Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 October 22

22 October 2021

Category:Recipients of the Order of the Tower and Sword

Category:Recipients of the Order of the Tower and Sword (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The discussion does not seem to show any obvious consensus to delete this (and other such categories). The Military Order of the Tower and Sword, the recipients of which were the subject of this category, was and still is the most senior award in the Portuguese honours system and the highest award conferred to by the Portuguese government, something like the Order of the Garter in the UK (although membership is extremely limited in that one), the Legion of Honour in France, or, to some extent, the Presidential Medal of Freedom in the US (which all have the appropriate categories — to wit: Category:Order of the Garter, Category:Recipients of the Legion of Honour, Category:Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients — and that no one seems to find ripe for deletion).

The closer cited WP:OCAWARD to affirm that the award was not a defining characteristic for the majority of its notable recipients; reading through the discussion, this view seems to have stemmed from most users voicing that this was an award solely exchanged among nobility, heads of state, consorts, sovereign family members, and so forth — that assumption is, as I explained above, wrong and so using that rationale does not seem to follow. RickMorais (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• It's awarded considerably less prolifically than the Legion d'honneur, even taking into account Portugal's lower population. To the extent that the subject discussion was about this one category, there might be scope to reopen it. Unbundle and relist this one category.—S Marshall T/C 23:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
• question. We’re the categories listified before deletion. I disagree that there was a consensus to delete without listifying. “Listify and delete” appears a reasonable rough consensus, but not straight delete. Listify to a talk page can be sufficient.

I note again, that CfD closes look heavy handed, and it is that way because the practice at CfD is that “no consensus means delete”, but that is not written, so “no consensus” is routinely stretched to “delete” to achieve the same end. In this, CfD is different to all other XfD. See my post at WT:Categories for discussion/Archive 19#Consensus to create categories. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

George L. Knox II

George L. Knox II (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This highly contentious discussion required a more thorough justification in the closure. A simple Keep without any explanation was both an incorrect result and a woefully inadequate explanation of the reasoning for closure. In contrast two other similar pages Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter I. Lawson and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie H. Fuller were each closed as No Consensus. Mztourist (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I closed the discussion as keep and it did not strike me as particularly contentious. The improvements that took place during the course of the debate led to a wave of editors favoring keep, and I took that into consideration. Mackensen (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• There was no consensus that those were actually "improvements", there was substantial arguing that the problems remained, but you ignored it and counted votes instead. Avilich (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
• Mackensen I don't see how you can possibly form the view that the AFD was not "particularly contentious". I disagree that there were any substantive improvements to the page and agree with Avilich's comments on the low to non-existent quality of source analysis of the later Keep !votes. Mztourist (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Overturn Giving no rationale at all for closing such a contentious discussion was completely inappropriate, what was done was essentially a head count (WP:NOTAVOTE) simply because keeps were in the majority. The discussion on the sources, which is all that matters, was one-sided: one party argued extensively that the existing sources, including those in the careless cite-bomb at the end, were inadequate, and this went mostly unrebutted. Most of the keeps were 'per above comments', 'sourcing has improved significantly' (without even looking at the actual sources and completely ignoring the arguments against that), and inherited notability. It must be also noted that many keepers in this and the other linked discussions above were canvassed at Article Rescue Squadron. Avilich (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  I presume you're referring to [this] discussion and if that's the case "many keepers... were canvassed" is unlikely to be true. The only participant in that discussion who voted "keep" in the AfD was Lightburst, who started the discussion. I for one was not aware of that discussion when I voted, so I wasn't "canvassed". NemesisAT (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• This and other linked discussions; your vote was inadequate for other reasons. Avilich (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Which discussions? Your claim that the keep votes were canvassed lacks evidence. NemesisAT (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• 1, 2, 3... Avilich (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• ARS, Users don't need to have participated in the discussion at ARS to join the Keep !vote pile-on, ARS just informs them of it. Mztourist (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  That discussion was posted on 23 September, and looking through the AfD history I'm just not seeing any burst in keep votes around that date. NemesisAT (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• 7%6thirteen originally put the Mac Ross AfD in the ARS presumably for canvassing keep votes, and the article was kept because of the subsequent flurry of keep votes. Once Lightburst saw that worked, he did the same thing with other articles as well (here and here) so the usual ARS inclusionists could then pound on Mztourist's other nominations, which includes this one. The one which he forgot to add, McClure, was closed as delete. Avilich (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  We're discussing this AfD here, not any others, and I stand by my comment that there is no sign of the keep votes being the result of canvassing. NemesisAT (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• This AfD is one of several affected. Many of the keep voters here are the same as in the other nominations, and they only appeared in each of these nominations, including this one, because they have a convenient canvassing hub for being notified. Avilich (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment More ARS canvassing taking place. Avilich (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse the only other possibility was a no-consensus which would result in a keep. Lightburst (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse Per WP:DRVPURPOSE, DRV is not for arguing technicalities. The complaint here is that the closer did not make a detailed explanation. If the OP wanted to know more, they should have queried the closer directly rather than coming here, as explained at WP:DRVPURPOSE. The closer has now explained their rationale, which seems quite reasonable and so we're done. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
• I think this would have benefitted from a more complete closing statement. I feel that's a few too many "delete" !votes to dismiss without comment. I'd like to see a chain of reasoning that I can follow.—S Marshall T/C 23:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, as I've said, I just didn't see it as all that contentious, assertions to the contrary. The nomination primarily raised issues with sourcing, issues that were specifically addressed during the course of the discussion, and latecomers to the discussion responded to those changes. I think it's appropriate to take that into account when a debate is open for an entire month. Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse as the only reasonable outcome--there were no new delete opinions added after the relist, which specifically asked for further commentary on the improvements. The trajectory of the !votes is sufficiently clear that a closing statement, while it would have been a good idea just to keep the drama to a minimum, doesn't significantly impair the validity of the closing. Jclemens (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)