Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] ACS

While reading the various pages associated with this I saw a number of issues that should be highlighted. The first was that lack of good faith shown when the various discussions were closed, this DRV is only one such instance. The basis claim that the 2nd Afd wasnt legitimate as it was the same basis as the original afd nomination is a clear lack of AGF, if an editor has a concern about the relevance of an article doing so via afd is legitimate. This is not to be confused with high frequency WP:POINT nominations where the next afd is raised with days/hours of the last closing there was about 10 weeks between the original article nominations.

The User space article is different though, it appears to me to be a copy paste from the original article in November created in user space to address some issues. This raises some concerns in relation to GFDL/GNU requirements on attribution once the source document was deleted. While WP:CSD#G4 clearly didnt apply and was correctly overturned at DRV, with a recommendation of an MFD for the article, which occurred and who's closure is now being discussed.

I'm also concerned about the number of WP:NPA within discussions this wasnt isolated to one or two editors. The use of emphasis with user names to me appeared to be used in an uncivil mannor and contributed to downfall of the discussions. The result is that the community now has another area where there are groups of editors that have been polarized on the subject.

Personally I think this DRV should be speedy closed as means of ending an unproductive situation. I can see that both sides of this discussion have merit and that after a significant cooling off period, there should be some considered rational discussion as whether the subject should be covered. Gnangarra 14:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. While I understand the purpose of the emphasis, and don't believe it was intended to be uncivil, a lot of the aggressiveness was a snowball effect, an experiment in one-upmanship. Unfortunately, everyone in the debate, just about, had been attacked or attacked others at some point (not to the level of NPA, but subtle slights and accusations).

The simple solution is to (actually) enforce G4 and WP:Userfications and let this stay. That's what policy says. This will never go away. We have many deleted articles now in userspace and this is no different from any of them. The policy is clear. Everything else is extraneous diatribe. It should be speedy closed. It should not be reopened. If a user wants to save a copy of a deleted article in their userspace, regardless of the article, it should be allowed. The only exceptions? Clear attack pages. This is not one of them.

There is too much drama in this. Remove the emotionality and we only have policy remaining. Let's follow that. VigilancePrime (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)