Manika (singer) – No Consensus. While a majority (from a head-count point of view) are favoring overturning the close, there is deep disagreement in the discussion here, so calling a consensus would be a stretch. I might be willing to make that stretch if the consequences were substantial, but they're not. The close allows for an immediate recreation, and the old text can be userfied to anybody who's willing to own doing the rewrite. All that needs happen is for somebody to step forward and agree to do the work. The general rule here is we're not about process wonkery, we're about what's ultimately best for the encyclopedia. If we were about process wonkery, I would probaby have closed this differently. – -- RoySmith(talk)11:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
As I noted, we had support for the concept that the current contents were absolute rubbish, and most of the keeps focused on the concept that the article's subject was notable. These two concepts are not incompatible. You're free, and indeed encouraged, to write a new article about the same subject; the point is that we need to start over. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD is a mess, the article is even worse, and there were were some silly edit wars a few days ago (Serols is lucky somebody didn't block him for violating 3RR), but your work is heading roughly in the right direction. The insane amount of inline templates shotgunned over the article makes it unreadable; if you are absolutely sure a source is unsuitable (anything Soundcloud or obviously user generated probably is, the magazines I'd have to check in detail) should just be removed per WP:BLP, not even tagged - that will at least make what's left understandable at a first glance
This does not support the closing admin's WP:TNT interpretation of the AfD.
The correct action is (1) to revert to a clean revision by Ritchie333 or Bondegezou and (2) semi-protect to prevent the promotional edits and vandalism by new accounts and IP editors. Deletion is unsupported by the consensus and an overreaction.
Overturn (keep). Must of the discussion, and apparently the close, did not take into account the improvements made during the discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weird looking discussion and close, but a reasonable way forward was provided. Userfy to Cunard's userspace, and allow re-creation on his judgement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of peaceful collaborative editing, I suggest overlooking the inconsequential rough close, accepting the offered userfication, performing the "some editing" required to "redeem" the article, and moving it back to mainspace. I suggest that it is not productive to make an issue over whether WP:EP (probably our loosest policy) allows existence in mainspace of the un-redeemed article. Some participants thought that it needs to be redeemed as a precondition of being in mainspace. Let them have that point, fix the worst of the problems in userspace, and then move it back. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some participants thought that it needs to be redeemed as a precondition of being in mainspace. Let them have that point, fix the worst of the problems in userspace, and then move it back. – which participants in the AfD expressed the sentiment that "it needs to be redeemed as a precondition of being in mainspace"?
Other than the closing admin, I see zero. That is the definition of a Wikipedia:Supervote.
Editors either supported deleting because they thought the subject was non-notable or they supported keeping because they thought the subject was notable.
Are you volunteering to do the the "some editing" required to "redeem" the article in the interest of peaceful collaborative editing?
It is not "peaceful collaborative editing" to require editors to "blow it up and start over" when editors have already significantly improved the article, and there is no support in the AfD for destroying their work. Admins should not be able to act against a strong "keep" consensus to force editors to rewrite articles to their satisfaction.
Redemption of the article. I paraphrase your words above.
The Supervote allegation may have merit but I choose to not address that, as there is an easier way forward. I read the close as a Soft Delete. A statement that the article had problems, but an acknowledgement that it can be fixed. "Weird", I also said.
I read that the delete !votes citing lack of notability were rebutted, largely on the basis that good sources exist that can be added (your !vote in particular).
I am afraid that I am not interested in this subject.
"Peaceful collaborative editing" and "to live and let live" would mean overturning the supervote so that editors can continue cleaning it up (if they'd like to) or leaving the article as is (if they're as disinclined against editing the subject like you).
You are correct that the path of least resistance is to just rewrite the article. But it would leave this AfD discussion's incorrect result in place and set a terrible precedent. I do not want admins to have the power to delete an article against n overwhelming consensus to keep because the admin thinks the article is "hopelessly irreparable". Why even bother having an AfD in the first place?
Send back to AfD I started improving the article, trimming out the worst excess, and also noticed it had an extensive history going back several years, so there was at least the possibility of rolling it back. As Cunard says, he can't improve a deleted article except from rewriting it from scratch, which is a job he won't necessarily want. I haven't got time to completely redo it myself as to be perfectly blunt I don't get paid for editing Wikipedia so my life has to take priority towards things where I do! Ritchie333(talk)(cont)08:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Cunard, just fix it. It's that simple. I think we have a case here of an article that was in such a piss-poor quality that it was probably right to ignore the usual knee-jerk keeps and get it out of mainspace until it can be fixed. Tarc (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as the article clearly met CSD G11: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Definitely applies to the article at the time of nomination, which read something like "she recently performed at so-and-so festival that was streamed to x number of people; her new single is on radio now!!". It was more of an essay for why marketers should work with the subject than an encyclopedic overview of her career. The article wasn't even particularly large once the PR cruft was taken out, so I'm not sure why editors are vehemently opposed to doing a quick rewrite. Chase (talk | contributions) 14:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An often overlooked part of the CSD criteria, including G11, is that every single version of the article must meet the criteria - this is to prevent somebody doing a hatchet job on an article and then putting a speedy tag on it. The article has an extensive history and I cannot say that every single version ever met any CSD criteria at all. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: Let me say this right off the top: I voted to Keep, and feel that there are enough good sources to maintain an article. But I strongly feel that DRV should be for rotten decisions or abuses of process -- Nyttend's decision was neither. Unlike Cunard, I feel equally strongly that admins not only have the power to rule against consensus at AfD, but that they ought to do so a lot more often than they do. Over and over again, we're told that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that we don't "vote" here -- something that's a lie. RfA, for instance, is absolutely a head count: 75%+ and you always make it, and fewer than one in fifty pass with less. Ten Keep votes over three Deletes, and people scream blue bloody murder if the AfD is ruled anything but a Keep.
I don't agree with the admin's decision here. But it's defensible, and I freely admit that I'm not going to clean up the article either, so I have no skin in the game. DRV is already far too much by way of a second bite of the apple for those who don't like the first result for my liking. We ought not be deterring admins from ruling in favor of policy over headcount. And honestly, I'm with Tarc: Cunard, if you care that much, fix the article yourself -- I'm quite in favor of it being userfyed to you. Ravenswing 14:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, there are some articles that I think are a waste of space and would improve Wikipedia by not existing, Commonground/MGS is one, most things listed here probably are too. But I can guarantee if I ignored all rules and deleted them, even if I had a reasonable rationale for every one, to get flak for it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(shrugs) I'm not suggesting that it's an outrage a DRV was filed here; indeed, controversial decisions draw flak. I'm explaining my reason for advocating endorsing. Ravenswing 16:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Keep - The closer did not respect WP:CONSENSUS which was based on our notability guidelines. The AfD was created due to notability concerns, not article condition. WP:TNT is not a policy or even a guideline, it's a suggestion by a limited amount of editors.. When an article has what appears to be insurmountable problems, then reduce it to a stub. The closer simply committed WP:BATHWATER. Having stub articles on topics that are considered notable by consensus are always better than no articles.--Oakshade (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The time and energy that some editors are spending whining here could instead be used to recreate the article with its (very limited) usable information, which would automatically render this DRV irrelevant. Just saying. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Overturn, with no prejudice against deleting admin. I understand why Nyttend took the action he did, and in my mind it's defensible. However, even though I'd rather see the article gone, I think that TNT isn't going to deal with the root problem here, which is COI editors fluffing any "good" version of the article with promotional junk. I also note that the article was largely cleaned up by User:Ritchie333 before deletion, which I think made the IAR not necessary in this case. Lankiveil(speak to me)03:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Ritchie333 wrote: "I haven't got time to completely redo it myself as to be perfectly blunt I don't get paid for editing Wikipedia so my life has to take priority towards things where I do!" – this perfectly explains why I too don't have time to rewrite a perfectly valid, already cleaned up article.
The editors above (SmokeyJoe, Tarc, and Ravenswing) who have volunteered me to rewrite this already cleaned up article won't lift a finger to improve the article. They instead tell me to "shut up" and to stop "whining" and that I should engage in "peaceful collaborative editing".
They fail to understand that my time here is finite: I do not have time to waste rewriting an article that Ritchie333 already cleaned up.
Thank you, Ritchie333 and Bondegezou (talk·contribs), for the quality work you have done on the article.
Obviously said cleanup wasn't good enough, as the article was deleted. If you do not want to spend your finite time on it, then perhaps you should not spend so much time with Text Walls at DRV defending it. Tarc (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was the unilateral decision of a single admin who has failed to explain why the cleanup wasn't good enough and why "the only solution is to blow it up and start over". There was no consensus in the AfD "to blow it up and start over". Cunard (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You use the phrases "unilateral decision" and "single admin" as if there was something sinister or suspect about there being only one admin working the close, making the decision on his own authority ... that being, of course, the standard operating procedure used in 99% of AfD closes. Ravenswing 09:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard, I don't think I did anything so rude. The most interesting point you've repeated is that the article was already cleaned up. Does anyone disagree with that? If it is true, then the article should be simply undeleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe (talk·contribs), I think it is rude to disregard the clear "keep" consensus in the AfD. There is no point in having an AfD if the closing admin can just override the consensus by citing an essay, WP:TNT, instead of a policy. Instead, the closing admin's action is contrary to policy; from Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required: "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." This article is far better than "poor".
I think it is rude to demand that an editor rewrite an imperfect but decent article (or you will endorse deletion or support userfication), though you yourself cannot be bothered to help improve it.
I did not think you were correct to tell me to waste my time rewriting an already cleaned up article, though this is understandable since your comments were made before the temporary undeletion.
I think that both the closer and I failed to take into account, sufficiently anyway, the improvement already made by Ritchie333. I therefore !vote to "overturn (keep)". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - an admin thinking it's sensible to start over is free to stubify (which makes sense here - see what Ritchie333 did), of course, but not ignore a discussion and close an AfD entirely from their preferred action. WilyD07:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, with no prejudice against deleting admin. As others, I understand why the deleting admin acted so. However, I think TNT was rather more than necessary. Starting from scratch seems unproductive when the final version of the article is much improved. What may be needed is semi-protection and perhaps some WP:3RR warnings. Bondegezou (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC I understand the call made by the deleting admin, but it's the wrong call. The version at the time of deletion was only poor and certainly not a good case for WP:IAR. There was no consensus in that discussion and no policy-based need for deletion (in fact, I'd say the keeps were on the whole stronger. Hobit (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Keep and trout closer. This is one of the clearest cases of a supervote I can recall offhand. The closer says that the consensus is for keep, but relying on an essay (WP:TNT) that was raised and objected to during the AfD, the closer delertes on the ground that cleanup is too hard. Well WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP is a case in point, as is "If in doubt, don't delete". Closers should not overide a valid, policy-based consensus in this way. DES(talk)12:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about the AFD process prevents the creation of a new and better article about the same topic, and nothing about the process of creating a new and better article requires the restoration of an old and bad version. If you think a better version is possible, then you're absolutely free to work on that to your heart's content — it does not require the retention, even temporarily, of a version that was not properly compliant with our rules. So, since the creation of a new article is not dependent on overturning or restoring the old one, there's not a single legitimate or worthwhile reason to even have this discussion. Endorse closure, no prejudice against a new article if one can be written that's neutral and based on reliable source coverage instead of the completely worthless unsourced advertorial piece of guano that the first article was. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep The close stated "he majority of voters supported keeping, and I'm generally discounting the delete voters because the keep voters (who came later) presented evidence of sourcing that the earlier delete voters said didn't exist. " That's reason to justify a keep. The close as delete was justified by the comment "Keep and cleanup, though attempting to do so is making my head hurt" That's not an argument for deletion. Closing as delete because one personally thinks it should be deleted is not the way to go. Instead one comments analyzing the evidence as one sees it. It is possible that if the closer had done so, it would have affected the balance of the argument when someone else closed. I usually avoid this field, so I am not going to try to figure out the relationship between chart placement and the GNG. We have the ability to interpret the SNGs as we choose, though if there is an established interpretation it's best to be consistent. Myself, I think anything quantifiable is better than the GNG; arguments involving the GNG lead to elaborate discussions quibbling about the exact meaning of the qualifying terms, "substantial" an "independent". As neither has an exact meaning, and many sources will be in an intermediate position, the net result is that the GNG is no help in borderline situations. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1vot
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Non admin closure that violates WP:NAC "Soft redirect to wikitionary" on a WP:DICDEF deletion. An outcome that was never discussed in the entire AfD and a clear nonconsensus. It should be relisted if anything. Savonneux (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn.
(1) I see a clear consensus for a straight "Delete".
