Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 March 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2015 March 25
2015 March 27 >

26 March 2015

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Christian terrorism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was kept as no consensus, but I would argue that policy overwhelmingly leans toward deletion for WP:SYNTH, WP:FRINGE, WP:COATRACK, WP:OR, WP:CHERRYPICKING, WP:UNDUE and WP:BOLLOCKS reasons, and such argumentation was present in the discussion. The title is an attack smear neologism with no scholarly RS supporting its usage, and incredible claims require incredible proof. A few POV editorials in lightweight magazines attempting to establish a smear meme are demonstrably insufficient sourcing to hold up such a charge before scrutiny. Pax 01:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you elected not to add these allegedly scholarly sources to the article. From your commentary at the AfD, I see three sources listed by you, one which is a dead link and two passing mentions, arguably specious, involving Timothy McVeigh and the IRA. These are basically just smears, not indications of any organized system of religiously-motivated violence on par with, say, jihad. Pax 02:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of the links are dead, all are to scholarly sources, and it seems any source provided to show notability (which is the point of an AFD) is a smear to you. --NeilN talk to me 05:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This editor previously attempted to non-admin close the subject as Keep. Discussion then ensued on his talk page from Valetta66, Bastun and myself, and the non-admin closure was reverted for a time before Coffee closed as no-consensus. Pax 04:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that none of them are "motivated by Christian ideology" per se (let alone with credible support from, say, the gospels). E.g., the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist wing of the post-Confederacy and motivated by racism and opposition to Reconstruction. The IRA were nationalists dangling off the Soviet tit from 1925 onward. Certainly neither they or any of the other disparate examples listed in the article (or those writing the article including them) can forward any credible theological sourcing from the gospels to support the insinuation implied by the article's title that support for terrorism can be found within Christian teachings. (Contrast to Islamic terrorism, in which the duty to wage jihad is Muhammad's command.)
This "disgrace of an article" (to appropriate E.M.Gregory's phrase) is a synthetic farce from the ground up, built to push a narrative which does not exist. In so many words, it's a lie. Pax 04:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And this isn't AFD, take 2. --NeilN talk to me 04:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing administrator comment: I fully stand behind my close of this AFD. — DRV is not to be used as AFD round 2... We do not close AFDs per personal opinions, we close AFDs based on a clear consensus. And, a clear consensus as to which policies outweighed the others was not going to be made in that debate, and wouldn't have formed even if the AFD had been relisted a dozen times. The close should stand as is, and Pax should drop the WP:STICK and move slowly away from the horse carcass. I'll also note that Pax did not follow standard procedure here, by not conferring with me as the closing admin first before opening this DRV. That speaks volumes, in my opinion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Today is the first day I've done one of these; I overlooked that part of the procedure. Apologies. Pax 05:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whilst I would have been in favour of deletion at the debate, the closure was within admin discretion and I endorse it. DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The admin closed with no rationale can he say explain why he says no consensus it is a arbitrary closure and wrong reading of the debate. Keep voters did not say why it should be kept. Even Half of the keep voters say article is in a mess and have not explained why it should be kept and few others based there argument on other stuff only 4 editors said it was sourced.It is a [[WP:SYNTH] and WP:OR can the Coffee explain his closure in detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valetta66 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move on. AfD is done. There was no consensus for deletion, even if some of those saying 'Keep' were, in my opinion, just !votes, or offered weak rationales, and even if those saying 'Keep' won't bother working to improve the article. Let's move on. The article can essentially be stubified due to poor sourcing and then listified, like other such articles - though I'll be working to ensure only notable and verifiable events are included, per WP:LSC. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, the absence of any consensus for deletion is unarguable on its face, no further rationale is required. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, both the close and the outcome. With respect to the close, there was no consensus in the debate so a "no consensus" close was clearly correct; and with respect to the outcome, yes Wikipedia certainly should cover Christian terrorism. I'm British and I'm old enough to have clear memories of the decades of Catholic-on-Protestant and Protestant-on-Catholic terrorism here, in which more than three thousand people were killed. The allegation that this is an "attack smear neologism" is laughable.—S Marshall T/C 12:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem, though, that the vast majority of expert reputable sources disagree with you. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be surprised if the expert reputable sources did say it wasn't a religious conflict. That's somewhere between a horrible oversimplification and an outright lie.—S Marshall T/C 13:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then be surprised. Really. "The Troubles in Northern Ireland are widely seen as an ethno-nationalist conflict that was not religious in nature." - backed up by 14 references, with two dissenting, saying there was also a religious element. The PIRA and INLA were shooting and bombing people to achieve a united, socialist Ireland, not a united, Catholic Ireland. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the close. There was no other way to close the discussion, given what was presented. Unfortunately in a topic like this, it is difficult for many people to separate their feelings about the subject itself from their ability to analyse the article's compliance with our policies. A relist at some future point will probably occur, but I don't see how we'd make that discussion any more productive than this one. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse close. There clearly was not a consensus to delete. Those who continually cite BOLLOCKS would be better employed editing the article to remove the male genitalia. Scolaire (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. For articles requiring judgment of what policies apply, the only way we make the judgment is by consensus, and there was no consensus to delete. If not improved in a reasonable time, perhaps there might be another AfD, but I'm not at all sure it would lead to deletion. DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not fond of the article as it feels like SYNTH to me (though I could imagine a reasonable article under this title), but I think that NC is the best reading of the discussion. So Endorse Hobit (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, this was a valid close. Nakon 04:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep - that an article needs editing is an editing problem, not a deletion problem. Taking away that, the delete position is a naked violation of WP:SOAPBOX, and must be discounted to pursue the project goal of creating a neutral point of view encyclopaedia. I sympathise with the desire to overweight headcount here, but I can't endorse it. WilyD 10:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Endorse' close. Article needs work but not deletion. Montanabw(talk) 00:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Rape jihad – Restore and relist at AfD. There's reasonably strong consensus here that the changes to the text of the article during the course of the AfD were sufficient to render many of the early comments moot. The question before us now is whether, ignoring any issues of process and the AfD history, the current article meets our guidelines. And AfD is the best place to discuss that. – -- RoySmith (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Rape jihad (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page had been previously submitted to Afd twice before, once in 2013 and again last month. In each of those cases, it was poorly grammared and sourced by an ESL editor, and arguably not worthy of retention.

I came in late during the latter AfD discussion (after most !votes had already been cast) and set to improve the article by rewriting it from scratch (with essentially only the name of the article remaining of the original). In my opinion the closer of the second AfD did not consider the changes made (and lend more weight to policy) before closing on a delete. As I had suspected the article might be deleted, I retained a copy in my sandbox to work upon, and recreated the article last night. This morning it was G4 speedied, the speedy was quickly contested by myself and another person (copy of discussion here), but deleted anyway by the same closer who deleted the most recent other version. In further discussion with the speedy nominator on my TP, he recommended I bring the matter here.

Per G4, the article I created was not "substantially identical to the deleted version" at the time it was submitted to AfD back in February. Pax 00:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's come to light that the article proposed and accepted for deletion was quite different from the final form it took on before its deletion. A variant of that final, well-sourced form that completely rectifies all the original issues was created by Pax but speedy deleted without any discussion despite contest. --DawnDusk (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Onlookers should should compare the original at February proposal with the most recent at speedy proposal. (As a side issue, I would observe that there appeared to exist a level of bad faith !voting in the most recent AfD over an easily-improvable article written by a struggling editor, and I commented on that at the time.) Pax 00:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. With this, it is confirmed: what was nominated and accepted for deletion [1] is a far cry from Pax's well-documented, well-written article that was actually deleted [2]. With that, the only reason for deletion that still stands is the small issue of it being (possibly) a neologism - certainly not enough to warrant deletion on its own, and I've proposed a solution before (if even necessary). --DawnDusk (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My G4 speedy deletion was entirely valid. Here is a comparison between the AfDed version shortly before it was deleted and the recreation. They are identical apart from the Darfur section, which has been replaced with the lead of Rape during the Darfur genocide (including the references which don't exist in this article). The basic issue is that the article was rewritten during the course of the AfD, the rewrite wasn't sufficient to persuade people that the article should be kept, and the rewriter decided to ignore the AfD result and recreate the article anyway in the belief that it should be exempt from G4. I'm sorry but it isn't.
    The timeline above is somewhat confused: I am referred to as the "speedy nominator", which is wrong (that was User:Reddogsix) and it's said that the speedy deletion was performed by the same person who closed the AfD, which is also not true (I performed the speedy deletion, the AfD was closed by User:Coffee). Hut 8.5 07:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've notified Coffee of this discussion, which wasn't done by the OP. Hut 8.5 08:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's customary (and mentioned at least three times in the instructions) to consult with the deleting administrator before opening a listing here. Will the nominator please explain why this step doesn't appear to have been followed? Stifle (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned in the same-day Christian Terrorism DRV, these are first time I've done these, and I missed the top step (scrolling up off the top of the screen while I concentrated on the formatting boxes). Pax 15:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The link in your reply clearly demonstrates substantial changes. Pax 15:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse G4: Another clear cut case of an administrator correctly following policy and Pax once again not being able to drop the stick. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article: I'm new here, but I'm in support of keeping the article. 108.252.210.211 (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article Everyone endorsing the G4 because of the minimal difference between the article at its time of deletion and the new article is completely missing the point. Pax is, in effect, challenging the original deletion because the article was nominated and accepted for deletion when it was crap, and Pax's vast improvement to the article were not even looked at, as the original AfD discussion shows (which, I believe has been discussed here to be against policy). DawnDusk (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore apparently an incorrect deletion at AfD. , as it did not take account of the current state of the article. Admins are supposed to do that. The G4 itself was not technically an error. I don't see how it matters the admin who did the G4 wasn't consulted,because he would;t have restored it. It often helps,but in this case it would have been needless bureaucracy. If thesis not restored here, the obvious solution is to improve the draft further, in which case it will unambiguously not be a G4, and would require an new AfD. DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist- The close was technically correct, in that it read the consensus correctly. The problem is it was reading the consensus that was generated by the original form, and not the form that the article was in at the end of the debate. A new debate, based on the merits of the article as it was at the end of the previous argument, would hopefully accurately gauge the merits of the new article.Umbralcorax (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion, there was a substantial consensus to delete the article as per the AFD arguments. Nakon 04:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to (a new) AfD as the current Pax's version deserves an independent analysis. In the original AfD his major rewriting of the article was basically ignored. After the rewriting there were only two comments, one from a very biased editor who argued the article was an attack against Bangladesh, one another commenter was to retain the article; all the other comments clearly judged a different, worst version of the article. Cavarrone 07:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - As one of the primary AfD agitators filing an "I disagree" review is not a valid use of DRV. Tarc (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist article changed significantly after some consensus-generating comments were made and therefore renders a re-analysis of the continued validity of those comments after the changes. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist as per above. The current version of the article is substantially different. It may still suffer from the same issues at the prior AfDs, but I think that it would merit a third AfD. On a side note, if this does survive AfD this go round, it may be worthwhile to restore and merge the history at Rape Jihad just so people could see what was in that article. It may actually be worthwhile to restore it now, since part of the argument at the second AfD was that it was still too similar to the content at Rape Jihad and it may help to compare/contrast that version as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per above - seems to be substantial differences in the two versions. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • List of African supercentenarians – Restore and relist at AfD. I don't see a real strong consensus here (a reasonable case could be made for closing this at No Consensus). That being said, the gist of what most people are saying is that while the G4 deletion wasn't wrong, per-se, community consensus can change in 4 years. We could wiki-lawyer this forever, but the real goal is to figure out if the article meets the current criteria for keeping, and the best forum to do that is AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC) – -- RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of African supercentenarians (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Restored for a DRV as requested on my talkpage. For ease, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African supercentenarians (2nd nomination); the revision at the time of deletion is here, and the last diff before the most recent G4 is here. My role is purely administrative, I will officially abstain from comment. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow recreation. This recreated version was speedily deleted under G4.
1. The recreated article was NOT, as G4 specifies, "substantially identical to the deleted version". How can something be "substantially identical" anyway? Surely something is either identical or it's not?
2. The new version included more sources (such as news reports) than previously when only the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) was sourced.
3. One basis for deletion in the two previous deletion discussions, was that the GRG is not a reliable source, which is no longer considered to be the case. Again, G4 specifies that speedy deletions should not be used for "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies".
4. I think that this article will improve over time as more cases with references are added.

Thankyou. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore and anyone who wants to can relist. Consensus can change, and one of the purposes of Deletion Review is to permit this to happen. NO WP decision is final for all time. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - User:JJB nailed this four years ago. Sourcing is an issue given that the only references lead straight to the GRG which as stated at the WP:WOP#Databases page: "Gerontology Research Group data from grg.org should be attributed and used only as backup for reliable sources" and "no article should be based solely or primarily on any of these databases". This article is also synthesized from GRG data, no "list of [continent] supercentenarians" appears anywhere except Wikipedia. CommanderLinx (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. If you look at the revision as of 16 February 2015, you will see that the references are NOT just the GRG. But in any case, the GRG is a reliable source and as far as list articles are concerned, I don't see why there is any vital need to use other sources, such as news reports, which are actually more likely to be unreliable.
  • 2. All entries on the GRG tables list cases by place of birth and death, even if there are no tables where they separated by content. I don't see why using this information to create such a list on Wikipedia is an issue, even if this is technically synthesised. The "synthesised" argument just sounds pedantic. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation or Restore

The article "List of African supercentenarians" is the reflection of the recent years' research on the features of human extreme longevity on the African continent. What is more:

1. The article does not break any of the Wikipedia guidelines.
2. The article is not eligible for speedy deletion because it had changed substantially since 2010.
3. Both deletions in 2015 failed to notify the article creator or give sufficient time for the article creator to address any issues or appeal the "prod" before the deletion occurred.
4. The article itself serves as an useful piece of information and educates the society, how long can the people truly live on the entire African continent.
5. The list contains 8 names of verified supercentenarians to have lived in Africa, which is not too few for a list.
6. The longevity data, as long as it features Europe, North America, South America, Asia and Australia and Oceania must not ignore one another important continent, which is Africa.
7. The credibility of the data, which the article contains is beyond doubt as it reflects the discoveries of the Gerontology Research Group, the scientific organization, which is the world's leading authority in the supercentenarian research.
8. The research into extreme longevity phenomenon continues and along with the new discoveries, the article will be updated, thus the development of its content and its clarity are bound to improve.
Sincerely, Waenceslaus (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_March_26&oldid=1138441074"