Jump to content

User talk:Black Kite/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36→Archive 40

Deletion nomination spree

I was just curious, if you had any self-imposed limit on how many deletions in one day to the same wikiproject becomes impolite? I work 62 hours a week, go to college, and deal with a sick wife, to find your work. Well, I can't counter them, or research that many articles. You win. Congrats. I have to take some time off at the hospital for the week coming. Enjoy yourself. Mathewignash (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Seriously? I haven't nominated anything for a while, and then I nominate a dozen articles? That is a self imposed limit - if you haven't noticed, there are hundreds of articles in the same state - are we supposed to ignore them? I'm sorry for your personal issues, but if these articles had been created properly in the first place, the question wouldn't arise. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I'd ask that you consider the impact in RL actions like this can have. I've never understood why we worry so much about BLP issues as being harmful to people but ignore the stress and harm done by trashing editor's work here. Yes, those articles likely don't belong here, but most people can't improve 12 articles in 7 days so even if they are supportable he's got an impossible task. Harming real people is harming real people. Hobit (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
      • And I was supposed to know about the editors RL issues before I nominated a very small percentage of the hundreds of sub-standard Transformers articles for deletion, was I? Come on Hobit, it's 12 articles, not 120. How long does it take to find sources for 12 articles - especially as with some of these, there clearly aren't any? I should be irritated at your last sentence, but I think it's best if I just ignore it, I think. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Agreed, you couldn't know. But once you did you had options. And sourcing 12 articles isn't trivial if sources are scarce and time is limited. I certainly don't mean to offend, but I will point out that tearing down things people put work into hurts. Sometimes that needs to happen (both articles and things in real life) but being aware of the pain caused can be helpful. Hobit (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
          • I know exactly what you're talking about; but many of these articles have been tagged for notability, trivia, plot summary, non-free image abuse and lots else for months (if not years) and nothing is ever done until the "delete" option is activated. I don't really know what else I can do - I mean, that selection of 12 articles is one initial letter (G) from one sub-category of the entire collection of TF articles. At this rate cleaning them up would take years, because the creators don't seem to have any interest in doing it until deletion is threatened. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • User talk:Mathewignash you are acting as if there is some conspiracy to delete all TF articles. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The socks in the area might lead a reasonable person to believe that. I certainly don't think Black Kite is part of that, but there has been a lot of AfD activity in that area recently. Merging and creating lists would seem a more reasonable direction to go... Hobit (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Nevertheless alot of mediocre TF articles have been tolerated for years and now inclusionists are crying its not fair articles are been deleted when all they present as sources are fanistes and other poor sources as evidence of notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
      • If people took half the effort they spent participating in AfD's and just merged the stupid articles intelligently and thoughtfully into lists and/or sourcing the more notable among them, the problem would be a good bit closer to solved. I'm not exempting myself or any side from this critique--I wish the system rewarded editing more than advocacy, but it would be incorrect to say that it does. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
        • If that's the result of these AfDs then that's fine and dandy. The problem is that (a) tagging articles for improvement doesn't work - no-one ever does anything. (b) tagging them for merge is the same, and I've no idea where they should be merged (c) PRODding them - until recently - just resulted in someone removing the PROD. Perhaps it would be best if someone went through all the character articles and - apart from the obviously notable ones - just redirected them all to lists. The history would still be there to improve the article if necessary. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • If some of these articles were merged Inclusionists would moan that certain articles shouldn't be merged. And the quality of the sources as evidence as justifiable notable is dubious at best. Can inclusionists who may be reading this really wish to tell sources such as these of a good quality. [1] [2][3][4][5][6] . Do you really believe they are independent I don't because there are WP:FANSITES. Inclusionists use rubbish this like this as evidence like this and can't or won't find better evidence scream WP:ITEXISTS and wonder why their favourite character being nominated for deletion. They only have themselves to blame. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Perhaps someone can approve a bot or automated program to nominate all the transformers articles at once? Tedescoboy22 (talk) 05:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • To those complaining about having not enough time to defend articles nominated for deletion:
  1. Some topics just couldn't possibly be notable, like Poison Bite[7]. Trying to prevent their deletion was attempting the virtually impossible.
  2. Many (most?) of those articles have been around for quite a while, notability was not established during that time, as if the editors of those articles forgot about inclusion criteria until the AfDs came, and failed to find good sources when they had to. There might have been some topics which got deleted due to long-term negligence in regards to source-finding. (Energon (power source) is possibly one of them.)
  3. Wikipedia is a volunteer service, if you take too much time editing Wikipedia and it ruined your life, that was by your own choice. Sorry if I'm being rude, but that's how wikis work. -NotARealWord (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
What people are ignoring in all of this is that someone put effort into sharing information on non-notable topics. It's one thing to delete vandalism, misinformation, or promotion, but all too often people looking to delete something list "fancruft" as if it were an intentional disruption or malevolent insertion. It's neither. It's the attempt of people who don't necessarily play "the wikipedia game" to add material they care about. Jclemens (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is saying it's intentional disruption; there have been cases like that, but this is an area - and it isn't the only one by a long way - that has a lot of fans who have decided to add every trivial detail of the franchise to Wikipedia. And of course, a lot of this was added before we guided new article editors as we do these days. However, there isn't really a lot of excuse for experienced editors to keep adding more and more non-notable information even when their previous articles have been tagged for improvement and in some cases deleted. Of course people are resistant to their work being deleted, but that doesn't mean we can shy away from cleaning it up to meet our standards if they won't do it themselves - and sadly the evidence is that in most cases they can't - or won't - do this. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not as if all the people who make the AfDs simply hate Transformers (maybe some of them do, but that won't win an argument for them), User:Khajidha and I are both experienced editors at TFWiki. Plus, I started a page about the TF fan club stories on TV Tropes. It's more that we'd like to get rid of articles that don't belong here in Wikipedia. WP isn't the only place to add information on the internet. NotARealWord (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I don't hate them at all. In fact, these discussions prompted me to go rummage around out in storage for two boxes of them which I hadn't looked at in probably 10 years or more. All G1 era, and if I clean off the embedded dust and such, might bring in some nice eBay loot. What I do hate is fanboy minutiae, which is what the vast, vast majority of these articles are. How much time someone put into it is an empty argument, as the material can be easily transwikied to wikia and retained. Tarc (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
And where the material will probably languish in typo-ridden obscurity for everafter in some backwater. The beauty of wikipedia is its crossfertilisation and improvement of articles by editors passing by, and the more rigorous application of sourcing and formatting making a more polished-looking and comprehensive 'pedia. I prefer to have my knowledge base unified not pigeonholed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I prefer that as well, but only for subject material that is deemed important, not for every scrip of information in existence. Tarc (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
(ec) The problem with Transwikiing is that it fragments knowledge rather than collects it. It's one of my pet peeves with Wikipedia: perfectly good things (not attack/blp vio, copyvio, hoax, etc.) get shuffled off elsewhere... and there's no good way to get there from here. At best we get a soft redirect, but only if the knowledge is moved to a Wikimedia project, or maybe an external link. Wikiquote, Wikispecies, etc. are all well and good, and I have no problem with fictional topics being dealt with in minutae on other wikis. But if someone wants to look for Estelmo at Wikipedia, they should get a direct link to the information they're seeking. Current deletion and interwiki connectivity practices preclude that. Jclemens (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
If people try to look for stuff and they find that it isn't here, there's always Google and other search engines. NotARealWord (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
For the hundreds of NN character articles, either redirect the really trivial ones and merge the ones with some info, to character or overarching articles and have a link to TFwiki. I'm actually not opposed to soft redirects in some cases, though. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ken Zaretzky (new article in my userspace)

Hi Black Kite, Back in August Yesimhuman appealed the deletion of an article on Ken Zaretzky. The Administrators in the appeal upheld the deletion (based on notability) because the procedure had been followed correctly but suggested that a new article which better showcased Ken Zaretzky's notability in his field could (should?) be written.

You as part of the appeals process (I'm new to Wikipedia, I don't know all the correct terminology) had offered to yesimhuman to look over the new draft and make suggestions, give ideas, etc. Yesimhuman asked me to write the new article because he doesn't have confidence in his abilities as a writer. I have written a new article which is now in my userspace. Yesimhuman did help me with a lot of the facts on Ken Zaretzky. Could you please take a look at it and tell me if it is ready to submit to Wikipedia and if not please give me any ideas or suggestions you have to improve it? Please note that the category tags at the bottom of the article are intentionally misformatted so that the article won't show up in any categories until it is ready. Thank you! Youngshakespeara (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Two battlegrounders

I'd appreciate your looking at User talk:VernoWhitney#Two battlegrounders. I'm assuming that, like VernoWhitney, you're familiar with the archives at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron and most of the past year's back and forth here. You'll also probably want to review why Colonel Warden feels aggrieved here, in light of the fact that things like Snottywong calling him "rabid" do go unremarked. (Then there are edit summaries like this one.) Uncle G (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Arguably there are other reasons why Col. Warden feels aggrieved. Protonk (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Don't get me started on that, I'm very good at being civil .. usually :) Black Kite (t) (c) 18:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Well you know my opinion of all of the name calling. And it is a black mark that we let people calling each other "rabid" pass with barely a flicker. It's not something that anyone concerned with the exclusion of personal attacks should feel proud about turning a blind eye to.

        Name-calling has bred name-calling, demonstrably. The problem is in part that this is something that has been perpetuated, with each editor inspiring the next. The simple and rather sad truth is that this whole name-calling culture, that really involves a very small minority of the overall editorship, can be traced back through a chain of editors. It has a lineage of behaviour learned from the like-minded or conditioned by the opposing-minded.

        Here's a small pointer to history that should make the point well, especially in light of current events at both MFD and arbitration. Take a look at this. Look at this, which it inspired as a response 3 days later. These name-calling labels, and the divisiveness and battleground mentality that they have inspired in a few ever since, come from the same stable as … well … Wikipedia:Concept limit. I wonder whether things like Wikipedia:Explanationism and Wikipedia:Conceptualism will yield similar grief in years to come. Uncle G (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

        • I'll generally agree with this. Dealing with editors who believe the civility policy is folly is an exercise in frustration. But to some extent some uncivil remarks are due to frustrations boiling up with disagreeable or obstinate editors. There is a large community interest in steering people away from saying "you are acting like a disagreeable prick", but such sentiments boil over even in the presence of stricture. As for the edits to the meta pages for inclusionism and deltionism, I can only sigh. Even worse are wikipedia articles like Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia, which largely serve as a playground for editors to vent about inside baseball topics of little to no interest for the outside world. Protonk (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Moukity

Why did you revert the edit by User:134.153.182.125 back to User:Daedalus969 ? Then you deleted it all and I mean the whole thing.

Moukity use to be me but no longer

Cheers and Thank You for doing so - Moukity

Bye Bye *waves*

142.163.135.140 (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Stealing Angels

The article's kind of thin on sources, but don't you think that having a single at #48 on a major chart is a decent assertation of notability? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

  • One single at 48 on a non-mainstream chart (incidentally, the article says 59) doesn't yell notability to me. And more importantly, it doesn't to WP:MUSIC either ("Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.") Might be notable, I can't see it though. I stand to be proved wrong. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but it's (a) a specialist chart , and (b) it only reached 48. If it had reached 48 on the main Billboard charts, or the top 5 on the country charts, then I'd agree; but the 48th most popular single of a certain genre in a particular week doesn't do it for me. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Nah, Twinkle being fail, by the looks of it. Grrrr. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I found another source. Full page article in Country Weekly — clearly not a fluff piece, it goes into pretty good detail about their back stories. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Stealing Angels

The difference is that the Super Hits have no reliable sources for the most part. Those that have more than a sentence worth of review in Allmusic and/or RIAA certification are probably notable. Precedent seems to be that simply charting, period, is sufficient if there's at least one worthwhile source (e.g., a write-up in Country Weekly, a single review from a reputable site like The 9513, Roughstock, etc.). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring of your post at ANI.

Hi Black Kite. Hope all is well. I noticed you recently closed the thread on Jack Merridew at ANI. I thought I might let you know that Gimmetoo, the original user who initiated the thread, has refactored/reverted your close: [8], and is continuing his vendetta against Jack. Looks there might be a serious case of WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND in the works. Best, FASTILY (TALK) 17:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to delete BISE

See the delete proposal for BI task force (and therefore BISE). The absolutely inevitable result if this is succcessful will be a return to article-by-article edit warring and the inevitable follow-on ANI sagas. Isn't the vote itself therefore a direct contravention of previous policy decisions? Just a thought. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Undelete request

Super Hits (Miles Davis album) Per Eric 44's criteria here, this article should have been kept: it charted and it has a professional review. Please respond on my talk at your earliest convenience. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Hmm. The others which were kept all had massive sales - gold/platinum status; this one charted at 22 in a genre chart and had a review at AllMusic (which frankly covers everything). Is this enough for a restore? Black Kite (t) (c) 20:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Sales I don't have the sales figures available, nor do I know of a reliable way to find them... For what it's worth, jazz albums sell far fewer copies than pop, rock, or country. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Undeletion Please post on my talk whether you think I have made a compelling case for undeletion. If you say no, or if you do not respond promptly, I will request a formal deletion review. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Good deal Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Transformers improvement questions to ask you

I remember you I remember you saying you were slowly gonna Adf Transformers articles. I don't think as many need an ADF although a significant number still need doing I think what are your thoughts. I also started a couple of discussions on improving the Transformers articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transformers if you are interested. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of doping allegations against Lance Armstrong

As I noted in my final comment that I got in after you closed (edit conflict), deleting this article is a disservice to our readers. There are at least two books written on this topic, including L. A. Confidentiel. The allegations about 7-time Tour de France winner Armstrong cheating to win is a real and very serious sports issue, and Wikipedia readers deserve to have an objective and well-balanced article about it. The article as it stands notes ten separate allegations, each well documented and presented in a fairly balanced description (and thus not a violation of WP:UNDUE). To remove any of it, much less all of it, would be a disservice to our readers. To include all of it in the main article is arguably too much for that article.

This material started in the main Lance Armstrong article, and was moved out into a spinout precisely due to its size. Just which of the 10 serious and well documented allegations do you believe should not be included in Wikipedia, and why should our readers not know about them? With all due respect, and as a closer of WP:RM discussions I feel your pain, but I find this decision to be outrageous, for our readers and the good of Wikipedia. Please reconsider.

If you cannot specify which of the ten serious and well-sourced allegations should be censored from Wikpedia, and why, and do not reverse this decision, I will be forced to file a deletion review of this apparently ill-considered decision. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

  • It isn't a question of my beliefs (I have no interest in the subject itself) but of a reading of the discussion as it relates to our many policies on the issue. As I said, it is not necessarily a question of whether some of the material itself should be included in the main article; it probably should. The question is whether it should be in a stand-alone article and how it relates to WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:POVFORK etc. But I would suggest that given the BLP possibilities inherent here that a suitable venue for this would be WP:DRV. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I didn't question your belief or your interest in the subject (wondering why you said that?). By saying that some of the material should be included in the main article, you're implying that not all of it should be. Again, please identify which of the 10 serious and well sourced and fairly described allegations of Lance Armstrong doping should be censored from our readers. If you are unable or unwilling, please explain how we are to make all of them available to our readers now that you just deleted the spinout where it was presented. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
      • If the article is a spinout then the material should still be in the history of the main article. As I said in the close, if there is anything else that editors want to salvage then I will provide that through userfication or other means and we can sort out attribution at that point. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
        • The point you seem to keep missing is that it was a legitimate spinout because it was too much material for the main article. I can restore that section in the main article, but editors will rightfully revert me because it's too much for the article. It belongs in a spinout... the spinout you just deleted!

          I'm sorry, but I have to question how carefully you read the discussion, because I carefully refuted each and every argument for deletion, including by providing specific quotes from each referenced policy indicating why the material should be included rather than deleted. I really don't want to take this to WP:DRV because that would involve the time, energy and effort of others, but if you're unwilling to give this another, longer, look, I suppose I have no choice. Please, reread all the comments, then tell me which specific policy-based argument for deletion was not soundly refuted.

          The question about which of the 10 allegations our readers shouldn't be allowed to see stands (third time I asked). --Born2cycle (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

        • You wrote, "If the article is a spinout..." How could you question that when I took the time and energy to cite the edit in which this section was removed from the main article in the very first Keep comment in the discussion? How can you decide to delete the article without understanding the history of how it came to be, including verifying whether the article was created as legitimate spinout or not? I am more and more baffled by this decision.

          Refuted arguments were not refuted. Spinout may have not been a spinout. What's going on? --Born2cycle (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of doping allegations against Lance Armstrong

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of doping allegations against Lance Armstrong. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Born2cycle (talk) 05:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Black Kite, I would like to congratulate you on an excellent and appropriate close, including your rationale. It obviously was not an easy judgement to make.--Kudpung (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Michelle Feynman redirect

Hi. Thanks for closing the Michelle Feynman AfD. Can I ask why you decided to redirect to Perfectly Reasonable Deviations from the Beaten Track rather than Richard Feynman? There was only one editor who suggested that, and right at the end; others prior to that had agreed with redirecting to her father's page. It seems to me better to redirect to Richard Feynman#Personal life - it would be in keeping with the IP who wanted to find more out about Michelle. It's a small thing, but I think it might serve users better.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I've changed it, making it clear in the edit summary it's a BOLD edit, (not a presumptive reading of the AfD) and after consulting you as closer first. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Transformers improvement questions to ask you

I remember you I remember you saying you were slowly gonna Adf Transformers articles. I don't think as many need an ADF although a significant number still need doing I think what are your thoughts. I also started a couple of discussions on improving the Transformers articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transformers if you are interested. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of doping allegations against Lance Armstrong

As I noted in my final comment that I got in after you closed (edit conflict), deleting this article is a disservice to our readers. There are at least two books written on this topic, including L. A. Confidentiel. The allegations about 7-time Tour de France winner Armstrong cheating to win is a real and very serious sports issue, and Wikipedia readers deserve to have an objective and well-balanced article about it. The article as it stands notes ten separate allegations, each well documented and presented in a fairly balanced description (and thus not a violation of WP:UNDUE). To remove any of it, much less all of it, would be a disservice to our readers. To include all of it in the main article is arguably too much for that article.

This material started in the main Lance Armstrong article, and was moved out into a spinout precisely due to its size. Just which of the 10 serious and well documented allegations do you believe should not be included in Wikipedia, and why should our readers not know about them? With all due respect, and as a closer of WP:RM discussions I feel your pain, but I find this decision to be outrageous, for our readers and the good of Wikipedia. Please reconsider.

If you cannot specify which of the ten serious and well-sourced allegations should be censored from Wikpedia, and why, and do not reverse this decision, I will be forced to file a deletion review of this apparently ill-considered decision. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

  • It isn't a question of my beliefs (I have no interest in the subject itself) but of a reading of the discussion as it relates to our many policies on the issue. As I said, it is not necessarily a question of whether some of the material itself should be included in the main article; it probably should. The question is whether it should be in a stand-alone article and how it relates to WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:POVFORK etc. But I would suggest that given the BLP possibilities inherent here that a suitable venue for this would be WP:DRV. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I didn't question your belief or your interest in the subject (wondering why you said that?). By saying that some of the material should be included in the main article, you're implying that not all of it should be. Again, please identify which of the 10 serious and well sourced and fairly described allegations of Lance Armstrong doping should be censored from our readers. If you are unable or unwilling, please explain how we are to make all of them available to our readers now that you just deleted the spinout where it was presented. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
      • If the article is a spinout then the material should still be in the history of the main article. As I said in the close, if there is anything else that editors want to salvage then I will provide that through userfication or other means and we can sort out attribution at that point. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
        • The point you seem to keep missing is that it was a legitimate spinout because it was too much material for the main article. I can restore that section in the main article, but editors will rightfully revert me because it's too much for the article. It belongs in a spinout... the spinout you just deleted!

          I'm sorry, but I have to question how carefully you read the discussion, because I carefully refuted each and every argument for deletion, including by providing specific quotes from each referenced policy indicating why the material should be included rather than deleted. I really don't want to take this to WP:DRV because that would involve the time, energy and effort of others, but if you're unwilling to give this another, longer, look, I suppose I have no choice. Please, reread all the comments, then tell me which specific policy-based argument for deletion was not soundly refuted.

          The question about which of the 10 allegations our readers shouldn't be allowed to see stands (third time I asked). --Born2cycle (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

        • You wrote, "If the article is a spinout..." How could you question that when I took the time and energy to cite the edit in which this section was removed from the main article in the very first Keep comment in the discussion? How can you decide to delete the article without understanding the history of how it came to be, including verifying whether the article was created as legitimate spinout or not? I am more and more baffled by this decision.

          Refuted arguments were not refuted. Spinout may have not been a spinout. What's going on? --Born2cycle (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of doping allegations against Lance Armstrong

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of doping allegations against Lance Armstrong. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Born2cycle (talk) 05:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Black Kite, I would like to congratulate you on an excellent and appropriate close, including your rationale. It obviously was not an easy judgement to make.--Kudpung (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Michelle Feynman redirect

Hi. Thanks for closing the Michelle Feynman AfD. Can I ask why you decided to redirect to Perfectly Reasonable Deviations from the Beaten Track rather than Richard Feynman? There was only one editor who suggested that, and right at the end; others prior to that had agreed with redirecting to her father's page. It seems to me better to redirect to Richard Feynman#Personal life - it would be in keeping with the IP who wanted to find more out about Michelle. It's a small thing, but I think it might serve users better.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I've changed it, making it clear in the edit summary it's a BOLD edit, (not a presumptive reading of the AfD) and after consulting you as closer first. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

deleted article

Hi there,

Would you consider restoring the article if I address all BLP issues? I am certainly not a sock of a banned user or anyone else for that matter. Athenean (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is now at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#title and content of an article related to Aristotelis Goumas. Uncle G (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, "probably a sock of a banned user"? Where does that come from? T. Canens (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily / JakeinJoisey again

I hope this finds you well after your holiday. Given your previous interactions with JnJ, would you mind reviewing Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#World_Net_Daily_-_RS_citation.3F? Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Gavin Collins...

Are you eligible to close the RfC on Gavin Collins, per the post on ANI? I was considering it, but the more I looked at it, the more I realized it really needs a clearly non-inclusionist hand. Kww tried (and gave up) mentoring Gavin, which means that some community restrictions are probably due, and there are plenty of proposals along those lines in the RfC. Your thoughts? Jclemens (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Aristotelis Goumas

I was wondering if you would be willing to reconsider your recent deletion of Death of Aristotelis Goumas. The BLP issues are easily resolved and are not sufficient grounds for wholesale deletion. I put in many hours in creating the article, and would like to see it survive in some form or other. Also, I can assure you that I no one's sock or any such thing, but rather an experienced editor in good standing, with 3+ years experience and 10k+ edits. Thank you, Athenean (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think that such a pov and really not notable subject should be undeleted, without even mentioning that the title Athenean is proposing is wrong since his real name was Aristotel Guma. Athenean about a month ago you received a warning for topic ban on Albanian-related subjects so please be reasonable and don't insist when you don't have any kind of consensus even for the title.--Kushtrim123 (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:DRV is the correct location for contentious cases such as this. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Plymouth

You wrote in your closing: "The consensus is generally opposed; since both an "Opposed" or a "No consensus" result would mean in the status quo being retained, this is moot.". I, for one, disagree with this for the following reasons:

  1. Wikipedia is not a democracy. First, consensus is not determined by counting votes of those participating, but by considering the strength of the arguments presented. Further, what matters is not only the consensus of those participating, but the consensus of the broader community must also be considered, which is reflected in policy and guidelines. Perhaps you didn't just count votes of those participating to determine that "consensus is generally opposed", but you did nothing to indicate otherwise. In particular, there is no indication that you recognized the underlying issue here is whether the city in Devon is the primary topic for Plymouth, much less how you weighed the arguments on both sides of that question.
  2. While it is true that in many discussions an oppose or no consensus both mean status quo is retained, this should not be the case where primary topic is at issue. In those cases, those favoring the position that the subject of the article in question is the primary topic should have to show that that is the case, or a dab page should be at the plain name. Whether an article has already been at the plain name for some time (the status quo) should having nothing to do with determining whether the article's subject is the primary topic for that name.

    "No consensus" here means there is "no consensus" about primary topic, which means the dab page, not the article, should be at the plain name. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

  • No - there is certainly no consensus to change the existing format (from WP:RMCI - lack of consensus among participants along with no clear indication from policy and conventions normally means that no change happens (though like AfD, this is not a vote and the quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority)). There are reasonable arguments on both sides and there does not appear to be any overriding policy-based reason not to go along with the standard closing. Indeed, the arguments to move would have to be overwhelmingly convincing in order to close this against consensus - whilst this indeed not a vote, over two-thirds of editors were opposed. There was no other way to close this. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    • That lack of consensus clause from WP:RMCI clearly applies only when there is "no clear indication from policy and conventions". In this case we have clear indication from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page". Therefore what we should be looking at is not whether there is consensus to move or not, but whether there is consensus that the topic of the article in question is primary for the plain name.

      The arguments that the city in Devon is primary for "Plymouth" were weak at best, not based on any of the criteria listed WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. One person opposed to the move even conceded "it is not the primary topic in US and Canada". The arguments about it not being primary were based on page hit counts and other standard criteria.

      My concern now is that you may have assumed that since there was no clear consensus to move the status quo was the default, and so perhaps did not give the question of whether there was consensus support for this topic being primary the attention it deserved. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

      • Well, that sort of lends weight to my point - "not being the primary topic in the US and Canada" is utterly irrelevant, just as those pointing out that it was "definitely the primary topic if you're in the UK" were not making a particularly useful point. If the weight of consensus had been balanced then you may have a point, but with (if my count is correct) 26 Opposes against 12 Supports, then even though it's WP:NOTAVOTE you'd have to have overwhelming argument supremacy with obvious policy-backed reasons. We have a lot of articles like this; whilst it may have been better if they'd originally been created as dabs, they weren't, and we are still consensus-driven even though we take strength of argument into account. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I don't see how either of those points are irrelevant. If consensus is that a given use is primary for the plain undisambiguated term in question in only one country, and clearly not primary in any other country, then that's only one country away from being as definitive as we can ever get in determining that the use is not, in general, for the purposes of Wikipedia, primary. And, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC,"If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page". If this is not "overwhelming argument supremacy with obvious policy-backed reasons", what is? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
          • We have many, many, articles where the title is not the most well known in, say, the USA, but is still very clearly the primary topic in the English-speaking world. So people merely saying "this is not the primary topic in the USA" is meaningless, just as people saying "This is the primary topic in the UK" is. Far too much of this RM was taken up by people arguing about this, rather than the main issue. But I'll say it again - to overturn such a consensus against the status quo would mean an overwhelming majority of clear policy-based arguments which were not rebutted in any way. I don't see that here. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 19:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
            • There is a big difference between there being only one English speaking country in which the topic is not primary and the topic being primary in only one country. The former is a strong case for the topic being primary, and we may indeed have many articles like that, but this is not one of them; the latter is what we had in this case... essentially no case. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

B2C, I'm certainly not stalking you, but we do seem to be crossing paths at the most diverse of topics and places. Did you know that nearly 80% of your edits since joining this project have been arguing in move debates, deletion debates, redebating revision debates, and criticising administrators decisions? I'm sure there are more enjoyable and less time-consuming ways ways for new editors to get involved, and perhaps make some friends on the way. --Kudpung (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Whatever the merits of B2C's arguments, the bottom line here is that any admin, given that much of the move request is a mish mash of arguments about page landings, Google stats (which a fair few people misunderstood, because they didn't realise the stats are location-related), arguments about nationalistic bias, and a completely meaningless pie chart, would have made the same close. There just isn't anywhere near watertight enough a case made to close this against a strong consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Kudpung, yes, thank you, I'm aware most of my contributions are in discussions (that's how consensus is formed) and I'm particularly interested in article naming, naming policy and guidelines, and related discussions. My edit history reflects that. I'm not criticizing Black Kite, by the way, nor anyone else.

      Black Kite, I'm not suggesting you should have gone against consensus. This is about consensus determination, particularly when primary topic is at issue. As far as I can tell not putting the dab page at a plain name for which there is no clear primary topic is going against consensus. After all, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (which presumably reflects consensus) clearly states, "if there is no primary topic, the term [in this case Plymouth] should be the title of a disambiguation page". Per the discussion, there is no primary topic, at least no consensus that there is a primary topic, for Plymouth, so, by consensus, "the term [in this case Plymouth] should be the title of a disambiguation page". --Born2cycle (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

      • Which would be a fair point except, as my close said, consensus was opposed to your view that "there is no clear primary topic". I was going to suggest raising the issue of no consensus at WT:RM, but I see you already have. I may comment there myself. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Yeah, that's a better place to discuss it, and I look forward to reading your contributions there, but I think it's worth saying here that our disagreement appears to be about how consensus is determined. I agree that if you just count votes, there was no consensus to move. But on the specific issue of whether the city in Devon is the primary topic, and considering strength of arguments as well as what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC specifically states, rather than counting votes, I think it's clear that there is no consensus for there being a primary topic for Plymouth, and therefore the consensus is to move. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
          • For what it's worth, my personal opinion - which is of course irrelevant here - is that Plymouth should be a dab page. The UK city is clearly the one that most editors appear to be looking for, but since there are two other fairly high-profile alternatives, I'd suggest a dab is reasonable. However, on the other hand, one could argue that a dab page means that every editor looking for a variety of Plymouth has to click through two pages, whilst with the UK city at Plymouth with the MA town and the car in a hatnote, a much lesser percentage do. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
            • Yes, both sides seem reasonable, and, so, we are apt to giving them both equal consideration, but that's not what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states. Causing everyone looking for a variety of X to have to click through two pages is no reason at all to put one of the uses at X, unless that use is much more likely than any other to be the one being sought when entered in the Search box, and more likely than all the other uses combined to be the one being sought.

              Any argument like this, that goes against general policy and guidelines like WP:PRIMARYTOPIC without providing a good reason specific to the particular situation to WP:IAR it, is, I believe, an argument to be given very little, if any, weight. That's what weighing arguments based on their strength means, does it not? We have to weight arguments not in a vacuum or based on personal preference, but relative to what is stated in policy and guidelines. There is no basis for giving consideration to requiring everyone to have to click through the dab page in this situation, because of the other uses, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

              We shouldn't have to re-debate this at ever page move discussion that involves primary topic determination. Instead, either those supporting that the article be at the plain name (regardless of whether the proposal is about moving to or from the plain name) show that it is the primary topic, or the dab page needs to be at the plain name. Period.

              I truly believe that if closers were consistent about this, we would have much less debate and consternation, not to mention arbitrariness in naming. It should be only a matter of time before editors learn that it's pointless to argue in favor of a plain name title when there is little if any basis for primary topic. I think we would see the quality of the arguments, when made, improve as well, and a lot less of the "I like it/I don't like it" variety. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

              • Unfortunately, because WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a very vague guideline (i.e. "There are no absolute rules for determining which topic is most likely to be sought by readers; decisions are made by discussion between editors") it is likely that most RM discussions will inevitably be closed per consensus. Perhaps if it was clearer, it would be easier to interpret such discussions. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
                • I've only just noticed some of the other ones started by Floydian - I didn't realise this was part of a pattern. The request for dabs at pages like York and Cornwall is ludicrous. It may have been that some of the fallout from those spilled onto this (reasonable) RM. It may be worth revisiting in the future, therefore. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
                  • I agree the York and Cornwall proposals are ridiculous.

                    If you look at that statement in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in isolation, it might seem a little vague, but compared to other policies and guidelines, I'd say it's one of the less ambiguous ones. After all, in a world where nothing is absolute, saying there are no absolute rules is not saying much. The York and Cornwall examples show how well it can work, when the primary topic claim really is valid. But take a look at Talk:New York. The problem there is not that there is no consensus about primary topic (no one is seriously arguing that the state is the primary topic), but that many are not taking that point as seriously as I, for one, believe they should. And the reason they are not taking it seriously is because they have good reason to believe the closer, whoever it might end up being, won't either; that the closer will not focus on whether there is consensus about primary topic, but will look at the broader issue, and will only decide if there consensus to move or not, without giving much regard to the quality of the arguments. But that's because that's how most RM discussions are currently closed; I'm trying to change that... raising the bar, if you will. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Kite/Archive_34&oldid=1142894491"