point I guess... :) I'd suggest taking it to AN/I, and see if there is an admin (who hasn't already commented) who thinks it needs reverting. If no admin does feel that way, then I'd suggest that consensus is that the close was proper. (and by inference, that the original speedy was proper enough as well) ++Lar: t/c 10:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that an admin needs to think it needs reverting. I guess any regular user that hasn't already commented can decide to re-open the discussion. Do you agree, or was this discussed before and there was consensus that only administrators can re-open discussions like the one above? A.Z. 02:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• I requested that someone who hasn't participated gives their opinion. A.Z. 02:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot of Les Misérables (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This closing ran roughshod over Wikipedia policies and practices in a way that disenfranchised Wikipedia editors who were engaged in a serious discussion over whether to keep this article.

The discussion was lengthy, lively and focused on principles, policy and facts, with a lot of back-and-forth discussion from many editors who took the time to seriously consider the matter. By my count, a total of 38 editors took a position on whether the article should be kept or deleted. A majority, but not a big majority, was in favor of deletion or merger — 21 editors (including one who had conditions for keeping that weren't met by changes in the article). A total of 17 editors were in favor of keeping the article, including one editor who changed a delete vote to a keep vote.

The delete position was favored by 55 percent, which is not a very large majority (a change of two votes from delete to keep would have eliminated the majority).

In order to assert that there was a consensus, not just a majority, to close, it seems to me that the closing admin would need to drastically assign less weight to an enormous number of the "keep" arguments.

Much of the discussion centered on my argument that Wikipedia editors have wide latitude to ignore certain Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The policy I recommended ignoring in this case was Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, specifically WP:NOT#PLOT.

The closing administrator, User:Kurykh, decided this argument was so inappropriate that it should be ignored. In his closing statement, the administrator said:

The result was IAR delete. Most "keep" arguments hinge on WP:IAR(?!) and textbook examples of WP:ATA. I close this with no prejudice towards expanding the section in the main article, transwiki of contents, etc. —Kurykh 01:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This decision was out of process for these reasons:

Although it isn't my main argument, it's worth noting that this statement and decision violated Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Deciding whether to delete, specifically items 1 ["Whether consensus has been achieved"], 2 ["Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants"] and 4 ["When in doubt, don't delete."]. The "?!" was not just insulting, but in no way even respected the judgment of participants.

User:Everyking questioned the administrator on his talk page. The closing admin's response on Everyking,'s talk page was at this diff

I disregarded Noroton's "IAR keep" argument almost instantly, and hence also dismissed the "per Noroton" arguments with it. Cab's "slippery slope" argument had only inclusionist pleadings and little basis on policy, and hence was given less weight than most. Ditto with Edison and those associated with it (this is why "per [insert user]" !votes are risky). I also dismissed "Keep because Les Miserables is important"-style arguments because importance does not confer exception to policy.

In other words, a close vote that would otherwise be a no-consensus close was in fact a consensus to delete because numerous arguments against or ignoring Wikipedia policy were simply removed from consideration. The assumption seems to be that only arguments referring to Wikipedia policy could be considered in a deletion discussion. This despite the fact that WP:IAR is, in fact, Wikipedia policy. Again, Kurykh's comment indicates no respect for the judgment of editors he is supposed to use his authority to serve.

Wikipedia editors may ignore all rules when they think there is good reason and their authority for doing so is WP:IAR, a policy. This policy should be considered carefully and must be applied carefully, but it must not be ignored or denigrated by closing administrators in considering deletion discussions.

One of the limits on WP:IAR that prevents it from creating anarchy on Wikipedia is that the community as a whole prefers having some rules, and so any action taken under WP:IAR can be checked by administrators and, ultimately, by consensus.

Deletion discussions are obviously consensus-based forums. The duties of administrators in closing discussions is a combination of fairly and in an unbiased way assessing what the consensus was and ruling with that consensus unless the consensus violates certain Wikipedia policies.

Under Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus administrators are directed to three policies, and only three, that should automatically negate consensus. (Other policies can require deletion of information or entire articles without even going to the deletion-discussion process at all, so that violation of copyright or libel laws, for instance, can override consensus). The three policies that automatically override consensus are mentioned here:

Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates such policies, and where it is impossible that an article on any topic can exist without breaching these three policies, such policies must again be respected above other opinions.

If consensus was not allowed to override any policy, then there would be no reason to point out only these three, or at the very least, the the passage would be worded differently because a no-override policy could be stated in a much simpler way. WP:NOT was not one of the policies that can't be overridden by a consensus (or, a lack of consensus, because that reverts to "keep").

The administrator's comments, both in closing the discussion and in commenting on it at Everyking's talk page display bias — taking sides in the discussion rather than fairly assessing in a disinterested way what the consensus was. As the "Rough consensus" section states:

Administrators necessarily must use their best judgment, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached.

According to the "Rough consensus" section, disregarding comments seems to be generally limited to bad faith comments, mistaken coments and comments that refer to aspects of the article that have been substantially changed by the time the discussion is closed. I wouldn't criticize a closing administrator for disregarding arguments or comments made in ignorance of Wikipedia policies.

When Kurykh said on Everyking's talk page, "In my analysis of the article, I disregarded Noroton's "IAR keep" argument almost instantly, and hence also dismissed the "per Noroton" arguments with it." he showed how he overstepped the bounds of a closing administrator.

If we are to have WP:IAR in Wikipedia at all, then we must be able to use it in deletion discussions, which rely on consensus. I wouldn't argue that IAR should overrule those Wikipedia policies that Wikipedia specifically states overrule consensus. But if consensus CAN overrule other Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then an explicit reference to WP:IAR is valid and, it seems to me, can be used to further bolster an argument to ignore those other Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

In disregarding appeals to WP:IAR, Kurykh negated Wikipedian's ability to use that rule at all. There may be an argument to be made that there was something wrong about using WP:IAR in deletion discussions or in this particular way in this discussion, but I haven't heard it.

Oddly, while Kurykh was disregarding appeals to WP:IAR he was simultaneously using not another policy, not even a guideline, but Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, an ESSAY with NO official Wikipedia standing as his justification for disregarding the arguments of a large number of the editors seriously involved in that discussion. Kurykh, in his closing comment stated: "Most "keep" arguments hinge on WP:IAR(?!) and textbook examples of WP:ATA."

The use of the question mark and exclamation marks beside "WP:IAR" indicates both a lack of seriousness in considering the discussion (as also shown in his comments to Everyking) and a contempt for the editors who made up a large part of the deletion discussion. If nothing else, other editors should tell Kurykh that as a closing administrator he should avoid disparaging the efforts of serious Wikipedia editors in the discussions he's closing.

The deletion should be overruled as out of process because the discussion did not reach consensus, and no-consensus conclusions are automatic keeps. Serious appeals to WP:IAR cannot be summarily ignored by a closing administrator and essays cannot be used to overturn consensus or the right of Wikipedians to appeal to a Wikipedia policy.

Consensus is not just important, it is extremely important. A lack of consensus is a decision in itself, and if Wikipedia editors are to be given the respect they deserve, a no-consensus result must be respected just as much as consensus in terms of closing discussions. As Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#If you disagree with consensus tells us:

By long tradition, the consensus opinion of the community about an article's disposition is held virtually sacrosanct, and may not be overturned or disregarded lightly.

This is precisely the mistake Kurykh made Noroton 03:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• overturn no admin should close a discussion in which they have been personally involved, or even contentious matter where they have a strong opinion, if the matter is at al contentious. Basic fairness. DGG (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Please provide a link to the diff in which Kurykh participated in the discussion. I searched for it on the archived AFD and he did not comment as far as I can see. bwowen ^{talk•contribs} 04:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding your addition: "...even contentious matter where they have a strong opinion"? I rarely edit literature articles, if ever, let alone have a strong opinion about Les Miserables. If you meant something else, please clarify. —Kurykh 23:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• overturn Admin freely admitting to instantly dismissing Noroton and related arguments. In certain cases, people have more that one idea on why to keep or delete. I'm afraid that Kurykh is implying that once he saw an argument that mentioned Noroton, he dismissed it by association. Skimming to find consensus is not acceptable. the_undertow ^talk 04:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry if my comments gave erroneous implications. I did not instantly dismiss all arguments associated with Noroton, but I did dismiss those that only stated "per Noroton" or similar wording. —Kurykh 05:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I appreciate the clarification. the_undertow ^talk 06:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I wish I could say I appreciated the clarification, but I see Kurykh's statement as a simple assertion. He gave a certain amount of his reasoning in his closing comments and explained them a bit more in his comments on Everyking's talk page. I asked Kurykh on his talk page to comment on my concerns before I initiated deletion review. He didn't reply. His two-sentence reply above is the only statement I've seen him make about this since his statements to Everyking. I've made my case against his application of closure policy, but I haven't seen his detailed reasoning. Without it, and with the troubling implications of what he has said (as I go into at length up top), we're entitled to draw our own conclusions as to how he came to his decision. He told Everyking he "almost instantly" dismissed my argument. Well. Frankly, he hasn't been very helpful in this review (that's his right). Noroton 14:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• The decision is fine. The deletion review argument is essentially that the closing admin didn't count just votes to close the AFD, when that is actually the desired behavior. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I have no idea what CBM is trying to say.Noroton 14:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure he's endorsing deletion. His point seems to be that the desire being expressed by the deletion review is that consensus be built only by numbers, when the general desire of the community has come to be something more than just a number of "votes." bwowen ^{talk•contribs} 22:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, a full article of plot summary? Also, while the rules can be ignored, it takes a clear consensus to do so. Under normal circumstances, when an article might nominally meet normal rules and guidelines, "no consensus" does indeed default to keep. On the other hand, "IAR keep" shifts that burden. In that case, the onus of establishing a clear consensus to ignore the rule falls upon those who argue to ignore it. There is no such consensus here, the article does violate WP:NOT, and it is inappropriate. The right result was reached, even if some of the steps in reaching it may not have been the greatest. When plot summaries grow overlong, it's time to get to trimming, not split out a whole article for it! Finally, "55%" is not at issue here. AfD is not a ballot, it's a discussion, and we need more AfD closers who look at the unbolded words, not just count the bolded ones. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course one of my points is that the unbolded words were ignored along with the bolded ones for many of the participants who had valid points. I've been clear about what part 55 percent plays in my argument both up top and elsewhere in this discussion (that is, that a further case has to be made to call that a consensus). I didn't say there was a consensus to invoke IAR, I said proposing that IAR be invoked doesn't remove an editor from consideration in figuring out whether there was a consensus (which is what seems to have happened). You've conceded that a consensus could impliment IAR. That makes IAR a legitimate point to raise in the discussion to form a consensus. If it's a legit point, then when figuring out whether there's a consensus or not, it is wrong to dismiss editors for making that point. Noroton 15:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, although I reject the "IAR keep" argument. Since the rule is only meant to apply to copyrighted works, I feel it is baseless to delete this article, which is about a non-copyrighted work, for violating it, and therefore there is no need to invoke IAR to justify keeping this. Furthermore, a closing admin should only make a decision that reflects the community's will, rather than weighing arguments according to how much he likes them, and since there was no consensus here, it should default to keep. Everyking 05:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The community's will is also expressed in documents such as WP:NOT, and the closing admin should weigh how the arguments in the discussion relate to these documents. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus clearly indicates that a deletion discussion can result in keeping an article that violates guidelines such as WP:NOT. The community's will is expressed in the consensus to keep WP:NOT as a guideline and the community's will is similarly expressed (maybe even with more editors involved) at the deletion discussion which can result in keeping an article such as this. Wikipedia is perfectly capable of making exceptions to rules. That's the clear implication of WP:DGFA. Noroton 15:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn because although I personally would have said delete, I don't see a consensus to delete. According to the guidelines on closing AfD's, consensus is overridden by WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV but not WP:NOT. Eventually, a consensus will form to either delete this article per WP:NOT or modify WP:NOT. In the meantime, we're just going to have to live with anomalous results like this. -- But|seriously|folks  05:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think the guideline for closing AFDs mentions WP:NOT. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - The closer interpreted the debate correctly. And let me add that I am rather appalled by the presumption of this deletion review request to use IAR for Les Misérables. This is not a situation where editors are unable to comply with Wikipedia policy. To quote this DRV requestor's post in the AfD, "This is Les Misérables!" There are numerous scholarly works exploring the plot and all facets of it. The plot posted on Wikipedia was original research that lacked references and it violated three of Wikipedia's Article standards: (1) Verifiability, (2) What Wikipedia is not, (3) No original research. This deletion review request now ask us to ignore the numerous scholarly works available on this topic just so the contributors to that deleted article can aggrandize themselves beyond people who have dedicated their professional lives to this masterpiece? I am really taken aback by this request. I do not ever recall seeing such a request in connection with one of the best-known novels of all time. What seems to take the cake the requestor's attempt to have WP:NOT#Plot changed so that the multi-rule violating plot could remain on Wikipedia. In addition, despite being familiar with WP:CANVASSING[1] and being with Wikipedia since June 18, 2006, the requestor of this review informs me on my talk page that the closing administrator acted as in violation of Wikipedia rules and in view of this I should participate in this DRV. This is exactly what Raul's law #11 states happens: the users who most zealously advocate changing Wikipedia's rules are the users who refuse to obey the rules as they currently exist. To make my position even more clear, I repeat that the closer interpreted the debate correctly. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 06:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think Noroton was telling you the closing admin was in violation. I take it as he is explaining why he has requested the review. There is a difference, although admittedly, the wording is ambiguous. the_undertow ^talk 06:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • When I said Kurykh violated rules, I simply meant he violated the rules for closing administrators by misinterpreting or misapplying those rules. I initiated this review because I think so. Now that you bring it up and I'm thinking about it more, I think "violated" may be too strong (every misinterpretation or misapplication is technically a violation, but "violation" has more disparaging meanings I didn't mean to convey when I used that word). I have no reason at all to think he consciously violated any rules. Yet I am very troubled by some of the implications in his statements, as I said in my statement at the top.Noroton 14:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Response to Jreferee: WP:IAR is a policy or it isn't. If it is, we have a right to invoke it in deletion discussions. If we have a right to invoke it, then in principle invoking it can't be summarily dismissed, which is what Kurykh did. Thank you (amid the ad hominem attacks, allegations of bad faith and other allegations irrelevant to this discussion and the bluster) for putting forth an argument, something more than Kurykh has done so far. (1) Verifiability: The verification is in the book itself and the article referred to specific chapters throughout; how much more verified can it be? (2) What Wikipedia is not: Well, this is what my whole argument is about. WP:IAR is a policy that gives us the power to overrule rules in deletion discussions; Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus is more restrictive but also more explicit and shows that WP:NOT can be overruled; (3) No original research: There is no possible way that a plot summary, simply because it's a plot summary, is original research. Wikipedians look at texts and summarize their contents and put the summary in articles all the time. It's what we do. Perhaps you could explain this allegation. Noroton 14:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn The issue here is not what rules were broken by the article: that was the issue for the AFD. The issue here is whether the closing admin was right to discard the keep arguments as he did. The fact remains that WP:IAR is policy, and noroton's argument (along with those that supported him in it, including me) was a valid application of that policy: we felt that the fact that the rules told them to delete this article prevented them from improving the encyclopedia, so we ignored them. I see no policy-based grounds to discount this argument, therefore it should have been considered by the closing admin, and the result should have been "no consensus". JulesH 07:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, just running through the votes it was 12 Keep to 18 Delete/Merge with one Keep/Merge (unless there are any I've missed). It seems to be a straight argument in the AfD of whether the plot of the book can be placed in a seperate article. The admin didn't debate or vote so I can't see a reason for overturning as there was no clear violation during the AfD and the consensus was clear, even if the Keep arguments ran up more k. Darrenhusted 11:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see 13 keep to 18 delete as a "clear consensus". JulesH 11:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Really? You don't see a five vote majority as clear? What is a clear consensus, ignoring all the Not#Plot and IAR filibustering? One vote or two votes I can understand, but by the time you have five the percentage is 40% (keep) to 60% (delete) (putting aside the Keep/Merge). And this is simply the plot of the book, not the actually article on the book that was deleted/merged? As stated below the keeps combined WP:ILIKEIT with WP:IAR and then tried to change policy on WP:NOT#PLOT at the same time. The process here was sound. Darrenhusted 14:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I stand by my count of 21 Delete; 17 Keep. I counted three or four times and described how I assigned some cases at the top of this deletion review. Anyone who really doubts the numbers should do the count. I counted a "delete/merge" is a delete and a "keep/merge" is a keep.Noroton 14:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment When considering numbers alone I don't think there is a clear consensus to delete much short of 2:1, or 66.6%, a level clearly not reached here. Of course, often numbers alone do not and should not determine the outcome. DES ^(talk) 00:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse I think it's one thing to call for WP:IAR when a policy requires an exception, but many of those commenting that it should be kept for that reason stated that they thought WP:NOT#PLOT should be changed. AfD discussions are not the place to change policies, and IAR doesn't give one a free pass to attempt to do so; IAR provides an opportunity to make isolated exceptions, while this reasoning called for all "important literary works" to receive plot summary articles. I feel that the delete comments were grounded in current policy, rather than trying to change policy through AfD. Leebo ^T/C 12:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No policy whatever would have been changed by keeping the article. The result of a keep, in terms of Wikipedia policy, would only be to make that one article an exception to the policy. Any other changes would depend on consensus decisions made in other forums. People might invoke the precedent of this AfD in a future deletion discussion or discussion over a policy change, but only as a way to try to convince others. And a no-consensus keep isn't a very strong precedent. I did start a discussion on the talk page of WP:NOT, since I agree that AfD discussions are not the place to change policies, and I'll revive that WP:NOT discussion when this deletion review is over.Noroton 15:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. After following this debate extremely closely, I felt that consensus was established and that it was established correctly. "Articles for Deletion" was changed from "Votes for Deletion" because the deletion process isn't about counting up the bolded words, it is about making a strong argument one way or the other. Editors contributing their opinions on the Keep side, for the most part, made arguments that fell under a couple of categories, all of which fall under WP:ATA. Although this is, in fact, not policy, but an essay, it states: "[These] arguments [are] based from side issues that are not relevant to the issue of whether or not a page on Wikipedia should be deleted." Furthermore, WP:ATA states that "when taking part in deletion debates, then, it's best to base arguments on the policies of Neutral point of view, no original research, verifiability and what Wikipedia is not." Editors who favored deletion of this article made arguments based on WP:NOR and WP:NOT, just to name two. Consensus was established by the strength of the arguments, and deletion should be upheld, especially because violations of WP:NOR are, as Noroton showed, consensus dealbreakers. bwowen ^{talk•contribs} 12:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You addressed none of my actual arguments, nor any arguments based on Wikipedia deletion policies and guidelines. I pointed out that the support for delete was 55 percent because that's one aspect of figuring out consensus, not the only aspect. I think a closing administrator must have very good reasons for declaring a consensus when the percentage is that low. If, as you say, it's proper for a closing admin to rely so much on an essay, why is it proper to ignore a relevant policy referred to in the discussion: WP:IAR? (Oops. Looks like I forgot my sig: Noroton 14:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC) )
    • Because WP:IAR is a policy that must be carefully used and, in this case, it seems that he felt, and I agree with him, that it was being inappropriately; i.e. due to a combination of WP:ILIKEIT and "it's important." bwowen ^{talk•contribs} 13:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
      • If we can invoke WP:IAR at all, then appropriateness can be judged only in terms of harming Wikipedia, which is what the explanation Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus is all about. The three policies pointed to at the Rough Consensus section are about harming Wikipedia's reputation or even harming subjects of Wikipedia. But that section does not mention other policies or policies in general, which it easily could do. If we invoke WP:IAR we necessarily are violating some policy or guideline or other. Simply labeling that violation "inappropriate" is not a strong enough reason to dismiss the opinions of editors who invoke IAR. Since consensus is so sacrosanct, strong, explicit reasons need to be given before taking the step of dismissing a large segment of the group trying to form consensus.Noroton 14:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure what you define as consensus. The Rough Consensus guideline gives no "number" because AfD is not a vote. Consensus is built by a combination of numbers (which are not weighed heavily IMO) and the strength of arguments. People voting Keep did not make particularly strong arguments - I like it, it's important, and so on. Delete arguments leaned heavily on NOR and NOT#PLOT and so on. Kurykh, in my opinon, did right by weighing both numbers (in which more favored deletion/merge) and arguments (which were stronger for deletion IMO). bwowen ^{talk•contribs} 22:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
          • IAR is an argument and you haven't shown why the arguments for it were weaker than the delete arguments based on NOR and NOT#PLOT. Neither did Kurykh.Noroton 02:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - admin correctly interpreted an involved and contentious debate. Otto4711 14:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as there was no consensus to delete. The fact that some "keep" advocates talked of IAR, given the unique character of this book, does not justify closing admin in flip fashion to use IAR to disregard fundamental requirement of consensus to delete article. --Mantanmoreland 14:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Overturn and relist at AfD. This is rather a tricky question, as I'm not in favour of separate articles for plot summaries, nor of over-liberal use of WP:IAR (a policy that should not be invoked in controversial circumstances, IMO). As such, I would probably have !voted Delete had I participated in the AfD. Nonetheless, I don't think it's really appropriate to ignore a large number of well-reasoned arguments in closing an AfD. I think it needs to be relisted to gauge a broader consensus. Walton^One 14:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Restore the article as it concerns one of the arguably most noteworthy novels of world history that has even been made into at least one movie and one musical. Also, the AfD discussion looked more like a No Consensus. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Terrible AfD close. This policy wonkery is getting out of hand. —Xezbeth 14:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion I fully agree with the various endorsement arguments above and particularly note Serpahim's point that AfD is a discussion, not a headcount, and the exercise of admin discretion in weighing debates is salutary; it would be beneficial to see more of it. Bringing this up for deletion review, given that leeway of interpretation, is also a highly salutary exercise. Eusebeus 15:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• overturn per JulesH --W.marsh 15:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Kurykh said that he "instantly" discounted any argument which cited a basic policy of long standing, WP:IAR and that this policy was somehow trumped by a mere essay, WP:ATA. That is all that is needed to overturn the deletion, which is this out of process and inappropriate. Without this incorrect trumping of a policy by an essay, there is no consensus for deletion, and the outcome is "No consensus" with the article kept. Edison 16:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but this is simply not an accurate description of the closure. Kurykh did not say that ATA trumps IAR. He said that he discounted arguments based on IAR, and also discounted ATA-style arguments. Otto4711 17:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• You're right on the niggling small point and wrong on the larger point: He obviously treated the policy, IAR, with less deference than the essay, ATA, and in that sense the essay trumped the policy. I can imagine that there would be circumstances where it would be right to do that, but that case hasn't been made. Noroton 18:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, now you're just making things up. In no way was this closed by saying that an essay trumps policy. The close states that 1) keep arguments that invoked IAR were not sufficient to save the article and 2) keep arguments based in ATA arguments were not sufficient to save the article. This claim that the rejection of IAR and of ATA arguments means that ATA trumped IAR is nonsense. Otto4711 23:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Noroton, we can do without you making false and outright ridiculous assumptions on my evaluation process, thank you very much. Please stop grasping at straws. —Kurykh 23:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment from the closing admin IAR may be policy, but is a policy meant to be used only in extenuating circumstances, not to be used liberally when one sees fit. Also, the burden of the need to invoke IAR is on those who wish to invoke it, not those who dispute the invocation of said policy. I think this debate boils down to whether IAR can be invoked in the case. —Kurykh 17:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What justification do you have for disallowing IAR from being invoked? Your justification should be something in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or be based on some kind of logic and facts that can gain widespread acceptance. If you're going to limit editors' use of a Wikipedia policy, you should say why only "extenuating circumstances" should be involved. I don't even know what you mean by "extenuating circumstances." Also, more specifically, what was defective in the invoking of IAR in this discussion? Noroton 17:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• That goes to the very heart of this AfD - the IAR application. Basically, if not now...when? the_undertow ^talk 18:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• That's not for me to tell you. It's your obligation to prove to me that IAR should indeed be invoked. And I see no such pressing rationale. —Kurykh 23:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• No, my obligation was to prove to the editors trying to form a consensus that IAR should be invoked and my argument convinced enough of them so that no consensus was, in fact formed. If you step in and weigh the reasons why IAR was invoked, you essentially become the sole person deciding the outcome of the discussion, because it wouldn't matter what opinions were held by anyone else. I explained at length in the deletion discussion why IAR should be invoked. I'm not obligated in any way to convince you of the reasons why. That's not your job. You are obligated to follow consensus unless it conflicts with certain Wikipedia policies as outlined in WP:DGFA. Your only decision regarding IAR was whether it could be invoked, and you have nothing at all in Wikipedia policy telling you it cannot be or should not be invoked. In fact, you have Wikipedia policy, in the form of WP:IAR telling you that it can be invoked. Your decision was out of process. Those who agree with your disallowing IAR have no basis in policy whatever for their personal beliefs. This is what I meant when I wrote that you were in violation of Wikipedia rules. Noroton 01:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion; AfD is not a vote, and the closing admin's analysis (both at the time and here) seems accurate to me -- WP:NOT is there for a good reason. --MCB 17:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - Because this article violated was in clearcut violation of WP:NOT and WP:FICT and I dont want AFD to turn into an WP:IAR popularity vote. Corpx 19:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Except that WP:IAR is, in fact, policy. So are you invoking WP:IAR to nullify WP:IAR in this case? But if you can invoke it, anybody should be able to invoke it and then let consensus rule. And why not, in fact, follow the clear implications of Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators? You talk about the "clearcut violation" of policies and guidelines while you, without saying it, advocate a clearcut violation of the policy WP:IAR. For the most part, Wikipedians want rules. Anarchy won't result.Noroton 21:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • How exactly do you determine consensus by IAR? By counting the votes? Corpx 21:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I would think you determine it exactly the way you would otherwise determine it. Invoking rules and vote counting are not the only factors in determining consensus today. IAR already has some limits, as shown at WP:WIARM and WP:DGFA. Noroton 21:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Those are both essays and I dont think very many people take them seriously. I still stand by my position that WP:IAR keep votes should be kept out of AFD, because it shouldnt be a popularity festival. Corpx 04:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
          • No, WP:DGFA is a guideline. You want to pick and choose the policies you want to follow. And you would, against policy, denigrate the voices of editors forming consensus when it's a consensus you don't like. You have no basis in policy for keeping WP:IAR out of deletion discussions and no consensus to do so. Noroton 21:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I voted on the afd, but the closing of an afd should not be counting votes. The conclusion was based on policy but it appears there are some who believe there is a confliction between two policies and their's didn't win. I don't see how a new afd would produce a different result: same conflict between NOT and IAR will emerge. Like it or not, the closing we got was related to policy and consistent with other similar afds: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. --maclean 19:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You haven't addressed any issue brought up here at all, much less any issue dealing with whether policy was followed in the way the discussion was closed, which is the actual purpose of this discussion. I thought maybe your examples might shed some light on the issues here, but they don't. Out of all those examples, in all but one was there an overwhelming consensus for delete. The closest that the Keep side got in any of them was your fourth example, where the !vote was three deletes, a merge, a keep and a weak keep, which to me looks like a 2-to-1 consensus. Your argument addresses the deletion discussion not the discussion over the closing. It's true, I'm counting votes in looking at the examples you gave, but it's a quick first step and it's obviously hugely influential in determining consensus. But I don't understand this focusing on one point in my argument (and only one point in the arguments of others) as if we haven't said anything else. Just because an AfD is not a vote doesn't mean closing admins can do whatever they want.Noroton 20:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • "haven't addressed any issue brought up here at all"? Really, at all? Why so dramatic? "doesn't mean closing admins can do whatever they want"...but the closing admin did what the majority of participants wanted, not exactly going rogue. The vote to ignore policy was ignored and your loophole to re-open the case is that vote-counting produces only a slight-majority to delete, opposed to the concensus-majority typically used at uncomplicated afds. My opinion is that the discussion was closed appropriately because the closing admin read the discussion and used his best judgement based on the arguments presented. I don't buy the arguments that it should have been a "no concensus" result (first, the irony arguing that the closing admin ingored the rules by ingoring the 'ignore all rules' rule is amusing, and second, strict vote counting should not be done in long, complicated afds), that the "feelings of Wikipedia participants" were hurt (no, it was not the most well-spoken comments but producing more drama won't help anyone), and "disenfranchised" voter agrument (WP:IAR keep votes were specifically addressed in the closing comments and weighted very low as an argument). The theme of the examples is that all the "Plot of..." articles were all deleted based on the same argument at this afd. --maclean 21:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• So you believe a large majority should not be required to establish consensus? I can see that if and only if there is a strong reason given by the closing admin and if that reason makes sense. The closing admin here said next to nothing in a situation when the vote was close. You've asserted that he used his best judgment (in his "almost instantly" dismissing my arguments), but that's based on faith: No reason was given to discount IAR support, or perhaps, if it isn't to dramatic to ask, you could interpret "?!" for me. (Do you think it's possible that a perception of unfairness might raise a little dramatic tension among affected editors?) If he has great reasons, why haven't we heard them yet? The longer the closing admin waits, the more I suspect there weren't good reasons to discount certain types of votes. Certainly, if you can come up with great reasons, we don't need his in order to endorse the deletion. Yours give very little weight to consensus at all, it seems to me, and my response is to refer you to the last quote in my opening statement at the top of this discussion. When weighting arguments very low, is it a good idea to do it "almost instantly" with the editor who leads with an argument and then pretty much automatically for anyone who agrees with that editor? And why is an argument "almost instantly" weighted low if, like opposing arguments, it appeals to policy (and then also appeals to common sense, to the best interests of Wikipedia)? Does a closing admin get to weight arguments low for no reason at all? Your reasoning about the examples you gave sounds interesting. It's something I have to think about. It's the strongest argument I've heard on your side so far.Noroton 23:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly Endorse Deletion This article was a (very detailed) plot summary, that violated WP:NOT and WP:FICT. Wikipedia is not a repository of plot summaries, no matter how detailed and well written they are. A brief synopsis is certainly appropriate in the book's main article, but Cliff notes style synopsis pages such as this one do not belong in an encyclopedia. The admin did his best to interpret Wikipedia policy and act in accordance with the consensus, which was to delete. Concerning IAR, WP:IAR is more of an attitude that is appreciated on Wikipedia, similar to WP:BOLD, meaning that a good encyclopedia only becomes a great encyclopedia when editors take risks. I interpret IAR as take risks and go against the established norms, but within reason and using the fundamental Wikipedia policies as guidelines. IAR is not a license to blatantly violate WP:NOT, WP:FICT, WP:NOR, WP:POV etc... Not only this, if AfD articles were argued on a basis of IAR, deletions discussions would become popularity votes. If we kept this on the basis of IAR, then we would be required, for example, to keep a nonsense page that was opposed deletion on basis of IAR on the grounds that it was an experimental article. Let's keep IAR out of AfD. Rackabello 20:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Besides, if we allow this article, what are we going to start seeing next? Detailed plot summaries of every work of fiction that an individual editor deems important? Like:
    • Complete works of William Shakespeare
    • The Aenid
    • Great Expectations, David Copperfield, Tale of Two Cities, and every other novel by Dickens
    • The Lord of the Rings
    • Huckleberry Finn
    • The DaVinci Code
    • Beloved
    • Harry Potter
    • A Series of Unforunate Events
    • The Goosebumps Series
    • Goodnight Moon
    • et cetera, isn't this getting absurd

If there's really an interest for articles like this, why not start a WikiNotes project? Rackabello 20:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• All uses of WP:IAR are, by their nature, both a license and blatant. When some authority (an administrator or editor) finds an IAR action, it can be reversed by that other editor. Then, if the blatant, licentious IAR editor wants to appeal, the matter can go to some forum where consensus rules and where the participating editors can themselves ratify the IAR action. Tell me, how else could WP:IAR possibly work? Tell me, how is that different from any other action in which two parties disagree? You and other editors are tiptoeing around a very simple, inconvenient fact: WP:IAR EXISTS. YOU MUST DEAL WITH IT. Somehow Wikipedia isn't totally anarchic despite the embarassing fact that the policy does, in fact, already exist. Sorry you don't like the results in Wikipedia articles that you foresee, but that's not the topic here. Certain important policies and consensus in favor of rules will always limit WP:IAR, just as they do now. Welcome to the Wikipedia we actually have, not the one you wish we had.Noroton 21:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)edit for clarity Noroton 21:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment/Reply So then what you are saying is that we shouldn't have any policies and editors should be able to do what they want willie-nillie. Yes IAR does exist, but I believe it was put into place to make a point that if rules are preventing you from improving Wikipedia, then ignore them. Some people may interpret IAR to mean that they can use Wikipedia for whatever purpose they want, such as advertising, making political/ religious statements, etc.... Think about what you're saying here Rackabello 15:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. IAR should never be used as an argument in an XfD discussion. If that were the case, then we'd wind up with people arguing IAR in every discussion, and an admin would never be able to delete anything. Corvus cornix 20:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • We already have people using arguments against the rules. It happens in just about every deletion discussion. In fact, you're arguing against policy right now because you're arguing against WP:IAR, you're just not admitting it. On what authority can you say "it should never be used as an argument in an XfD discussion"? Consensus? IAR? Some other policy? You're arrogating to yourself the IAR card you want to deny to others. Since your argument is against policy, will the closing admin of this discussion dismiss it? Would you feel wronged if that happened? In fact, isn't it the case that whenever two policies conflict (and IAR must always conflict), consensus will ultimately mete out the decision on which one will prevail? Well, that's true except for the exceptions in WP:DGFA. I really hope you or other editors will address what I'm actually saying here and either accept it or explain where I'm wrong. Noroton 21:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Noroton, you are overemphasizing the policy part of IAR. You sound like you are shouting "IAR is policy!" and expect everyone else to shut up. IAR is policy, but does not allow the blind use of said policy. And may I note that the exact wording of IAR allows its invocation only when the rules prevent you from 1) build and follow consensus, 2) improve and maintain content, and 3) use common sense. I see none of these being violated before you invoked IAR. —Kurykh 22:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
      • You're using a very-recently edited version of IAR that may or may not have consensus. The version that stood at the time of the AFD read "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." That was the phrasing then, and had been for the majority of several years prior to then. The point here is that having the plot summary in a separate article improved wikipedia, because the plot of Les Miserables is complex enough that it cannot be adequately addressed in the main article. And to people who suggest that the deleted summary was in any way detailed, I reiterate my earlier statistic: there were less than 5 words of summary per page of book. Is this really too detailed? JulesH 00:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
        • (ec) I will agree with you on your first point, that WP:IAR has been changed recently (for some reason) from the more familiar one you reiterated above. However, that does not answer the point of my argument: that there was no pressing rationale such that we must toss our consensually-crafted guidelines out the window to make way for a ironically long plot "summary" (as Everyking pointed out to me). —Kurykh 01:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
        • No I really don't expect everyone to shut up (especially you, since I've been complaining we haven't heard enough of your reasoning; and please see the last sentence I wrote just above your comment). In fact, I'm trying to encourage editors to think and to come up with their best arguments, which is why I've been making so many responses. I've been told that my efforts aren't coming across that way, something that concerns me. In the form of WP:IAR you cite, #2 applied because deletion of the article prevented good content from being maintained because it was liable to be deleted under WP:NOT (that was the rule preventing us). (My argument was an application of IAR in both versions that we've just cited, and I doubt IAR will contradict that as it keeps changing shape since I seem to be appealing to the heart of it.) If you review my comments in the AfD I said precisely that, and so did others. I also think it's common sense (#3) that something so important be included in Wikipedia at the length it was included, and I made that argument in several ways and very explicitly. And a large number of the editors in that discussion agreed with it. The best way of deciding whether or not my invoking WP:IAR was correct was to let consensus decide, not assign less weight to my comments simply because I made that argument or, worse, dismiss the argument and those who agreed with it. Now, I ask you yet again: What was defective in the way I brought up IAR? Why did you credit WP:NOT#PLOT instead of IAR? Do you believe IAR can be brought up at all, and if not, why not? I'm going to take a short break, but I hope you'll give us all an explanation because it doesn't look fair so far.Noroton 01:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Your invocation of #2 of the 3-point IAR version does not seem to make much sense. "#2 applied because deletion of the article prevented good content from being maintained because it was liable to be deleted under WP:NOT" is not sufficient rationale to throw WP:NOT out the window (btw, "good" is a vague adjective, and does nothing to augment your argument). Your use of #3 ("I also think it's common sense (#3) that something so important be included in Wikipedia at the length it was included") is not qualified enough because it does not give sufficient rationale. Is it common sense to include long plot summaries of the Iliad, Odyssey, or the Aeneid? But I digress. I dispute your use of "large number of the editors in that discussion agreed with it" as it gives an air of a majority agreeing with your opinion, which is, of course, false just by vote-counting (which did not impact my closing to any significant extent). Please correct me if I misinterpreted your statements. —Kurykh 01:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
            • The plot summary we already have of the Odyssey is 1,500 words in length. This is for a book that is just 416 pages long. This is a similar level of detail to the one in the deleted article, which was 6,000 words for 1,200 page book. JulesH 09:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• (redent)I made exhaustive arguments at the AfD on just the points you refer to and which you're now apparently ignoring. When you say my argument is "not sufficient rationale to throw WP:NOT out", that's an assertion on your part, not reasoning or rationale. Ditto with your assessment of #3. You didn't make your decision several days ago on the answers I gave you several minutes ago. You ought to be able to tell us all why the IAR arguments already given weren't good enough and why appeals to WP:NOT#PLOT were. If you believe you can dismiss arguments with such abandon, how can you go about fairly assessing whether there is a consensus? You say looking at the numbers "did not impact my closing to any significant extent." Well, it's beginning to look like that's part of the problem. Do you believe your role is to figure out what the consensus actually is, if any, or craft your own "consensus" based on "advice" from the editors participating in the discussion? Based on your description so far, it looks like the latter. I've been looking for reasons to believe you worked by some neutral standards in assessing arguments, but I haven't found anything in what you've said that allays my suspicion that you simply sided with the side you preferred. I'll leave it to other Wikipedia editors for the next 24 hours. Noroton 02:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Hum, generally it looks better to have plot summarys in the main article, like this one. Although some of the stuff could have been added further to it, which why it was better to merge some to les Miserables.--JForget 02:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse The closing admin came to the conclusion that delete comments were backed by policy and guideline and that the keep comments were ignoring policy for the sake of ignoring policy. Circular arguments don't count. Jay32183 03:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• OverturnThe outcome was most assuredly "NO consensus" but some people care more about inane policy procedures than wikipedia itself. I think the decision made was based on bias and innapropriate, especially in that it ignored a large amount of contributors for very specious reasons. Anyway, as the current 13-13 vote (by my count) stands on this page, its pretty easy to see the lack of consensus for deletion. Thank you. 03:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Vote counting is no how consensus is determined. If your supporting comments aren't valid, then your comment is necessarily ignored. Jay32183 04:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - Deletes backed by policy (and common sense imo), keeps backed by IAR (why?) ad. Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a place for giant summaries of works. Is Wikibooks a more appropriate place for a massive plot summary? The Les Mis article isn't even that long... Wickethewok 04:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - and I say this as one of the people who advocated keeping the article in the original AfD. I'm disappointed to see the result of the AfD, but I believe the closing admin made the right decision. In the absence of a clear consensus, he examined the arguments used by both sides, and determined the arguments for deletion were stronger: they were backed by core policies, while ours (those of the 'Keep' side) were not. Our arguments were based around IAR, and while I still believe this would have been an appropriate application of that policy, I concede that it needs a strong consensus to overturn arguments based on core policies, and that consensus was simply not present. Deletion was, regrettably, the correct response. Terraxos 19:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - No offence to the keep voters in the original AFD, but which idiot votes "Keep - IAR"? You're more likely to have the result go your way if you had voted "Delete - IAR". The article was not original research, it's obviously sourced from Les Miserables. For a novel such as this, a subarticle on the plot is clearly a valid subarticle should the main article get too long. Of course, I have not seen the article, but I feel that with such a split of votes that this should have resulted in a non consensus keep, and that any problems with the article should have been addressed by those so adamant to keeping the article. - hahnchen 19:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• WP:FICT's examples section clearly states that this belongs over at wikibooks. Almost all the keep votes were based on WP:IAR and should be treated as such. Corpx 20:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Not having seen the article, I don't know what kind of style it was in. I certainly wouldn't be against a transwiki to Wikibooks. - hahnchen 21:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• If you haven't seen the article, how can you say it's not original research? In order to delve into the level of detail required to summarize any plot to this extent, one must make choices when describing events that a reader can't verify by simply reading the back cover the book or such. To say "it's sourced because it's a plot summary" is not exactly realistic. Leebo ^T/C 21:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• It is realistic. You can summarise a plot without going into the realms of analysis (which would constitute original research). Take a look at sections such as Dog_Day_Afternoon#Plot or Final_Fantasy_XII#Plot. Given that one of them is a film, and the other is a computer game, I'm guessing that a rather lengthy novel could have enough content to cover an article, even with OR removed. - hahnchen 21:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• The lack of sourced analysis is exactly why the article violated WP:NOT#PLOT. Also, those two plot summaries combined wouldn't have equaled a quarter of the Les Mis plot article. But now this is turning into AfD part 2, which is not the point. Sorry for going off track. Leebo ^T/C 22:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - Consensus is not, nor should it ever be, a counting of votes, so any arguments about it being a rough majority to keep mean that as far as I can see, at best you might be able to argue for a "no consensus". However, as the closing admin pointed out the keep !votes were arguing on the basis of IAR, or ILIKEIT, while the delete !votes were arguing on the basis of NOT#PLOT. IAR is always a dangerous thing to use, and (at least as I see it) there isn't much justification for its use here, since the first point of IAR pretty much says that NOT is still a consideration (after all, you aren't improving Wikipedia by including something that Wikipedia isn't, although I know there's been much discussion on whether IAR beats NOT or vice versa before). On that basis, then, the IAR keeps don't seem to be valid and the AfD was closed properly. Confusing Manifestation 22:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course--consensus isn't about numbers, it's about who's right. Well, I think my keep vote was right (and it was not based on IAR or ILIKEIT), and everyone who voted delete was wrong, so I say we disqualify all those opinions and we can say we have full consensus based on my vote alone. I mean, isn't that what consensus is all about? Everyking 08:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. I'd not outright discount the so-called "IAR" keep votes, but in an XfD discussion an argument based completely on IAR is inherently weaker than one based on established policy. When there exists concensus that a rule is deficient the proper place to address that would be in proposing a change to the deficient policy, not via referendum on an article. IAR is for exceptional circumstances and requires unmistakeable consensus in order to outweigh established policies. That was not the case here. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• This is addressed to both Arkyan and other editors who have made essentially the same point: Where is your basis in policy for saying IAR is for "exceptional circumstances"? How can you define "exceptional circumstances" in a neutral way? How is it that IAR is not "established policy" (and please define what established policy is)? If you don't "outright discount" the IAR votes, I don't see how you find consensus here, and I think your endorsement is an endorsement of what really was dismissal as the closing editor put it. Who are you to ignore the policy-based !votes of editors just like yourself who had a different opinion? How is it that their contributions don't count at all until they're a consensus? If their votes matter when the vote is overwhelming, then the votes must still matter if they're a strong minority (all other things being equal). The closing admin can't discount further based simply on whether a position has 60 percent or 30 percent of the participants. Not a single one of my questions here is rhetorical -- they need answers. Noroton 21:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Again, I ask you, what is the definition of consensus to you? Consensus is neither just a number nor just an argument. The Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus guideline you have pointed to multiple times does not have a number minimum. There was a clear majority of "delete" !votes, and those who !voted delete made stronger, more policy based arguments than "keep" !votes. The combination of a stronger, more cogent argument with a majority of more than a couple of !votes creates, in my opinion, a clear consensus. bwowen ^{talk•contribs} 21:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• No, those who !voted delete and those who voted !keep both made policy arguments. You seem unable to accept that invoking WP:IAR is a policy argument when it is. IAR was dismissed by the closing admin not because the argument for it was good or bad but because the argument was raised at all, meaning the closing admin acted as if it didn't exist as a policy. That decision by the closing admin was out of policy. Noroton 02:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• It is my interpretation that WP:IAR exists to address fundamental deficiencies in current policy and guidelines. WP:WIARM addresses the fact that guidelines may have loopholes and exceptions, the fact that consensus on Wikipedia is not set in stone and thus any and all rules are subject to interpretation. But WIARM also dictates that IAR is not to be used as a trump card to justify every "outside the norm" action. A reasonable justification is required. In this particular case, the stated justification(s) were in the minority and there was thus no consensus that the IAR invocation was justified. Seraphimblade summed up the remainder of my train of thought previously - when there is no consensus that IAR is a justified reason for circumventing another rule, it becomes a weak argument. When the majority of the !votes are to delete and the "keep" minority is based on a weakened argument, it is not outside the purview of the closing administrator to interpret this as a consensus to delete. It is my interpretation of all the policies involved, including IAR, that this was not closed inappropriately and thus I will endorse it. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 23:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• "A reasonable justification is required" — any administrator who tries to assess the justification for IAR becomes the supervoter in the discussion, because the nature of IAR is different from the nature of other Wikipedia policies and guidelines: The purpose of IAR is broader than all the other rules, and the only justification for invoking it is essentially that Wikipedia would be harmed in some way if an exception were not made to some other policy or guideline. Having administrators decide whether the reason for invoking IAR is good enough or not arrogates power to administrators that belongs to the editors participating in the discussion forum. (This assumes that Kurykh actually judged the arguments for invoking IAR rather than just dismissed all invocations of IAR, which is much worse.) The only role for an administrator in judging whether IAR can be invoked is to decide whether the reasoning is -- very, very broadly -- something that a reasonable person with Wikipedia's best interests at heart could subscribe to, whether or not the administrator agrees with that reasoning.Noroton 02:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think we can all agree that in any XfD debate, the arguments presented are always subject to review and assessment by the closing administrator. Merely citing a relevant policy or guideline may not be enough. Again, IAR is not a carte blanche argument to excuse an article from having to meet inclusion criteria. As you say, the core reason for citing IAR is a belief that Wikipedia will be harmed if a particular rule is not broken. Absent any compelling argument as to why the 'pedia will be harmed, all we have is nothing more than just a belief. On its face there is nothing wrong with this argument, but it is not a compelling argument by itself. I believe what we have here is a fundamental philosophical difference regarding the use of IAR, particularly in deletion discussions. I feel that an invocation of IAR requires justification to be a useful argument, whereas you seem to believe that an invocation of IAR is sufficient on its own (at least that's how I interperet your stance, pardon me if I am incorrect). I do not think either of our arguments are going to sway the other, and at this point it is likely best to simply agree to disagree and await the judgement of the community on this matter. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• I find some of your points, and some points brought up by other editors here, very persuasive. I'm going to suggest (below) an idea that might actually bring some consensus to this discussion. I agree with you that no editor can simply invoke IAR and have it stick -- there must always be a check and that always has to come largely from other editors. When it comes to deletion discussions, I think we have to respect the consensus of the editors, so I think the primary check should be consensus, not administrators. As I think about it though, I can see potential for abuse as fans of some subject swamp the deletion discussion and carve out an exception in the rules for no good Wikipedian reason. And yet passing over the same decision simply to the closing admin is just as likely to create an opening for abuse. See A possible way forward below. Noroton 16:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. There was no consensus to delete. When in doubt, don't delete. Also while I am a strong proponent of process and like to see IAR used as sparingly as possible, I do not agree with the comments that IAR has no place in XfD. I think that anywhere the result is clearly contrary to the goal of building an encyclopedia, IAR can apply. Where better than when deleting a useful article would result due to the rigid interpretation of a guideline or a broad interpretation of a policy. (I am not saying that is the case here, I am not opining on whether this is worth keeping, just that the argument cannot be written off as invalid). -- DS1953 ^talk 04:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. We have no place on Wikipedia for original research. A brief precis of plot of a novel is appropriate for Wikipedia; a long section, much less a whole article, about the plot (as opposed to a sourced article discussing significant critiques of the plot) is absolutely unacceptable on Wikipedia. If you want to engage in that kind of creative venture, try wikibooks or something. And if adherence to process would have resulted in this monstrosity being kept, then let that be yet one more nail in the coffin of process. --Tony Sidaway 13:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Original research? Let me repeat this for the editors in this discussion who have made this assertion: It. Is. Common. Practice. In. Wikipedia. There is nothing different about this plot summary, other than length, with every or nearly every plot summary in the entire encyclopedia. Your problem is with commonly accepted practice. It makes not one bit of difference that this long summary of this long book is longer than the shorter summaries of shorter books. It is no more "creative" than writing anything else in Wikipedia articles — in fact, it is quite a bit less creative because the purpose is far narrower. We have a source for every single word in every single plot summary: the original work. It happens to be the best, most reliable source available. Anybody who writes an encyclopedia takes information and (unless they're violating copyright) puts information in the writer's own words. Anybody who does that must — by necessity — make decisions about how to describe something or impart some information. I do not understand how any editors who have actually written articles can make this WP:OR charge. The idea of relying on other sources is a technicality that has absolutely no practical value, which is why we've always done it this way. Please take your objections to the relevant policy page. Best of luck with it. Noroton 23:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This may, in fact, be why NOT#PLOT exists. Plot summaries usually are not sourced, that seems to be true from what I've seen - but plot summaries are not supposed to be entire articles. Individual articles, in order to be encyclopedic and give a full amount of information about a topic, need sourcing. Also, editors are clear on your positions in this DRV. You do not need to post rebuttals to every comment made, as it can fray nerves and inflame emotions. As I said to you before on your talk page, I'd recommend you let this DRV run its course and not worry about it until after the DRV is over. Thank you for your time. bwowen ^{talk•contribs} 23:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Response on procedural points: Actually, I'm arguing the subject and I'm drawing out people on the subject who are making assertions when reasons for assertions are what's useful. That's what a discussion (as opposed to a vote) is supposed to be about. I have nothing to regret in doing that, and in fact I'm pleased that people are discussing some extremely important issues more fully. The only proper objections are (a) length (in this case it just can't be helped, there's a lot of substance to discuss) or (b) the discussion is becoming unproductive because too much heat and not enough light is being generated, and that just isn't the case. Some editors have ignored arguments already put forth, and I want to see what their reactions are to those arguments. Some very useful points have been developed by the back-and-forth. People have almost entirely stuck to the issues. I notice that even when you're telling me that I should be backing off on making a point, it comes right after you've made a point -- kind of hard to refrain from doing in an important discussion, isn't it? And if you feel you've got a useful point to make that helps the discussion, why refrain? Noroton 02:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Response on substantive points: No, every single plot summary is sourced. By definition. This article, you may recall, did include a few footnotes. I put some in at the top only to mention that four books like Cliff's Notes had been published (and are still in print) that focused on the plot. I did that for notability reasons. I think it was DGG who put some links to academic article descriptions from JSTOR (the actual articles are behind a subscription wall). I proposed on the talk page of WP:NOT what I considered a useful change: Allowing plot articles that gave full treatment of the plot but that allowed for longer plot summaries than a typical section of a Wikipedia article (in effect, creating an exception to a rule about overwhelming an article with inordinate emphasis on one point -- in this case, plot summary). That would have created a space in the rules for a long plot summary in an article that met some of the objections of some editors. I plan to revive discussion of that after this DRV is over. Noroton 02:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  Noroton, if you're telling me that this deleted item was simply a long description of the plot with no creative input, no critique, and no commentary, then obviously it wasn't a Wikipedia article at all. And as for length, our plot summary for War and Peace is about 1,000 words. The article Les Misérables itself has a perfectly good 900-word plot summary. You hardly need a separate article for a decent plot summary, let alone this 6,000 word monstrosity! --Tony Sidaway 23:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Tony, thanks for your interest, but deletion review discussions are for discussing whether the AfD was closed for good Wikipedia policy reasons or for new information. Comments that don't contribute to that don't get counted by the closing admin of this discussion. Noroton 02:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I think you're trying to say that the points I make are worthless. I think we'll have to agree to differ on that. That the deleted article was redundant, original research and devoid of use is certainly relevant to whether the deletion debate was closed correctly. The purpose of the deletion policy is to delete worthless articles and to retain good ones. If it produced the correct result in this case, that's all I have to show. --Tony Sidaway 19:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Not worthless, just off topic, I thought. But when you put it the way you just did, I think I was probably wrong about that. Sorry. Noroton 19:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - There was no consensus to delete, so article should have been kept. --Jack Merridew 13:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, could you please elaborate a little more? My opinion is that consensus absolutely existed; I'll spare everyone typing that argument out again and ask you to scroll up and look at my earlier comments to see my exact opinions about it. Thanks, bwowen ^{talk•contribs} 16:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• A possible way forward I don't envy the closing admin. The raw vote indicates no consensus and yet WP:IAR clearly stands in policy and was invoked in good faith by serious editors. I think the "endorse" side is in an uncomfortable position of, on the one hand, wanting to support rules as a check on anarchy and on the other hand having to ignore a rule WP:IAR or mutiny against it. I haven't seen a rules-based defense of summarily tossing out IAR votes and it's pretty evident that there hasn't been a case made that the closing admin seriously evaluated them. And yet I've been swayed by some arguments that for practical reasons we can't have groups of editors, in an unchecked way, invoking IAR in deletion discussions and forming consensus around that, because that could erode all other rules.

We have administrators to check raw consensus and we have DRV to check administrators. Since IAR is, in fact, policy, and we should not, in fact, avoid recognizing that it is policy, we should incorporate IAR into the system we have now. It wouldn't require any changes in policy or guidelines, although spelling it out in a guideline (probably WP:DGFA would be a good idea.

I would incorporate it this way: Recognize the right that editors have to invoke WP:IAR in deletion discussions. After all, that reflects policy as it stands. But then recognize the right of closing admins to check WP:IAR by invoking it themselves in those cases where IAR has gotten enough support to affect the consensus (or cause there to be no consensus, as I say happened here). In this case, Kurykh would be allowed to invoke IAR, saying that if the no-consensus position stood it would harm Wikipedia. In any other case, a closing admin invoking IAR would be a rare thing, but if it is invoked in a deletion discussion to counter an invocation of it by editors in that discussion, it should simply be considered another tool a closing admin has to figure out whether there is a consensus. If editors like me are going to say, for instance, that the plot summary of Les Mis is simply too important to leave out of Wikipedia and therefore WP:NOT#PLOT should be ignored in this case, then closing admins like Kurykh should be able to say, "I disagree, I don't think that it's important enough" just as if he were participating in the discussion. The reason is that the power of a deletion consensus, like everything else needs checks and balances, and if IAR is invoked, that's the only check and balance that we have. Further, to prevent a closing admin from abusing that power, we should be able to take the matter to Deletion Review and DRV editors should also have the power to invoke WP:IAR (as, actually, we already do have that power). Invoking IAR would mean that DRV discussions in cases where IAR is invoked in the original deletion discussion and has affected whether there is or is not consensus should be able to bring up all the good or bad reasons that an article should be deleted or not, contrary to usual DRV policy.

Look at how editors have been tied in knots in this discussion over the contradictions in invoking or supressing IAR: Maclean has said I've contradicted it by not acknowledging that Kurykh should have it. I've said that another editor will have no grounds to stand on if, when denying others the right to invoke IAR in deletion forums, that editor's own vote is ignored in this forum by the poor closing admin who's taken on the task of reading through this novel-length discussion. IAR is fundamentally unlike any other Wikipedia rule because it's basically an anti-rule. We are forced to treat it differently and use it differently, and yet, because it's a rule, we are forced to recognize it. Anything else leads to editors being silent about it and ignoring it or coming up with untenable justifications for doing so. I think this discussion has been an illustration of that.

My suggestion, as outlined above, is a compromise: I don't get to use consensus (or in this case, the result of no consensus) to force IAR, Kurykh does get to overturn consensus, but he's encouraged to do so explicitly, and DRV remains to put a check on Kurykh. You could call invocations of all these possible IARs a little messy, but I would call the evasions that currently go on something worse than messy.

I would rather have a consensus here that recognizes the Wikipedia policies we now have and that recognizes a way of adjusting our behavior to those policies rather than have a lack of consensus here that just makes us all cynical and embitters us in the future. Because when we hide behind administrator authority or invoke one policy while ignoring the other or set up administrators as all-supreme czars or consensus as some all-supreme mob, we harm Wikipedia.

Not that it matters in any practical sense, but if several editors on the endorse-side will agree with me that using IAR in this way is a better way forward, I'll change my own !vote to endorse. We should also consider putting this idea in a guideline, probably WP:DGFA. Noroton 18:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC) {edit in third paragraph: "to counter an invocation of it by editors in that discussion" Noroton 18:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC))

I for one appreciate the attempt to reach some kind of consensus on this issue. Lenghty discussions involving IAR tend to be difficult because, as IAR is a unique policy, it presents unique sorts of problems. Its invocation can be subject to abuse - but then so can a fanatical devotion to a literal interpretation of the existing rules. IAR is really just a policy extension of the fifth point in WP:FIVE and an acknowledgement of the fact that Wikipedia will never reach perfection - but will undergo numerous changes in the pursuit thereof. With the exception of few solid and straightforward rules such as copyright violations, all rules are subject to this constant evolution. IAR should help prevent us from getting mired down in the status quo and becoming resistant to change. I for one find your compromise to be an acceptable solution - or at least direction - in this problem. IAR cannot be ingored but it also cannot be used as an ultimate rule to trump all other process. Interestingly, Kurykh did (originally) close this as an "IAR delete", just as your compromise allows. Fortunately, that's why we have DRV, to ensure that admins aren't abusing policy for their own gain. The near even divide between those endorsing and rejecting this closure illustrates that perhaps there is a deficiency in current policy regarding plot summaries, but that would be the sort of thing best handled by a broader discussion forum. In the meantime, I feel your compromise is a good way to move forward with this deletion debate, at least. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, Noroton, could you please post that in the form of a one or two sentence response? I understood almost none of that. Also, would this "new" system allow editors to invoke IAR just to make a "policy-based" WP:ILIKEIT argument? bwowen ^{talk•contribs} 20:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)