Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 October 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stifle (talk | contribs) at 09:52, 25 October 2021 (→George L. Knox II). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 2021 October 21
2021 October 23 >

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • You didn't explain taking anything into account as your close lacked any explanation. Given the extensive discussion of sourcing and the additional sourcing it was clear that there was still no consensus on notability. Mztourist (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    Actually there was a weak delete added after the realist; one which offered the option of merging any RS information to list of Tuskegee Airmen. Intothatdarkness 16:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So there was; I stand corrected. That obviously weakens my trajectory argument, but I don't believe enough for me to revise it. Jclemens (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inadequate closing statement, but not wrong. It was either “keep” or “no consensus”, definitely not “delete”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inadequate closing statement, endorse outcome we don't need a book, but "keep per WP:HEY" or something like that would have been better. Both keep and NC were within discretion IMO. Delete was not. Hobit (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Nominator for the AFD didn't get the result they wanted. You can't just take something to deletion review and complain about the results. Accusations of canvassing is ridiculous. Most things that are listed on the ARS page do not generate many people going there to comment, sometimes none at all. Dream Focus 02:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted above, ARS is used to notify a group of Users to !vote on certain AFDs, that is canvassing because they don't bother trying to improve the page. Mztourist (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That isn't true. Anyone can look at the history of the article from the time you nominated it for deletion Lightburst and JPxG both did a lot of work on improving it. [1] This is common in most cases. Kindly stop spreading lies about the ARS. I always search for more coverage and add anything new I find into articles if I find anything worth adding. Dream Focus 08:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lightburst created the ARS entry, I don't know what led JPxG to the page/AFD and none of the other Keep !votes (including you) made any improvements to the page. I can't say for certain they joined the AFD because of the ARS entry just as you can't say they didn't. I stand by my comments about ARS. Mztourist (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Look, whatever about the original intent of ARS, it is absolutely undeniable that it operates as a way of soliciting Keep !votes at AFDs but does very little if any work on the articles. Stifle (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- "It's not canvassing if we do it" should be translated into Latin, inscribed on a bronze plaque and installed as the ARS's official motto. Reyk YO! 11:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus There was actually very little addressing of sources, and as was noted in the original discussion many of the claimed improvements were simply ref bombs that added nothing new to the article. Keep voters also tended to avoid questions of notability and other issues. For something like that, a far more detailed analysis should be required rather than what was presented by the closer. And while a no consensus close is in essence a keep, it acknowledges there were still issues with the article instead of presenting what to me is a false picture of an article that is both properly-sourced using RS and is notable. Intothatdarkness 17:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but I would have liked a more substantive closing statement. There's no requirement to do so, but its generally considered good practice to explain why you closed a discussion a particular way. St★lwart111 02:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus -- by view is similar to that of Intothatdarkness. There is clearly no consensus about how to handle the articles on the individual Airmen. I don't know myself which way I would !vote--I could justify eithe keeping or deletion. Though WP does not follow precedent, it should aim at some degree of consistency. A more general discussion is needed. (I don't think it matters who voted for what--the problem before us is what to do with the article.) DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and new close. Any discussion this contentious needs a thoughtful closing statement. —valereee (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - the delete's all predate the WP:HEY, other than one weak delete, which pushed for merge. The delete arguments ignore that the article is well referenced with significant sources. Keep is quite a reasonable outcome, looking at the discussion. Perhaps a sentence saying why wouldn't have heard. No prejudice against the closer now adding a sentence or so - but really, do we need a DRV for that? This was never going to be closed as delete - so why didn't User:Mztourist simply ask the closer to explain his thinking (apologies if they did, but I couldn't find any sign of that). Nfitz (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which planet are you on? Most of the delete arguments addressed those "improvements", and argued that they're not improvements at all. The keeps all said 'meets HEY', 'article has improved significantly', or just dropped notebombs without responding to those objections (not one keep did this). And besides, you're supposed to comment on the discussion and the close, not the article and it's sources. Avilich (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2021_October_22&oldid=1051739933"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy