- Chronological list of Old Testament Saints (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Closer interpreted consensus incorrectly.
- There is a series of articles on Wikipedia entitled Chronological list of saints and blesseds which is a list type series that includes saints and blesseds in a chronological order, including dates of birth/death and places of birth/death. The first entry in this series was 'Chronological list of Old Testament Saints'. A user attempted to turn this into a redirect to a page on saints in the roman martyrology, and I undid this and asked in the note editing note that the user discuss it on the talk page. Subsequently the page was nominated for deletion. The user that opened the deletion page argued that this was a copy of the other list and it was adding unsourced speculative information. I explained that it wasn't a copy and that the little information present in the list was largely not disputed by scholars. After two weeks, the discussion was closed by Sandstein on grounds that the page needed good secondary sources and couldn't be based on the bible or 'pious sources'. There are three problems I want to identify here for why I believe the consensus here is interpreted incorrectly:
- 1) Earlier the article had only sourced the bible, but on the day that the deletion discussion was closed, I think that the large majority of items in the list had already been referenced with sources from encyclopedia Britannica, catholic encyclopedia, jewish virtual library, etc. Furthermore I had offered to provide more in case anyone needed them. I tried to explain this to Sandstein to appeal the decision, but he still refused and didn't respond any further to my comments on his talk page. I think that perhaps he didn't read the references carefully at the bottom of the article on the day that the closure took place.
- 2) There were seven users that contributed to the discussion. Three voted for delete, two were for keep, one for draftifying the article and one did not vote. The user voting to draftify's concerns were that better sources were needed. Given that such sources were put into the article after this comment was made and before the deletion, I don't believe there is a clear majority 'delete' vote in this discussion.
- 3) The deletion side of this debate were invoking arguments that I think were patently untrue against what is published in generally recognized sources. The arguments on the deletion side were trying to make a case that the dating of these figures is speculative, based on wild guesses and not backed by a consensus of scholarly sources. I think that perhaps they were mistaking the debate about whether or not the bible is historical with the question of what time periods the characters in the bible were supposedly living in. The former is a contested topic, but the latter for most figures is not really so. If I can give an example for the readers here to consider: this is the article from encyclopedia Britannica on the prophet Jeremiah (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jeremiah-Hebrew-prophet) "Jeremiah, Hebrew Yirmeyahu, Latin Vulgate Jeremias, (born probably after 650 bce, Anathoth, Judah—died c. 570 bce, Egypt), Hebrew prophet, reformer, and author of a biblical book that bears his name. He was closely involved in the political and religious events of a crucial era in the history of the ancient Near East; his spiritual leadership helped his fellow countrymen survive disasters that included the capture of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586 bce and the exile of many Judaeans to Babylonia." As you can see, the dates and places believed to be probably associated with this figure are found in a generally accepted scholarly source, contrary to what was being argued.
- The list article didn't give comprehensive information, but just provided rough dates and places, in line with the series that it belongs to in Chronological list of saints and blesseds. Now that the article is deleted, this series can't be completed and it is missing an entry from the periods it covers. Reesorville (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closer's comment: Yeah, no. I stand by my and the AfD's assessment that this list, created by Reesorville in 2015, was by and large irremediable WP:OR.
- I'll look at one example from the list at random: Enoch (ancestor of Noah). About which Reesorville tells us in their deleted list: Birth date and birthplace unknown, "did not die". Sources: "Book of Genesis" - not even a specific chapter and verse - and a website called "newadvent.org". That website appears to be self-published, and it is labeled "Copyright © 2020 by Kevin Knight. Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary." Which speaks volumes about its reliability as a source.
- What's more, even this crap website confirms absolutely nothing in the list's entry about Enoch: not that his birth date and birthplace is unknown, and also not the claim that he "did not die". (If that were true, we could ask Enoch on Twitter to confirm his biography.) You aren't even able to get right what the Bible actually says about Enoch's lifespan: "And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years" (Genesis 5:23).
- So, no, Reesorville: your hodgepodge of errors and original research has no place on Wikipedia, and the AfD recognized this. Wikipedia is not a web host for your personal musings. The topic might be a valid one for an article, in theory. But in order to write that article you'd need to be able to do actual research - that is, recognize, find and understand reliable academic sources. There have to be hundreds of peer-reviewed books by actual theologians and historians about any of the persons in this list, or even about the list topic itself. And no, research does not mean randomly adding whatever dubious website comes up on Google without checking whether it even matches what's in the list.
- And now I guess I'll have to take a look at all of your other contributions based on the high likelihood that they're of the same caliber... sigh. Sandstein 18:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- the link on newadvent.org is hosting the original text from the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, which is a recognized scholarly source. If you want you can find the same work published online in other places, including on wikisource. As per 'did not die: the quotation on the website reads: "Instead of the clause "and he died", added to the sketches concerning the other patriarchs, the text says of Henoch: "And he walked with God, and was seen no more: because God took him" (Genesis 5:24). The inspired writer of Hebrews 11:5 adds: "By faith Henoch was translated, that he should not see death." Sirach 44:16 and 49:16 intimates the same truth about the patriarch.
- You are now trying to nominate many articles I write for deletion. I think you really need to cool it and calm down. I wasn't trying to attack you personally nor did I mean anything against you. I am only trying to undo this deletion which makes no sense to me in light of what I wrote above. Please forgive me if I have offended you. Reesorville (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think none of the deletion votes gave specific examples of things that couldn't be found in sources. Reesorville (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I probably could have worded my endorse here a little bit more clearly - the standard isn't that the deletion voters needed to give examples of things that couldn't be found, nor am I looking at anything related to content, just the nature of the discussion. The only thing I am reviewing is whether the close of the AfD as delete was proper. I think there was a clear consensus to delete - even the draftify !voter and the commenter didn't really support keeping the article. The only error would be if the closer discounted strong arguments from the keep !voters that this was not WP:OR, but and with all due respect I don't see that here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't need to repeat all the points I wrote above, but my main issue is that this is being deleted on grounds of it being OR. When in fact the majority of the article was already sourced to credible sources on the day it was deleted.Reesorville (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist. Closer Sandstein made an obvious error here: identifying an online copy of the (public domain) Catholic Encyclopedia as an original, self-published source, even though every relevant page of newadvent.org identifies the source of the text. Indeed, the WP article on the original encyclopedia identifies newadvent.org as an online mirror of the work. Nearly 1200 articles reference this version of the text. Sandstein compounds the error by inexplicably calling newadvent.org "this crap website" and compounds their hostility by declaring that the site's religious motto "speaks volumes about its reliability as a source", a statement that is both extraordinarily illogical and exceptionally offensive to many. (The most inspiring professor I ever studied with, a man of unchallengeable integrity compared at one point to Paul Tillich, was a devout Jesuit.) Sandstein clearly refers to these inappropriate ideas in his closing statement ("what look like WP:SPS religious websites of uncertain provenance"); the decision to delete is fatally tainted, and the discussion should be reopened so that the sources can be accurately evaluated. Obviously, given Sandstein's antipathy toward the OP, expressed here and elsewhere ("Reesorville lacks the skills required to research and write articles about scholarly topics"), he should not be the recloser. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the strength of argument in the AfD was definitely on the Delete side, and I don't see a good reason to overturn that. The OP's description of the deleted article isn't entirely accurate, of the citations in the article at the time of deletion half were to the Bible or to what is clearly original research based on the Bible (e.g. "the Bible says X lived at the same time as Y, so I'll reuse the date I had for Y"). Most of the remaining citations were to non-reliable sources such as Biblehub.com (cited nine times). The Catholic Encyclopedia is also not a good source for us to use, it was written a hundred years ago and presents the subject matter explicitly from the Catholic viewpoint - see discussions about it at WP:RS/N (e.g. here, here). Our articles need to reflect recent scholarship, not what people thought a hundred years ago. As an example the entry in the list for Abraham asserts he was a real historical figure who lived approximately 2000 BC in Ur, whereas our article says (with much better sources) that the current scholarly consensus is that he never existed at all. I'm sure we could have a list of Old Testament saints somewhere but it needs to either stop presenting them as historical figures or be based on current historical scholarship. Hut 8.5 07:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I can answer all of these, there are some misunderstandings: 1) my description of the article was that the majority of entries on the list were covered by scholarly secondary sources, not that the majority of citations were scholarly secondary sources. The majority of citations remain primary, but the majority of entries on the list are covered by scholarly secondary sources, including encyclopedia Britannica, catholic encyclopedia and jewish virtual library. Since the afd was related to OR, the question of whether the entries were covered or not by reliable secondary sources is the only critical issue at play here. Wiki does not say that primary sources cannot be used, but that material needs to be backed up by secondary sources. As long as most items on the list are covered by reliable secondary sources then I think the afd had no valid ground to declare a consensus on OR.
- 2) The argument that you make about the catholic encyclopedia was not present in the afd discussion. However, I can answer that here as well: if the encyclopedia was presenting information which modern scholarship had either overturned or which was something that was clearly biased to one view, then other sources would be needed. However, given that the only information on the list was birthplace, deathplace, time period, etc. and modern scholarship has largely not changed on these little details over the past 100 years, this isn't a valid point to use against this source in this case. On wiki's current articles that cover these particular figures, take note that these dates and birth/death places are also found there too.
- 3) The afd discussion and my note above both already explained this misconception about the historicity debate and the question of dating people here. Your comment about Abraham is exactly what I was trying to explain: this is not a historical list, it is a chronological list but it is not a historical list; I understand if this might confuse people, but I had answered it in the afd discussion. This series Chronological list of saints and blesseds includes many figures that are questioned to have ever existed historically. Not just for the Old Testament, but also for later times as well. These lists were not created to touch on the debate regarding historicity of these persons, which properly belongs in their relevant page articles. I mentioned in the afd discussion that if there was some confusion about this, a simple note could be placed that said something like 'the historical existence of these figures is questioned, but the following is a list of persons honoured as saints and details attributed to them'. Abraham's existence, for example, is questioned among scholars. But what is not questioned among scholars is that the biblical narrative in which he is appearing in, and which he is primarily known by, is supposedly taking place about 500 years before Moses within the land of Canaan. Scholars question if that story ever happened, but they don't question that the story itself says that he lived at around that time/place. There are absolutely a consensus of credible sources that exist that confirm the latter, which is what this article is about. Hence to interpret this as a consensus on OR is flawed. Reesorville (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not the case that most of the entries on the list were covered by scholarly sources, most weren't and even then the scholarly sources weren't actually being used. The entry on Daniel, for example, said he lived around the 6th century BC, was born in Israel, died in Babylon and was a prophet (and implicitly that he is considered a saint). It was sourced to [1], which only supports the prophet part. The date citation was to "Book of Daniel, described as being a contemporary of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon", which is your interpretation of a Biblical text - at best it's a primary source, at worst it's original research. Furthermore the scholarly consensus seems to be that he never existed at all. And that's an entry which had a respectable-looking source, others were referenced to stuff like [2] which is effectively useless (and appears to be suggesting Young-Earth creationism).
- If there are newer sources than the Catholic Encyclopedia then you should cite those instead. If there aren't then the information shouldn't be in Wikipedia. This stuff does change, according to our article the consensus of scholars on the historicity of Abraham has changed since the mid-twentieth century, for example. And I don't agree that we should be presenting unqualified definite dates and places of origin for people who may not have existed. Hut 8.5 17:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There were about 37 entries on the list, with I think 19 of them cited to encyclopedia Britannica, catholic encyclopedia and jewish virtual library. This makes a majority, as I wrote. If you think the other sources are not credible, they can be deleted and the information associated with them can be challenged and given new sources, but to delete the entire article on OR doesn't make sense any longer.
- Those sources can also be cited for most of the other entries on the list as well. The link to Britannia goes to a page the connects to several articles on Britannica dealing with Daniel. The page itself is just a portal to other articles about Daniel and not an article to itself. I didn't think this would be really that hard to follow... The one that comes up first is about the book of Daniel, which reads even in the part that shows on the page: "The Book of Daniel presents a collection of popular stories about Daniel, a loyal Jew, and the record of visions granted to him, with the Babylonian Exile of the 6th century bce as their background. ". I already addressed the confusion between historicity and chronology several times already here and in the afd. In short, I repeat: this is not a historical list, but it is listing people considered to be saints from these periods. You are introducing an argument that's not present in the afd if you want to say the article should be deleted because we should only have such lists that are fully confirmed according to history. The afd was basing itself on this being OR, which it clearly wasn't, since the majority of items were sourced credibly.
- I explicitly mentioned in the afd that people question Daniel's historical existence, but no one is questioning the fact that in the narrative he supposedly lived in 6th century BC Babylon. Although this wasn't present in the afd, I still nevertheless disagree with the idea that such lists must only include those confirmed by history. The discussion of historicity and debate surrounding doesn't belong on a list-type article like this. As I already said in the afd, if there was any confusion, a simple note at the top saying that the historicity of these figures was questioned could be added saying 'the historicity of these figures is questioned...'; there is no reason to go through the whole debate about whether they existed or not on a list like this, nor does it make sense to delete them from the list on that account, considering that they are/were notable people honoured as saints in Christianity, which is what this list and this series of lists is trying to catalogue.
- Also, yes more recent sources than catholic encyclopedia could be added saying the same thing. The argument that you are using here wasn't present in the afd, and I would have added them had someone raised this issue then. However, given that the little details here are largely something that hasn't changed since 1910, it is also arguably not necessary. Scholars have changed their minds about how historical these figures were, you are correct about this, but they have largely not changed their minds about the question of when these biblical characters were supposedly living within the narrative. Reesorville (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This is getting way off topic for a DRV, but I don't agree with this characterisation of the sources at all. Yes, nine of the entries were sourced to Britannica, but as I've noted the source doesn't actually support the entry in at least one case. As I've said I don't agree that the Catholic Encyclopedia is a suitable source for this material, and in prior discussions other editors didn't either. The article was still stuffed full of original research and citations to unreliable sources. If we are going to keep it then it needs a major overhaul along the lines of what DGG suggests below. If something needs an overhaul which is that drastic then deleting it is a reasonable course of action. Certainly our readers could legitimately accuse us of dishonesty if we present legendary material without explaining that it has no basis in fact, as part of a series of articles which includes real historical figures. Lists of legendary or semi-legendary figures usually make this very clear, e.g. List of legendary kings of Sweden. Hut 8.5 20:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think Britannica is the only legitimate source of the three I suggested, I think you can still get articles for almost all the entries on that list from Britannica that list those dates and places. It would take maybe 20 minutes to edit it and put them in, I would guess. Given how simple this article actually is, I don't know why deletion and recreation is really necessary. There is no OR in this article and the majority of it is already sourced to credible sources, including the Daniel entry, if one simply clicks on the next link in the portal. Furthermore, I think the article doesn't need a major detailed analysis of historicity, since that is already covered in the other articles. A simple explanation at the top would probably be enough; I already mentioned in the afd that this was possible, but it wasn't commented on by the others at the time. Reesorville (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually there's one rather important thing I've forgotten: you'll need some citations to show that these people are actually saints, which is rather important for a list of saints. This isn't obvious, List of Catholic saints doesn't include any pre-Christian figures at all. Hut 8.5 21:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Proving that these people are honoured as saints within parts of Christianity is not that difficult if that is being contested, for example: http://ocarm.org/en/content/liturgy/st-elijah-prophet-solemnity. But, it is true a lot of people are not aware of the pre-Christian figures that are also called saints. Reesorville (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- Not the best-attended AfD of all time, but the delete side made some good points that don't seem to have been addressed by the keep side. The discussion was relisted and got only another delete vote afterwards, so I think that was a fair reading of the consensus. Reyk YO! 08:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - The close is a valid assessment of rough consensus. The appellant may want to re-argue, but that isn't what DRV is for, but to appeal an error by the closer, and there isn't an error but a valid assessment. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- history temporarily undeleted for deletion review
- Rewrite or Delete if not properly rewritten This was apparently intended to include the traditional dates of the individuals in the Judeo-Christian tradition. At the absolute minimum it needed a introductory paragraph explaining this, clarifying that the list includes figures whose historical existence is disputed, that many of the traditional dates are disputed even among scholars whose work is based on the biblical tradition, that the historical dates of the individuals who are thought to be possibly or certainly historical is in most cases currently thought to quite different from the traditional ones, and that the actual historical dates for those figures are in most cases very considerably disputed among both religious and non-religious scholars. A list of the traditional dates can be appropriate encyclopedic content, but it needs much more context, and much more research. A full list in context including the views of historians as ell is a much more ambitious project. (not to mention that most of these individuals also figure in the Islamic tradition, which has its own traditional chronology). DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you. Given the amount of confusion, the article obviously needed something in the beginning to explain that this was not meant to be taken as necessarily historical. The same is probably also true of the other articles in this series of lists, such as the ones that cover periods of roman persecution that include lots of names of martyrs whose historicity is questioned. Regardless, however, it is not an OR issue in that event. Reesorville (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Reesorville is merely re-litigating their arguments from the deletion discussion. There is nothing presented that suggests that the closer failed to interpret policy correctly. The article creator is merely generating further ad-hoc arguments for why their OR is somehow exempt from or skirting that policy. Disclosure: I !voted "Delete" in the original AfD.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This was your argument from the afd for why these sources were OR: "I don't think you meant to do so but you just pointed out that the "secondary sources" really aren't. If they "...are doing nothing different than just using the details mentioned in the bible..." then they are not actually secondary sources. I.e., they are not performing independent ...analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources... and aren't adding anything as sources." Unfortunately the discussion was closed before I could write a response to it. But as I wrote here above and as I already wrote in the afd to another person, the list in question was not presenting a historical list, but rather a chronological list. The sources given absolutely prove that these characters are placed in those time periods and therefore there is no ground in saying it is OR. I am not 'skirting' anything - I am pointing out what appears to be a big misunderstanding of what this article actually is and showing clearly how the sources prove that the decision to label it as OR was the wrong interpretation.
- The list is trying to present a list of people considered saints, it is not dealing with the issue of historicity, but if there is confusion a note could be added saying something to the effect of 'the actual historicity of the people on this list are disputed by scholars'. The sources are using the bible to place those characters in those places and times, just like how a secondary source on the play Hamlet would use the original text of the play to place Hamlet as living in Denmark without much further analysis on top of that. That is what I meant when I wrote that the sources are mainly just repeating what exists in the bible to place these characters in particular times and places. Reesorville (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is a perfect example of "re-litigating...the deletion discussion." Since you filed this DRV, I presume you read this:
Deletion review should not be used: 1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment... 5.to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion; You are repeating your arguments ad nauseum and this is not the place for it. The question here is not: "Is my article worthy of preservation?" The question is: "Did Sandstein abuse their discretion as a closer?" Your arguments about sourcing and special pleadings about this article have no bearing on the review. I have only replied at this length to hopefully explain the process a little more and will not reply to any further arguments about the article. If you have any further questions about the review process, however, please do post them and I will respond as best as I am able. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion review can be used: "if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;". This deletion review is here because of a questioning of the closer's judgement. I argued above that this is the case. The closer interpreted that there was a consensus that the article was an OR piece on the basis of the 3 out of the 7 people present arguing for deletion and the arguments they used that he found compelling. This interpretation is flawed, however, which is what I've attempted to make clear.
- Here is the wiki policy on reliable sources: "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; see below. "
- The majority of items on the list were already sourced to reliable sources on the day of its deletion and virtually all of the remainder could be sourced to the same sources. Again, I'll quote the definition of OR: "Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research."
- Did most of this material have no reliable source present on the page already to support it? Answer no
- Did this material have no reliable sources easily available that could have been added to the page to support things that were challenged? Answer no
- Therefore, the page does not fit the wiki definition of OR. Wiki's deletion policy regarding WP:ATD, I'll also quote: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." I plainly stated in the afd that if there was any further challenges, more sources could be added for every claim on the page.
- One of the arguments present in the afd that was made that this is OR, from which the consensus was interpreted, is based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of what this series of articles is about, which I explained both here and in the afd, because it is confusing the issue of historicity with this topic. This misunderstanding could also have been easily solved with a note to explain that the page was not historical. Again, I'll quote wiki's policy: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."
- It is also already easily clear from the closer's own comments above that he didn't understand that one of the major reliable sources was actually the catholic encyclopedia, a major international and well-known scholarly source on catholic and biblical topics that can be found in university libraries today, which he dismissed as a 'pious source' and OR, and mistakenly believed it was a self-published source from a religious website. So yes, the closer's judgement is being called into question and this deletion review is here. Reesorville (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- At the further risk of my sanity and against my better judgement: Reesorville, this last paragraph contains the only recognizable grounds for overturning the close but it is either highly mistaken or outright deceptive. I'm going to presume the former and explain the difficulty with that source and hope that this helps distinguish between sources that lend notability and ones that do not. The most recent version of The Catholic Encyclopedia was published in 1987 and the version you linked from https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ is the 1917 version. This is the out-of-copyright version that is also very out of date and only reflects Catholic dogma at the time of World War One. Even more to the point, that version was written only from a dogmatic point of view and solely to present (then) officially accepted religious views. Further, the publishing of that version on the web is explicitly a devotion to Mary by the page author. In other words, Sandstein's characterization was correct. The source you cited is self-published as a pious source and not a valid secondary scholarly source. Once more: none of the sources you added in your attempts to "save" the article can properly be considered valid secondary sources because none of them do anything more than repeat what the Bible already says. If you want to see how this distinction is carried out in practice on this project, I recommend that you read the article Ten Commandments in Catholic theology. This is a featured article and in with the biblical quotations and specific chapter-and-verse references to Exodus are many other scholarly explanations and analyses. Your article did not need to reach the level of that one to be considered notable but it did need to use sources in that same manner. This you did not do and no amount of special pleading will change that. Your time spent arguing here that you did is wasted. If you want to create an article on this topic, then further research and rewriting is needed in Draft space or in your own sandbox. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion review was started as I wrote at the top because the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. He said that there was a consensus that this was based on OR and self-published sources, when in fact the majority of items on the list were source to reliable sources. Despite how you have characterized my arguments, your attempting here to discredit this source right now is essentially re-litigating and bringing up new points not mentioned in the afd. The closer clearly believed that the catholic encyclopedia was a self-published source without academic value from a religious website. You may personally think that it doesn't have academic value, although many others may disagree, but ultimately the debate over that issue would properly belong in a relisted afd, where it was actually never brought up to begin with regarding this particular source. Furthermore, the same information was also found in encyclopedia Britannica and the jewish virtual library (and on wiki's own pages), both of which were clearly referenced on the page at the time that the closer interpreted a consensus of OR. So, again the deletion review is quite valid. There is no 'special pleading': I am pointing directly to wiki's own deletion policy: WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. For instance, if the entire page is found to be a copyright violation, the page is always deleted. 'If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, that argument is no longer relevant.
- I can't understand what you are saying here: 'If you want to create an article on this topic, then further research and rewriting is needed in Draft space or in your own sandbox.' - AFD is not cleanup- wiki policy is very clear about that. If you actually do believe that someone can write an article on this topic with valid sources, and the sources on the page are not yet sufficient, then the article should not be deleted and it should be left open for further editing. If you are going to instead say 'we must delete this one now, and then you can go and make another article later on the same topic with more sources' then this is basically amounting to turning the afd process into cleanup, is it not? Deletion of OR is based on the belief that further sources are in fact not available, not that they are available and haven't been added yet. If there is an actual belief that further sources are not available, the only way to prove that something is not OR is by providing sources. However, I did provide reliable sources and yet it was deleted anyways, while the closer obviously by his own comments proved he didn't understand these sources.
- You argument that the source needs to do further analysis to come up with these times and places is also seemingly based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the article. Maybe if I try to put it simply - can you answer this question: why would an article, which isn't claiming to be a historical list, and which is placing holy characters ultimately derived from the bible within certain time periods and places, need to do something more than largely relying upon the bible itself to come up with these places and dates? It is like asking, why would a secondary source need to do further analysis on placing Romeo and Juliet in Verona, rather than relying upon the text of the play itself? If there was some confusion that the article was trying to present something historical, that could have been easily assisted by editing, as I wrote in the afd. AFD is not cleanup.Reesorville (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, stop. You aren't paying any attention to anything anyone says except to try to weasel your article in. I've been strenuously attempting to communicate the standards that apply and you've been ignoring everything except to trawl through policies and procedures to see what you can twist into justifying your position. This isn't helping. Nobody is paying attention to what you're writing. The fact is, remains, and always has been this: you haven't provided reliable, secondary scholarly sources. Period, end of story. Do that and you might get an article accepted. If you want to keep pontificating, you will keep getting nowhere. If you want to keep claiming your sources are acceptable (they aren't) then find somewhere else to put your article. It's your choice but don't say you weren't helped. Help doesn't always get us what we want. I'm done testing my wits for you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have paid attention to everything you and others have said. I am not a person who thinks that because the majority thinks X, then X must be the true answer. I am treating you with good faith; I hope you can do the same for me. I provided reliable secondary sources; you don't believe that they are, you are the only user in the afd who commented at all on those sources and your argument for why they weren't appears to be a fallacy based on a misunderstanding, and the closer didn't even understand what these sources were when he concluded they were self-published. As you pointed out, this deletion review is not the place to make arguments about arguments for or against deletion, but about whether or not the closer interpreted consensus correctly. The afd, being relisted, would be the proper place to debate the question of whether or not these sources were valid, therefore, and it doesn't belong here. I have already cited the relevant wiki policies here, and I believed that I cited them correctly. Afd is not cleanup, the deletion page was launched initially because of a claim that there was material that was unsourced and it was a duplicate of another article, but sources were in fact added later. If there is a debate about whether these sources are valid or not, then it has to be done in the relisted afd page - that fact that the closer himself clearly didn't understand what these sources were when he concluded it was self-published and OR is reason enough for why the afd page should be relisted - wiki deletion policy also says 'if in doubt, don't delete'. Reesorville (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. For instance, if the entire page is found to be a copyright violation, the page is always deleted. If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, that argument is no longer relevant.
- I have now read it. At the top of the page it says: "This is an essay on conduct policy. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." Reesorville (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- if you go to Chronological list of saints and blesseds, to which this article originally belonged, it says that these are saints revered in Christianity. There wasn't discussion in the afd about demanding sources to show that they were revered as saints but that could have been provided had it been brought up. Reesorville (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
