Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 3

Template:Linkimage (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(restore|cache|TfD)

This discussion was closed with the result of "delete." Two previous debates were closed with a result of "keep." [1] [2] The closer interpreted the debate incorrectly. This is a problem because:

• • The discussion this time was far less comprehensive, involving fewer people. This is due to a variety of factors. The deletion ran through the end of August through American Labor Day weekend, when many users from all over the world take holidays. In spite of one of the arguments for deletion being that it was used in only three articles, the TfD was not mentioned in these articles, as was the prior TfD. I, for one, was not aware of the TfD until it ended.
  • The prior TfDs, although mentioned, were never linked, nor, more importantly, were their arguments revisited or summarized.
  • It is very difficult to interpret the discussion, in which there were no anons, as having a consensus for "delete." A majority of users voted "keep." User:Radiant! cited his or her interpretation of policy as reasoning, but I interpret policy in a way that would discount many of the "delete" voted, pointing out that "censorship" is not the moving of information to somewhere else where it can be viewed by any interested party, but the removal of information altogether. (As an aside, if "censorship" is requiring one click for relevant information in the main namespace, then not linking to the previous TfDs in Wikipedia namespace was super-duper-censorship!) It is difficult to see how an impartial third party would interpret the result as "delete."
  • In the previous debate [3], User:Radiant! voted "Speedy delete per WP:NOT, WP:NDT and WP:CSD#G4. Seen it before plenty of times." When asked how these were relevant, the user refused to say. The closure of the current discussion thus seems to be a conflict of interest, and the prior thinly justified reasoning for voting explains the current thinly justified verdict of the discussion. As stated in WP:DPR, "People should not close discussions in which they have been involved. To do so presents a conflict of interest." I realize that this can be reasonably interpreted to define each debate as a separate "discussion," but, even given that interpretation, the actions here still seem to present a conflict of interest, as guidelines are subject to reasonable interpretation.

It is reasonable to argue that none of these factors alone translates into a "slam-dunk" for the case of overturning the deletion, but, taken together, they reveal that the process was exceedingly flawed, enough to warrant such a reversal. Calbaer 21:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

NOTE that the nominator Calbaer has engaged in one-sided canvassing in order to vote stack this debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiant! (talk • contribs)

Please provide any evidence of this unsubstantiated, unsigned accusation. I informed one person who was pro-"keep," one person who was pro-"delete," and one relevant article talk page. (I also responded to a query regarding this notification.) This article was historically frequented by pro-"keep" and pro-"delete" folks in somewhat equal measure, and I used language that did not urge any particular action but participation. Anyone who reads WP:CANVASS will be able to see that such friendly notices are not votestacking by any stretch of the imagination.

Note - The deleted template hid images in a "Click to View" link. Normally, a reader will see all article images. When this template was used, the reader additionally needed to click on a link to view the image. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Valid interpretation of debate and policy. The template is a violation of WP:NOT censored; I think it's silly to insist on not hiding offensive images from the casual reader, but a lot of people have it as an article of faith that if you stumble upon the article on penis you should have a bunch of dicks right in your face. This viewpoint is baffling to non-Americans, but causes some editors to get very wound up. Just look at the Mohammed cartoons debates. Simply having this template is inviting tat kind of crap. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Points to counter yours were made in the TfDs, especially the spirited one that I happened to take part in, and I could add to them by responding to your argument. However, this should be a discussion of the process, which you do not address except for expressing your approval. I only expressed one of many arguments in order to illustrate that the dismissals of one side of the argument were due to personal preference, not lack of substance. Calbaer 03:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong overturn. Usually if there are particularly good reasons for deleting a template, at least one of three TfD debates sees a majority of delete !votes. In this case reasonable arguments were made by both sides, and all three TfDs had a majority of keep !votes. There's nothing unique about the closer's concerns which make them more powerful than those of the other ~60-70 editors which discussed the very same issues and reasonably arrived at different conclusions. — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. I believe the first two points the nominator made would justify a relisting rather than undeletion. But when both sides have cited relevant policies and disagreed on their interpretation, it makes no sense to declare the minority position was the consensus. Lyrl^Talk _C 00:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It does, if one position is fallacious and the other is not. >Radiant< 08:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed. But whereas you have not named any of the fallacies in the arguments of the pro-keep side of the TfD, I can easily name the fallacy of your side: Yours is a verbal fallacy in which you are equivocating the dictionary definition of "censorship" with your own personal definition of "censorship." Using your logic regarding consensus, this fallacious view should have been ignored, and the debate closed as "keep." Calbaer 18:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, encourages censoring of images, which Wikipedia explicitly does not do. Quite realistically, if one goes to an article on a more graphic topic and is shocked to find frank discussion and illustrative images of that subject, I don't know what to tell them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Again, this concerns process, not the substance of the arguments. I could point out that requiring a click to view is not censorship, but this debate has already occurred three times. The question is whether the (final) debate itself was processed correctly, which you do not address here. Calbaer 04:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Alright, then, in terms of process, WP:NOT#CENSORED is a core policy, this template violates it, the closing admin correctly looked at this rather than head-counting, since TfD, like AfD, is a policy-based discussion, not a vote. And there's for process. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Just because some people believe the template violates it doesn't mean that it does. Those who redefine the word "censorship" and/or ignore the contents of WP:NOT#CENSORED do not automatically overrule those who disagree. Were that true, the other TfDs would have been successful. Calbaer 04:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#CENSORED establishes that editors are not prohibited from posting objectionable material. That does not mean that editors are required to force objectionable material on to viewers where it is relevant. Nothing in WP:NOT#CENSORED prevents us from giving viewers a warning before displaying objectionable content. This has been discussed ad nauseum already. If a consensus of editors deny an alleged policy violation on reasonable grounds, then the alleged violation doesn't trump consensus. — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I probably should have brought up policy Wikipedia:Consensus#"Asking the other parent", since this seems to apply to this particular TfD, for reasons I've already given: "A good sign that you have not demonstrated a change in consensus, so much as a change in the people showing up, is if few or none of the people involved in the previous discussion show up for the new one." Calbaer 04:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse self. The last TFD was five months ago, so a new TFD was hardly "too soon" or "improper" or anything, as consensus can change. As noted in the recent TFD, several people want it kept precisely because they intend to use it to censor images in the mainspace - and if that is their goal, they need to overturn the relevant policy first. Plus, nobody has explained why they can't simply link images like this: Image:Apple.gif. >Radiant< 08:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Consensus#"Asking the other parent" isn't necessarily about how much time is elapsed. It can be, if relevant and substantial changes take place during that time, but nothing changed about the template or the way in which the TfD was evaluated. I think the issues with -esque links are fairly intuitive: they don't load during page load, they require the user to navigate away from the article (or open a new window, etc.) just to see an image, they are bound to appear unprofessional, there's currently no easy way of formatting floating image links with captions, warnings, etc. using wikicode, and most importantly they suffer from the same issues (censorship, etc.) that the template in question may or may not suffer from, so there's really no advantage. — xDanielx ^T/_C 09:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, this isn't really "asking the other parent" as in forum shopping, but asking the same parent again almost half a year later. It is quite common for pages to be nominated for deletion again after some time passes; there are perennial proposals to restrict this to e.g. once per year, but these have been rejected many times in the past. >Radiant< 09:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
      • The time elapsed is not an issue. And "Asking the other parent" was not mentioned in any of my four categories of original concerns. As XDanielx notes, attacking only the weakest of several arguments is fallacious. Nonetheless, the time of year it was asked, the lack of notification of users and talk pages previously notified and/or impacted, and the resulting difference in the population taking part, although not explicitly violating any particular policy, does constitute "asking the other parent" as described in Wikipedia:Consensus#"Asking the other parent". In any event, it is rather odd to unilaterally delete a template because it supposedly encourages censorship, then say that some other construction pretty much does the same thing so why is anyone complaining. Do you believe such links are censorship or don't you? Calbaer 17:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, there was no consensus to delete - the community was unable to form a consensus whether or not using this template constitutes censorship, and Radiant's personal interpretation of what WP:NOT does and does not mean (I don't believe this template is out of line, and neither does Jimbo) does not overrule discussion. Neil ム 13:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Argumentum ad Jimbonem is a fallacy. Something Jimbo noted two years ago is hardly relevant now. >Radiant< 13:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Implying my argument consisted solely of "what Jimbo said" by failing to respond to the other points is also, similarly, a fallacy. Neil ム 13:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Presenting James' actions as evidence is not "claim[ing] that what Jimbo said is The Truth." Calbaer 17:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn The closer stated that “Arguments that "Wikipedia should censor shocking images" should be made on the relevant policy pages instead”. However, this is no reason to close with delete. Better to have kept the template, (in line with majority consensus - some of whom believe this template does not compromise WP:CENSOR), and subsequently direct those who oppose its use to make arguments on the policy page to ban unambiguously this type of template. I don’t see how the closer of this discussion can be content that the discussion was full and complete. This discussion was much shorter than any of the others. Chesdovi 13:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Consensus is not a headcount. Also, the policy already says that; you are suggesting that the people who agree with policy should go to the policy page to confirm what it alerady says. >Radiant< 13:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"the policy already says that". Where? Chesdovi 14:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• WP:NOT: "some articles may include objectionable ... images ... relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography)" >Radiant< 14:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed, but it doesn't mandate against using templates such as {{linkimage}}. Just because we can use objectionable images doesn't mean we have to. This has been discussed to death and beyond, over and over again, though - the issue at hand is not what WP:NOT does and does not mandate - the issue at hand is whether you, Radiant, acted correctly in closing this discussion as a "delete", effectively citing WP:NOT as overruling any concerns. The fact there was nowhere near a consensus that WP:NOT applied here should have suggests closing in such a manner was not the best call. Neil ム 15:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It does not mention explicitly that {{linkimage}} is not to be used. Why indeed are you calling it censorship - the image lies on the page and is readily accessible. We are talking about sensitivities amongst other things. On the contrary, “some articles may include objectionable ... images ... relevant to the content” can just as well refer to the image being shown on a {{linkimage}}. The image is included in the article, albeit in a concealed fashion. Until policy clearly states that all images should be shown overtly on the page, there is no need to be so robust enforcing your interpretation of WP:CENSOR. Chesdovi 16:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong endorse per Guy, this template shall never be used objectively (is there seriously anyone proposing that we use the template for depictions of Mohammed?) and it is a violation of one of our fundamental principles, namely that Wikipedia is not censored. Valid interpretation of policy and arguments by the closer, even though he may indeed have had a slight conflict of interest. Melsaran (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why would be using a {{linkimage}} be called censorship? Wikipedia is hosting the image, accessible by a click away, just as the page itself was accessible by a click. There is obvious opposition to certain images being blatantly shown and these sensitivities should be respected, especially on a site so widely used as Wikipedia. Put it this way: If the image is shown, it is likely to cause offence; however, will its linkage cause offence to those who are not offended by it? I think not! If the image is linked, no-one will be offended, i.e. both are happy - that was the compromise. I don’t understand why there is an insistence by certain editors that certain images should be given such prominence? Is it so vital? What is gained? Chesdovi 17:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, the problem is that there is a dictionary definition of censorship, and a definition somewhat popular among certain types of people. Similarly to "fascism," "censorship" is used to describe actions one opposes. Note how no definition of "censorship" is provided to support this view of those voting "delete" in the TfD. Instead, they resort to, "encourages censoring of images," etc. A popular print dictionary defines "censorship" in a way where, in this context, it can only mean "suppression or deletion of objectionable material." (This is not an exact quote, since "censorship" is defined in terms of the word "censor.") "Suppress" in this sense means "to keep from public knowledge." I cited a different dictionary in a prior TfD, but the point is that we can't seem to find a WP:RS definition consistent with the argument that this template enables (let alone encourages) censorship. Calbaer 18:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion close - The closer interpreted the discussion correctly. The keep reasonings seemed disbursed and not based on Wikipedia:Template namespace or justifyed by policy whereas the delete reasonings were ground in policy. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC). Additional comments in view of Lyrl's post below. The delete discussion was about censoring "unpleasant" images, citing WP:CENSOR#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. The keep discussion also was about censoring, stating that giving a choice is not censoring. So the closer was correct in stating that the discussion boiled down to the issue of censoring "unpleasant" images. The keep discussion centered around a reader having a right to view Wikipedia content as they so choose. Wikipedia does allow this. For example, Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives has a variety of ways an individual may view the main page. The text only version eliminates the images on the main page. There probably is a feature that permits a user to view each page of Wikipedia in a text only version. Pages may be viewed by an individual in a printable version. Censorship by the viewer seems to be permitted. However, it is the placing of this template in the article in the first place that is censorship not meeting WP:CENSOR#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. The editor placing the template in the article would seem to have reason to personally believe that others may consider the image objectionable or offensive. Some articles may include objectionable images and altering that image with a template highlighting its potential objectionable or offensive nature is a way that an editor may supervise the morality of Wikipedia image. The keep discussion focused on the permitted self-censorship by the viewer but really did not address the censorship by the editor placing the template around an image. The delete reasons were stronger. Thus, endorse. However, I think that this issue could be taken to the developers to program a way for an individual viewer to censor images identified as objectionable or offensive. If the identification of an image as objectionable or offensive was hidden and not visible, I would have no problem with this. In fact, we already do this to some degree at MediaWiki:Bad_image_list. Combined with the fact that we already allow individual viewers to have a personal viewing experience, I think this is do able. The images can stay in the article unaltered and the individual viewer can have a Wikipedia viewing experience suited to their own taste. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The template was nominated for deletion because the nominator believed it violated the guideline WP:NDT. The nominator specifically stated he did not believe the template was censorship, meaning he did not believe it violated any Wikipedia policies. Three of four people who choose delete as their !vote also cited WP:NDT. Five people (out of ten commentators) stated they believed use of the template in articles violated WP:CENSOR. Two of these five people !voted to keep the template, but alter the coding to prevent use in articles. The nominator plus four commentators explicitly stated they believe the template did not violate WP:CENSOR. I was the only person who stated I believed it did not violate the guideline WP:NDT. Because of the disbursed reasonings on both sides, I believe the discussion should have been closed as "no consensus".

Both sides cited the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. That they had an honest disagreement over interpretation in an area where policy is fuzzy does not justify the closer deciding their interpretation is the only one "justified by policy". Lyrl^Talk _C 21:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In reply to the "placing of the template in the article" being moralizing on the general Wikipedia readership - so is the fact that one has to scroll through two full screens of text and drawings in penis before coming to a photographic image. Similarly, the photograph in ejaculation has been placed well down the page. Editors make formatting decisions for the general Wikipedia readership all the time - whether or not and how to float the table of contents, placement of navigation templates, etc. To me, the use of this template is a formatting decision just like the placement of an image in a longer article like penis is a formatting decision. Deleting this template is denying editors who work on shorter articles a technique - not having images on the first screen to load - that is used and accepted by the community in many longer articles. Lyrl^Talk _C 00:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Radient has a clear COI.--Funnyguy555 04:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: this user has < 30 edits. >Radiant< 07:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Whilst I believe Radiant! has a tendency to be a little 'trigger happy', I strongly endorse his actions in this circumstance. I feel Radiant! has interpreted the previous discussion well, and made the correct decision. Pursey 15:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The fact is that consensus did not change from one TfD to the next. The main things that did change are the number of people who joined the discussions and the user who closed it. Radiant!, far from being merely "trigger happy," has been pushing his own agenda, one in which he, not the dictionary or Wikipedia, defines "censorship." This is clearly seen by his effort to discredit other users. "Keep"s in the TfD are, to him or her, irrelevant, as they violate his or her interpretation of policy. My DRV is irrelevant because I informed one user other than Radiant! about it, and thus, in his or her interpretation of policy, am "votestacking" (even though I am doing the exact opposite of everything listed in the chart as "votestacking"). (If that were a real concern rather than a means of discrediting me, the "Not a ballot" template would suffice rather than such false accusations.) Other users are irrelevant because they're new(ish) users; never mind the diversity of their edits (or the fact that Radiant! himself or herself has asserted that what users write should be judged on [how he or she judges] their content). This process should not be polluted by fear, uncertainty and doubt. I am quite dispirited that people are voting here not on process and policy, but on their own opinions regarding the original question. To rehash this a fourth time in less than two years is, although one of the few things here that happens to be consistent with policy, depressing.

However, since apparently that's going to be the way it goes, I'll briefly argue the merits of "keep" for the TfD:

• The template does not enable any dictionary definition of, and thus any Wikipedia policy on, censorship.
• Even if it did enable removal of information and/or censorship, so does that fact that anyone can modify Wikipedia, and everything that entails. We don't change that; we deal with it on a case-by-case basis.
• As a user in a prior TfD explained, "Just because a certain type of content isn't forbidden does not mean that its inclusion is obligatory." Enabling the material to be presented in the most elegant possible manner is a good thing. It is not censorship.
• The template is a template. But it is not a disclaimer, as defined by WP:NDT. It is not redundant with the five official disclaimer pages nor with the disclaimer notices at the end of the page. It tells the user something about the picture itself, not Wikipedia policy, and, of course, by the time you see it, it's not "too late."
• It is useful for the few pages on which it was used. It is often the best consensus, and, for people who don't know what something is, it lets them read about what it is before seeing certain images. Some people do want to read about John Bobbitt without seeing his penis. Others want to see it, since it's relevant to exactly what happened to make him notable. This is the most elegant option to allow for this.

All that said, I hope people can vote on policy, not personal opinion. Calbaer 16:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, relist. The process used to close this deletion discussion was improper because the closing administrator had previously expressed a strong opinion in favor of deletion.[4] Even though the administrator likely acted in good faith, this circumstance creates an appearance of impropriety, especially because the deletion debate had legitimate arguments on both sides and the administrator closed the debate in a way consistent with his or her own opinion. The debate should be relisted. Once the debate is reopened, editors can use that opportunity to post notice of the TfD on articles using the template and to address the arguments from prior TfDs.-Fagles 15:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

ISPIM_First_25_Years (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is the documented history of an international association and not some unreferenced essay! It is not advertising nor did it come from a website. Our association has a wiki page already and I was adding some history. Clearly some of the reviewers have no idea about the difference between advertising or a documented history but given the age of some of them I am not surprised as they are only just out of nappies! Please restore this article immediately! Ibitran 14:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - If the documented history did not come from a website, where did it come from? -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 14:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - The closer interpreted the AfD debate correctly. The International Society for Professional Innovation Management also is not Wikipedia notable and now is listed at AfD. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 14:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

No consensus existed at the time of closure. Closing admin's choice to close as delete did not reflect this lack of consensus; WP policy requires a rough consensus to exist in order to close any way but no consensus. The closure is therefore improper and threatens to undermine Wikipedia's policy of operating via consensus, and I would request therefore that the article be relisted or kept (per normal procedure for AFDs without a rough consensus) until such time as a consensus is reached. Balancer 04:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse my Deletion consensens isn't counting the votes, it was (21-15 in favor of delete) many of the keep argurements are WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL which are easily discounted and consists of half the delete argurements, after that consensus is fairly clear, the keep voters also didn't issue the WP:NOR concerns, and policy trumps consensus. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 04:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Most of the "keep" votes were WP:IDONTLIKEIT, since you care to mention that. Users were, however, clearly addressing notability and OR issues in their comments. However, I would like to highlight what you said which indicates most clearly your failure to abide by policy: Your statement that "policy trumps consensus." This ignores the plain and simple fact that consensus is the foundation of the deletion policy and of Wikipedia policy in general, and tells me why you failed to respect the lack of consensus in your closure. Balancer 04:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't help but notice that a very large number of the Delete voters voted purely because they didn't like the article. They made imaginary rules for the page to meet, and then change the rules when we proved that it met the first requirements. Alyeska 04:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:OR is not an "imaginary rule". --Phirazo 14:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. My rationale stands, simple as that. I might have expressed more eloquently, true, but this isn't a writing contest. --Agamemnon2 05:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The question posed by the DRV isn't whether or not the article deserved deletion or not, but whether or not the administrator followed policy in closing the AfD. Would you mind addressing that question? Balancer 05:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)'
    • The administrator followed the spirit of the rules, if not the letter thereof. We are better off without the article, which is what matters. --Agamemnon2 12:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - discussion appears to have been largely interpreted correctly, given the leeway admins have to weigh votes. --Haemo 05:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - I see a number of low-quality votes from both sides of the debate; however, it looks like the number of high-quality delete votes outnumbered the high-quality keep votes by a fair margin. So, in my eyes, it appears that there was a consensus to delete the article amongst those who knew what they were talking about, and were willing to do the policy research to support their views. I also believe there was a general consensus to delete the article, though not as profound a consensus as the one I just cited. The Hybrid 05:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn: I do not see a response to concerns expressed by several at the AfD, including myself, that there were several reliable sources indicating that the subject itself was notable. I certainly can't see how the closing admin's rationale took those into account. In particular, Akerlof's comment seems to have been completely ignored. Inappropriate. (Incidentally, AfDs closers shouldnt count votes, even "high-quality" ones, but assess arguments.) Hornplease 05:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn The number of irrelevant arguments made on both sides was rather large, e.g."who cares?" so vote counting is not going to be useful. Unfortunately, the reason giving by the closing admin was equally irrelevant; in full: "The result was delete helpful and useful isn't a reason for keeping." As that had never been raised as a reason for keeping, the close did not address . The reason for the nomination to AfD was a real one, WP:OR. The primary question was whether this object had been sufficiently met by references found & added during the discussion. The close made not the least attempt to address the policy questions. He now says the keep voters didn't address the OR concerns, but it appears evident from reading the AfD that they did. Careless close. Should have been closed as either keep or no consensus. DGG (talk)
• Endorse A policy concern was raised for deletion. Not one keep was in keeping with policy and guideline. The keeps that tried to follow policy did not read the entire policy at once, focusing on the part of the policy it could pass rather than the parts it failed. Jay32183 05:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - While numbers may not be the only part used in judging consensus, they are a major part of it. Unless the AfD is filled with sockpuppets or idiots, one person's opinion won't be accepted over 10. Since both sides made good arguments IMO, the numbers won out, as they usually will. The Hybrid 05:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse because proof by assertion isn't. The nominator here really has no argument other than making seven consecutive assertions about lack of consensus. And no, consensus really isn't a headcount, because many AFDs are filled with fallacies. >Radiant< 07:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I never saw the article, so I'm in no position to address the alleged fallacies. Due to this I assumed good faith with all involved, and came to my own decision based off of all available information. That info included the numbers, because Consensus decision-making "seeks the agreement of most participants." The Hybrid 19:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion decision. Notability, although originally a question, was established fairly readily by Hornplease and others. However, this was not the only issue. The other problem was the article content, which was not verifiable (beyond the simple fact of the existence of the STvsSW debate). Notability alone is not enough; an article must stand on multiple criteria. To keep asserting that the article is notable is to misunderstand the debate somewhat, by focusing on the criterion it meets and ignoring those it doesn't (ie WP:ATT). The decision IMO went with policy, even if it was not expressed that way in the closing comment. EyeSerene^TALK 09:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per The Hybrid and Jay32183. I would have preferred to see a better explanation, but I'm satisfied that the discussion was interpreted correctly (per WP:DGFA#Rough consensus). Jakew 10:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse correct closure. Sorry, guys, that debate belongs on some sci-fi fansite, not in an encyclopaedia, and the delete arguments in the AfD accurately reflected that and the reasons why. No amount of people liking this topic can rescue it form being fundamentally unencyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion and restore article, because 1) I do not think we have consensus to delete and 2) Star Wars versus Star Trek does seem to be a notable division/debate in the sci fi community. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse most of the keep votes were because WP:ILIKEIT, the article was original reasearch and it is not notable. Oysterguitarist 14:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as nominator for deletion. Yes, there were plenty of WP:ILIKEIT, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and "kill the cruft" votes, but the underlying problem of sources was never addressed in mainspace. Notability is one thing, having enough sources to build a proper article is another, and that does not seem possible here. The entire article read like a history of Usenet and bulletin board arguments. --Phirazo 14:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse close - since the closer interpreted the debate correctly. There is enough reliable source material out there going back to at least 1997. (see, for example, Garchik, Leah (January 15, 1997) San Francisco Chronicle Personals" Match-up: Star Wars vs. Star Trek. Section: Daily Datebook; Page D8 (writing, "Star Wars beats Star Trek in 13 out of 19 categories, say editors of the CD-ROM magazine Blender (who published a study on the topic))). Why would the editors of the Star Trek versus Star Wars Wikipedia article forego so much reliable source material and use their original research is a mystery. If the editors of that article can't take a hint after four AfD's, that article was never going to be more than original research - reason enough to delete and that appears to be the consensus at AfD#4. That topic will have to wait until someone who knows how to comply with Wikipedia policy comes along and writes it. No prejudice against recreating an article on the topic. I suggest running a draft copy by the closer of this DRV first before recreating the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The way Wikipedia works, we are all in effect editors of all of Wikipedia's articles, there was nothing stopping you adding those reliable sources to the article.KTo288 20:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Note a message relating to the existence of this deletion review was placed on the Star Trek Project discussion page. KTo288 20:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment Keep in mind that in a deletion discussion, the overall article, including the subject matter, the current content, and the potential content are under discussion. The point is not to discuss any particular revision of the article, and if reliable sources exist, and the article can be edited to make it more encyclopedic, the fact that no one has yet done this is not a valid argument for deletion. Calgary 22:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, it's clearly shown in the debate that a full article on this subject is unneeded, undesirable, and mainly original research. The rivalries could be mentioned briefly in the Star Trek and/or Star Wars article if some appropriate source material exists. (As to the headcount arguments, once again, AfD is not a vote, and kudos to the closer for reading the unbolded words rather than counting the bolded ones.) We don't need an article on everything that's been the subject of some sillyassed debate on the Internets. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse It appears there was a clear consensus to delete, and proper procedure was followed. Rackabello 20:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse and kudos to the nominator for a well-considered policy-based close rather than taking the easy way out and just simply headcounting. Article was mostly OR and highly unencyclopedic anyway... why would an encyclopedia need to catalogue the myriad things that fans argue about? Mike vs. Joel? Coke vs. Pepsi? Transformers vs. Go-Bots? There are places for such debate (such as fan forums) but an enyclopedia isn't one of them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse reasonable close given the strong arguments on the delete side and none on the keep side were so strong to override our policies. Carlossuarez46 21:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Reply in particular to the complaint that I have only asserted lack of consensus. I have asserted both lack of consensus and rough consensus. Consensus is much more than a headcount. The fact that substantive arguments remained both for and against the article's inclusion mean that no consensus was present. The fact that the votes were close to evenly split (21-15 isn't even close to the 60-40 to 80-20 split suggested as a minimum, and those discussing in detail were also roughly evenly split) mean that there was also no rough consensus by numbers. Regarding the article in particular... reviewing the sources given in the AFD, the fact that the often-bitter comparisons between the two have been the subject of a documentary[5], have been expressed in a collection of critical essays[6], and discussed in magazine articles[7] is pretty convincing to me. I would say it is worth having an article on Star Trek versus Star Wars, even if some sections of the article as then written were worth removing as original research. From what I recall, about half of the original article could easily be sourced using Brin and documentary related material.
• I am not overly concerned about this article in particular, even though it is clear (per WP:OR and WP:NOTE) that a substantial portion of the article, at a minimum, is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Deletion is not a substitute for article improvement. A temporary restoration of the material, or the port to an editor's user space, in order to update the corresponding article at (say) Wookieepedia, is probably a good idea given the developed state of the article. I am greatly concerned, however, that the closer did not close appropriately a discussion which had no consensus to delete, and closed to delete based on personal opinion rather than a community consensus. This is, whether intended as such or not, a direct attack upon consensus as the foundation of Wikipedia policy. Balancer 21:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Evidently, recreation in user space is prohibited. This article was already ported to an editor's user page, and was promptly deleted as recreation of deleted content. Rogue 9 03:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment For those interested in retaining a copy for personal use or other purpose, a relatively recent copy of this article was still available on at least one of Wikipedia's mirrors —Preceding unsigned comment added by KTo288 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment As I have said before, the proper thing to do if a user recreation of a deleted page is blocked is to go and put the page off of Wikipedia on a wiki farm or a personal wiki, and then link the wiki to your Wikipedia user page. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Although many of those in favour of the article were motivated by "I like it" many of those wanting to delete it seem to have been motivated by "I dislike it", using the notability, OR, and verifiabilty issues as a stick to beat those in favour of keeping. It may be how things work but it seems wrong to delete an article which has had so much work put into it deleted because myself amongst others made a bad job of defending it; so here goes my attempt at making amends.

First of it would be a mistake to confuse an article about the phenomena of "Star Trek vs Star Wars" with the thing itself, whilst it is not acceptable for rival fans to use Wikipedia as an avenue for their rivalry, an article about that rivalry is a valid subject for an article, and that is what was deleted. Fans of these franchises can be as passionate as say sports fans in their allegiances a topic that is seen as notable enough for their own articles and lists.

As to the suggestion by another editor that we would be overloaded with articles of things that fans argue about; the Coke vs Pepsi example would actually make a good article. However it would be an article in how two companies producing a similar non essential products seek to market their product and differentiate themselves from the other. How they have claimed different colours for themselves, sponsored opposing sports teams and matched each other with a rival product for each new product line from the other side. In fact one would have to look beyond the title and see an article on marketing strategies and corporate identities. With the 'Star Trek vs Star Wars" article one can look beyond the title and the associated prejudices to see a social anthropolgy article, of how people form communities and how those communities interact; a topic worthy of any encyclopedia.

With regards to OR and Verifiabilty all editors are enpowered to edit, those editors worried about those parts of the article unsupported by reliable sources could have attempted to remove the offending material, instead they sought and have succeeded in having the article deleted. As has been asserted by others on both sides of the debate reliable sources exist and these sources can be used as a foundation for an article on this topic. I may be mistaken, but it is not usual for articles to arrive fully formed, cited and well written. Rather the beauty and uniqueness of Wikipedia is that articles grow and form organically through the interaction of editors, someone adds a line or paragraph here, someone else might decide to crop and prune, someone else might rephrase a sentence. To remove the article is to remove that interaction, removing the means that an article can mature and be improved. To want to delete and start anew on every article that causes an infraction of Wikipedia's policies is to throw the baby out with the bath water. In looking for a horse to jump a fence you can keep shooting horses until you find one that jumps your fence but it would be better to train your horses. So please and pretty please restore the article and cut it down as far as is needed to remove OR and unverifiable material. That is of course unless it is decided that fan related popular culture articles have no place in Wikipedia.KTo288 23:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. Four AfDs is excessive and ridiculous; the strategy of running an article through AfD until the right mix of editors comes along for a consensus to delete is simply despicable. Furthermore, there was no consensus to delete. The numbers didn't reflect a consensus, the arguments were going every which way so there was no consensus there, and in the meantime there was simply a lot of shouting from the delete side concerning one editor's perception that those in favor of keeping the article are incapable of understanding policy or some such silly thing. The article could readily have been improved, but evidently it is far preferable to destroy the work already put into it rather than make it better. Restore the article and let it be improved; I saw no call for deletion that could not have been fixed with some simple editing, so it should stay and be edited. Rogue 9 03:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The last AfD was two years ago, and consensus can change. The previous AfDs only ever mentioned that the topic was "unencyclopedic", and never touched on the WP:OR concerns. The standards for articles have gotten higher over the years, and I see this as a good thing. This certainly is not a case of "I'll nominate this for deletion till it gets deleted." Please assume good faith. --Phirazo 13:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I find it difficult to assume good faith in those who seek to destroy information in a project devoted to providing information. Deletionism in itself is bad faith. Rogue 9 22:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
      • It actually does strike me as an invitation for accusations of bias when for someone describing themselves as "deletionist" or "inclusionist" closes an AFD for "delete" or "keep". I'm not sure, however, that we would have many closing administrators left if deletionists could not close "delete" and inclusionists could not close "keep." Balancer 20:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak overturn per Balancer's reply. I think Jaranda's closure was a reasonable action, but not (IMO) the best action. I don't see any strong case against the sources that have been listed. OR concerns seem to have been adequately addressed, particularly given the references which were listed. — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, Jaranda made the correct call. Most of the "keep" arguments were about how useful the article as. Most of the "delete" arguments were about how the article failed WP:SYNTH (and having references does not magically negate this point - using a concoction of referenced facts to construct original arguments is precisely what WP:SYNTH is about). The deletion arguments were far stronger than those to retain the article. Neil ム 13:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Question: I have read WP:SYNTH. I feel like I understand it, and that I am an intelligent and reasonable man. Please explain how the sources provided fail to provide synthesis for the concept of the "VS" debate. I don't understand the conclusion you are arriving at. Akerkhof 02:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment even if the contention was true, that references were misused misleadingly to support statements which had no basis in fact, the correct thing to do would be edit or revert the text back into a version which could be supported, something anyone could do. Deletion should not be a substitute for putting in the work to edit an article.KTo288 07:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, proper determination of consensus based on policy here. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Consensus and policy were both interpreted correctly here. Burntsauce 21:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn -- An article could be written on the subject that meets policy, and I am surprised that this fact was disputed, with the sources we have right now. I would have ventured doing so during the deletion process, except for several of the deletionists were of the opinion that such was impossible, "it all must go", and I feared a summary deletion anyway, and did not want to waste my time, especially after I deleted half the content of the article as a good faith gesture midway through the AFD "discussion". Turned out I was right. But since we're reviewing the matter, I still believe it possible to write an article on this subject that is verifiable and is notable and would be admittedly much slimmer than the article is now, although I'm sure there is good stuff in the documentary and some of the registration required links. Finally, some have expressed concerns with all the work down the tubes; I saved a complete archive of the article on my personal computers, since I felt it was well written, accurate, and sourced well enough to be moved to Wookieepedia since they already have an older, crappier version of the article right now. Akerkhof 02:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • If you believe that an article about "Star Trek versus Star Wars" can be written in an encyclopedic way, then do it. Write one in your user subspace and THEN bring it to Deletion review. This review is nothing more than a bureaucratic timewaster. Burntsauce 20:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Is that how Wikipedia articles are written? That they are written complete and in their entirety by a single writer rather than as a collaboration of the community as a whole?KTo288 18:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
      • There are several editors who bring GA quality articles out of their sandboxes. But I believe Burntsauce's point was that the article needs to pass the inclusion criteria when it appears. Working together and waiting for some one to clean up your mess are not the same. Jay32183 18:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse I believe a consensus was reached previously, and the closer of the original debate made a well-thought decision. Pursey 15:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse WP:NOT a fanzine.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)