This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thank you for closing this discussion. However, I'm not very satisfied with the closure. The article is about a low profile individual with substantial content devoted to their alleged involvement in a crime (for which they have not been convicted, or even brought to trial for) - I think this is quite a clear WP:BLPCRIME violation. People arguing for keep, and your closure, did not address the WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME issues, or only very weakly. An article needs to comply with WP:BLP, and as a policy that takes precedence over a guideline. Tristario (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
@Tristario: Yes, I know you think it's a BLPCRIME violation, but that argument does not have consensus, primarily because some evidence of notability was provided that predated any accusations of a crime. I explained my reasoning quite thoroughly, and I'm not really interested in doing so again. You may of course go to DRV, but I suggest that if you're concerned about BLPCRIME, then your time is better spent trying to fix the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Note I'm saying this on the basis of WP:BLPCRIME, not WP:CRIME. Evidence of notability predating accusations of crime only covers WP:CRIME, that's irrelevant to whether something complies with WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP as a whole. You didn't address anything about the WP:BLP arguments in your closure, besides WP:BLP1E, just the notability arguments. Establishing notability does not mean that something isn't a WP:BLP violation Tristario (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I did not discuss BLPCRIME in my closure because BLPCRIME is a policy relevant to what content is present in an article, and how it's written, not whether the article exists. It is quite irrelevant to notability. Your !vote asked for clear consensus that the article was not a violation; well, such consensus was found to exist. In any case: you seem to be trying to persuade me of your argument, whereas the people you really needed to persuade were the 13 who argued to keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I noted WP:DEL-REASON in my vote, which says that a breach of WP:BLP is a reason to delete an article. So WP:BLPCRIME is relevant to whether an article is kept, and that's an argument that I made in my vote. Tristario (talk) 05:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, your argument didn't gain consensus, I'm afraid, and I find it personally unpersuasive. The mere presence of accusations isn't sufficient to make a page deletion-worthy when other claims to notability have been presented, and the material is well sourced. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
My concern here is, currently the article is a WP:BLPCRIME violation. If you remove the crime stuff, then you have an article of a living person dedicated only to a single contentious event, which I think is also a clear WP:BLP violation. So what is there to do now? I'd like to fix the WP:BLP issues, which I raised in the deletion discussion, but currently I'm finding it difficult to think about how they can fixed Tristario (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Sometimes consensus doesn't go your way; there are several pages I personally believe to be policy violations, but which I would never get a consensus to delete. I would suggest opening a discussion on the talk page seeking to address the accusations specifically, and not trying to get rid of the article altogether. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
In your view, do you think there is any chance of success in taking it to WP:DRV? Tristario (talk) 06:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I would not recommend it. Consensus was fairly clear in my view; looking to overturn consensus in a contentious topic rarely is a productive exercise. However, I cannot stop you. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, thank you for your time, I probably won't take it there. At some point I'll see what I can do to try to make the article more WP:BLP compliant Tristario (talk) 06:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for being willing to consider what I said. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}
Best wishes for joy and prosperity. Thanks for helping me get through RfA! Happy holidays, Complex/Rational 00:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Re the IP's edits, there was a discussion about excluding the parties not winning seats from the infobox at Talk:2022 Barbadian general election. I agree these things should be usually discussed, but the onus is on the IP (under BRD) and my experience is that IPs rarely (if ever) engage in talk page discussion. They cited two examples in their edit summary, but I could point to hundreds of articles that contradict them. Number57 18:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
@Number 57: I think perhaps I'm not communicating entirely clearly my problem here. As an ordinary editor, I would make that revert without worrying about it, because I know you're probably conversant with the precedent. For me to make a revert as an administrative action, however, I'd need a more clear-cut situation. I have no indication that the IP was even invited to the talk page. As I said, if you were to post there and the IP were to fail to engage, I would make the revert, or place a block if they continue to edit-war without engaging. I'm also okay with shortening the protection. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
For your closure on James (1806 ship). A masterful considered and comprehensive close addressing all participants points. I would of course have preferred the article to survive but under Wikipedia's policies I can appreciate that your decision is the appropriate one. Lyndaship (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Why thank you, Lyndaship. I was rather expecting howls of outrage, it's nice to be pleasantly surprised. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I too was surprised at the thorough nature of the close. Is it OK to pick your brains regarding the slavevoyages website and its use for GNG? I'd like to protect slave-ships from being deleted wherever possible and the slavevoyages website, despite being a thorough academic resource, seems to be a hard sell. Desertarun (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
@Desertarun: There wasn't a problem with that source as such; the problem was the dearth of encyclopedic information, and the lack of other sources. I accept, as I believe do most participants at that AfD, that the history of slave ships is an encyclopedic topic worth documenting. However, what does the precise dates of voyages, and the names of personnel, tell us? And beyond that, what information did the article have which couldn't be hosted as part of a list? A well-formatted and comprehensive list of slave ships could include all of it, and would likely serve readers better, by supplying all the information in a single place. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I see, so the articles need to have more 'human interest' if I can put it like that, and more sources in general. I will bear that in mind, regards, Desertarun (talk) 23:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
MBlaze Lightning (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Good morning. An editor had placed an AfD tag on the page, Theta Kappa Sigma Sorority, unwarranted, in my opinion, and did so during the busy holiday season when I and others who participate in the Fraternity and Sorority Project may have been occupied with real life. Frankly, I think this was a cheap shot, by the original tagger, and should have gone a few weeks of discussion prior to administrative action to delete as closed. You closed it on Dec 24, after a week. Resistance to such deletions is significant, but project participants are not as aggressive in patrolling at all times.
My objection, which I am fully willing to explain on an AfD discussion page, is that the group had certainly been notable, and that notability isn't lost over time. The article had sources that were reliable, and drawn from third-party references. This is simply a group that has no current school chapters, but has a number of remaining alumnae participants. There is no driving need to delete the article for supposed lack of space. Hence, I would vote to keep. Would you re-post, that we may have a discussion on the matter? Thank you, and thank you for your efforts as an admin. Jax MN (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
@Jax MN: I don't want to waste community time at AfD unless there's credible evidence of notability in the form of coverage in multiple independent reliable sources; can you provide such? Mere mentions and citations from affiliated sources are not enough. The relevant guideline is WP:NCORP. Please don't make any accusations about the nominator; 1 week is by far the most common duration for a deletion discussion, and the holiday season affects all editors, not just members. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
We need to require the longest extension period under the protected article on 2023 in Philippine television to prevent vandalism or disruptive editing.
By the way, 2022 in Philippine television is almost over but the upcoming article has relaunched and reviewed after its redirected or on draft for one month grace period.
I will support for the team up contribution for the latest updates.
@Jon2guevarra: The article is already protected till 1 January; if disruption happens after that, we can consider a longer period of protection. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks you very much! We'll keep you updated after January 1. Jon2guevarra (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
@Jon2guevarra: Thanks. May I ask why you refer yourself as "we"? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Okay, we have a repeatedly vandalized posted from 2023 in Philippine television as of now and someone who have gone illegally posted under upcoming shows from APIs numbers. Please activate the protected article immediately!
Vanamonde93, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2023 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel66(talk·contribs·email) and Cwmhiraeth(talk·contribs·email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. See this for background context.
—Moops⋠T⋡ 17:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've Talk:Alfred Kroeber: A Personal Configuration/GA1begun reviewing the article Alfred Kroeber: A Personal Configuration you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Hi, please add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the prep you transferred to the queue. Thanks. BorgQueen (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh you just did. Nevermind. Lol. BorgQueen (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen: To avoid edit-conflicts, I move the hooks to the queue, check them, and only then tag the queue, which I've now done. The logic being that if I got called away from the computer, for some reason, another admin would need to step in. I would personally prefer to do checks in prep, where anyone can fix issues, but I won't risk the double effort unless all DYK admins commit to doing checks there. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I see. Thanks. BorgQueen (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
The last sentence of your close isn't clear--would you mind rewording it with an explicit reference to policy? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
"plot summaries, even when sourced, are essentially coverage of the work, not the fictional aspects thereof" I'm unclear what that means--as in, what the difference is signified by the distinction, assuming for the sake of argument that it does make a difference--and the policy basis for the statement as a whole. Jclemens (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
It means, very simply, that a reliable source summarizing the plot of a work of fiction, is likely to count as SIGCOV of that work of fiction, but not usually the characters, setting, etc. The policy basis is WP:NOTPLOT and WP:WAF. It is also long-standing practice at AfD and elsewhere; we delete, redirect or merge articles that contain nothing but plot summary. It sounds like you're unhappy with my closure, but given the !votes in that discussion, I really don't see any other possibility there. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm still not sure I disagree, I am sincerely trying to make sure I do before I say I do.:-) As far as the article outcome, I disagree that redirection should have been forced by AfD, but I don't think that's a terrible outcome. I'm not interested in taking it to DRV, I just want to understand your policy interpretation as expressed in that final statement:
Wikipedia plot summaries fail NOTPLOT; WAF is MOS and as such is irrelevant in deletion discussions--any reference to a MOS in an AfD is a tacit agreement that a topic belongs in Wikipedia, because we first have to agree that a topic is to be presented before we get into nuances of how to present it, but I digress. On the other hand, if you're saying an RS that is primarily or entirely a plot summary doesn't count for the notability of the fictional elements described therein, I'm not seeing how that derives from NOTPLOT or any other policy. Is that what you're saying, and, if so, could you help me a bit more understand what other policies or guidelines lead you to this conclusion? Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Keeping an article requires being able to write a policy-compliant article about it; if we can't, redirecting or merging is appropriate. NOTPLOT isn't about Wikipedia plot summaries, it's about what content is inappropriate on Wikipedia, and content that is summary-only is not appropriate; that's what the fan wikis are for. WAF is MOS, but it's not irrelevant; it's the same principle of whether a policy-compliant article is possible. To put it another way; a source that provides a plot summary and nothing else may be reliable, but it's not providing intellectually independent content, and isn't fulfilling that aspect of SIGCOV. This, also, has long-standing precedent. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok, so I don't necessarily disagree with most of this, but I don't see how it fits as part of a closing statement, nor that what you wrote in your closing statement clearly communicates this. The part I do disagree with is that you're misrepresenting what SIGCOV actually says with respect to independence: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. Thus, a plot summary by an independent entity (e.g. CBR) is sufficiently independent for RS/SIGCOV purposes. The other argument I've seen, which I'm not suggesting you raise, is that plot summaries are primary. That is, to use a technical term, hogwash. One simply cannot summarize anything without making decisions about what is important and what is not, which is textbook WP:SECONDARY. Plot summaries in RS are better sources (per our policies) than your statement seems to give them. So, that's my feedback and your optional food for thought. I'd still recommend clarifying the final sentence of your closing statement, but realistically I'm not sure who besides me will care. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, we can agree to disagree. If there's clarification required anywhere, I'd say it is in how we understand GNG for fictional topics; but the way we have been applying it is the way I explained it above. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I am working on re-verifying the content at Charles Redd. I see how I became confused. So far, two of the things I fixed were in other sources in the article. It also looks like I need to re-learn when primary sources can be used. SL93 (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for doing so, but I don't know that there's much to blame you for, SL93, you didn't write the article, did you? Random source spotchecks are a bit outside the remit of a promoter, I'd say; we should be able to take it on good faith that the nominator and reviewer did their due diligence. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I started checking as many sources as I could because I was afraid that someone would partially blame me. I fixed everything except for one sentence, which I'm hoping the nominator has a reference. Mixing up what each source had while reviewing made my head hurt. I guess you're right, but I do feel annoyed at myself that I thought those primary sources were acceptable for what they were citing. SL93 (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
@SL93: I really hope the nominator looks in, because I think they, or someone else, need to check basically every reference. Five of the six checks I made had problems; so fixing them is a start, but I don't think it's enough. Also, to be fair to you, the primary source is the issue only in one case. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I really wish DYK would have consensus to close problematic nominations after a certain number of months. I do know that I'm in the minority though, but not among prep builders (well, there are usually only four main prep builders). SL93 (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I would support such a proposal; indeed, I thought I did, at the last relevant discussion... Vanamonde (Talk) 06:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for forgetting. SL93 (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I was pleasantly surprised to see another editor promoting six nominations to a prep today. SL93 (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi - your close didn't address the reliably sourced statement of this being notable under WP:GEOFEAT...a relist was not possible there?. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
@Goldsztajn: GEOFEAT#1 is a weak argument for a local primary school; among other things, the criterion refers to areas of cultural or national importance, when the database says its of "local historical importance", in reference to the Municipality of Northcote, population 25,000. I'm not dismissing it outright, but you'd need a lot more for me to ignore four other policy-bases !votes for deleting/redirecting. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi - thanks for replying and having a look further into this. Fair point, it's reasonable to contrast the national level criterion with the register noting its local status. One clarification: not sure where you sourced 25,000 from, but the locality, for the register's purposes, is the City of Darebin, population 148,570 (2021 census). One final comment: with the register entry, plus the following items, which provide detail on an industrial dispute in the 1970s involving the school , , would you consider within the realm of GEOFEAT #2? To be clear, it's not a DRV issue for me, more an inquiry out of interest. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@Goldsztajn: I got 25k from Northcote, Victoria, and I suppose I could be wrong, as the database could be referring to a different entity. Nonetheless, it's saying local importance, which to me is clearly is at a small scale. As for GEOFEAT#2, I don't think there's any a priori reason the topic couldn't be notable, but I'm not seeing it with these sources, they're tangential to the subject at best. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Vanamonde93 thanks again for replying. Northcote is a suburb, City of Darebin is the local government area which includes the suburb of Northcote, in this case the hertiage register is referring to local government level. We can quibble about this being tangential: in Victoria between the 1960s and 1990s there were significant industrial disputes around changes in education (teacher numbers, closures of schools, inadquate provision of amenities), which played out quite intensively around particular schools - among other things, these cited articles detail incidents of police arresting parents at the school involved in protests linked to the teachers' union. At the same time, it might be that this material could be better used at a potential article on the Victorian Teachers Union. Enough said, kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.