Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< June 8 Deletion review archives: 2008 June June 10 >

Contents

[edit] 9 June 2008

[edit] Dickipedia

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

Speedy Delete carried out without discussion and despite changes in web coverage Although the Dickipedia was deleted in Dec 2007, I recreated in this spring and made a clear note on the discussion page that 1) I hadn't been involved in the original article and 2) that the reasons for deleting it in Dec 2007 didn't apply at this time given the greater notability of the topic. The article was deleted today by a bot. When I went to the bot page to start a discussion on this speedy delete, I read that I was not supposed to start any discussions there. So, I'm here. The process of engaging in AfD discussions with a bot is quite frustrating. This is the first time I've requested a Deletion Review and am feeling my way, but I have to note that the process is cumbersome, to say the least.Interlingua 23:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - Actually, the page was deleted by Orangemike, not a bot. A bot only notified you of the speedy. As for the speedy itself, I've no opinion, not having access to the new and old deleted contents. I've notified Orangemike of this DRV. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Not yet the only references at the present are

  • Zjawinski, Sonia. Huffington Post Helps Launch Wiki of D%@ks, Wired Blog Network [1]
  • Welcome to Dickipedia, SFist February 6, 2008 [2] there's also other material in Huffington Post, but they're the sponsors of the site. DGG (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Per DGG. MrPrada (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I assume the place you've been looking at that discouraged further discussion might have been the second AfD that had been opened and then been closed after the speedy deletion. The discussion there confirms as well that it should stay deleted.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, not notable and no process violations. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Steal their editors a lot of it seems to be quite well written and intelligible. Guest9999 (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anya Kamenetz

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

AfD closed before five days on minimal discussion by non-admin shortly after I revised my deletion proposal. He suggested I ask for deletion review rather than undo his edit. My current proposal One of my current proposals is to move the page to Generation Debt and reverse the direction of the redirect. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Endorse my closure, as two established users supported the retention of this article, and no users besides the nominator supported its deletion. Furthermore, the citations provided by Captain-tucker provided compelling evidence that one of Anya Kamenetz's books has been the subject of significant coverage in many reliable sources, thereby establishing a presumption of its notability (and, by extension, the notability of Anya Kamenetz herself) pursuant to our general notability guideline. The timing of the closure was correct, as the AFD discussion was initiated on June 4, 2008, and closed on June 9, 2008, approximately five days later. The exact hour at which the discussion was closed today would almost certainly not have affected the outcome. John254 01:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note. The editor that closed this AfD prematurely has a history of doing so. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramona Moore. I do not state this as a personal attack and I am sure he is a fine editor. I only wish to explain my dissatisfaction with an early and apparently pointless closing of a debate that had not finished. My account is pseudonymous but not a sockpuppet (see my talk page) and although I cannot make an appeal to status as an 'established user' under this identity, I am not an untrustworthy editor myself. There was not yet a decisive Keep consensus on this AfD. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • If a reference to a seven month old AFD closure is the best evidence that you can provide to support your position, then your argument is without merit. Even a cursory review of my recent edit history would indicate a large number AFD closures, none of which have been overturned at DRV since the reversal of a few closures seven months ago. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Verenikina, which I closed under circumstances quite similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anya Kamenetz, was recently endorsed, unanimously, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 26. John254 02:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, I identified the users favoring the retention of this article as "established users" not as an implicit disparagement of the manner in which you are editing, but rather to distinguish the participants in the AFD discussion from the "single-purpose accounts and/or single purpose ips" about whom you complain [3] in the AFD nomination. John254 06:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This request for review is not about your record, although it would have been fair for you to say above that the Marina Vernikina deletion was in fact a 'procedural nomination' that was opposed by the AfD nominator himself! For Anya Kamenetz, I offered a new proposal in the middle of the debate, one that would improve Wikipedia in my judgment. This proposal, along with the discussion in total, was cut off prematurely for no reason I can discern. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Verenikina was initiated by MusicBizLady -- the fact that Celarnor actually completed the technical aspects of the nomination is immaterial here. The reason for concluding the AFD discussion is quite sound -- the nominator initiated it alleging in relevant part that "the subject's book has received limited attention by people other than the subject... Thus no WP:RS to sustain notability". When this claim was quite successfully rebutted by the citations provided by Captain-tucker, Antiselfpromotion conceded that the book "may be notable", but nonetheless asserted that Anya Kamenetz wasn't, and suggested moving the article to the title of the book. However, the nominator's prior incorrect assertion of the book's non-notability strongly suggests that Antiselfpromotion nominated the article for deletion without a thorough search for sources, and calls his later assertion of Anya Kamenetz's non-notability into question. More fundamentally, however, since there was no longer any support for the deletion of the article by anyone involved in the AFD discussion, there was no reason to continue it. AFD discussions may, on occasion, be employed to debate deletion-like dispositions of articles, such as redirection -- however, given the lack of comments responsive to Antiselfpromotion's attempt to employ the AFD discussion for this unconventional purpose in the course of the three days since he proposed moving the article, it did not appear that this usage of the AFD would be productive. John254 03:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You are making this a personal attack, and that is not appropriate. My search was thorough. Why do you assume that it was not? The reviews that were found by Captain-tucker were in fact not found online, but in a private database. In any case I dispute a subject is notable only because she has written a reviewed book. If the debate were finished nearer to five days after it started than four, perhaps there would have been more comments and the AfD been productive. Why was there was a rush to terminate the debate by fiat? You could have re-listed it or allowed my re-listing to stand if you did not think enough comments had been made. There was no consensus. There was certainly no Keep consensus. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • A through search for sources would have included using a commonly available database accessible from many academic libraries. If you're not willing to conduct such a search, but are instead nominating an article for deletion solely on the grounds that a cursory web search provides no sources, you should at least state your claim of non-notability as a possibility, rather than as a definite assertion. Furthermore, it should be noted that AFD discussions are conventionally employed to request the deletion of articles. Where no one participating in an AFD discussion continues to support such a result, there is a consensus to keep the article, in the sense that it is not administratively deleted. Where an AFD discussion has continued for nearly five days with such a consensus to not delete the article, and no ascertainable consensus to do anything else, it is properly closed as "keep". John254 03:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course, if my claim that your assertion of Anya Kamenetz's non-notability is questionable as a result of the circumstances under which you brought this very article to AFD constitutes a "personal attack" as you allege, then your previous attempt [4] to introduce a seven month old AFD closure as evidence weighing against the correctness of the closure of this AFD discussion is likewise a personal attack, but to a much greater extent, since the relevant incident was quite old, and did not pertain to this particular article at all. John254 04:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I did not abandon my nomination for deletion. I asked if I should change it to a debate about a redirect, all the while maintaining that I thought that the subject was not notable and that the page should be deleted. Nobody had answered that question before you closed the discussion by fiat. I see that as evidence that not enough people were yet paying attention to the debate, not that there was a Keep consensus. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps "Nobody had answered that question" because you proposed a pagemove at AFD. While I do support the principle that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and would concur with a pagemove conducted as a result of an AFD discussion which evidenced a consensus to do so, we can't actually require users to discuss matters at AFD which are outside its formal purview. John254 04:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I additionally wish to observe that inadequately prepared AFD nominations can be somewhat of a nuisance on Wikipedia. So, if someone has actually had to visit an academic library to obtain compelling evidence to support the notability of a book whose non-notability was unequivocally asserted in an AFD nomination easily prepared from the convenience of one's own home computer, I expect that to be the end of the matter, and the AFD nomination to be graciously withdrawn. To continue to pursue this AFD, by means of an assertion of Anya Kamenetz's non-notability which is likely no better researched than the assertion of her book's non-notability is tantamount to a claim that your time and effort is more valuable than ours, such that you may insist on the elimination of our article concerning Anya Kamenetz unless other users are willing to conduct the research which you refuse to perform. Such a position is disrespectful towards the Wikipedia community. John254 04:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Please stop talking down to me and treating me as if I have been disrespectful. I strongly disagree with that characterization. You are talking as if my AfD was 'inadequately prepared' or overstated, but it was not. I am still not persuaded that the subject is notable. You cannot decide unilaterally that nobody else will agree with me. The article is about a living person. We are not to assume even as as default position that it is properly sourced and that the subject is notable solely because the article exists. Recall that it looks as if the subject herself created the page. Preparing the AfD was not disrespectful. Waiting until it runs its course rather than terminating it by yourself would have shown the respect that you are alleging I lack. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • AFD closures are intrinsically unilateral -- they are not performed by a vote of a committee. The process is far from perfect, and oftentimes produces heated disputes, repeated listings at deletion review, and even outright wheel warring, where there is little agreement as to the correct interpretation of an AFD discussion. Fortunately, however, Anya Kamenetz is no Daniel Brandt. The outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anya Kamenetz clearly favors retention of the article as a matter of policy, and is unanimously supported by all users who have reviewed the matter except yourself. While it is considered to be a conflict of interest to create an autobiography in the main namespace, articles may not be deleted solely on this basis. Autobiographies substantially unchanged from their original authorship receive great scrutiny; however, Anyaanya (talk · contribs)'s creation of this article nearly three years ago, in a form substantially different from its present character, is largely unimportant to the disposition of the present article. John254 06:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Obviously I know AfD closures are made by individuals. But there is a process. This was a non-admin closure well before the 5-day period was up. It was an early and inappropriate non-admin closure under WP:NAC. All the guidelines there explain why I am unsatisfied with your closure. It was not a 'unanimous or nearly unanimous keep after a full 5-day listing period'. There was debate and a new question, a resolution to which would have required admin action because a live article cannot be moved to a redirect by a non-admin. It was not a 'snowball' keep, and I was still making my case and introducing new questions and concerns. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 06:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Fortunately, Wikipedia:Non-admin closure contains a prominent tag explaining its status: "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." Before quibbling about whether an editor's actions are consistent with the technical details of policy or guidelines, one should ensure that the page one is citing actually is a policy or guideline. Your claim that the AFD closure was "well before the 5-day period was up" is untenable: the discussion was initiated on 21:08, 4 June 2008, and closed on 00:19, 9 June 2008. Do you seriously contend that it is insufficient for an AFD discussion to be closed on the fifth day after it is initiated; that this AFD could not have been closed until 21:08, 9 June 2008? Of course, the discussion was a "unanimous keep", excluding the opinion of the nominator (which, if counted for this purpose, would render a "unanimous keep" impossible except in the case of withdrawn and "procedural" nominations). John254 06:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I knew you would harp on the word 'guideline' and I regretted using it immediately. I did not mean the word in a technical manner although as I say on my user page I do not claim to be an expert on AfD policy. The page nevertheless is consistent with my opinion. Do you disagree with it, or alternatively do you think that your non-admin closure is consistent somehow with it? All I expected is a full and fair discussion. You cut it short and denied me the opportunity to relist so that the AfD could get more than 2 comments and my question could get an answer. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

*Comment - the relevant guideline with respect to Non-admin closures on which the mentioned essay elaborates, is Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It was reasonable to consider the course of the AfD as indication that the nom withdrew the deletion request and suggested a merger. As nobody else was arguing for delete, a non-admin can reasonably close in such circumstances. But he may have been wrong--bringing this Deletion Review suggests the nom had not really decided what to do. But I still do not see what antiselfpromotion wants--he does not need deletion review to propose his merge and redirect. For an author of a single book, it's equally reasonable to have the article under the book or the person. DGG (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The fact that this is being brought up here at DRV is a good indication that the closure was somewhat improper, and the closer should probably have left for an admin to finish off. Nevertheless, overturning it seems a little unnecessary at this point, because in the end the keep result is what ultimately would have come about. It's one of those cases where the closure was correct but the fact that (s)he is a non-admin is the only reason it's showing up for review. Discussion regarding a merge/redirect can proceed without the intervention of a review. Shereth 15:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse close - while it might have been better to leave it for an admin, it being a close decision, looking at the arguments brought forward by those two editors opining keep provide a pretty good basis for the decision; the author's book has been written up in various and diverse notable publications, which would seem to me to add notability. A merge (or rename and refocusing to make the article about the book instead) is still possible, of course, but the discussion should be held on the talk page, not here. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse close. Seeing that no one who participated in the discussion, including the nominator, was ultimately seeking deletion, I'm not sure why this is even up for review here. (jarbarf) (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse close, strictly a no consensus, but no harm done. Closer is strongly counselled to avoid closing deletion discussions other than unequivocal keeps. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn Insufficient time on AfD & should have been allowed more time/been relisted for further input given the AUTO and COI issues raised in the nom. I second the concerns raised by Antiselfpromotion and, echoing Stifle, suggest John254 restrict his efforts at AfD to obvious closures. Eusebeus (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse, nom for a Pulitzer Prize is sufficient notability, the close was premature but not that premature. Though there might be two articles here, or else write an article about the book and not the author. It seems like the article is rather schizophrenic. Corvus cornixtalk 18:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Every year there are 2,400 Pulitzer Prize noms. [5] Every pub. can make them. That part of the bio is just vanity too. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harriet Sylvia Ann Howland Green Wilks (closed)